Category: reason

Canada’s Freedom Convoy Embodies Fatigue with Pandemic Authoritarianism


polspphotos892126

Canada appears to be governed as you would expect of Wisconsin if California’s snotty political class were exiled to Madison. This puts generally nice, compliant people under the rule of an especially self-regarding and contemptuous gang. But some Canadians have been driven to revolt against that ruling class’s pandemic policies in the form of the trucker-led Freedom Convoy. So powerful are the shock waves of this unprecedented uprising that they crossed the border and flipped the positions Americans of the left and right take on the legitimacy of political protest and suppression of the same. More importantly, the movement cautions the political class everywhere against pushing people too far.

As the Freedom Convoy arrived to fill the streets of Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau focused, as politicians often do, on those few protesters who inevitably engage in bad behavior.

“We won’t give in to those who fly racist flags. We won’t cave to those who engage in vandalism….There is no place in our country for threats, violence or hatred,” Trudeau huffed.

Others tried to wave away the sentiments of convoy participants.

“To the extent that the convoy is anti-vax and anti-science, it is on the margins of Canadian society,” Professor Andrew McDougall, assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, told The New York Times. “It is not the beginning of a movement but the most extreme manifestation we have seen of frustration about pandemic restrictions.”

But “to the extent” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. People who actually talked to protesters found a range of opinions, not especially hateful, and all related to fatigue with intrusive pandemic policies.

“I have spoken to close to 100 protesters, truckers and other folks, and not one of them sounded like an insurrectionist, white supremacist, racist or misogynist,” Ottawa-based Rupa Subramanya wrote February 10 for Bari Weiss’s Common Sense. “Ostensibly, the truckers are against a new rule mandating that, when they re-enter Canada from the United States, they have to be vaccinated. But that’s not really it.…so it’s about something else. Or many things: a sense that things will never go back to normal, a sense that they are being ganged up on by the government, the media, Big Tech, Big Pharma.”

That “sense that they are being ganged up on” has a credible basis. While Canada’s pandemic response varies at the provincial level just as most of the American response is determined by states, Canada has generally been more restrictive than its neighbor. You’ll hear that those policies are relatively popular, and polls say they are—except among those who hate them.

“Canada’s citizens feel that they have little control over their lives, a sentiment that has been compounded by pandemic-related restrictions on individual freedoms,” The Economist‘s new Democracy Index 2021 reports. According to data collected in October 2020, “a mere 10.4% of Canadians felt that they had ‘a great deal’ of freedom of choice and control.”

Canada scores more highly on the index than the U.S. but is falling more sharply (globally, democracy and liberty are in decline). That is bound to spark reaction among those who favor free choice. This may help explain why generally peaceful Canada birthed the rebellious Freedom Convoy. 

The more protest-prone United States likely avoided this scenario by not just decentralizing but often ignoring rulemaking. The split may best be captured by the media’s constant contrast between locked-down New York and wide-open Florida. Even in restrictive states, many local officials refused to enforce curfews, mask orders, and business closures. Within or in defiance of the law, local policies in-line with local sentiment mean fewer pissed-off people. If the U.S. had widely imposed national mandates, politicians in Washington, D.C., would probably now be wishing the pushback had stopped at traffic jams and honking.

That’s not to say the Freedom Convoy hasn’t had an impact south of the border. It effectively flipped the positions prominent Americans take on political demonstrations. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who denounced Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality that sometimes degenerated into violence as “organized terror attacks,” has embraced the Freedom Convoy. In contrast, former Obama administration official and current Harvard professor and CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem, who supported the Black Lives Matter protests, channeled her inner Tom Cotton when protesters barricaded Detroit’s Ambassador Bridge, which carries over a quarter of commerce between Canada and the U.S. “Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks,” she snarled in a tweet that she later walked back.

That’s a bit unfair, since Canada already has its own Tom Cotton in the form of David Pratt, minister of defense under former Prime Minister Paul Martin. “When there is no one else to turn to, the military are there as a disciplined, well-trained and professional body to take orders under strict rules of engagement and get a job done,” he wrote last week in the pages of The Globe and Mail. “The Ottawa occupation should be treated as a national emergency.”

That longing for troops in the streets reeks of panic for good reason. While Canadian authorities have cleared the blockade on Ambassador Bridge, efforts to chase protesters and their street-jamming trucks from Ottawa have been less successful, and the convoy wins wide sympathy among people on whom the government relies.

“The tow trucks operators on contract to the City of Ottawa are taking a hard pass on requests to haul vehicles out of protest areas, according to the city’s top public servant,” CBC reported last week.

Meanwhile, more protesters are flooding into Ottawa. Not coincidentally, officials in Alberta, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan blinked, announcing an end to most restrictions.

“The population is fed up. I’m fed up. We’re all fed up,” Quebec Premier François Legault acknowledged.

And now Freedom Convoy-inspired protests have spread to France, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security even latched on to the protest as a justification for its ongoing fretting about domestic dissent.

“Two years after the world first heard about covid-19, the coronavirus pandemic has led to a huge extension of state power over people’s lives and the erosion of individual freedoms,” the Democracy Index 2021 observes about conditions around the world. That loss of liberty inspired waves of popular but disconnected protests in country after country among people seeking the return of liberal norms and respect for their personal choices. Now, improbably, those protests may be coming together under a maple leaf and a #HonkHonk hashtag.

The post Canada's Freedom Convoy Embodies Fatigue with Pandemic Authoritarianism appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/dWslJiU
via IFTTT

When Is Drinking Ayahuasca a Religious Experience?


topicsreligion

Inside the vast apparatus of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), there’s a bureaucrat who is tasked with investigating the tenets of psychedelic churches. That improbable job figures in the legal troubles encountered by Arizona’s Vine of Light Church.

That group used to sponsor monthly meetings at which paying guests drank ayahuasca, a powerful psychoactive brew that originated in South America. Those gatherings ended in May 2019, when a federal drug task force raided the Phoenix home of Clay Villanueva, the church’s pastor.

The task force says it seized dozens of pounds of ayahuasca, along with psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana. But Villanueva was not arrested until 18 months later, under a Maricopa County warrant that neither he nor his attorney knew existed. He now stands accused of running an illegal drug enterprise.

The raid happened 12 days after a group Villanueva co-founded, the North American Association of Visionary Churches (NAAVC), sued the DEA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). As interpreted by the Supreme Court, that 1993 law allows qualified religious groups to import and possess ayahuasca, which contains dimethyltryptamine, a Schedule I controlled substance. But the groups have to petition the DEA for an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act, which requires proving that their ayahuasca use is part of a sincere religious practice, not just a weekend retreat for psychedelic tourists.

The NAAVC argues that the DEA is retaliating against groups that file RFRA petitions. It also says the permit process is illegal under a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that said RFRA requires the government to examine religious freedom claims and, absent a compelling government interest, grant exceptions for the use of otherwise illegal drugs.

If you wanted to highlight the absurdity of the drug war, it would be hard to find a better example than charging federal narcs with parsing the religious beliefs of groups like the Vine of Light Church. It should not matter whether would-be ayahuasca drinkers sincerely believe in shamanism or simply believe they will derive mental health benefits from the experience. Vine of Light attendees included combat veterans and domestic violence victims for whom the ritual brought tangible relief from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The raid and Villaneuva’s arrest “wrecked a lot of things and hurt a lot of people,” a former congregant told the Phoenix New Times. “Clay was really doing something good for the world.” Can the same be said of the government busybodies who are determined to make sure that ayahuasca users are bound by dogma?

The post When Is Drinking Ayahuasca a Religious Experience? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/t0cZIFJ
via IFTTT

When Is Drinking Ayahuasca a Religious Experience?


topicsreligion

Inside the vast apparatus of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), there’s a bureaucrat who is tasked with investigating the tenets of psychedelic churches. That improbable job figures in the legal troubles encountered by Arizona’s Vine of Light Church.

That group used to sponsor monthly meetings at which paying guests drank ayahuasca, a powerful psychoactive brew that originated in South America. Those gatherings ended in May 2019, when a federal drug task force raided the Phoenix home of Clay Villanueva, the church’s pastor.

The task force says it seized dozens of pounds of ayahuasca, along with psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana. But Villanueva was not arrested until 18 months later, under a Maricopa County warrant that neither he nor his attorney knew existed. He now stands accused of running an illegal drug enterprise.

The raid happened 12 days after a group Villanueva co-founded, the North American Association of Visionary Churches (NAAVC), sued the DEA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). As interpreted by the Supreme Court, that 1993 law allows qualified religious groups to import and possess ayahuasca, which contains dimethyltryptamine, a Schedule I controlled substance. But the groups have to petition the DEA for an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act, which requires proving that their ayahuasca use is part of a sincere religious practice, not just a weekend retreat for psychedelic tourists.

The NAAVC argues that the DEA is retaliating against groups that file RFRA petitions. It also says the permit process is illegal under a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that said RFRA requires the government to examine religious freedom claims and, absent a compelling government interest, grant exceptions for the use of otherwise illegal drugs.

If you wanted to highlight the absurdity of the drug war, it would be hard to find a better example than charging federal narcs with parsing the religious beliefs of groups like the Vine of Light Church. It should not matter whether would-be ayahuasca drinkers sincerely believe in shamanism or simply believe they will derive mental health benefits from the experience. Vine of Light attendees included combat veterans and domestic violence victims for whom the ritual brought tangible relief from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The raid and Villaneuva’s arrest “wrecked a lot of things and hurt a lot of people,” a former congregant told the Phoenix New Times. “Clay was really doing something good for the world.” Can the same be said of the government busybodies who are determined to make sure that ayahuasca users are bound by dogma?

The post When Is Drinking Ayahuasca a Religious Experience? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/t0cZIFJ
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Memphis Blues


k9_1161x653

Kyle Maxwell has sued the city of Memphis and several police officers, claiming he was bitten by a police dog and tackled by officers who mistook him for a burglar. According to the lawsuit, Maxwell was staying in an apartment on the north end of First Congregational Church. Some parishioners saw a burglary in progress in the food pantry on the south end of the church’s security camera and called police. Before cops arrived, the parishioners called again to report the burglars had left. But when police arrived they started investigating the north end of the church complex where they confronted Maxwell. The police department declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

The post Brickbat: Memphis Blues appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/iBTa8Or
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Memphis Blues


k9_1161x653

Kyle Maxwell has sued the city of Memphis and several police officers, claiming he was bitten by a police dog and tackled by officers who mistook him for a burglar. According to the lawsuit, Maxwell was staying in an apartment on the north end of First Congregational Church. Some parishioners saw a burglary in progress in the food pantry on the south end of the church’s security camera and called police. Before cops arrived, the parishioners called again to report the burglars had left. But when police arrived they started investigating the north end of the church complex where they confronted Maxwell. The police department declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

The post Brickbat: Memphis Blues appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/iBTa8Or
via IFTTT

Why Efforts to Throw Rep Cawthorn Off the Ballot Are Likely Unconstitutional

Some folks have argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars those who supported the January 6 assault on the Capitol or other efforts to overturn the 2020 election results from running for public office. Democratic party lawyer Marc Elias, for instance, has suggested that Section 3 should bar some Republican members of Congress from running for reelection,  Some voters in North Carolina have even filed a complaint to keep Rep. Madison Cawthorn off the ballot.

North Carolina voters may have good reasons to not want Rep. Cawthorn as one of their representatives in Congress. (I sure wouldn’t.) Yet the effort to force him off the ballot is ill-advised and, as Professor Derek Muller explains in the Wall Street Journal, likely unconstitutional.

From Prof. Muller’s piece:

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow states to invent qualifications for serving in Congress and exclude candidates from the ballot for failing to meet them. Yet that is precisely what the North Carolina State Board of Elections is trying to do to Rep. Madison Cawthorn. . . .

It would be unconstitutional if the [North Crolina state election] board attempted to take Mr. Cawthorn off the ballot. In 1995 the Supreme Court held in U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton that a term-limits amendment in Arkansas couldn’t apply to congressional candidates. The qualifications enumerated in the Constitution, the court explained, are “fixed and exclusive.” When a state tries to enforce an existing constitutional qualification, it may believe it is acting appropriately, but when it does so months ahead of Election Day, it often adds a qualification that the Constitution forbids. . . .

Even if Mr. Cawthorn were an “insurrectionist”—a matter of legal and factual debate—it wouldn’t be a permanent bar to holding office. The Constitution provides that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” We don’t know whether Congress will decide before Election Day to bar from the House all who were involved in the events of Jan. 6 riot, but the Constitution is clear: The decision isn’t North Carolina’s to make.

States can’t review a candidate’s qualifications because the Constitution reserves that power to Congress itself. If voters elect a rascal who is constitutionally ineligible to serve, the people’s representatives must decide whether or not to throw him out of the House.

For more from Prof. Muller on why lawsuits and other efforts to keep “insurrectionists” off the ballot are likely unconstitutional, see here.

The post Why Efforts to Throw Rep Cawthorn Off the Ballot Are Likely Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ECiTMG1
via IFTTT

Why Efforts to Throw Rep Cawthorn Off the Ballot Are Likely Unconstitutional

Some folks have argued that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars those who supported the January 6 assault on the Capitol or other efforts to overturn the 2020 election results from running for public office. Democratic party lawyer Marc Elias, for instance, has suggested that Section 3 should bar some Republican members of Congress from running for reelection,  Some voters in North Carolina have even filed a complaint to keep Rep. Madison Cawthorn off the ballot.

North Carolina voters may have good reasons to not want Rep. Cawthorn as one of their representatives in Congress. (I sure wouldn’t.) Yet the effort to force him off the ballot is ill-advised and, as Professor Derek Muller explains in the Wall Street Journal, likely unconstitutional.

From Prof. Muller’s piece:

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow states to invent qualifications for serving in Congress and exclude candidates from the ballot for failing to meet them. Yet that is precisely what the North Carolina State Board of Elections is trying to do to Rep. Madison Cawthorn. . . .

It would be unconstitutional if the [North Crolina state election] board attempted to take Mr. Cawthorn off the ballot. In 1995 the Supreme Court held in U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton that a term-limits amendment in Arkansas couldn’t apply to congressional candidates. The qualifications enumerated in the Constitution, the court explained, are “fixed and exclusive.” When a state tries to enforce an existing constitutional qualification, it may believe it is acting appropriately, but when it does so months ahead of Election Day, it often adds a qualification that the Constitution forbids. . . .

Even if Mr. Cawthorn were an “insurrectionist”—a matter of legal and factual debate—it wouldn’t be a permanent bar to holding office. The Constitution provides that “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” We don’t know whether Congress will decide before Election Day to bar from the House all who were involved in the events of Jan. 6 riot, but the Constitution is clear: The decision isn’t North Carolina’s to make.

States can’t review a candidate’s qualifications because the Constitution reserves that power to Congress itself. If voters elect a rascal who is constitutionally ineligible to serve, the people’s representatives must decide whether or not to throw him out of the House.

For more from Prof. Muller on why lawsuits and other efforts to keep “insurrectionists” off the ballot are likely unconstitutional, see here.

The post Why Efforts to Throw Rep Cawthorn Off the Ballot Are Likely Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ECiTMG1
via IFTTT

Someone Placed a Record-Setting Super Bowl Bet From His Phone


iconphotossix025035

An estimated 31.4 million people will place a bet on the Super Bowl. Most of them won’t drive two hours just to place that bet. And most of them won’t lay down bets totaling $9.5 million.

That’s how much mattress mogul Jim McIngvale bet on the Cincinnati Bengals to win the Super Bowl. If they pull it off as the underdogs, he’ll get a profit of $16.15 million. McIngvale started with a bet of $4.5 million with Caesars Sportsbook, which said it was the largest bet to ever be placed from the convenience of a mobile phone. When he placed another $5 million bet on the Bengals, Caesars said it was the largest legal wager in U.S. history, beating out a $4.9 million bet on the heavily favored St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI (they lost to a young upstart quarterback named Tom Brady).

McIngvale is fortunate he didn’t have to go all the way to Las Vegas to place the bet, as he would have had to do before 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. But the Supreme Court didn’t legalize sports betting nationwide, it simply said Congress couldn’t ban states from legalizing it.

That’s why McIngvale still had to drive two hours from Houston to cross the Louisiana border. Despite its reputation as a do-as-you-please, leave-us-alone state, Texans have not been allowed to gamble as they please and any sportsbooks or casino operators trying to enter the state will not be left alone.

In Louisiana, legal sports betting on mobile devices finally launched in the last few weeks. Before then, McIngvale would have probably just gotten on a plane to Las Vegas (where he still would have had to register in person at a casino before placing a bet on his phone), because the alternatives were driving to a Mississippi casino or driving over the Tennessee border if he still wanted to place the record-setting mobile bet.

Nationwide, PlayUSA (a sports betting news and analysis website) estimates that $1 billion will be wagered legally on the Super Bowl. But that’s only a fraction of the $7.6 billion that the American Gaming Association estimates will be wagered legally and illegally (though the vast difference may come from different methodologies). Less than half of the U.S. population lives in states with convenient mobile sports betting offered by multiple providers.

Texas doesn’t have legalized sports betting, but clearly that doesn’t mean people won’t find a way to bet. In addition to casual bets between friends, dedicated bettors can try to find an illegal bookie or place a bet with an offshore sportsbook. They can also follow McIngvale’s lead and simply travel to a state with legalized betting.

Or maybe Texas should just let Texans do as they please and let sportsbooks start operating in person and online.

The post Someone Placed a Record-Setting Super Bowl Bet From His Phone appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/pgjSt67
via IFTTT