MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘civil rights act’

Here Comes the New DEI, Same as the Old DEI

Posted by M. C. on March 12, 2024

By Wanjiru Njoya

Second, the hegemony of the Civil Rights Act is entrenched in practice by the reality that in practice, officials spooked by the bad press surrounding DEI and CRT are increasingly careful in their use of words. If an equality scheme is not brazenly labelled “DEI” it is difficult to ascertain whether it is designed to promote opportunity or whether it is attempting surreptitiously to promote outcome.

Here Comes the New DEI, Same as the Old DEI

A number of Republican states have banned DEI, resulting in the termination of DEI schemes in higher education institutions. The NYT reports that “In 2023, more than 20 states considered or approved new laws taking aim at D.E.I”.

Much hard work by Republicans went into getting these DEI schemes banned, especially in raising public awareness about the sinister machinations behind friendly-sounding words like diversity and inclusion. Adopting beguiling labels for their schemes is a favorite commie strategy, and it works because it marches under the banner of values many people would support. It has taken a long-running campaign by Republicans to persuade the public that these virtue-signaling labels are nothing more than a smokescreen.

But as Republicans continue to rejoice about the collapsing DEI empire, few have noticed that the seeds of the next threat are already being sown: the announcements abolishing DEI have come together with ominous expressions of commitment to enforcing equality of opportunity:

“In keeping with State of Florida legislation, the Division of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has been eliminated,” the school’s webpage says. “FIU remains committed to cultivating an environment of accessibility and equal opportunity, where all are welcomed to learn, earn, and thrive.”

What’s the problem, one might ask? After all, everyone supports equal opportunity and welcoming everyone to thrive. While many conservatives are against DEI, surely supporting “genuine” equal opportunities will work very well as long as it doesn’t turn into equity? Many conservatives naively hope that equality enforcement is a great idea in principle. As Lew Rockwell has observed:

It’s conservatives, not liberals, who are naive about the real meaning of anti-discrimination law. They say they love the Civil Rights Act, “Dr.” King, and the “ideal” of the color-blind society. They want to protect “individuals” from discrimination, but not “groups.” They like “equality of opportunity” but don’t like “equality of result.”

In his op-ed for the NYT Chris Rufo explained the reasons for abolishing DEI and then observed that promoting colorblind equality would be a good replacement for DEI:

“After abolishing D.E.I., legislators can adopt a policy of colorblind equality to help establish the equal treatment of individuals, regardless of race, sex or other characteristics.”

In abolishing DEI, the expressed aim is therefore to shift from equality of outcome (equity) to promoting colorblind equality. In Florida it was announced that equal opportunity initiatives and programs would continue after the end of DEI:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Equality and Fairness for All but Property Owners | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 8, 2022

In a free society, the right to discriminate is essential and absolute. A free society must include the freedom to discriminate against any individual or group for any reason and on any basis. A free society may or may not be free of discrimination, but it must be free of discrimination laws. By their very nature, the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract include the right to discriminate.

https://mises.org/wire/equality-and-fairness-all-property-owners

Laurence M. Vance

The grossly misnamed Equality Act is a government attack on the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract. According to the official summary of bill (H.R.5):

This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

Not surprisingly, the Equality Act is supported by the usual left-wing suspects like the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, the AARP, and the National Organization for Women, the American Federation of Teachers, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association, and LGBTQ rights groups. But it is also supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many of America’s largest companies, including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, eBay, Starbucks, Kellogg’s, and Johnson & Johnson. It even has the support of some religious denominations and groups, including the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Interfaith Alliance.

The Equality Act has been languishing in the U.S. Senate since March 1 of this year. It was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 18 and passed just a week later by a vote of 224–206. Every Democrat in the House voted in favor of the bill, but only three Republicans did. Although as of this writing, the Senate has not yet acted on it, the bill has a good chance of passing in the second session of the 117th Congress when Democrats see the handwriting on the wall that spells out “Republican landslide” in the 2022 midterm elections. The Republican alternative to the Equality Act, the equally misnamed Fairness for All Act, is no alternative at all if property rights mean anything.

Background

To understand the Equality Act, we must begin with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It claimed to be:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hard talk with Václav Klaus: “The people should say NO to all of it.”

Posted by M. C. on January 15, 2021

VK: The restrictions on basic civil rights that were introduced so swiftly and so easily demonstrate the power of the modern state, with all its new, “smart“ technologies and drastically expanded enforcement capabilities. Economists often talk about the so-called “ratchet effect”, or the limited ability of existing processes and dynamics to be reversed and to return to normal once a specific event has radically altered them. It is true of prices, of productivity and it is also true of social and political systems. Therefore, I am afraid it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to return to the pre-corona days.

https://claudiograss.ch/2020/05/hard-talk-with-vaclav-klaus-the-people-should-say-no-to-all-of-it/

As we get deeper into this crisis and we get used to our “new normal”, it’s easy to focus on the daily corona-horror stories in the media or the latest shocking unemployment numbers, and lose track of the bigger picture and of what is really, fundamentally important. Even as the lockdown measures begin to get phased out, the scale of the economic damage is unimaginable and the idea of returning to “business as usual” is no longer tenable. The last couple of months have had a severe impact not just on the economy, but on our societies and geopolitical reality too. These changes are most likely irreversible and we as citizens and as investors will have to be prepared to deal with this massive shift and all that it entails for a long time.

Amid the panic, the distractions and the hyperbole that are prevalent these days, my own daily task has been an effort to separate the signals from the noise. In order to do so, I’ve also reached out to the few people whose views and insights I have long found invaluable and who have prioritized critical thought and kept their principles intact throughout this crisis. Straight talk and direct answers are very hard to come by these days from most Western leaders and institutional figures, this is why I turned to Former President of the Czech Republic, Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, who has long been a voice of reason and whose unique perspective is even more important now. In the interview that follows, he shares his views on the current crisis and on what’s to come, in a succinct and resolute way and with a directness that is as rare and as it is essential in times like these.

Claudio Grass (CG): The magnitude and the global scale of the lockdown and shutdown measures we’ve seen during this corona-crisis are unprecedented. How do you evaluate the response compared to the threat itself? Do you believe it is justified? 

Václav Klaus (VK): I don‘t pretend to be an expert in epidemiology, but my background in economics and statistics tells me that the threat is smaller than the consequences „organized“ by governments all over the world as a reaction to this pandemic. I would add unnecessary consequences. The authorities reacted in an exorbitant way, in a moment of fear. This is partly the result of the current „online democracy“.

CG: The “emergency measures” and the restrictions that have been imposed on civilians’ basic rights have served as a reminder of the true extent of the state’s powers. Do you find this worrying and do you see a risk that these new, extraordinary powers might not be as easy to roll back once the crisis is over? 

VK: The restrictions on basic civil rights that were introduced so swiftly and so easily demonstrate the power of the modern state, with all its new, “smart“ technologies and drastically expanded enforcement capabilities. Economists often talk about the so-called “ratchet effect”, or the limited ability of existing processes and dynamics to be reversed and to return to normal once a specific event has radically altered them. It is true of prices, of productivity and it is also true of social and political systems. Therefore, I am afraid it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to return to the pre-corona days. 

CG: On an economic level, what is your assessment of the impact of the shutdown measures? 

VK: Most, if not all, of the circulating quantitative estimates and forecasts, are wrong. The “experts” should first say how long the quarantine restrictions will last and when the economic shutdown will be fully lifted. Their economic forecasts depend on the length of the quarantine period. They should announce explicitly when they plan to end it. Until this is established and known, the current forecasts are economically meaningless. 

CG: The monetary and fiscal interventions that we’ve seen so far are as extreme and as shocking as the shutdown policies themselves. Do you think they’ll be enough to keep the economy afloat though, or is a deep and long recession simply inevitable? 

VK: The monetary and fiscal measures – unacceptable for the true democrats – may have positive short-term effects, but they will destabilize the economy and public finances for a very long period of time. They could lead to very high inflation. 

CG:  Trillions upon trillions are being injected into the system, while wild ideas like the Universal Basic Income have become mainstream. Apart from the obvious monetary and economic risks of these policies, do you also foresee political and social implications? 

