Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel? Part II

Here are some highlights of the proposed changes.  1.  Appointment of justices.  Currently, there is a selection committee made up of 9 people.  Three are High Court justices, two are members of the bar, two are Knesset members and two are ministers.  For lower court judges, only a majority vote is required.  For High Court justices, an affirmative vote of 7 of the 9 is required.  Given that the High Court justices tend to be left wing, they alone can prevent a conservative government from being able to get their choices appointed to the High Court.

The proposed change is for a committee of 11 members, consisting of the Minister of Justice, 2 other ministers appointed by the government in power, the chair of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, the chair of the Knesset State Control Committee, the chair of the Knesset Committee, the President of the Supreme Court, 2 other judges from the High Court and 2 public representatives chosen by the Minister of Justice, with at least one being an attorney.  

Seven votes would be needed to select a justice to the High Court.  With the government being able to select 8 of the committee members, the 3 left wing justices would not be able to block a conservative government from appointing conservative judges to the High Court.  And therein lies the rub.  The overwhelming majority of those protesting are no doubt leftists.  They are disturbed that elected officials (members of the Knesset) will be able to appoint justices.  That is supposed to be the end of democracy in Israel.  If they're interested, elected officials in the US are the ones who appoint and approve federal judges, including for the Supreme Court.  And the Left here acted as if it was the end of democracy when the Republican Trump was able to nominate 3 justices to SCOTUS.  That is why they came up with all kinds of allegations against the Trump nominees.  

2.  Judicial Review.  Ever since the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established for itself the right of judicial review - the right to declare statutes and administrative actions to be unconstitutional.  The Constitution did not expressly afford that right to the Supreme Court.  There was a similar case in Israel giving their High Court the same right of judicial review.  The current proposal would not allow the High Court to declare any of Israel's Basic Laws to be invalid.  

That makes sense to me.  It would be as if the Supreme Court here could declare a constitutional provision to be invalid.  However, the proposed change does go one step further.  If the Knesset passes a law that might be contrary to a Basic Law, it would require a full quorum of the High Court (not just a panel) to consider the validity of such a statute.  And it could only be declared invalid with a vote of 80% of the court.  I can see why people might object to that provision.

3.The end of the "unreasonableness" standard.  The High Court justices have taken it upon themselves to declare certain government actions to be "unreasonable" and therefore invalid.  They can do that if they believe the government has failed to consider fundamental values and human rights.  That is far too broad a standard.  It essentially allows the High Court to weigh the wisdom of government actions.  The people elect members of the Knesset, and those elected officials decide what is good for the country.  Absent a clear violation of the Basic Laws, the courts should not be making those decisions.  (Yes, there are exceptions in the US, especially where certain government actions do not meet the "strict scrutiny" standard as applied to discrimination.  However, the "unreasonableness" standard is simply too broad.)

4.  The override provision.  Arguably, this is the most controversial of all the proposals.  Just as SCOTUS interprets our Constitution, the High Court in Israel interprets their Basic Laws.  The proposed change would allow the Knesset to reject the court's interpretation, and also to allow the Knesset to overturn a High Court decision declaring a law invalid.  The procedure is somewhat complicated.  In certain instances, the Knesset may override the court decision by a majority vote (61 members).  In other instances an override could only occur if 2 Knessets agree on the override.  

In other words, just as we are now in the 118th Congress, which is for two years, there would have to be an intervening election, with a new Knesset, also agreeing on the override.  

(Most of the information above from an analysis on Wikipedia.)

Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel? Part I

Some of you may have been following the street protests in Israel over the Netanyahu government's proposed reforms to their judicial system.  People have been out in the streets in the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands.  Before doing my research on this issue, I admittedly had a viewpoint.  First, the Israeli High Court has a reputation for being one of the most leftwing in the Western world.  Second, who is doing the objecting?  It is overwhelmingly the Left - in Israel, in the Biden Administration and in other Western countries, our mainstream media and Leftwing Jewish organizations in the USA.  Why?  Because the conservatives are in control of the government.  Sound familiar? 

Third, as I have said before, the Left is the same everywhere.  They use the same language.  When Donald Trump was able to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court, the Left went crazy.  Because of the "threat to democracy," the system needed to be changed according to many on the Left.  Term limits for the justices.  Increasing the size of the Court so that Biden could appoint a sufficient number of new justices to restore control of the Court to the Left.  The Left believes they should have the sole right to control the Courts.   

Some background.  Israel does not have a formal written constitution.  It has a series of "Basic Laws" that form the equivalent of their constitution.  These laws cover everything from the organization and powers of the government, to individual human rights.  

There are Basic Laws describing the function of the Knesset, Israel's parliament; as well as describing the role of the president.  (In the US, the president is both the head of the executive branch and the head of state.  In Israel, the prime minister is the head of the government and the president is the head of state.)  

The Basic Laws give the government the power to print currency, make payments and establish a comptroller.  The Israeli Defense Forces are deemed to be the sole legitimate military force for the country, and is under civilian control.  (Without getting into the details, during the British control of Mandatory Palestine, there were various Jewish militia groups fighting to protect the Jewish people of Palestine.  During the war for independence, P.M. Ben Gurion ordered an attack against a ship controlled by the Irgun, one of those militia groups.  Therefore, designating the IDF as the sole legitimate military force was of some significance.) 

The Basic Laws also declared Jerusalem to be the capital city of Israel, and gave all religions rights.  The Basic Laws also affirmed everyone's right to pursue the occupation of their choice.  Certain human rights were also enunciated, including the rights to travel, to speech, and to be free from unlawful searches.  

The judiciary was also established, including procedures for appointing judges.  

The most controversial Basic Law was a relatively recent one from 2018.  Of course, the protests came from the Left and their allies in the Western world.  This Basic Law declared Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people.  (People who protested were apparently not offended by the 56 Muslim countries, at least 26 of which have Islam as their official religion.)  This 2018 Basic Law made Hebrew the official language of Israel.  However, Arabic has a special status, and is on all currency along with Hebrew.  (Who believes a future Palestinian state would put Hebrew on their currency?)  Finally, this Basic Law established the official national holidays and national symbols. 

Antisemitism Continues Its Rise

Recently, the Chicago PD warned that some neo-Nazi groups were planning a "Day of Hate" for Saturday, February 25, Saturday being the Jewish Sabbath.  CPD explained that the threat was a nationwide threat, with the goal of targeting Jewish institutions.  This was no idle threat.  The local channel 4 news in L.A. reported a few months ago that religious hate crimes were up 29%, with 74% of the attacks targeting Jews.  

And, very recently on two consecutive days, February 15 and 16, two Jewish men were shot after leaving two different synagogues in the Pico-Robertson area of West L.A.  That area has a large Jewish population.  The L.A. Times reported that the alleged shooter had been a dental student, who, in 2022, sent threatening, antisemitic messages to a fellow student.  One message said:  "I want you dead, Jew."  The Times said that the alleged shooter had been on the FBI's "radar" prior to the shootings, for all the good that did.  Thankfully, the two victims survived their attacks.  

On Friday, a friend who also reads the blog, sent me a link to an article by Resume Builder.  The article reported that 26% of hiring managers "say they are less likely to move forward with Jewish applicants."  The main reason given was that Jews have too much power and control, tied with the idea that Jews claim to be the chosen people.  (This idea of being the chosen people has nothing to do with thinking that Jews, as a people, are somehow better than other people.  The idea is that Jews were chosen to be G-d's ambassadors to the world.  Jews often joke, "G-d, couldn't you have picked some other group for this honor?"  After all, being the chosen people has not exactly protected Jews from countless efforts to annihilate them.)  Anyway, the article acknowledges it is not a scientific poll that is necessarily representative of the general population.

However, an actual scientific poll done by NORC at the University of Chicago along with the One8 Foundation, was conducted on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).  Some of the beliefs held by much of the general population are rather disturbing.  39% said Jews were more loyal to Israel than to America.  26% said Jews have too much power in the business world.  And 20% said Jews have too much power in the US.  85% believe at least one anti-Jewish trope (I would say stereotype), with that number being "only" 61% in 2019.  

It is clear from at least two of the findings, how unwarranted criticisms of Israel end up affecting attitudes here.  The study found that young adults have significantly greater anti-Israel attitudes than older adults.  This is not surprising, given the widespread anti-Israel messaging we see on college campuses and in the mainstream media.  And 40% agree at least somewhat that Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.  40%!  I must have missed the concentration camps.  

Sadly, some of these anti-Israel attitudes are held by left-wing American Jews.  One Jewish attorney that I often hear from, would not agree that Trump did one single thing for Israel or the Jewish people.  Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital city, acknowledging that every country has the right to declare their own capital.  Trump acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  Trump refused to continue funding of the Palestinian Authority (PA) until such time as they they stopped using those funds to support terrorism and the killing of Jews.  On the other hand, Biden has reinstated funding to the PA, having given them nearly $1 billion in his two years in office.  Not only would this Jewish attorney not denounce Biden for funding Jew killers, he acknowledged that he will vote for Biden again in 2024.

This same individual said he would vote for Obama a third time if he could.  I said that Obama hated Israel.  He said that was a bunch of crap.  I then replied that I would not tell him all the ways, by his words and deeds, that Obama demonstrated his dislike of Israel.  I suggested he do a little research on his own.  But I did remind him of Obama refusing to veto the completely anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution of December, 2016.  (See the 12/24/16 post, "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.")  Now, Biden, following Obama's lead, had his UN Ambassador vote for another one-sided anti-Israel resolution.  "The Security Council reiterates that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution based on the 1967 lines..."  Of course, it's never the Palestinians repeated refusal to accept a state of their own, as long as Israel still exists, that is the problem.  Nor the repeated rocket/missile attacks and terror attacks on Israeli civilians, that is the problem.  

And here is a case in point of how young adults are exposed to anti-Israel ideas.  Princeton University is one of the elite universities in the country.  Recently, the English Department at Princeton hosted someone described as a "pro-Palestinian activist and journalist."  Here are some of the things this individual has allegedly said.  He has allegedly said "Zionists harvest organs of the martyred (Palestinians) and feed their warriors our own." He has allegedly compared Israelis to Nazis, and has allegedly supported "killing every m.....f...... Zionist."  (As reported by Fox.)  This is what passes for an intellectual exchange of ideas when it comes to Israel.    

I'm Back After a Two Month Hiatus

It's time to catch up on some news.  So much has happened in the last two months, it would be impossible to address everything.  So here are some highlights.  Let's start with President Biden's state of the union address.  No surprises, as he touted how great his administration is.  That is to be expected.  But, demonstrating how the Left believes there can never be too much government, he discussed making sure airlines had no hidden charges, reducing what banks may charge for overdraft fees, reducing credit card late fees, eliminating surprise "resort fees" at hotels, and putting a cap on service fees for tickets to concerts and sporting events.  Sure, the public will like that.  But where does government interference in business end?

Apparently, government involvement should never end for some on the Left.  Here is Rep. Cori Bush, Squad member (Dem. - Mo.):  "These social media companies have shown themselves unfit to maintain the digital public square with almost universal usage and vast power."  "...we need to make sure that they operate for the public good and not the private interests."  Conservatives would agree that the censoring of conservatives on social media has been a problem.  But who would decide what constitutes the "public good?"  Cori Bush?  No, thank you.  

What is Rep. Bush's solution?  "We need to invest in better alternatives to big tech.  And we need to establish public ownership and control to ensure these platforms serve everyone fairly."  There it is - public/government ownership.  

Nikole Hannah-Jones, of the "1619 Project" fame, was having an exchange of ideas with a Xi Van Fleet, a woman who survived Mao's China.  Xi was trying to convince Hannah-Jones of American exceptionalism, which is imbued with the idea of natural rights.  Xi argued that that idea allowed the US to abolish slavery, end Jim Crow, and establish a society where people like Xi and Hannah-Jones were able to succeed.  Being no great fan of America, Hannah-Jones said:  "I'm afraid your vision of America does not match the reality."  Not surprising from a Leftist; yet ironic from a woman whose "1619 Project" has been widely debunked.

The State Bar of California has brought charges against attorney, and former Trump adviser, John Eastman.  The Bar is seeking Eastman's disbarment.  The Bar asserts that Eastman assisted Trump in "executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states."  I don't like it.  But let me be clear.  I accepted that Biden won on election night.  And I'm confident that I would disagree with much of the advice given by Eastman to Trump.  But this is a dangerous incursion by the Bar into politics.  And to many, such as myself, it would appear to be the Left targeting yet another conservative.    

Here is yet more Leftist thinking, this time out of northern California.  This is from the Acalanes Union High School District, which is just to the east of Berkeley and Oakland.  There was an event being held for employees who are people of color.  The Director of Student Support Equity and Inclusion had this to say:  "Be reminded that we have avoided inviting people that are not of color as there remains feelings of uneasiness and mistrust and we need this to be a safe space for our people of color."  I'm old enough to remember the Civil Rights movement.  The idea was to oppose segregation and seek integration.  Clearly, those days are over.  

On the good news front, the City of Chicago held a mayoral election on February 28, and voted out the incompetent incumbent, Lori Lightfoot.  As none of the other candidates received enough votes to win outright, the top two vote getters will be in a runoff election on April 4.  Finishing with 33.5% of the votes was Paul Vallas, a white man who had been the head of the Chicago public schools.  In second place was Brandon Johnson, a black man and Cook County commissioner.  Vallas pledged to get tough on crime.  Johnson, apparently, is not a fan of traditional policing.  Both of these men are Democrats, hardly surprising for the City of Chicago.  Lightfoot received only 17% of the vote.  The real test will be how those 17% vote in the runoff.  I am always amazed when people will vote for more crime, often for the simple reason that they will automatically vote for the person with a "D" after their name.  (Although, as noted, both candidates in this race have that "D.")

In Memoriam

Early this morning I found out that a friend of about 45 years died on February 4.  We went to Rutgers together.  He was one year ahead of me, but we lived in the same dorm on the same floor two years in a row.  Many a night I would be in the room that Bob shared with another guy.  And many a night they had to kick me out at about 2am or 3am.  One time, I think it was winter break, I was invited to stay with him (he was still living with his parents) in the small town he grew up in, north of New York City.  He said to let him know when I got to the train station.  He had left ahead of me.  I asked for his home number, as there were no cell phones.  He replied with "4236" (I don't recall the actual numbers).  And I replied with something to this effect:  "Funny.  What's the rest of the number?"  That was it.  Everyone in town had the same prefix. 

While Bob and his roommate and I hung out a lot, I believe it was Thursday nights that he would go out to a local pub and drink beer with a different set of friends.  He would come back a little tipsy, but always with a smile on his face.  And that was his personality, happy and easy going. 

After Rutgers, we both attended law school, me on the west coast at UCLA, and he on the east coast at UConn.  After graduating, he went to work for the State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch.  He eventually rose to become the Director of Human Resources for the state's judicial system.  He married his longtime girlfriend, and they have 3 great kids.  One of our best trips back east was a winter trip, staying at their home in a small town in Connecticut.  Their backyard had a downhill slope, and our kids had a great time riding a sled down that hill in the snow.  

Two other things stand out from that trip.  His oldest child, 17 at the time, wanted to go skiing up in New Hampshire.  But his parents said no.  But he kept hocking them about it.  Finally, I took him aside and I said, "listen, they've told you no several times.  Let it go already."  To which he replied, "Mike, I got this.  They're going to cave in soon."  Yes, they caved in.  I suspect Bob was the easy mark.

The other thing I recall is ordering Chinese food one night.  After the order was placed, I went into the living room and sat down on the couch to wait for the dinner to be delivered.  Bob said:  "What are you doing?"  I replied:  "I'm waiting for the dinner."  He laughed and said, "you big city boys.  You think they're delivering food here in the boondocks?  Get up and let's go get it!"

With age, Bob appeared to become more liberal/left, as I became more conservative/right.  Nevertheless, he was a long time reader of the blog.  One time he called me up to tell me he had a beef with one of my posts.  When I said I could handle it, lay it on me, he told me the beef was that he agreed with all of it!  But things changed with Trump.  As time went on, he, like many others, could not understand why I voted for Trump.

It was just before Thanksgiving in 2020, when I called to wish him and his family a Happy Thanksgiving.  I received a text message back, explaining that he did not feel good about talking to me, given my support for Trump and the Republicans, and the effort to overturn the 2020 election.  It did not matter that I said that I accepted that Biden won on election night.  What I can only describe as a visceral hatred of Trump, which I've seen in many others, interfered with my longtime friend's willingness to talk it out.  To try to understand.

I was upset.  I was hurt.  How could a 4 decades long friendship end over politics.  Then my hurt turned to anger.  We never really communicated after that Thanksgiving.  As we got older, we both developed health issues.  Notwithstanding the end of our friendship, I continued every Shabbat to include him in the Mi Sheberach prayer, a prayer for those in need of healing.  Because Bob was a good man, and a dear friend.  He was a family man, and he and his wife raised 3 wonderful kids.  For some time, when his wife's parents were quite elderly, they moved into their house.  No problem for Bob, because that's the type of man he was.  

As I shed a few tears, I say may G-d bless Bob's soul.  And may his memory forever be a blessing to his family and all of his friends.

   

New Year Reflections, Part III - A Reply to Critical Comments About the Last Two Posts

I received two emails critical of my last two posts.  The first was a thoughtful critique; the second can only be described as a left-wing emotional rant.  I wish to address these reader's concerns.  I'll start with the first comment.

I was challenged on my saying that Clinton and Gore never accepted their defeats.  Gore, recall, did challenge his loss in the Supreme Court.  The Court did not find in Gore's favor, resulting in a victory by Bush.  After saying that he disagreed with the Court's ruling, Gore nonetheless went on to say "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."  So, I will accept this critique.  I do not accept the same as to Clinton.  In 2020, 4 years after her election loss in 2016 to Trump, she was still saying "there was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level...we still don't know what really happened."

This writer also asserted that both parties supported dictators if they supported causes backed by the party.  He then referred to Hungary and Russia.  The US has, indeed, supported dictators when it has been in our interest to do so.  He also asserts that the amount of money in politics is a threat to our democracy.  This is a valid point that has been discussed by many for years.  I suspect many books have been written about it, so I'll leave it up to my readers to decide what they think.  

He made another frequently heard complaint about the electoral college, saying that the Founders did not have confidence that democracy could work.  Books have been written about the various compromises that went into making up the Constitution.  The electoral college was also a way to assure the smaller states that their interests would be considered when electing a president.  And, there was no popular vote for Senators until 1914, except for one Senator being elected by popular vote in 1913.  So, yes, that was a check on the popular will, which some of the Founders distrusted.  

Another complaint about our democracy was the two party system, claiming that the candidates are out of touch with most Americans.  Maybe.  But that system has also lent a tremendous amount of stability to our country and political system - although the rancor between the two parties over the last few decades may undermine that stability.  The writer did not agree that language was a true threat to our democracy.  It is the punishment/ostracism by those who speak certain (usually conservative) non-woke, non-politically correct language that is the concern.

The second writer made various personal attacks against me.  One is that I am "anti trans," and therefore not too confident in my own sexuality.  I have expressed in another post that I have complete empathy for anyone who feels they were born into the wrong body.  There is no way to conclude that I am "anti trans" from these posts.  Somehow, this writer also concluded that I am in the same group who claim that gay people "groom" young children to be gay.  I also don't know how he concluded that.  

He then said he does not give a damn about what happens in Norway, apparently missing my point that Leftism is the same everywhere, and is a threat everywhere it exists.  He also said that no one he knows is trying to punish anyone for their speech.  Completely meaningless.  Perhaps he does not know that, after the owner of Chick-fil-A expressed his personal opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Mayors of big cities all across the country said they did not want Chick-fil-A doing business in their cities, or trying to open new locations.  (See the 8/2/12 post.)  These Mayors were all DEMOCRATS.  And they seemed to believe that it was appropriate to have a political litmus test for the right to do business.  Just as I said in these posts, if you do not speak as the Left wants, and they will try to hurt you; because the totalitarian Left has the right to punish those who disagree - the law and the Constitution be damned.  

And this writer completely ignored the not so subtle threats made by DEMOCRATIC members of Congress to Meta, regarding what content they should allow on their sites, and who should be barred from those sites.  The writer said Biden ran as a moderate because he IS a moderate.  These two blog posts were about the Left in general, not specific to only Biden.  But to say that Biden is a moderate takes me to "1984," where "war is peace."  Biden may have run as a moderate, but he has governed as a Leftist.    

This writer accepts no misinformation from the Left/Democrats.  I suppose that means the border is closed if the Democrats and the W.H. say so.  I suppose that means that Adam Schiff (who claimed to have conclusive proof of Russian collusion in 2016), along with the rest of the Democrats and mainstream media, who were pushing the false Russian collusion story, were not giving out misinformation.  The same applies to the claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation - until it wasn't.    

He did not understand the point about the Thomas Jefferson High School.  Only Leftists would not celebrate their students' achievements, because of some false notion of "equity."  Conservatives always celebrate the hard work that goes into having achievement and success.  These students were punished for their success, because that success was not aligned with some woke, politically correct nonsense.  And the totalitarian Left always thinks they have the right to punish others based upon their left-wing agenda.    

To conclude, the first writer, while not addressing many of my points, did make reasoned arguments about our democracy, and about Al Gore.  The second writer, as I have come to expect from the Left, engaged in personal attacks, and made arguments that were, respectfully, rubbish. 

New Year Reflections, Part II - A Continuing Discussion of the True Threat to Our Freedoms and Democracy

United States Representatives Adam Schiff, Andre Carson and Kathy Castor, along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (all Democrats) sent a letter to the president of global affairs at Meta (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp).  

Here is part of their letter:  "Following the 2022 midterm elections, we write to urge Meta to maintain its commitment to keeping dangerous and unfounded election denial content off its platform.  To that end, we also urge Meta and its leadership to continue the suspension of former president Donald Trump's Facebook account beyond January, and to carefully monitor the spread of harmful election misinformation, including the BIG LIE about the 2020 presidential election, on Facebook..."  

When they talk about "election denial," they are only speaking of Donald Trump and his supporters.  They do not mean Hillary Clinton, who has never accepted that she lost in 2016.  Nor do they mean Stacey Abrams, Al Gore, or the many others who never accepted defeat, or those who never accepted Donald Trump as a legitimate president.  This is how the Left, the Democratic Party (recall these letter writers are all Democrats who are prominent members of Congress) tries to shut down speech with which they disagree.

Here's more from these Democratic letter writers to Meta:  "Meta's policies do not prohibit posts that make unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud...this is highly troubling, and an area where Meta must improve its oversight and enforcement."  These Congress members are telling Meta what they MUST do.  Is that how a democracy works?  Democrats using the power of the federal government to tell private business what speech is acceptable.  Is no one allowed to ever suggest there might be any voter fraud?

One of the totalitarian Left's tactics is to call opposing speech "misinformation."  Here is WH Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre:  "I want to be very clear here.  The fact is that the removal of Title 42 does not mean the border is open.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply doing the work of these smugglers who, again, are spreading misinformation which is very dangerous."  How to shut down conservative speech?  Call it misinformation.  Call it hate speech.  Attempt to criminalize it.  

Anyone who watches Fox News can see for themselves that the border is wide open.  Anyone who does a little reading or research knows that in the two years that Biden had been in office, nearly 5 million people have entered our country illegally.  Five million people, if placed in one location, would be the second largest city in the US, surpassed only by New York City.  And that's misinformation?  "Misinformation" is anything that disagrees with the totalitarian Left's talking points.  

This is almost unbelievable.  But it's not if you understand the influence of the Left.  Police in the UK interrogated, and then arrested, a woman standing outside an abortion clinic.  Her offense?  Standing across the street from an abortion clinic and silently praying.  Apparently, the City of Birmingham in the UK has a "Public Spaces Protection Order" in place.  That order prohibits any either pro or anti abortion protesting near any abortion clinic, by "graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counseling."  I get it.  Abortion is legal, so the City does not want people entering an establishment that provides a legal service to be harassed or intimidated.  But silent prayer across the street?  Really?  

The totalitarian Left will not only try to change your words and thoughts, they will act against you when possible.  The paragraph above was about the UK.  But here is a story about the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia.  Two of the schools administrators thought it was a good idea to withhold notification from students, mostly Asian, that they were deemed to be National Merit Scholars.  National Merit sends the list of students to school administrators, and allows them to notify the students.

Without that information, the students could not put on their college applications that they were National Merit Scholars.  The result is that they may have lost out on scholarships.  Said the Director of Student Services:  "We want to recognize students for who they are as individuals, not focus on their achievements."  And, apparently, these administrators did not want to hurt the feelings of those students who were not recognized as National Merit Scholars.  

We know that the Left thinks that capitalism is bad.  Consistent with that, merit is also bad.  As is the hard work it took those students to achieve such recognition.  The Director said she wanted to "recognize students for who they are as individuals..."  But part of who they are is their dedication to hard work and achievement.  But if the totalitarian Left opposes that agenda, they will deal with it accordingly.  Any harm caused to individuals is of no consequence.