Federal Court Limits Portland Police Use of Tear Gas at Protests

From Judge Marco A. Hernandez’s decision in Don’t Shoot Portland v. City of Portland (D. Ore.), released Wednesday:

On May 29, 2020, citizens of Portland, Oregon, joined nationwide protests against the death of George Floyd and other acts of violence perpetrated by police officers against the African American community. While many demonstrations have remained peaceful, violence and destruction have occurred. Plaintiffs in this case challenge the Portland Police [Bureau’s] use of tear gas against protestors participating in these demonstrations.

The Court has reviewed the declarations and video evidence submitted by the parties. Defendant highlights the destruction that occurred on the first night of demonstrations, including a fire instigated by protestors inside the Justice Center [which houses the Multnomah County Detention Center]. Defendant also offers evidence of largely peaceful marches—without any police intervention—and of officers using tear gas in response to individuals shaking fences and throwing projectiles.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that, in some instances, officers deployed tear gas after individuals, within a larger crowd of peaceful protestors, threw water bottles and fireworks. {Defendant also asserts that officers have been targeted with other projectiles, including “bricks, full cans of soup, frozen water bottles, full water bottles, rocks, steel sling shot balls, fireworks, bottles, beer cans, flares and many other items.”} But they also offer evidence that, in certain incidents, officers fired cannisters of tear gas at protestors without warning or provocation both in front of the Justice Center and elsewhere in downtown Portland. Plaintiffs also recount multiple occasions in which crowds were surrounded by tear gas without available avenues of escape. Tear gas was also fired at protesters attempting to comply with officers’ orders to leave the areas at issue….

Before turning to the TRO analysis, there are four points worth addressing. First, as Judge Jackson noted in resolving a similar motion just days ago in the District of Colorado, people have a right to demonstrate and protest the actions of governmental officials, including police officers, without fear for their safety. This right is enshrined in the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.

Second, police in this country have difficult, dangerous, and often traumatic jobs. As the Supreme Court has recognized, officers are often “forced to make split-second judgments [ ] in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”

Third, this case arises in unprecedented times. COVID-19 is a highly contagious and deadly respiratory virus that has taken too many lives and upended communities throughout this country.

Finally, like Judge Jackson, the Court recognizes the difficulty in drawing an enforceable line that permits police officers to use appropriate means to respond to violence and destruction of property without crossing the line into chilling free speech and abusing those who wish to exercise it….

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Excessive force claims are analyzed under the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment. The reasonableness of an officer’s conduct must be assessed “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” recognizing the fact that the officer may be “forced to make split-second judgments” under stressful and dangerous conditions. The Fourth Amendment standard requires inquiry into the factual circumstances of every case. Relevant factors include the severity of the crime, the potential threat posed by the suspect to the officer’s and others’ safety, and the suspect’s attempts to resist or evade arrest.

Here, Plaintiffs provide video evidence and declarations documenting the use of tear gas against protestors. While Defendant points to the destruction that occurred at the Justice Center on May 29, 2020, Plaintiffs offer evidence that tear gas was used indiscriminately in other instances throughout the city. In some of these instances, there is no evidence of any provocation. In others, individuals appear to have shaken fences and thrown water bottles and fireworks at the police.

Either way, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs engaged only in peaceful and non-destructive protest. There is no record of criminal activity on the part of Plaintiffs. To the contrary, there is even evidence that some protesters were confronted with tear gas while trying to follow police orders and leave the demonstrations. Given the effects of tear gas, and the potential deadly harm posed by the spread of COVID-19, Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood that Defendant engaged in excessive force contrary to the Fourth Amendment….

The First Amendment provides that all citizens have a right to hold and express their personal political beliefs…. At this juncture, the parties’ sole dispute is whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that their protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in PPB’s conduct. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence demonstrating that officers indiscriminately used force against peaceful protestors on multiple occasions. On a few occasions, officers continued to fire tear gas canisters as people attempted to leave the protest area, effectively blocking their escape. One protestor was subjected to rubber bullets, tear gas, and a flash bang at close range as he was calmly walking towards the waterfront, trying to comply with officers’ orders. Another was confronted by a group of seven officers, who rolled tear gas down the street towards her even as she informed the officers she was trying to go home.

These incidents demonstrate that preventing criminal activity near the Justice Center was not the sole purpose of PPB’s use of force. Instead, officers may have been substantially motivated by an intent to interfere with Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected expression….

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a threat of immediate, irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their Fourth Amendment claim and at least a serious question as to whether they have been deprived of their First Amendment rights. There is a real and immediate threat that Plaintiffs will be deprived of these rights as protests continue….

The risk of irreparable harm is further heightened by the context in which these protests are occurring…. [T]he use of tear gas [during the coronavirus pandemic] may put protestors’ health at risk, contributing to the increased, widespread infection of this lethal virus….

In theory, limits on the use of tear gas may impede officers’ ability to protect themselves against potential violence from demonstrators. But any harm in limiting Defendant’s use of tear gas is outweighed by the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs—engaged in peaceful protest—are likely to endure….

The Court therefore orders that PPB be restricted from using tear gas or its equivalent except as provided by its own rules generally. In addition, tear gas use shall be limited to situations in which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk. This includes the lives and safety of those housed at the Justice Center. Tear gas shall not be used to disperse crowds where there is no or little risk of injury….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dYrTmY
via IFTTT

Federal Court Limits Portland Police Use of Tear Gas at Protests

From Judge Marco A. Hernandez’s decision in Don’t Shoot Portland v. City of Portland (D. Ore.), released Wednesday:

On May 29, 2020, citizens of Portland, Oregon, joined nationwide protests against the death of George Floyd and other acts of violence perpetrated by police officers against the African American community. While many demonstrations have remained peaceful, violence and destruction have occurred. Plaintiffs in this case challenge the Portland Police [Bureau’s] use of tear gas against protestors participating in these demonstrations.

The Court has reviewed the declarations and video evidence submitted by the parties. Defendant highlights the destruction that occurred on the first night of demonstrations, including a fire instigated by protestors inside the Justice Center [which houses the Multnomah County Detention Center]. Defendant also offers evidence of largely peaceful marches—without any police intervention—and of officers using tear gas in response to individuals shaking fences and throwing projectiles.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that, in some instances, officers deployed tear gas after individuals, within a larger crowd of peaceful protestors, threw water bottles and fireworks. {Defendant also asserts that officers have been targeted with other projectiles, including “bricks, full cans of soup, frozen water bottles, full water bottles, rocks, steel sling shot balls, fireworks, bottles, beer cans, flares and many other items.”} But they also offer evidence that, in certain incidents, officers fired cannisters of tear gas at protestors without warning or provocation both in front of the Justice Center and elsewhere in downtown Portland. Plaintiffs also recount multiple occasions in which crowds were surrounded by tear gas without available avenues of escape. Tear gas was also fired at protesters attempting to comply with officers’ orders to leave the areas at issue….

Before turning to the TRO analysis, there are four points worth addressing. First, as Judge Jackson noted in resolving a similar motion just days ago in the District of Colorado, people have a right to demonstrate and protest the actions of governmental officials, including police officers, without fear for their safety. This right is enshrined in the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.

Second, police in this country have difficult, dangerous, and often traumatic jobs. As the Supreme Court has recognized, officers are often “forced to make split-second judgments [ ] in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”

Third, this case arises in unprecedented times. COVID-19 is a highly contagious and deadly respiratory virus that has taken too many lives and upended communities throughout this country.

Finally, like Judge Jackson, the Court recognizes the difficulty in drawing an enforceable line that permits police officers to use appropriate means to respond to violence and destruction of property without crossing the line into chilling free speech and abusing those who wish to exercise it….

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Excessive force claims are analyzed under the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment. The reasonableness of an officer’s conduct must be assessed “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” recognizing the fact that the officer may be “forced to make split-second judgments” under stressful and dangerous conditions. The Fourth Amendment standard requires inquiry into the factual circumstances of every case. Relevant factors include the severity of the crime, the potential threat posed by the suspect to the officer’s and others’ safety, and the suspect’s attempts to resist or evade arrest.

Here, Plaintiffs provide video evidence and declarations documenting the use of tear gas against protestors. While Defendant points to the destruction that occurred at the Justice Center on May 29, 2020, Plaintiffs offer evidence that tear gas was used indiscriminately in other instances throughout the city. In some of these instances, there is no evidence of any provocation. In others, individuals appear to have shaken fences and thrown water bottles and fireworks at the police.

Either way, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs engaged only in peaceful and non-destructive protest. There is no record of criminal activity on the part of Plaintiffs. To the contrary, there is even evidence that some protesters were confronted with tear gas while trying to follow police orders and leave the demonstrations. Given the effects of tear gas, and the potential deadly harm posed by the spread of COVID-19, Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood that Defendant engaged in excessive force contrary to the Fourth Amendment….

The First Amendment provides that all citizens have a right to hold and express their personal political beliefs…. At this juncture, the parties’ sole dispute is whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that their protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in PPB’s conduct. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence demonstrating that officers indiscriminately used force against peaceful protestors on multiple occasions. On a few occasions, officers continued to fire tear gas canisters as people attempted to leave the protest area, effectively blocking their escape. One protestor was subjected to rubber bullets, tear gas, and a flash bang at close range as he was calmly walking towards the waterfront, trying to comply with officers’ orders. Another was confronted by a group of seven officers, who rolled tear gas down the street towards her even as she informed the officers she was trying to go home.

These incidents demonstrate that preventing criminal activity near the Justice Center was not the sole purpose of PPB’s use of force. Instead, officers may have been substantially motivated by an intent to interfere with Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected expression….

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a threat of immediate, irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their Fourth Amendment claim and at least a serious question as to whether they have been deprived of their First Amendment rights. There is a real and immediate threat that Plaintiffs will be deprived of these rights as protests continue….

The risk of irreparable harm is further heightened by the context in which these protests are occurring…. [T]he use of tear gas [during the coronavirus pandemic] may put protestors’ health at risk, contributing to the increased, widespread infection of this lethal virus….

In theory, limits on the use of tear gas may impede officers’ ability to protect themselves against potential violence from demonstrators. But any harm in limiting Defendant’s use of tear gas is outweighed by the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs—engaged in peaceful protest—are likely to endure….

The Court therefore orders that PPB be restricted from using tear gas or its equivalent except as provided by its own rules generally. In addition, tear gas use shall be limited to situations in which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk. This includes the lives and safety of those housed at the Justice Center. Tear gas shall not be used to disperse crowds where there is no or little risk of injury….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dYrTmY
via IFTTT

Cornell Law Prof Says There’s A “Coordinated Effort” To Have Him Fired After He Criticized Black Lives Matter

Cornell Law Prof Says There’s A “Coordinated Effort” To Have Him Fired After He Criticized Black Lives Matter

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 19:25

Recall, it was just days ago that we pointed out Cornell professor and friend of Zero Hedge Dave Collum was publicly shamed by Cornell for daring to express the “wrong” opinion about current events on social media. Now, there’s a second Cornell professor coming under fire for his critique of the Black Lives Matter movement. 

Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson has challenged any student or faculty member to a public debate about the Black Lives Matter movement after he says liberals on campus have launched a “coordinated effort” to have him fired from his job. At least 15 emails from alumni have been sent to the dean, demanding that action be taken, according to Fox News. 

“There is an effort underway to get me fired at Cornell Law School, where I’ve worked since November 2007, or if not fired, at least denounced publicly by the school,” Jacobson wrote on Thursday. “I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am racist.”

Jacobson founded the website Legal Insurrection and says he’s had an “awkward relationship” with the university for years as a result. The recent outrage comes as a result of two posts he recently made on his site:

“Those posts accurately detail the history of how the Black Lives Matters Movement started, and the agenda of the founders which is playing out in the cultural purge and rioting taking place now,” Jacobson said. 

Jacobson (Source: Jacobson’s Blog, Legal Insurrection)

He recently wrote on his blog: “Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce. For over 12 years, the Cornell cat did not pounce. Though there were frequent and aggressive attempts by outsiders to get me fired, including threats and harassment, it always came from off campus.”

“Not until now, to the best of my knowledge, has there been an effort from inside the Cornell community to get me fired,” he says.

“The effort appears coordinated, as some of the emails were in a template form. All of the emails as of Monday were from graduates within the past 10 years,” he continued. Jacobson’s “clinical faculty colleagues, apparently in consultation with the Black Law Students Association” drafted and published a letter denouncing ‘commentators, some of them attached to Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter.’”

Cornell responded, backhandedly defending the Professor’s right to his own opinion:

“…the Law School’s commitment to academic freedom does not constitute endorsement or approval of individual faculty speech. But to take disciplinary action against him for the views he has expressed would fatally pit our values against one another in ways that would corrode our ability to operate as an academic institution.”

“This is not just about me. It’s about the intellectual freedom and vibrancy of Cornell and other higher education institutions, and the society at large. Open inquiry and debate are core features of a vibrant intellectual community,” he stated.

“I challenge a representative of those student groups and a faculty member of their choosing to a public debate at the law school regarding the Black Lives Matter Movement, so that I can present my argument and confront the false allegations in real-time rather than having to respond to baseless community email blasts.”

“I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am racist, and I greatly resent any attempt to leverage meritless accusations in hopes of causing me reputational harm. While such efforts might succeed in scaring others in a similar position, I will not be intimidated,” Jacobson concluded.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2N62097 Tyler Durden

Virginia Senator Told Police To Stand Down Before Statue Collapse That Left Man In A Coma

Virginia Senator Told Police To Stand Down Before Statue Collapse That Left Man In A Coma

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 19:05

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Virginia Senator Louise Lucas told Portsmouth City police officers to stand down and urged Black Lives Matter protesters to “wreck” a statue that was later toppled and struck a man in the head, leaving him in a coma.

Shocking video footage of the incident shows one of the four bronze soldiers on the Confederate monument being torn down by an angry mob, only to immediately strike a man in the head, leaving his skull split open.

The victim was later named as BLM protester Chris Greene, who remains critically ill in a coma.

It has now emerged that Senator Louise Lucas was responsible for inciting the mob to target the statue.

A video clip shows Senator Lucas wearing a full face covering as she tells the crowd that the police cannot intervene because the monument is on city property.

“This is city property! I’m Louise Lucas! They cannot arrest them because the city owns this property, they been paying for that!” she says.

“Come July 1 they can take it down anyway. These police officers cannot arrest them for standing on city property, so I’m gonna stand right here and see what’s gonna happen.”

Lucas then reveals her face to police before continuing.

“This is city property and [Mayor] John Rowe knows it, [City Manager] Dr. Patton knows it. And if they’d have listened to the Vice Mayor and Shannon Glover when they introduced [removing] this [statue] thing to the City Council in the first place they could’ve put a tarp over this thing and all of this would’ve been resolved it wouldn’t even have been necessary. So if the city had done what they were supposed to do these citizens wouldn’t have to do it. So there you go!”

She then openly incites the mob to take down the statue, telling them, “Go ahead wreck it!”

Despite Portsmouth Vice Mayor Lisa Lucas-Burke telling the mob that the city council would be meeting to determine the statue’s fate, almost certainly resulting in its removal, Lucas escalated the situation, asserting, “But this is city property and anybody who pays taxes in this city got a right to be on their property. To hell with city council!”

“That’s alright, the city has had 3 years to cover it, y’all cover it!” she added.

The crowd then shouted “you heard her!” before the statue was targeted later that evening and Greene was left fighting for his life.

The council would have almost certainly decided to remove the statue anyway, but because the mob couldn’t wait a few weeks and wanted to carry out their ritualistic destruction of America’s heritage, a man is now on the verge of death.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2BW8Dbu Tyler Durden

Daily Briefing – June 12, 2020

Daily Briefing – June 12, 2020


Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 18:55

Real Vision CEO Raoul Pal and Real Vision managing editor Ed Harrison discuss today’s undulating recovery as global equities tried to regain ground lost in yesterday’s market rout. Raoul and Ed explore why today’s snapback wasn’t as strong as expected and Raoul places this discussion within the context of his “unfolding” thesis. In the intro Jack Farley discusses the VIX and a daring attempt by Hertz bondholders to take advantage of the moment.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UCtvLB Tyler Durden

COVID-19 Lockdowns Spark 41% Collapse In Black-Owned Businesses In America

COVID-19 Lockdowns Spark 41% Collapse In Black-Owned Businesses In America

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 18:45

Widespread lockdowns across the country shuttered many small businesses for months. Stores, factories, and many other companies closed due to government-enforced public health orders or because of a rapid shift in demand. A new report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) provides the first analysis of lockdown impacts on small businesses, makes a shocking discovery that African-American owned businesses plunged by 41%. 

NBER commissioned the new report titled “The Impact of Covid-19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current Population Survey” — shows active business owners in the US declined by 3.3 million or 22% from February to April because of “unprecedented” economic impacts of lockdowns. The decline in small business owners was the “largest on record,” and losses felt across all industries. 

The report said African-American businesses were hit the hardest, recorded a 41% decline of black owners from February to April. Next were Latino owners, fell 32%, and Asian business owners dropped by 26%. 

Immigrant business owners plummeted 36%, and female-owned businesses fell by 25%. These findings of early-stage losses to small businesses, so far, outlines how minority businesses were crushed during the lockdowns. 

“The negative early-stage impacts on minority- and immigrant-owned businesses, if prolonged, may be problematic for broader racial inequality because of the importance of minority businesses for local job creation,” said the report’s author, Robert Fairlie of the University of California at Santa Cruz Department of Economics.

In a separate report, we noted how the virus-induced economic downturn could result in at least 52% of small businesses closing up shop in the next six months. 

For readers, it’s essential to understand that nearly half of all US jobs originate from small businesses. This all suggests the quick economic recovery narrative pitched by the Trump administration and Wall Street is bullshit. ​​​​​​

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MWEwCU Tyler Durden

Former Steve Jobs Advisor Says Facebook Is “Destroying The Very Fabric Of Human Relationships”

Former Steve Jobs Advisor Says Facebook Is “Destroying The Very Fabric Of Human Relationships”

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 18:25

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A former advisor to Steve Jobs warns that Facebook is “destroying the very fabric of human relationships” by making its users become addicted to anger.

During a question and answer session at the 2020 CogX conference, Joanna Hoffman was asked about the cult of leadership within Silicon Valley.

“As I look at Facebook, for example, I keep thinking are they really that ignorant or is this motivated by something … darker than what appears?” she said.

Hoffman went on to accuse Facebook of “destroying the very fabric of democracy, destroying the very fabric of human relationships and peddling in an addictive drug called anger.”

“You know it’s just like tobacco, it’s no different than the opioids,” she added.

“We know anger is addictive, we know we can attract people to our platform and get engagement if we get them pissed off enough. So therefore what, we should capitalize on that each and every time?”

While Hoffman was talking about Facebook, much of the same charges could be made against Twitter.

Twitter has become a monstrous echo chamber of hysterical nonsense controlled by outrage mobs who abuse the platform to threaten criminal acts as well as intimidating, doxxing and attempting to ruin people’s lives for the sin of holding an alternate opinion.

Much criticism of social media is framed in the context of its “threat to democracy,” despite the fact that both Twitter and Facebook are more censorious than ever, with the overwhelming target being conservatives and anyone who offends woke jihadists.

In reality, the real damage being done by these platforms is to people’s mental health, to the cohesion of a functioning society, and to the concept of free speech itself.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3d11ljA Tyler Durden

Default By Mall-Owner CBL Sparks Another Manic-Bid By Robinhood Daytraders

Default By Mall-Owner CBL Sparks Another Manic-Bid By Robinhood Daytraders

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 18:05

As we have previously noted, a bearish trade emerged on Wall Street several years ago and received the moniker “The Next Big Short.” The trade was simple: short shopping malls by going long default risk via CMBX 6 (BBB- or BB) or otherwise shorting the CMBS complex. As we describe below, the first major US shopping mall operator could be on the brink of bankruptcy as it would suggest the commercial real estate bust is underway. 

Mall operator CBL & Associates fired a warning shot on June 5 that said tenants across 108 of its properties paid just 27% of April’s rent. Many retailers skipped out on rent payments during the COVID-19 lockdowns, forcing CBL to default on a secured credit line, significantly raising bankruptcy risk. 

The Chattanooga, Tennessee-based commercial real estate company, owns 108 properties in the Northeast, Southeast, and Rust Belt, breached a covenant on its $1.185 billion credit facility after recently over-drawing on the credit line, which is backed by 17 malls and three other commercial properties.

CBL properties 

Administrators at the credit facility notified CBL about default but have yet to expedite maturity on the debt. CBL has said that it is seeking a waiver. 

The mall operator also skipped an $11.8 million interest payment due on its 2023 unsecured bonds on June 1, though it has chosen to use the one month grace period. 

If CBL files for bankruptcy, it could unnerve commercial real estate investors by suggesting a bankruptcy wave of mall operators has begun. 

According to the International Financing Review (IFR), CBL mall properties have been chopped up and packaged into CMBSs. At least $1.7 billion in CMBS exposure across 24 loans of the mall operator, with $937 million of these loans with special servicers and two loans in foreclosure.

About half of CBL’s CMBS loans are tracked via CMBX indexes, with the series 6 having the most significant exposure at $447 million. 

“Given the severity of the COVID downturn, coupled with its high levels of indebtedness, CBL may face difficulty in meeting its debt obligations,” a Wells Fargo report said this week. 

If CBL were to file for bankruptcy, it would be the first mall operator during the pandemic. Coresight Research warned that 25,000 retail stores could close in 2020, something that would undoubtedly lead to other mall operators coming under severe financial distress. 

With CBL on the brink of bankruptcy, Robinhood traders have been piling into the stock since March. Accounts holding CBL stock nearly doubled in the last three months, from 8,100 holders (mid-March) to 15,300 (June 12). 

CBL should take note of what’s happening with the Hertz bankruptcy, issue a bunch of stock and drain the equity, along with all the Robinhood daytraders in it.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37wkysj Tyler Durden

“Let’s Pretend It Never Existed” – Virtue-Signaling In America Reaches Unprecedented Heights

“Let’s Pretend It Never Existed” – Virtue-Signaling In America Reaches Unprecedented Heights

Tyler Durden

Fri, 06/12/2020 – 17:45

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Virtue signaling in the US of A has already reached new heights, and there’s little reason to believe it won’t reach even much higher as we happily signal along. In the process, we will find that applying logic to the undertaking will take us to unanticipated, and highly undesirable (for most protesters), places. But by then a lot of damage, whether we think that’s a good thing or not, will have been done.

HBO opened a Pandora’s Box all of its own when it pulled Gone With the Wind, despite that fact that Hattie McDaniel was the first black American Oscar nominee AND winner. Let’s erase that too. Along with ALL other films that depict slavery in the “wrong” light, or, better yet, that depict slavery at all.

Let’s ban all links to slavery, let’s pretend it never existed, because if we don’t we will find it’s impossible to decide between what we do and do not want to last. Not all people have the same preferences or opinions, and neither do all black people.

And while we’re talking movies, and Columbus statues are toppled across the nation because Christopher (before there were any “Americans”) treated indigenous Americans poorly, do let’s ban all Hollywood westerns in which “Indians” are depicted as cannon fodder. No more John Wayne for you. Gone even the few non-westerns Wayne appeared in, because his name and face are forever linked to killing “Indians”. No more Duke.

And why stop there? Just to name an example, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, arguably a great book and a good movie, depicts a white man “being compassionate” to a black man oppressed by other white men. Can’t have that, the oppression is obviously racist and so is the good(!) white(!) man who’s the protagonist of the story, written by a white woman(!).

Let’s leaf through all American and other world literature of the past half millennium that describes slavery, including that which talks about “good white” men. There are no good white men!

Anything to do with native Americans must go. Because they were badly treated throughout the 500 years of history they share with white people (Europeans). They still are, just like African Americans. Same difference. Phillis Wheatley, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison? Don’t think so. They were all talking about slavery. And we’re toppling statues in order to stop that talk.

Frederick Douglass? You got to be kidding. His autobiography is called “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave“. Isn’t that enough to topple him? James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, they all remind us of a period we don’t want to be reminded of anymore. It’s enough! No more slavery!

Martin Luther King? Get serious, he talks about nothing but oppression. He even claims black people in his lifetime were still slaves. Muhammad Ali is obviously not welcome anymore, he spoke just about exclusively from the viewpoint of an oppressed man.

Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States of America. George Washington was a slaveholder, he’s obviously out. D.C. stands for District of Columbia, named after Columbus, so that needs a new name. The country gets its name from a Columbus contemporary and fellow explorer who was a slave holder and treated indigenous populations of the countries he “visited” no better than Columbus did. Wikipedia:

Amerigo Vespucci wrote his will in April 1511. He left most of his modest estate, including five household slaves, to his wife.

[..] After Hispaniola they made a brief slave raid in the Bahamas, capturing 232 natives and then returned to Spain.

There once was a time when Washington, D.C. was the capital of the United States of America. But those days must soon be gone. How can you hold on to a name for your capital city that belongs to a man who was a brazen slave holder? Or the district the capital is in? And how can you breathe in a country named after a despicable Italian slaveholder and slave trader?

The US constitution was largely written by slave holders. We’re going to need a new one.

There are 1747 “symbols of the Confederacy” in the US. I’m guessing Pelosi, once those 11 statues at the Capitol have been toppled, will start work on getting rid of the other 1736 too. And mind you, this doesn’t yet include Columbus, Vespucci, or anyone else who’s “mistreated”, enslaved, murdered, native Americans. We will easily have twice the 1747 number once we include those.

For that matter, if you’re Nancy Pelosi, how and why do you dress up in the “kente cloth” fabrics that originate with the Asanthi people that ruled in present-day Ghana from mid-1600s to mid-1900s, and were themselves … slaveholders and slave traders? Who sold god knows how many African slaves to European slave traders? How can you dress up in the garb of slave traders to protest the mistreatment of the grandchildren of slaves? Short circuit? Temporary?

For all the protesters other than Pelosi, who herself obviously joined in only for political reasons, here’s a question: Do you oppose slavery, or only slavery on US soil? Because, you know, the Romans had slaves, many African tribes had slaves, present day Chinese people did. Australia? Slave country if I ever saw one. The deeper you dig into history, the more you will find. I don’t want to bore you with an extensive list, because it would be too extensive.

Or maybe a second question, though it has mostly already been answered: Is this protest only about slavery, or about the oppression of people(s) in general? It’s already been answered in toppling the Columbus statues, since Christopher was not a slavetrader as far as we know, so, see above, we’re talking about both “indians” and “negroes”.

I use both derogatory terms on purpose, precisely because they paint the picture of what things used to be like. That they are no longer tolerated tells a story all by itself. And yes, much more is needed, but can that be achieved by toppling statues and banning books and movies? Is that how those two terms were banned?

We cannot escape our past and probably that’s the reason we shouldn’t try. What we need to do, what our role in the story is, is to not follow in the “footsteps of wrong”, and to do better. Do we have a better chance at doing better and escaping “wrong” if and when we ban all symbols of it, so we can no longer see it?

Or is our best chance to let all these things last so we can point at them to say: that is wrong!? If all the statues and books and movies are gone, how will our children know?

And I haven’t even mentioned the music yet, the unique melting pot of European melodies and African beats that gave the world blues and jazz and rock, all born from the plantation life that so many stories depict, and the music itself, growing under the statuesque eyes of the likes of Jefferson Davis or George Washington.

Maybe if you like your blues and jazz and rock and rap, you should call for the statues and books to remain standing, because without the narratives they bear witness to, there would be no blues, or anything that came after. Maybe you should celebrate your ancestors’ genius that gave America (or whatever you wind up calling it soon) its music, which, accidentally, has conquered all the countries of all the slavetraders of the past.

Maybe the music, the books, represent your ancestors’ victory over their oppressors, and maybe you risk tainting that hard-fought victory by trying to erase the memories of those they fought against to attain it.

And no, you can’t just pick the books and statues and music you would like and dump everything else. It doesn’t work that way. Your neighbor might have slightly different criteria and pick other favorites, and so on.

You can’t say we’ll hold on to Toni Morrison and throw out Harper Lee, you can’t dump Gone With the Wind but keep Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, because each of these are part of the exact same story.

It’s a package deal, called history. And you’re not going to get the best end of that deal by pretending history doesn’t exist.

*  *  *

We run the Automatic Earth on people’s kind donations. Since their revenue has collapsed, ads no longer pay for all you read, and your support is now an integral part of the deal.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3cTYCZb Tyler Durden

Oregon Sup. Ct.: “The Circuit Court Erred in Concluding That the Governor’s [Coronavirus] Executive Orders Violated a Statutory Time Limit”

An interesting and important decision, though one based on state law and thus not much applicable outside Oregon. The case was brought by a church to challenge the orders’ restrictions on religious services, but the court didn’t reach that question:

[P]laintiffs did not assert a stand-alone free-exercise claim that the Governor’s orders were invalid because they violate constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Moreover, plaintiffs did not base their preliminary injunction request on such a theory, as evidenced by the breadth of their request. And such a theory would not justify the preliminary injunction that the circuit court issued, which applies to all the Governor’s coronavirus orders. It is not limited to those that, for example, limit the size of gatherings or close schools. Accordingly, we do not address that theory….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fer5uc
via IFTTT