VK: Those of us in the ex-communist countries were used to living in a world of something like “Universal Basic Income”. We wanted to get rid of communism because of principles like this. These principles destroyed the motivation to work, which proved to be ruinous.  

CG: Within just a few weeks we have witnessed an abrupt and absolute turn towards centralization. The free market has been brought to its knees, individual voluntary exchanges, productivity and the very right to work and to create were all suspended and replaced with central planning. Do you think this approach has any chance of being sustainable? 

VK: I would not call it “central planning” yet. I prefer Walter Eucken’s term (used for the description of the German economy in Hitler’s time), “centrally administrated economy”. It is not planning in its original meaning. It is the very heavy and visible hand of the government at work, instead of the “invisible hand” of the market. 

CG: The corona-crisis has also had some very serious geopolitical ramifications, especially vis-à-vis China. What are the main changes that you expect to see going forward in this arena? 

VK: We shouldn’t use this situation for the introduction of new dangerous foreign relations policies and to strengthen the demonization of countries such as China and Russia. To my great regret, however, we see this is already happening.

CG: What about the future of the EU? Do you think this crisis has further weakened it and what is your outlook for the bloc? 

VK: The EU will – unfortunately, in my view – survive the corona-crisis. Its exponents will use it to further weaken nation-states. They are on the defensivenow, but they will reemerge again in full strength very soon. I wish I’ll be proven wrong, but I do believe they’ll use this crisis to their advantage and I fear they’ll do so successfully.

CG: Citizens, investors and savers everywhere are justifiably scared, if not of the virus itself then certainly of financial ruin. In your view, what can we do to take back at least some control of our own future? 

VK: It’s quite simple. The people should say “NO” to all of it. Otherwise, what lies ahead is a real-life approximation of the dystopian “Brave New World” of Aldous Huxley. 

Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Schweiz

This article has been published in the Newsroom of pro aurum, the leading precious metals company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

On Racism – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on June 5, 2020

For decades the FBI has had a department that monitors white supremacists.  The scarcity of white supremacists has encouraged the FBI to create, or to encourage the creation of, such groups, just as the FBI was organizing “terrorist plots” that they could break up in the aftermath of 9/11.  A budget needs a reason.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/06/04/on-racism/

Paul Craig Roberts

If white people are racist, how was Obama twice elected president of the United States?  That such questions do not occur to those shouting “white racism” indicates weak minds, the presence of anti-whites out to make mischief, and people who speak on the basis of an unexamined assumption that has been drilled into their heads.

The unexamined question is: Are white people racist by nature?  Those who say whites are racist by nature simultaneously claim that hundreds of thousands of Lincoln’s soldiers died in order to free black people from slavery and that white people in the North carried on a relentless long war against white people in the South for the benefit of black people.

It is these same racist white people who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act 56 years ago and permitted the establishment of racial quotas and contract set-asides for blacks that gave blacks rights and privileges that white people do not have.

If white people are so racist, how can it be that many of them are upset about George Floyd’s death from police violence and some joined the protests? Either white people are racist by nature or they aren’t racist by nature.  If whites are not racist by nature, how can it be that the New York Times is leading the rewriting of American history with its 1619 Project that explains the United States as a country founded on the racism of white people?

Such questions do not occur to Anthony DiMaggio who writes for CounterPunch —Revolution, Not Riots—https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/03/revolution-not-riots-prospects-for-radical-transformation-in-the-covid-19-era/ .

DiMaggio repeats the propagandistic mantra that Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis—thank God not Southern—police is another sign of the structural violence against people of color.  So what is police violence against white people?  Are white people murdered and brutalized by police because of their skin color? Is this structural violence against white people?

You think police don’t use violence against white people? How uninformed you are!  In 2017 police shot to death more than twice as many white people as black people. In 2018 police shot to death almost twice as many white people as black people. In 2019 57% more white people than black people were shot to death.   So far in 2020, 35% more white people than black people have been shot to death by police. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Neither black nor white people know this for reasons I explain here—https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/06/03/all-races-suffer-from-police-violence/

A multicultural racially diverse society, which the United States has become as a result of illegal immigration and the change in immigration law in 1965, cannot survive if race hatred is a feature of the society.  In the US, white liberals have been teaching black Americans to hate white Americans for decades.  Black people have been indoctrinated into believing that every unpleasant feature of their existance is due to white racism. In many white people, this indoctrination has engendered guilt that causes them to excuse and make excuses for black violence. The effect over time is to make blacks more angry and whites less willing to resist violent acts of anger and to blame themselves instead. The survival of such a society is problematical. Watching Washingon foment conflict with more unified societies, such as Russia and China, is scary.

None of those screaming racism are interested in stopping police violence. Police violence against members of the public is a product of police training, not of racism.  Those screaming racism don’t want the violence corrected by reforming the way police are trained. They want the violence to continue as it is useful for their agenda of using white racism to create white guilt and black anger. This is the way to revolution. In Marxism, there was only class warfare between workers and capitalist—the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie—but in Cultural Marxism or Identity Politics there is racial oppresson, gender oppression, homosexual oppression, and oppression against the disabled and elderly.  All of these oppressed people become alienated from society and potential supporters for revolution.

However, Cultural Marxism could also brew counterrevolution. Some whites might see where this is heading and the realization could create opposition to the attack on white people. Some regard Trump’s election as president as an indication that white Americans realize that they have been abandoned by the Democrat Party. Unless you are a well-to-do white liberal on the east or west coasts, the Democrat Party has written you off.  White people, including the working class that formerly was represented by the Democrat Party, have been defined by Hillary Clinton as  “the Trump deplorables.” Whites are already second-class citizens, especially if they are straight males, and they are being set up for worse to come. Politicians, except for Trump, are too scared of media attacks to confront the propaganda with the truth.

Of course there are racists, but the assumption that these animosities exist only between skin colors is problematic. In modern times the most extreme manifestitions of racial violence are tribal between blacks themselves, such as the Rwandan genocide, the mass slaughter of Tutsi by the Hutu.

Indeed, the black slave trade is the product of blacks themselves and has its origin in 1600 in the slave wars fought by the black Kingdom of Dahomey.  Dahomey’s use of black slaves for economic production predates the cotton planations in the US south. One would think that these well known and totally documented facts would be a part of black studies in universities, but such facts are unacceptable to the ruling ideology. Karl Polanyi’s history of Dahomey and the Slave Trade has simply disappeared. It is as if it never was written.  It has gone down Big Brother’s Memory Hole even before the digital revolution created Big Brother.

Whites, of course, have committed far more violence against one another than they have against people of color. Think of the war of the American north against the South, of all the wars between Europeans, the two wars between the US and Great Britain, capped off by World War I and World War II. White people have killed far more white people than people of color.

Even white language is said to be racist. The banned n-word is said to be symbolic of white racism. But every white ethnicity has been called names that are slurs— dago, polack, frog, limey. The Irish are bog-trotters.There is a range of slurs for Germans—kraut, boche, hun. Blacks have plenty of pejorative names for whites. For example, “Miss Ann” or “Ann” is a derisive reference to white women and to any black woman who is regarded as acting as if she is white. Blacks also use pejoratives for blacks. An oreo is a black person who is regarded as acting like a white person.  Aunt Jemima is a black woman who is friendly to, or kisses up to, white people. A black man who does the same is Uncle Tom. American whites have pejoratives for one another—cracker, hillbilly, redneck.  People in the south of England call those in the north northern monkeys. There are pejoratives for every ethnicity.  Jews call gentiles goy. Latin Americans call North Americans gringo. Ukrainians call Russians moskals. If slurs are an indication of racism, then the entire population of the world is racist.

For decades the FBI has had a department that monitors white supremacists.  The scarcity of white supremacists has encouraged the FBI to create, or to encourage the creation of, such groups, just as the FBI was organizing “terrorist plots” that they could break up in the aftermath of 9/11.  A budget needs a reason.

Where do we see evidence of white supremacists? Are statues of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan being pulled down? Is the Lincoln Memorial covered in graffiti?  Are white supremacists rewriting American history in the universities and at the New York Times? Where are their magazines and newspapers? Who are their representatives in government and media? What is the power of such an invisible group?

In contrast, Antifa is a terrorist organization associated with organized violence. Yet it is white supremacists who are being blamed for the pre-delivery of convenient stockpiles of bricks in the protest areas of the cities where blacks are protesting George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police. How did white supremacists know which cities and which locations in the cities protests would take place?  When the point is to blame white people such questions do not matter to those doing the blaming.

But the questions do matter to a racially diverse multicultural society.  Such a society cannot survive the cultivation of racial enmity. When the goal is revolution, not reform, racial enmity is the weapon.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Do Christian Groups Support Anti-Christian Legislation? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 7, 2020

Why do Christian groups support anti-Christian legislation? The answer is that doing so is simply the logical result of accepting the legitimacy of anti-discrimination laws in the first place. The groups that oppose the Fairness for All Act are actually being inconsistent.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/laurence-m-vance/why-do-christian-groups-support-anti-christian-legislation/

By

The Civil Rights Act of 1964—an unconstitutional expansion of federal power that destroyed the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought, free enterprise, and freedom of contract—currently prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

After several years of failure to pass the Equality Act in the House when it was controlled by Republicans, Democrats, who regained control of the House in the 2018 election, passed the legislation (H.R.5) in the House by a vote of 236-173 on May 17, 2019. Only eight Republicans voted in favor of it. A related bill was earlier introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate (S.788), but has no chance of passing.

The Equality Act:

Prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

Expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

Allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

This is a horrible bill. So why would Christian groups support the equally horrendous Republican response to the Equality Act called the Fairness for All Act?

The Fairness for All Act (H.R.5331) was introduced in the House last month by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT). It has eight Republican cosponsors. This legislation is designed to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity; and to protect the free exercise of religion.” Said Rep. Stewart at a press conference about the bill’s two purposes: “They are not mutually exclusive principles. There is enough space where both of those can be accommodated and that is what we tried to do here today. Neither side has to lose in order for the other side to win.” The legislation is based on similar legislation enacted in Stewart’s home state of Utah that bans discrimination against LGBT individuals—except when it is done by “qualified” religious organizations.

The Fairness for All Act basically amends the Civil Rights Act like the Equality Act, but exempts

any building or collection of buildings that is used primarily as a denominational headquarters, church administrative office, or church conference center;

a place of worship, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, chapel, and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes;

a religious educational institution and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes;

in connection with a religious celebration or exercise: a facility that is supervised by a priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, or minister of any faith, or religious certifying body, and that is principally engaged in providing food and beverages in compliance with religious dietary requirements; or

any online operations or activities of an organization exempt under this section.

Like the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act is anti-Christian. It is anti-Christian because it is anti-private property, anti-freedom of assembly, anti-freedom of association, anti-freedom of thought, anti-free enterprise, and anti-freedom of contract. It is anti-Christian because it uses the force of government to make people be nice.

The Fairness for All Act is supported by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Mormon Church.

However, many secular and religious conservative groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family oppose the legislation. As does some liberal and LGBT organizations…

If discrimination is wrong, then it doesn’t suddenly become okay if it is based on some religious conviction.

But since discrimination in any form is not aggression, force, coercion, violence, or threat, then, as far as the law is concerned, the government should not proscribe it, seek to prevent it, or punish those who do it.

In a free society, any individual, business, or organization—religious or otherwise—would have the right to discriminate not only on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, but also because of race, color, religion, or national origin. This is because in a free society, any person, group, or entity would have the right to discriminate against any other person, group, or entity on any basis and for any reason.

Be seeing you

Walter E Williams - Freedom To Discriminate - YouTube

Williams on discrimination

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Starbucks Announces Intent to Violate Civil Rights Act | The Unveiled Feminist

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2017

https://theunveiledfeminist.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/starbucks-announces-intent-to-violate-civil-rights-act/

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that in response to President Trump’s “refugee ban,”  the chain store would hire “10,000 refugees” in its stores worldwide. Depending on how many “refugee” hires would result from this “vow”, it seems scarcely possible without violating the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, religion, sex, color, or national origin.” Extensive hiring in the US would necessitate discrimination against those born here.
Nice catch! I never thought about this violating the civil Rights act. No worries about Starbucks stores being set on fire. Some are more equal than others.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »