Anti-immigration parties do well in German State elections
Hard-right political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the first of its ilk to win in the nation since the Second World War, exit polls showed.
AfD took between 30.5% and 33.5% of the vote in the former East German state of Thuringia, with the conservative CDU coming in second place with 24.5% of the vote.
Thuringia, a rural region and the only state currently led by the far-left Die Linke, a successor of East Germany's ruling communist party, was one of two to hold regional elections today, ahead of national elections in 2025, with AfD nearly winning in neighbouring Saxony, a conservative stronghold that is the largest in former East Germany, as well the polls showed.
While the party is unlikely to come to power in either state, as other parties have vowed to coalesce to force the far-right out of power, the result is reflective of the party's growing popularity.
Bjoern Hoecke, the controversial head of the AfD in Thuringia, told the ARD broadcaster his party was the 'people's party in Thuringia'.
'We need change and change will only come with the AfD,' he said, hailing the 'historic result'.
Hoecke is one of Germany's most controversial far-right politicians and was fined twice this year for deliberately using a banned Nazi slogan.
Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the AfD, hailed the result as a 'historic success', while the party's other co-leader, Tino Chrupalla, said the party had a 'clear mandate for government' in Thuringia.
Chrupalla said both states had sent the message that 'there should be a change of politics' and the AfD was 'ready and willing to talk to all parties'.
The contests in Thuringia and Saxony come just over a week after three people were killed in a suspected Islamist knife attack in the western city of Solingen, which has fuelled a bitter debate over immigration in Germany.
The alleged attacker, a 26-year-old Syrian man with suspected links to the Islamic State group, was slated for deportation but evaded attempts by authorities to remove him.
The government has sought to respond to the alarm by announcing stricter knife controls and rules for migrants in Germany illegally.
Tonight's exit polls also showed a good night for BSW, a new party founded by the firebrand politician Sahra Wagenknecht after she quit the far-left Die Linke.
BSW scored between 14.5 and 16 percent in Thuringia and between 11.5 and 12 percent in Saxony, according to the polls.
Wagenknecht's party has appealed to voters in eastern Germany with a dovish stance towards Russia and calls for a radical crackdown on immigration.
The party scored an immediate success in June's European elections, hauling in around six percent of the German vote.
Other parties' refusal to work with the AfD potentially leaves BSW as the kingmaker in Thuringia and Saxony, despite serious policy disagreements with potential partners, especially on Ukraine.
Scholz's coalition partners, the Greens and the FDP, had a dismal night in both states, scoring even less than the SPD.
A third former East German state, Brandenburg, is also due to hold an election later in September, where polls have the AfD ahead on around 24 percent.
Created in 2013 as an anti-euro group before morphing into an anti-immigration party, the AfD has capitalised on the fractious three-way coalition in Berlin to rise in opinion polls.
In June's EU parliament elections, the party scored a record 15.9 percent overall and did especially well in eastern Germany, where it emerged as the biggest force.
***************************************************
California reparations bills fail to pass
Protests have erupted at the California state capitol after two stalled reparations proposals for black residents were seemingly killed.
The development came during the final day of the legislative session in Sacramento Saturday, following hours of fierce lobbying.
Some two dozen protesters were seen inside and outside the building that day, airing shouts for the bills to move forward and chants for reparations 'now'.
Signs and shirts emblazoned with the same message were also on display, as lawmakers made their way to and from the Assembly floor.
Onlookers cry, meanwhile, emanated throughout, but The California Legislative Black Caucus would still later reveal in a statement how neither bill was moving forward, ahead of their midnight deadline.
State Sen. Steven Bradford, a member of the caucus, spoke to several local outlets Saturday from the senate floor, revealing what exactly stalled the process.
'We're at the finish line,' Bradford told reporters after penning Senate Bills 1403 and 1331 himself.
'And I think we as the Black Caucus owe it to the descendants of chattel slavery, we owe it to black Californians and Black Americans. to move this legislation forward and get it to the governor's desk,' he continued.
When asked about the holdup, Bradford blamed 'a fear of the veto.'
In a written statement, the Black caucus added, in part, 'The caucus was unable to participate in the legislative process collectively and only recently became aware of the concerns and issues with the bill.'
Previously, both bills had the votes to clear the Assembly, but Bradford said he and others also found issue with edits to the proposed guidances proposed by the state's governor, Gavin Newsom.
Newsom's aides pushed to authorize further study of the issues rather than make restitution right off the bat, he said - something he and others will not accept.
'We owe it to our ancestors,' said the Democrat from Gardena said. 'And I think we disappointed them in a way.'
The bills initially sought to create a process for those whose land was stolen as a result of racism and slavery, while demanding a formal apology from the state.
Both bills, awaiting votes in the state Assembly this week, had new drafts from Newsom by Monday, with the progressive shifting their entire purpose.
As of writing, Newsom's office has yet to comment on the tossing of the two bills, but officials did tell the Sacramento Bee that they were still working with the caucus on both.
The last minute development left supporters who showed up at the Capitol Saturday in hopes of witnessing history irate, with the bill's core purpose - creating a new Freedmen Affairs Agency - seemingly no more.
'They're killing the bills because they're scared of the governor,' Chris Lodgson, an organizer with the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, told the Bee as onlookers shouted and chanted at lawmakers before proceedings were halted.
'We've got the money,' he said, pushing back on the budget concerns reportedly aired by Newsom. 'Do we have the will? Do we have the courage?'
The bills, for now, thus remain in limbo, years after the reparations movement first gathered momentum across the US following police killing of George Floyd in 2020.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13802251/california-reparations-bills-killed-senate.html
*******************************************************‘You Will Resign, or We’ll Make This Ugly’: Idaho National Guardsman Punished for Biblical Values
A Christian infantry officer is now being punished by the Idaho Army National Guard for using his First Amendment right to speak out against the LGBTQ+ ideology that he believes is harming children.
In 2023, the officer posted about some of his deeply held beliefs on his private social media account while running for political office in his “private capacity.” According to Liberty Counsel, the legal group defending him, his posts included statements “against graphic, obscene children’s books in a library and the promotion of a ‘drag kids’ event and drag queens in schools.”
He also posted statements such as ‘No child is born in the wrong body,’ males should not be competing in female sports, and against the medical mutilation of gender-confused children.
His concern over LGBTQ+ indoctrination resulted in “a subordinate senior enlisted man who claims to be homosexual” filing “a formal discrimination military complaint against the officer” for sharing his beliefs. The complaint accused the infantry officer’s posts of showing “just how much [the officer] truly hates the LGBTQ community.”
His complaint continued:
I feel like I have been discriminated against because of my sexual orientation, [which] has caused a hostile work environment. … I am deeply concerned about the hostile and prejudiced behavior I have experienced, which has adversely affected my well-being, work performance, and overall sense of belonging within the workplace/organization.
I must emphasize that this has created an uncomfortable, unsafe, and a hostile work environment, making it increasingly challenging for me to perform my duties effectively. With the active ties to the extremist/hate group, it makes me feel threatened and unsafe. All the posts on his social media and how public he is about his hate toward individuals like me and my family. Not just for me, but for my husband and my child.
As a result of this complaint, the infantry officer was removed from command by the Idaho Army National Guard, “then illegally pressured … to resign without benefit of any counsel or notice.” However, he chose to rescind his notice shortly after he sought help from Liberty Counsel. As they summarized, “[A]s a Christian, the officer believes all people are made in God’s image and have inherent dignity and are worthy of respect. He is committed to serving those under his command, regardless of political or religious disagreements, and would give his life in defense of his state and nation.”
Additionally, Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver stated:
[Idaho] Gov. Brad Little must ensure that the Idaho Army National Guard upholds federal and state law and protects the free speech of enlisted personnel. This discrimination against an officer based on a frivolous complaint must be addressed and his record cleared and career restored.
To provide further detail, Liberty Counsel’s Associate Vice President of Legal Affairs Daniel Schmid joined Wednesday’s episode of “Washington Watch.” According to Schmid, “[I]mmediately upon receiving the complaint, some of the superiors in [the officer’s] chain of command brought him in and said, ‘You will resign, or we’ll make this ugly.’ Those were the words to him. They forced him to resign without counsel, without the presence of counsel, and without advice of counsel.”
Schmid went on to explain how “the complaint was not based on anything he did as a commanding officer.” It was about “a speech that he made outside of the military context, in the context of a political campaign. … He was making statements on various issues in the culture today, from a religious perspective, [and] the First Amendment affords him that right.” And yet, his statements are now “the subject of an investigation that’s ongoing even to this day.”
According to Schmid, this case is about making “sure that the individuals who sign up to defend our liberties, our constitutional rights, are [also] entitled to those same rights”—specifically, he clarified, the First Amendment. “You don’t surrender your constitutional rights or your statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and others just because you sign up for military service.”
In the case of this officer, Schmid contended that he “was entitled to political speech.”
He was entitled to hold religious values and to espouse those values in life and in his speech. He didn’t surrender those. He’s entitled to the same Constitution that he swore an oath to defend, and we ought to stand up and defend him.
But it’s also a fight for all Americans, guest host and former Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., emphasized, since this case demonstrates a clear “disregard for the law.” Not to mention, he added, this isn’t the first time an instance such as this has occurred.
Schmid agreed. “That’s the sad part,” he sighed. “Because we’ve seen this before,” referring to how the military dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic with “the attempted purge of religious adherents for the COVID vaccine mandates. … [T]here was just a blatant disregard for the law in that realm as well.” He continued, “disturbingly, in the current administration, we see an open disregard for people of faith, for those who espouse conservative views.”
In this “particular complaint,” the concerns that people of faith are being targeted become further justified because, as Schmid explained, there was “a reference in the investigation to a Department of Defense instruction, which … we termed … as an attempt to purge conservatives from the ranks of the military.”
As Schmid went on to argue, the instruction that claimed to “root out extremism … was written so broadly” that it can easily be applied to anyone who chooses to espouse their views in response to the current political climate—specifically, views that are Christian and conservative.
Schmid contended, “[U]nder the current administration, it seems [they] don’t want those guys in the military service. [They’ll] purge them by virtue of vaccine mandates, or [they’ll] purge them by virtue of … their social media. … It’s astounding what’s taking place in the military right now.” He added, “[T]hese are our heroes. These are the ones who signed up to defend us. And they’re entitled to the same protections that you and I are. And we should make sure that they receive them.”
As Hice concluded, “[S]tanding for this infantry officer” is “standing on behalf of every one of us.”
************************************************************
Australia: A requiem for "Voice"
Its advocates can't admit that they got it wrong in wanting special representation for blacks
There was a time when the Yes side infuriated me with the shallow quality of their “debate”. Now the Yes side bores me. It has been 10 months since the proposal to change our Constitution failed, and its proponents still have not moved past the second stage of grief. They are now wallowing in anger. Why did this happen, who is to blame? Someone, please wake me up when the bloodletting stops. Even better, let’s hope they get to the final stage – acceptance – soon. Please.
In recent weeks, some losers on the Yes side have displayed tedious self-indulgence, blaming everyone except themselves for the loss. The recent contributions of Shireen Morris and Greg Craven tell you something about the lack of insight and the shoddy analysis that have marked much post-referendum contributions by voice supporters. What we’ve learned most clearly is how deluded they remain.
Mr Albanese holds a press conference for The V once referendum at the Sydney Opera House. Picture: NCA NewsWire/ Sam Ruttyn
Mr Albanese holds a press conference for The V once referendum at the Sydney Opera House. Picture: NCA NewsWire/ Sam Ruttyn
It might have helped the nation better understand the voice if the violent disagreements among people on the Yes side had been aired in public in full and before the referendum rather than behind closed doors after the referendum. Only towards the end of the campaign did we see even the hint of cracks emerge in their facade.
Instead, with completely ineffectual exceptions, the Yes side presented itself publicly as a solid phalanx of moralising custodians of the path to righteousness. Now they are more like Moaning Myrtles, shouting over metaphorical toilet cubicles past each other.
Craven made his last-gasp concerns particularly irrelevant by saying the defects of the voice proposal could be ignored. He would still vote Yes because it was the moral thing to do. The radicals picked their marks superbly. They didn’t need to compromise because all those who might have had sufficient influence to speak up and seek a workable compromise were already locked into whatever the radicals served up.
Morris writes in her extract from Broken Heart: A True History of the Voice Referendum that “Indigenous leaders repeatedly compromised to try to win Coalition support”. This is barmy stuff. As someone who followed this debate very closely, I know numerous compromises were offered – and categorically rejected by the Yes side. Both Father Frank Brennan and barrister Louise Clegg bravely put forward proposals with more moderate constitutional wording aimed at narrowing the voice’s operations. Both were ignored.
Indeed, according to another Yes supporter, Damien Freeman, Morris stopped working with the group Uphold & Recognise, the moderate voice supporters, after they held a forum in February last year that included Brennan and Clegg. “She objected to the fact that we allowed Clegg and Brennan to raise their concerns about the constitutional draft amendment that the Prime Minister announced … at Garma. Morris believed we should have put up only speakers who made the case for the Garma amendment,” Freeman wrote last weekend.
No signs of compromise there.
Others, including me, suggested that any constitutional provision include a “non-justiciability” clause to ensure that a future High Court could not soak itself in social and political activism with the new voice provisions. In fact, for many years Morris assured us “a First Nations voice was specifically designed to be non-justiciable”.
Alas, there was no compromise. When the Prime Minister released the proposed wording at Garma, non-justiciability was tossed aside. Leading Yes activist Marcia Langton laid bare the radical demands: “Why would we restrict the voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” And, according to Freeman, Morris didn’t want any critics of the High Court’s major role speaking at the Uphold & Recognise forum.
Others suggested the proposed wording of the voice be limited to advising on acts of parliament so that it would not reach into every part of executive government, including every move by a bureaucrat. That was ignored, too.
Morris is wrong about another more fundamental matter. It is, in my view, almost certain that the voice, even if all the various compromises had been accepted, would have been defeated.
At its core it was a bad idea for the simple reason that Australians would never accept a two-tier Constitution, where one group of people had special rights permanently entrenched in the Constitution. Dividing groups by race made a bad proposal worse. Acceptance of this simple yet powerful truth will be the final stage of activists dealing with their loss. However, some of the compromises at least would have moved the voice closer to success than the firm rejection it finally received last October.
So, failure doesn’t rest with the political right, as Morris alleges. The failure is twofold: a bad idea that was badly prosecuted.
The voice proposal was, in large measure, a vibe thing, packaged up as this undefined goal called reconciliation, along with a reaching out, hands in friendship thing, and so on. The only clear part of the proposal was that if you opposed the voice, you could expect abuse (we were racist), ridicule (we were too stupid to understand it) and mocking labels (we were Chicken Littles). What stood out was the deep disrespect of Yes advocates towards just about everyone. Even those who agreed with the voice were not told candidly and precisely what this body would entail.
The Yes side had little idea how to win friends and influence people. They treated morality as a zero-sum game – we on the Yes side are moral; you No people are not – when disagreement should have been respected as a difference of opinion.
Craven was one of the biggest disappointments during the debate. The constitutional academic had a long history of being astute about our Constitution and our High Court. In 1999, he wrote about our highest court under the title A Study in the Abuse of Power. The professor wrote: “The Court now has a long record of consciously ‘interpreting’ the Constitution in a manner contrary to the Founders, with a view to achieving this or that supposedly desirable social result … the court simply has begun a process of inventing appropriate rights, and purporting to ‘imply’ them into the Constitution.”
In 2012, writing in The Australian Financial Review, Craven wrote that “putting a whole new section into the Constitution to deal with Indigenous people, then packing it with abstract, legally binding value statements, displays the sort of political naivety usually encountered in the Mosman branch of the Young Greens. Once again, the slogan will be ‘Don’t Know – Vote No’.”
Back then, Craven predicted correctly that “legions of depressed Australians, entirely committed to reconciliation, yet not prepared to maul the Constitution to escape the lash of Professor Langton’s tongue” would vote no.
I miss that version of Craven – the genuine constitutional conservative. In recent years, Craven succumbed to unintellectual emotion and moralising every bit as unhelpful as the more radical activists. He treated thoughtful concerns about the voice with shrill contempt, never properly addressing them as a constitutional conservative should. Quips and comedy may help Craven get through his day but it was never going to carry the day for the voice.
If Craven was having heated disagreements with the Yes side, and I don’t doubt him, he didn’t bother telling us soon enough or fully enough. Only much later, when it became clearer that the Yes vote was probably going to fail, and he would be on the losing side, was Craven candid enough that there were problems with the proposal as drafted. The killer punch to Craven’s constitutional conservatism came when he threw caution to the wind and said he’d vote for the voice anyway because it was the moral thing to do.
Unlike Craven, Freeman has offered the one piece of post-referendum insight that helps us truly understand why such a bad proposal was put and why it was prosecuted with such fervour.
Freeman, a fellow Yes advocate, has the courage to identify the proposal as driven by a particularly radical form of identity politics. This consists not only of the belief that some groups in society have been oppressed and that political action is needed to correct that oppression but that “only the oppressed group can determine what political action is necessary to overcome the oppression they have experienced”. Now we understand why at least some of those who might have been sceptical about the voice proposal felt themselves unable to object to it.
One thing Craven said 30 years ago is worth repeating. He described constitutional academics as “pretty pointless people”.
**************************************************
My main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
/>
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