Russian star soprano refused to repudiate Putin, so the Metropolitan Opera dropped her. Now she's suing
The new respectable form of bigotry: Anti-Russian bigotry. I have three Russian friends so this grieves me. Why should individual Russians be oppressed just because the present tyrant of their country has behaved abominably? Why should individual Russians be asked to criticize their government when doing so would risk their lives and liberty in their beloved homeland? It is totally unjust
Netrebko is a world-famous soprano. Her art in opera is supreme. So anti-Russian bigotry against her is particularly deplorable. She has done nothing to hurt anyone. She is just a dear little thing who sings. She is simply preserving her safety in her homeland by going silent on Putin
See her below in a famous duet with Dmitri Hvorostovsky
The Metropolitan Opera last year cut ties with Russian star soprano Anna Netrebko after she refused the general manager's demand that she repudiate Russia President President Vladimir Putin over the invasion of Ukraine.
Now Netrebko is suing, the Associated Press reported.
Her suit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan is against the Met and its general manager Peter Gelb, alleges defamation, breach of contract, and other violations, and asks for at least $360,000 in damages for lost performance and rehearsal fees, the AP said.
Netrebko claims the Met caused ”severe mental anguish and emotional distress” that included “depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, and emotional pain and suffering," the AP added.
“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Met and Peter Gelb have used Anna Netrebko as a scapegoat in their campaign to distance themselves from Russia and to support Ukraine,” the management of the 51-year-old soprano said in a statement, according the AP.
The suit also notes that “due to the Met’s requirement that Netrebko issue public statements opposing the actions of Russian government, Russian politicians have denounced Netrebko, Russian theater companies have canceled contracts with her, Russian audiences have criticized her on her social media channels and in the Russian press, and Netrebko and her family and friends in Russia have suffered the risk of harm, retaliation, and retribution by the Russian government," the AP also reported.
The Met said in a statement, according to the outlet, that “Ms. Netrebko’s lawsuit has no merit.”
After Netrebko withdrew from Met performances over the Putin issue, Gelb last year told the AP that "it is a great artistic loss for the Met and for opera. Anna is one of the greatest singers in Met history, but with Putin killing innocent victims in Ukraine, there was no way forward.” Gelb also told the outlet at the time that the Met would not engage artists who back Putin.
***********************************************
Media ignores Muslim killing of gay man because it doesn’t fit narrative
There is a bit more to this than a Muslim attackig a gay. Sibley was "vogueing" which is a form of homosexual dancing. I have got nothing against homosexuals in general but I myself find homosexual prancing about rather nauseous so I can imagine how strongly it would have disgusted a Muslim. Sibley below
Not least because it tells us something it appears we don’t want to know.
O’Shae Sibley was a talented 28-year-old dancer and choreographer.
He was stabbed to death last Saturday night at a gas station in Brooklyn.
Video surveillance footage obtained by The Post shows that Sibley and three of his friends stopped at the local Mobil station to refill.
While they were there Sibley and one of his friends started dancing (“voguing”) to Beyonce.
This drew the attention of another group of men at the station.
Words were exchanged and Sibley was stabbed. His friends and some bystanders called 911 and tried to help him.
But he bled to death on the sidewalk.
But lives are cruelly disposed of every week in this city. Why do I say that we should linger on this one?
Firstly, because it is strange that O’Shae Sibley’s killing has not had more attention.
Every life matters. But Sibley happened to be black and gay.
Normally either of these things — let alone both — would attract serious attention from the media and campaign groups.
Yet while the killing has widely been reported as a “hate crime,” it is the wrong sort of “hate crime.” One that doesn’t fit the dominant, enforced narrative of our time.
Had the group who confronted Sibley and his friends been white and shouted that they didn’t like gay people, or black people, this country would be in meltdown right now.
Every Presidential candidate would be condemning it.
All the “community groups” who make a profession out of campaigning against “hate” would be in full fund-raising mode.
The New York Times would have cleared the pages for days of reflections on what this said about America.
But that is not what happened. Here’s what happened according to the people who were there.
One of the friends who was with Sibley when he was murdered posted a photo on social media of the bloodied sidewalk and wrote: “They hated us cause we are gay! Screaming we Muslim and we don’t like gays!!!!! As we are innocently pumping gas and y’all decided to stab one of us!!! #justice.”
Perhaps the media were simply cautious about reporting this, given that it was only one eye-witness?
Yet there is a second witness who has spoken to a local website.
An employee at the gas station said that the “flamboyant” behavior of Sibley and his friends offended the other group because the other group were Muslims.
Here’s what the gas station employee said: “These people were like ‘We’re Muslim, I don’t want you dancing.’ The gay people, they were not trying to fight.”
Yet these facts don’t fit the narrative. The victim was gay and black. The perpetrator was Muslim.
Our era is obsessed with “hate-crimes.” So much so that it sees them in places where they don’t even happen.
Yet last Saturday in Brooklyn was a hate crime. And the media are actually covering it up.
All because Sibley’s assailants were not hood-wearing members of the KKK or “MAGA” hat-wearing Republicans.
Instead they come from another group that our media identifies as a victim class.
The fact that the men were Muslim is why the media has been actively dishonest in its reporting. Despite the story going around the world.
The New York Times has written about the case. But it has not bothered to inform its readers of why Sibley bled out on a Brooklyn sidewalk.
Had the Times had even a whiff of this being a white-on-gay hate crime they wouldn’t have waited for one eye-witness, let alone two.
They would have told all, speculated about everything and asked what this said about this country and everyone in it.
But because the identity and motive of the perpetrators are an awkward glitch in that paper’s big narrative the Times simply covered over the facts.
The Guardian went one worse. That paper quoted Sibley’s friend who I quoted above, but they actually edited out the detail about the attackers being Muslim and the words they said.
Because again, it doesn’t fit The Guardian’s narrative.
The most that newspaper could bring itself to say was that an eyewitness said that the perpetrators mentioned “defending their religious beliefs” during the confrontation.”
Apparently dancing to Beyonce can be an assault on some peoples’ religious beliefs.
But whose? The Guardian wouldn’t tell you. It is happy to leave its readers with the impression that white Christian rednecks or Orthodox Jews might have carried out the killing.
Shamefully the gay press has done the same. In their usual betrayal of the people they claim to speak for, gay rights groups have reacted to the story by helping to cover it up.
Some gay groups have even tried to link the killing to recent debates about transgender issues.
Ignoring the fact that the men at the Brooklyn gas station seem to have been more influenced by the views of the founder of Islam than the Governor of California.
Obviously such false reporting is another reason why so many people don’t trust the media these days.
But this cover-up also displays an appalling cowardice.
Because we should be able to look facts in the face.
We should be able to face the complexity of the world. “Reality,” as we used to call it.
Nobody should be murdered because of who they are. But nor should a murderer be given cover because of who they are.
In particular they should not have their crime-scenes tidied up for them by a media and activist class who can’t deal with facts.
The reality is that life is more complex than the lies we have been telling ourselves in recent years.
America shouldn’t be divided by groups. And evil shouldn’t be divided by groups either.
Anybody might be a victim of hate. And anyone, from any group — even a minority — might be a perpetrator.
Ponder that and we’ll do this one victim, at least, a fragment of the justice he deserves.
********************************************
Does Anyone Else See the Glaring Problem in the New Barbie Movie?
The film’s anti-patriarchy message leads to more patriarchy
Jared A. Brock
There was only one problem with the new Barbie movie that all the critics missed:
The message of the anti-patriarchy film inevitably leads to more patriarchy.
One thing director Greta Gerwig and her co-writer husband get right is to avoid the false dichotomy between patriarchy and matriarchy. When given two bad choices, choose neither.
But spoiler alert, here’s the supposedly-meaningful epiphany that Barbie and Ken discover nearly simultaneously:
It’s not Barbie & Ken. It’s Barbie and it’s Ken.
As in, they don’t end up together. They part ways, each setting off on a journey of self-exploration to discover their “true selves.”
Alone.
Isolated.
Autonomous.
“Free.”
No wonder Millennials are so depressed and devoid of meaning.
The philosophical conclusion of Barbie is: The patriarchy is bad and the only way out is more hyper-individualism.
Let’s play that out and see how it ends.
“Autonomy comes from the two Greek words autos, meaning “self”, and nomos, meaning “law.” Someone who is autonomous is a law unto themselves. He has no restraints whatsoever. An autonomous person can do or be whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants. That ultimately leads to total chaos because if I’m a law unto myself and another person’s “law unto themselves” conflicts with my law, who will decide who’s right?” — Abdu Murray
The moral point of Barbie is to reject the patriarchy, not necessarily embrace the matriarchy, but definitely find your own way and meaning and truth.
The film makes no mention of the fact that homo sapiens are communal creatures shaped by others. No mention that we are highly social interdependent beings with varying strengths and weaknesses. No mention that absolute truth rationally has to exist and we don’t just get to make up our own rules.
Autonomy. This is the typical definition of American freedom, and it’s proven to be an unmitigated disaster. Modern American “freedom” — autonomy — is actually a collective anti-freedom.
This is where I have no choice but to quote Abdu Murray again:
“We talk about freedom all the time, but we’ve stopped talking about freedom a long time ago. Now we’re talking about autonomy. Freedom is different than autonomy. Freedom has boundaries. Truth is one of those boundaries. And morality is one of those boundaries. Autonomy is the ability to do whatever you want whenever you want in whatever way you want. The problem is this: If I’m autonomous and another person is autonomous, and I have preferences and those matter more than the truth, and that person has preferences and their preferences matter more than the truth, when two autonomous preference-seeking beings come together and their preferences don’t match, who is going to win? If truth is on the bottom shelf, truth won’t decide. What will decide will be power. And isn’t it ironic that in our quest for “freedom”, someone gets enslaved?”
Let’s say the Barbies throw off the shackles of patriarchy.
And then magically somehow manage to practice enough selflessness to not immediately seize power for themselves.
But the Barbies tell everyone to discover their true selves, seek their own truth, find their own individualist way.
What happens when a bunch of autonomous individuals have clashing desires?
The strongest prevail.
The corporations take over.
The dictators and tyrants rule.
The Kens win again.
If you love movies, get dressed up in breast-cancer-pink and go see Barbie in cinemas. Stuff your face with overpriced popcorn and laugh until you snort.
But ignore the movie’s meaningless Millennial message.
If you want true freedom, you don’t need more hyper-individualism.
You need rootedness in a community of healthy people who are selfless enough to sacrifice some of their own rights and preferences for the flourishing of others. You need to seek and find the actual truth. You need to stop pretending like you can do it all on your own.
Some commenters have suggested this is a misinterpretation of the movie, and that the actual point is to simply “find yourself” before committing to anyone else. But that’s not how life works. We are who we are because of others. We find ourselves in relation to society. It’s not like Ken is going to go off and become a cave-dwelling monk who just listens to the voice of God until he comes back enlightened. If you follow the Barbie suggestion, you need to find yourself before committing to others. Find yourself where?
By meeting other rootless and untether people while traveling?
By diving deep down the clickhole of social media?
Committing ourselves to others is how we become healthy and whole individuals, not the other way around.
Barbie is not the most important person in the universe.
Ken is not the most important person in the universe.
We were made for each other. It’s not Barbie and it’s not Ken. It’s Barbie & Ken & you & me & everybody else in this wicked and wonderful world.
*************************************************
Australia: NSW gay conversion opponents may have to be careful what they say under new anti-discrimination law
Opponents of gay conversion practices may need to be careful about criticising its promoters under new anti-discrimination laws passed in New South Wales parliament on Thursday, legal experts have said.
The Minns government’s religious vilification bill, which with backing from the opposition, amended the existing Anti-Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to vilify people or organisations on the grounds of their religion.
Alistair Lawrie, an expert in anti-discrimination law at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said he supported, in principle, reforms that protected people from vilification for their religious expression or affiliation.
But he said ahead of the bill being passed changes were broader than religious vilification laws enacted in other state and territories, leaving the door open to restrictions to freedom of speech.
“It would be disappointing if this bill passes in its current form,” he said.
Lawrie said this could see people or organisations who engage in gay conversion practices bring forward complaints of vilification if criticised for engaging in the activity.
The Minns government, with backing from the opposition, has vowed to ban gay conversion practices.
But Lawrie said religious people or groups who continued to engage in the activity after it was banned would still be protected from vilification under the laws, given it protects criticisms against unlawful religious practices.
Prof Simon Rice, a University of Sydney expert in anti-discrimination law, said the bill would not restrict people from advocating against the practice, but it draws the line at anything said or done that risks “engendering hatred towards promoters of gay therapy”.
“They’d have to be careful about what they said so that they didn’t incite hatred against that religious view, but they’re certainly still free to attack the [practice],” he said.
Labor promised to introduce the religious vilification bill in the lead-up to the election. But given the government recently referred the act for review under the NSW Law Reform Commission, Rice said the government should have waited to introduce the religious vilification laws until that review was complete.
“We’ve got an [anti-discrimination] act which is almost unworkable. It’s so old and dated and cobbled together,” he said. “And then we go and add another little bit to it at the same time that we’re acknowledging that it’s a problem and we’re going to review it, I just think that’s bad policy.”
Dr Haroon Kasim, of the Coalition Against Caste Discrimination, had also written to the NSW attorney general, Michael Daley, ahead of the bill passing calling for more protections for people who experience discrimination on the basis of their caste.
As migration from south Asia rises, Kasim said the communities were experiencing escalating discrimination on the basis of their caste – a hierarchical system assigned at birth that determines occupations and social status.
“It affects every part of a person’s life,” he said. “People of the so-called ‘lower caste’ are refused houses and jobs because of that status.”
Kasim said people deemed to be from “lower” castes who speak out about caste discrimination were often harassed by others deemed part of the “higher” caste groups. He was concerned the new laws would give licence to religious groups to accuse those who speak up about caste discrimination of religious vilification.
“We just want to be seen and heard,” he said.
An amendment to the bill proposed by the Greens spokesperson for anti-discrimination, Jenny Leong, that would have excluded protections for unlawful activity and organisations was rejected by the lower house on Thursday.
Leong said the government should prioritise holistic reforms to the bill rather than “putting protections first”.
“At a time when there has been a disturbing increase in anti-trans and anti-LGBTQIA+ aggression online and on the streets, what message does this send to the LGBTQIA+ community?,” she said.
The president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Josh Pallas, said the group also opposed the new laws. .
“We want an Anti-Discrimination Act that does not discriminate,” he said. “To move on one part without moving on other glaring deficiencies sends a bad message to the community about whose rights and interests are privileged over others.”
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment