Mediaboss Marketing

NewsOpinionColumnistsIf we lose liberalism, we will lose civilisation, so unionists and nationalists, Tories and socialists need to defend the right to express opinions with which they disagree, writes Murdo Fraser MSP.

Tuesday, 30th June 2020, 4:45 pm

The term liberal in a political context has a variety of different meanings: in the US, it is generally taken as a description of someone on the left of politics, whilst in contrast we are more likely to use it to describe someone in the centre ground. There is, however, an older and more accurate definition of a liberal, which according to the Cambridge English Dictionary is someone who respects many different types of beliefs or behaviour. It is this view of liberalism which lies at the heart of modern British democracy, and underpins so much of our political thinking from left to right. It is also a view that today seems under attack as never before.

We see the rise of illiberal attitudes manifested in a recent series of well-publicised events, which suggest a deeply worrying strain of new intolerance amongst sections of public opinion. The best example of this is the succession of vile, vicious and misogynistic attacks made on the writer JK Rowling, whose criticism of the term people who menstruate instead of women led to accusations against her of transphobia, with various authors quitting her literary agency, and some workers at her publishing house reportedly refusing to have anything to do with her new book.

At the weekend, the Labour MP and Shadow Environment Minister, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, had to apologise to Rowling after he accused her of using her own sexual assault as justification for discriminating against trans people. Rowling has won plaudits for her courage in speaking out on issues which many in the worlds of politics and the arts are scared even to mention for fear of the vitriol that will be thrown at them.

Most concerning of all is the extreme view put forward by a vocal minority that individuals holding the views expressed by JK Rowling should not be permitted to express them; that they should be no-platformed, or cancelled. There is, according to these new Puritans, no debate around these issues, and all dissenting opinions must be crushed. This illiberalism is championed even by some politicians on the Left who would want to present themselves as paragons of tolerance.

Robert the hero and villain

We saw something similar in the recent debate over the toppling of statues, motivated by the Black Lives Matter campaign. This reached the heights of absurdity when the statue of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn was daubed with Black Lives Matter graffiti and the words Racist King.

Whether there is any historical justification for the claim that King Robert was a racist in his attitudes is beyond my knowledge, although it would be a reasonable assumption that his views on same-sex relationships would be out of kilter with present-day sensibilities. He was, of course, a great hero who led the Scottish nation to liberation from the English oppressor. He was, at the same time, someone who murdered a rival claimant to the Scottish crown at the altar of Greyfriars Church in Dumfries, an appalling act which led to his excommunication.

Like many characters from history, Robert the Bruce was both a hero and a villain. There are few figures from the past whose reputations can survive the scrutiny of todays intolerant new Puritans. Rather than tearing down the statues of those whose morals we now question, I much prefer the wise approach favoured by Professor Sir Geoff Palmer, who believes that the statues of controversial figures should be retained but with updated plaques giving a more balanced view on their track records as is now happening with the Henry Dundas monument in Edinburgh.

If we are to have decisions taken about statues whether Charles II in Parliament Square in Edinburgh, Henry Dundas, Robert the Bruce, or Winston Churchill, these decisions have to be taken on a properly democratic basis, not driven by the views or worse still, the thuggish direct action of a tiny extremist minority who represent no one but themselves. In a liberal democracy, we cannot ever surrender to the mob.

An SNP champion of free speech

Even comedy is now under attack, with episodes of Little Britain and Fawlty Towers being removed from TV screens because some find them offensive. The intolerance that saw the Month Python film Life of Brian banned from cinemas four decades ago is today re-emerging, albeit in a different form. And we see echoes of this agenda in the SNP Governments new Hate Crimes Bill, with its worrying proposals to criminalise those who express opinions which might be deemed to stir up hatred against protected groups, a significant threat to freedom of speech.

Against this tide of illiberalism there is only one place where politicians should stand, and that is against the mob; to be a voice of reason in a tide of hysteria; and to promote calm in the face of rage. It is reassuring that there are those in all political parties who are prepared to speak up in defence of liberalism, just as there were those willing to support JK Rowling when she came under attack.

I have many political disagreements with the SNP MP Joanna Cherry, but she has been an effective champion of free speech. Last week she reminded us of an important, and pertinent, quote from George Orwell: If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

The freedom to only hear opinions with which we agree is no freedom at all. We must be prepared to defend unpopular opinions whether we agree with them personally or not. Unionist or nationalist, Tory or Socialist, we all need to stand together and declare: we are all liberals now. For without liberalism, there is no civilisation, and all we are left with are dogs fighting over the scraps.

Murdo Fraser is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit http://www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

See the rest here:
Attacks on JK Rowling, Robert the Bruce and Fawlty Towers show liberalism and free speech are at risk Murdo Fraser MSP - The Scotsman

Mr. Nice Guy: Bud Stevenson

Other than the race between Sleepy Joe and the Orange Man that would be Joe Biden and Donald Trump therell be another item on the November ballot for Californians to consider. If the vote goes the wrong way, at least for conservatives, it will have a lasting impact on important aspects of our lives.

First, some background.

Proposition 209 was approved by voters in 1996 and went into effect in 1998. It said categorically that the state prohibited public universities, schools and government agencies from using race or sex in their admissions criteria, hiring and contract decisions.

So what do the Democrats, who have an overwhelming majority in Sacramento, want to do? For starters, return to the bad old days when a certain percentage of admitted students had to be from a particular ethnic group. What this means is that black and Hispanic students, who score far lower on standardized tests than whites and Asians, would be the beneficiaries of the 209 repeal.

State Sen. Steven Bradford from Gardena in Los Angeles County, vice chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus said, The bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race . . . Its time to end the racism that exists in California and the racism that exists in this building. Its time to understand that race and gender are a factor and theres nothing wrong with looking at it.

So who is against the repeal of 209? Which group, other than privileged white applicants, stands to lose the most if 209 is repealed?

Asian-American applicants score higher on not only their high school standardized tests the SAT, ACT, etc. but their grades on serious subjects. If Im not mistaken, 47% of the students admitted to Cal and UCLA were Asian-American. That is an enormously higher percentage than for black and Hispanic applicants. Liberals reply that black and Hispanic students are the victims of underfunded public schools, while whites and Asians attend much better schools. Actually, theres probably some truth to that, but not enough to even begin to account for the disparity in grades.

Theres something else the feel-good educators have done, both for high school and college students. They have dumbed down the reading lists. When a book is such a classic to be unavoidable, they have put trigger warnings at the opening of the book. Books about Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn have trigger warnings at many schools, for example.

What this means, with politicians such as Bradford in charge against Proposition 209, and educators dumbing down all sorts of traditional works, is that the liberals are well on their way to bending society to their liking.

Since the unions especially the teachers unions giving tons of money to their favorites in Sacramento and Washington, Im not optimistic about the direction of American culture.

And if you dont think that Joe Biden will do the bidding of the teachers unions and other powerful unions, youre not following politics.

What the likely Biden ascendancy means is that liberals will be able to get almost every item on their wish list. And since Biden, in the most recent polls, is way ahead of Trump, the outlook is somber, to say the least.

The liberals already control Sacramento, and the House of Representatives in Washington, so all they need now is the White House. Unfortunately, Im not sure Trump is doing a great job of inspiring independents to favor him. On the other hand, Biden is one of the most wooden candidates weve seen in years. I wish I could say that, at this point, its too close to call. But Im afraid it isnt.

Lets see what the next five months bring.

Bud Stevenson, a retired stockbroker, lives in Fairfield. Reach him at [emailprotected].

Related

See the article here:
Mr. Nice Guy: Liberals try to bend society to their liking - Fairfield Daily Republic

The Supreme Court delivered surprising wins to liberals this week in a pair of blockbuster decisions that forbade businesses from firing workers base on their sexual orientation or gender identity and halted the Trump administration's efforts to end the Obama-era DACA program, which shields the young migrants known as "Dreamers."

But those on the left still see potential danger ahead. In the coming days, the top court is expected to hand down a decision in a high-profile abortion dispute that could provide signals about how the panel, which counts two appointees of President Donald Trump in its conservative majority, will treat reproductive rights in the years to come.

"Kind of feels like we're being softened up for the blow, huh?" Sasha Samberg-Champion, a liberal civil rights lawyer and former Justice Department attorney, wrote in a representative post on Twitter on Thursday, after the DACA decision was released.

"Progressives must keep their guard up,"Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, a Supreme Court activist group, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the decisions have unsettled those on the right, who have criticized even the Republican-appointed justices for their votes. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., called it the "most disappointing week at #SCOTUS in years."

The fight over abortion has animated clashes over the Supreme Court for decades, and continues to be a battleground in the 2020 presidential race between Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, No.18-1323, concerns a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. A federal district court found that it would limit Louisiana, a state of nearly five million people, to just one doctor providing abortions.

June Medical Services was the subject of outsized political attention even before the top court handed down its opinions in the LGBT worker and DACA cases.

As a result of those decisions, though, the case has gained even more weight as a loose barometer of the court's conservatism during a high-stakes election year in which Trump has sought to make both abortion and his right-leaning court picks major elements of his campaign.

The case is the first abortion case to be argued at the court since Trump's nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, joined the bench.As a candidate, Trump pledged to nominate justices who would "automatically" overturn the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade.

Among the reasons that the case has caused so much alarm among reproductive rights activists is that the law in question is nearly identical to a Texas abortion measure that the Supreme Court struck down just four years ago.

The fact that the court agreed to hear a case involving a law so similar to the one it struck down in 2016 suggests that the court, with its new conservative majority, could be ready to pare back abortion precedents set when the top court was more liberal.

It's quite possible, though, that the court hands another win to liberals.

During oral arguments in March, Chief Justice John Roberts signaled that he was open to striking down the law, though such questions are not always predictive of how a justice will vote. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh provided few clues about their thinking at the time. In an unusual move, Gorsuch asked no questions at all.

A decision in the case will likely be handed down by the end of June, though it could be delayed as a result of precautions taken in response to Covid-19.

The unpredictability of the high court showcases the difficulty of Trump's efforts to make his Supreme Court nominees a campaign talking point. While Trump often boasts of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh at speeches and campaign rallies, his tone was far more sour this week.

"These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump wrote in a post on Twitter shortly after the DACA decision was released on Thursday.

"The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court," he wrote in another. "If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, andReligious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!"

To some extent, Trump's attacks on the court are in line with his tangles, dating back years, against Roberts, an establishment Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush.

Carrie Severino, who leads the conservativeJudicial Crisis Network, an influential activist organization, said in an interview that decisions like the DACA decision, written by Roberts, "are part of the reason that we have President Trump."

"The chief justice has created a real pattern of being complicit in efforts to weaponize the court as a tool against the Trump administration," Severino said.

Complicating Trump's maneuvering, however, is the role played by his own justices in the legal defeats.

While both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were in the minority in the DACA dispute, Gorsuch was the author of the court's Monday decision applying Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act to LGBT workers. The vote in that case was 6-3, with Roberts joining Gorsuch and the court's liberals, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In the sanctuary case the president appeared to cite, the administration failed to garner even four votes to have the court review the administration's challenge to a California law limiting state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Likewise, it only would have taken four votes for the court to agree to hear any of 10 Second Amendment cases that the court rejected onMonday, in a move that disappointed gun-rights activists. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative judges on the top court, dissented from his colleagues' decision not to hear one of the cases.

While the vote tallies were not published in those disputes, it would not have required Roberts or any of the court's liberals to vote to take them up in the court's next term.

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University and the co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, called Trump's messaging around the Supreme Court "a little idiosyncratic and perhaps incoherent."

"There is at once some dissatisfaction that his conservative majority isn't acting in the way he wants, but also a realization that judges helped get him elected," she said.

Of the most recent week at the Supreme Court, Murray pointed out that the legal issues at play in June Medical Services are distinct from those that were argued in the LGBT rights and DACA cases.

But, she said, "one thing you might glean from this week is that the chief justice remains very much an institutional steward of the court and its legacy."

In that sense, it is possible thatRoberts' shepherding of the court's reputation could play some role in all three cases.

"He might be concerned with the perception that the court is in the pocket of the Trump administration," Murray said.

More here:
Abortion case could end or add to streak of liberal wins at Supreme Court - CNBC

Jon Stewart made his reputation as a smart political comedian and commentator on Comedy Centrals The Daily Show on TV, before quitting in 2015 to develop movie projects, of which the first was his excellent Rosewater. But this heartsinkingly is the follow-up. Its a flaccid, toothless, supercilious political non-satire for liberals too fastidious to take sides or take action. The film perches on a fence of wry disdain and makes droll gestures of disapproval at the wasteful big-money awfulness of everyones political campaign. And its leading to a big tortuous plot twist which frankly isnt convincing, despite the talking-head expert interviewee who is wheeled on over the closing credits to assure us that it is. What were left with is a bland cop-out, which incidentally wont worry anyone yearning for Donald Trumps second term.

Steve Carell finds some of his dullest form playing Gary Zimmer, a Washington DC political strategist for the Democratic party, desperately searching for the next big thing after the debacle of 2016. (Stewart may have been inspired by Stanley Tuccis media-manipulator in the small-town political satire Swing Vote.) To Zimmers astonished delight, one of his minions finds a viral YouTube video of a retired Marine Corps veteran called Colonel Jack Hastings, played by Chris Cooper, giving a passionate speech about caring community values at a town-hall meeting somewhere in Wisconsin, where folks have been financially stricken by the recent army-base closure. The holy grail: a tough guy whos also a progressive.

Cunning Zimmer duly shows up in hicksville (wrinkling his nose at all the niceness thereabouts) to persuade the grumpily authentic Hastings to run as a Dem for mayor and maybe something more if it all works out. Soon the top brass in Washington are excited; the cash rolls in for his campaign and the Republicans get fired up too bringing in their ice-queen spin-doctor Faith Brewster, played by Rose Byrne, who seems to have some history and toxic sexual chemistry with Zimmer.

There are, arguably, one or two reasonable touches, such as the observation about punctuation on billboard ads, inspired by the notorious Jeb! campaign for the hapless Jeb Bush. But really, any single TV episode of Veep or Parks and Recreation has far more wit, fun and political zap than this great big laugh-free feast of self-congratulatory dullness. Zimmer himself never has any funny lines and the rules about making the leading man relatable and making the Democratic guy basically nice mean that he is never allowed to have any of that Satanic political glamour of pure wickedness that might have made his character interesting. The movie never permits itself the forbidden fossil-fuel of cynicism that might have given it some movement.

The talents of Topher Grace and Natasha Lyonne are thrown away in the tiny roles of pollsters and online number-crunchers that Zimmer has brought in. It could be that much of their characters were lost in the edit, but certainly the film is not especially interested in the hot-button issues of Facebook and data-harvesting. The eerie absence of race as an issue in the film is also naive.

The story runs on predictable lines, with the underdog Hastings making exciting gains on the Republican incumbent; then his momentum stalls and theres a dilemma how nasty are his team prepared to be to clinch their win? And theres that very exasperating ending, to which I can only say that in the real world, Zimmer, having raised serious amounts of cash from hedge-funders and the like, would take a pretty close interest in the bottom line.

The real finale, however, comes in the typography: the word RESIST is eye-catchingly picked out in the middle of the title, in fine Michael-Moore-lite style. Resist? Really? How? The movie has signed off with a pert little flourish to the effect that the whole system is broken, so maybe we should wish a plague on both their houses or neither. Either way, the supposed satirical attitude of Irresistible cant conceal the fact that its contrived, unfunny and redundant.

Released on 26 June on digital formats.

See the original post here:
Irresistible review Jon Stewarts political non-satire for liberals is as dull as it gets - The Guardian

The Conservatives spent nearly to the limit in the 2019 federal election more than the Liberals did and almosttriplethe amount shelled out by the New Democrats.

Campaign returns filed by most parties and posted to Elections Canada's website show the Conservatives spent $28.9 million during the fallelection campaign, nearly hitting the $29.1 million limit. This was narrowly more than the $26.1 million theLiberals spent.

Both parties spent significantly more than the New Democrats. The NDP's election expenses totalled $10.3 million barely a third of what the party was allowed to spend during the campaign.

The Green and People's parties requested and were granted filing extensions by Elections Canada. The filings for the Bloc Qubcois had not been posted as of Monday evening.

The numbers show that the Conservatives and Liberals were fighting on alevel playing field as far as money is concerned. This parityextended to the pre-election period, when the Conservatives spent $1.8 million and the Liberals spent$1.7 millionon partisan advertising. The NDP spent only $66,000 on partisan advertising over the pre-election period. (The legislatedlimit on that spendingwas just over $2 million.)

The Conservatives shelled out most of their pre-election spending on television ads $1.2 million of their pre-election advertising went on TV. The Liberals spent just $344,000 on pre-election TV advertising, optinginstead to spent nearly half of their pre-election dollars on online ads.

During the campaign period itself, the Conservatives spent $15.9 million on advertising. About $9.3 million of that went to TV spots,$4.6 million was spent online and $1.7 million went to radio ads.

In all three categories, the Conservatives outspent the Liberals.The Liberals spent $14 million on ads during the campaign, including $5.2 million for TV ads and $3.8 million for online ads. The Liberals spent another$3.8 millionon ads categorized as "other" in the election filings.

Nearly all of the $3.9 million the NDPspent on ads went online and on television. In both total dollars and as a share of their total election expenses, the New Democrats spent far less on advertising than either the Liberals or the Conservatives. The two bigger parties spent just over half of their money on ads. Ad spending represented just 38 per cent of the total for the NDP.

One reasonfor this may be that the New Democrats appear to have run a top-heavy campaign. The party spent about $2.9 million on the national office, professional services and salaries and benefits about 28 per cent of all the expenses it booked during the campaign.

While the Conservatives and Liberals both spent more on these line items ($4.8 million and $3.7 million, respectively), the percentage of theircampaign budgets going to theseexpenseswasabout half the share of the NDP budget that went tostaffing.

The NDP's overall financial disadvantagewas felt in other areas. The Conservatives and Liberals each spent more than twice as much as the NDP did on polling and research. While the NDP spent $2.1 million on Jagmeet Singh's campaign tour, the Conservatives spent $4.9 million sending Andrew Scheer across the country and the Liberals spent $6.7 million on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's tour.

The money the NDP spent on the campaign is not money they would have had in the bank, either. Throughout 2019, the New Democrats raised just $8 million, compared to $21 million for the Liberals and $31 million for the Conservatives.

It's difficult to compare the spending in the 2019 election to what was spent in the 2015 campaign, since the 2015 campaignwas nearly twice as long. On a per-day basis, however, both the Conservatives and Liberals spent more in 2019 than they did in 2015. The NDP, which entered the last campaign as the Official Opposition, spent significantly lesson every expense category except non-leader travel and "other expenses."

The Conservatives spent less on a per-day basis in 2019 on voter contact services and on their national office, while they spent more on everything else. The biggest jump in Conservative spendingwas for advertising outside ofradio and TV suggesting a bigger shift of ad dollarsto theonline market in 2019 than in 2015.

The Liberals spent more on a per-day basis on everything except radio and TV ads their spending on those two itemsactually dropped between the two campaigns. The Liberals'biggest increases in spending were for the leader's tour and for non-traditional advertising.

In raw dollars, however, the 2015 campaign was far more expensive. Both the Liberals and Conservatives spent over $40 million in that campaign, while the NDP spent nearly $30 million.

Nevertheless, the Conservatives still spent $2.9 million more in 2019 on non-radio or TV advertising than they did in 2015, despite the campaign being half as long. They also spent more on professional services and travel that was unrelated to the leader's tour. The only thing theLiberals spent more on in 2019 than in 2015 was election surveys (an increase of $34,000).

Elections Canada also hasposted the campaign returns for hundreds of local campaignswhose expenses are tracked separately from those booked by the national campaigns. The filings are incomplete, so it isn't possible to do a full accounting of what was spent by each party across the country just yet.

But the filings do give us a glimpse of a few key local contests.

After leaving the Liberal Party over the SNC-Lavalin affair, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott each ran as independent candidates in their ridings.

Wilson-Raybould was not hurting for money in her successful bid for re-election. The filings show she received $222,000 in contributions during the campaign double the spending limit in her Vancouver Granville riding. She spent $97,203 in election-related expenses.

Her Liberal opponent's return has yet to be filed, but the Conservatives' Zach Segal spent $98,740 on his third-place showing in the riding.

Philpott, running in the Ontario riding of MarkhamStouffvile, was not as fortunate as Wilson-Raybould. While she had a fully-stocked warchest after receiving $148,000 in contributions during the campaign, and spent $101,000 onher re-election bid, she fell over 11,000 votes short of the Liberals' Helena Jaczek, who spent $102,000.

In ReginaWascana, where the Conservatives unseated long-time Liberal MP Ralph Goodale by 7,000 votes, the party spent just $75,000 against Goodale's $92,000.

People's Party Leader Maxime Bernier outspent the Conservatives' Richard Lehoux in his riding of Beauce by a margin of $92,000 to $89,000, but finished 6,000 votes behind.

Money helps in politicsbut it can't buy you love or votes.

Read the rest here:
Conservative election spending outpaced Liberals by a little and the NDP by a lot - CBC.ca