The Corporate Thought Police

by Judith Bergman • June 30, 2020 at 5:00 am

Sweden has been steeped in political correctness for decades; its failed immigration policies, which have had multiple negative consequences, as reported by Gatestone Institute, have long been taboo.
The idea that free speech is not a fundamental liberty that must be defended at all costs runs deep in Sweden.
Radio personality and NBA announcer Grant Napear was fired from his radio show at KHTK radio and resigned as the Sacramento Kings play-by-play TV announcer after tweeting on June 1, "All Lives Matter... every single one!", in reference to protests by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.
A young Democrat data scientist, David Shor, was fired by the research firm for which he was working, Civis Analytics, after tweeting about the electoral effectiveness of peaceful protest as opposed to violent protest.

Corporate America has appointed itself the thought police over employees who do not adhere strictly to the "rules" of current orthodoxy. It administers ruthless justice -- Cultural Revolution style -- through the destruction of employee livelihoods and careers. (Image source: iStock)

Our corporate thought police have been working overtime, and from the look of it, they are only beginning.

Mats Skogkär, a journalist and editorial writer at one of Sweden's largest regional newspapers, Sydsvenskan, was recently demoted from editorial writer to a non-writing position for tweeting the following:

"When you see the Left's almost sexual excitement over the riots in the United States, over the looting, fires and violence, it also becomes easier to understand its desire to create similar conditions here with a large... segregated underclass of migrants".

"A tweet way over the line," wrote Jonas Kanje, editor in chief at Sydsvenskan, after receiving backlash on Twitter. "A way to express yourself that Sydsvenskan can never support. I dissociate myself from it."

Continue Reading Article

The Future of Israel's Borders: International Law and Islamic Law. Part I

by Denis MacEoin • June 30, 2020 at 4:00 am

Today's Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews and glorify -- and handsomely profit from -- violence against them.
It is common today to find references to Palestine as a mainly Muslim Arab state that has supposedly been "stolen" by Jews, or promised but not given to those people who describe themselves as Palestinians. That is an immense misconception, albeit one that seems to influence political and legal thinking internationally, especially among people who would like to believe it.
In a clearer understanding [of international law], Israel's planned move appears to be legal.
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.... [T]he moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." — PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen, the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977.

The rejection of President Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan by the UN Human Rights Council and others ignores the reality that it is one of the most balanced documents drawn up in favour of peace and the creation of a viable State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. Pictured: Trump announces his peace plan in the White House in Washington, DC on January 28, 2020. (Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

In general, taking territory from another country is treated under international law as illegal. Much of our sense that such illegality is as much morally wrong as it is legally prohibited comes from historical realities in modern history. The Nazi German takeovers of numerous countries across Europe between 1938 and 1945, together with the brutality with which they were carried out, stand even today as notorious examples of unacceptable behaviour in an attempt to dominate other peoples without the least pretence of legality of purpose or practice. More recently, the Russian Federation's 2014 invasion of Crimea has caused unnecessary conflict with Ukraine and damaged Russia's own international reputation.

Article 2 of the first chapter of the United Nations Charter declares:

Continue Reading Article