Mexico wants Spain to apologise for conquering the Aztecs
When Claudia Sheinbaum becomes Mexico’s first female president later today, Felipe VI, the King of Spain, will not be present. He has, very pointedly, not been invited to the swearing-in ceremony because he hasn’t apologised for Spain’s invasion and conquest of the Aztec empire 500 years ago.
Spaniards are alert to the ‘emotional fraudulence’ of professing guilt for something that happened 20 generations ago
This diplomatic stand-off began in 2019 when Andrés Manuel López Obrador, then president of Mexico, wrote to King Felipe inviting him to express his regret. Having described the conquest as ‘tremendously violent, painful and unjustifiable’, López Obrador said, ‘Mexico would like the Spanish state to recognise its historical responsibility for these offences and to offer the appropriate apologies or political reparations.’
Felipe didn’t reply to that letter. By 2022 López Obrador was suggesting that Spain needed to learn to respect Mexico rather than regarding it as an ex-colony. Then last Thursday at his daily press conference the out-going president read out the four-page letter he sent five years ago and claimed that Felipe’s failure to reply showed high-handed arrogance.
His successor sings from the same hymn sheet. Shortly after becoming president-elect of Mexico in July, Sheinbaum declared that ‘Spain should ask for forgiveness.’ Perhaps she has in mind something along the lines of Pope Francis’ apology in 2021 for the atrocities committed during the conquest and evangelisation of the Americas. She may well also be aware that there is a precedent: just nine years ago Spain recognised that the expulsion of the Jews in 1492 was a cruel mistake. Now one of Sheinbaum’s ministers has proposed holding a ‘ceremony of atonement’ to normalise relations with Spain.
Felipe, first as prince and then as King, has in the past attended the swearing-in of Mexican presidents. On this occasion he has left it to Pedro Sánchez, Spain’s left-wing prime minister, to comment on Mexico’s decision not to invite him. Regretting that the relations between two ‘progressive’ governments have deteriorated to this point, Sánchez confirmed that due to ‘the unacceptable and inexplicable exclusion [of King Felipe]… there will be no representatives of the Spanish government at the ceremony.’
‘Spain,’ Sánchez explained, ‘regards Mexico as a brother country… We feel enormous frustration… that we cannot normalise our relations.’ Hinting that Mexico’s politicians are using a confected confrontation with Spain as a distraction from their country’s real problems, he recalled with gratitude that Mexico welcomed hundreds of thousands of Spaniards fleeing the Spanish Civil War and Franco’s repression: ‘I feel closer to those principles and values.’
Although there will be no representatives of the Spanish government, several of Spain’s anti-monarchical, left-wing politicians will attend the swearing-in ceremony. One suggested that if Spain is represented abroad by the head of state, then it should be a democratically elected head of state. Another described Felipe as ‘arrogant’ for not apologising to Mexico ‘for the excesses’ committed during the Spanish conquest and said that the king is now ‘paying a price’ for his ‘enormous diplomatic clumsiness’.
In fact the Spanish monarchy did once make an apology – of sorts. In 1990 during a visit to Mexico, Juan Carlos I, Felipe’s father, regretted the abuses that occurred during the conquest whilst pointing out that Spain’s monarchs sought from the very beginning to defend the dignity of the indigenous people. ‘Of course,’ Juan Carlos explained, ‘the prudence and equanimity of the monarchs was unfortunately often disregarded by… venal officials.’
Juan Carlos’ reluctance to shoulder the blame for events that took place half a millennium ago is shared by many Spaniards. They are alert to the ‘emotional fraudulence’ of professing guilt for something that happened 20 generations ago. Besides, many point out gleefully, López Obrador’s Spanish surnames suggest that he may himself be descended from a conquistador. The Partido Popular, Spain’s main right-wing opposition party, which rarely endorses anything the government does, has on this occasion enthusiastically supported Sánchez’s decision to lodge a formal protest with the Mexican authorities, calling the decision not to invite Felipe ‘an unacceptable provocation’.
Nor has it gone unnoticed in Spain that, while King Felipe was dropped from the guest list because he hasn’t apologised for what Hernán Cortés and his men did hundreds of years ago, Vladimir Putin, personally responsible for a far more recent invasion, was invited.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/10/mexico-wants-spain-to-apologise-for-conquering-the-aztecs/
**************************************************Federal government introduces online dating safety code
Aussies going online in the hopes of finding love, or at least a date, will now be protected by new rules designed to protect online daters from harm and abuse.
The Australia-first guidelines will require online dating platforms, including Tinder, Hinge, Bumble and Grindr, to have systems in place to detect potential incidents of online-enabled harm from taking place.
The code will also require dating apps to take actions against users who have violated a company’s online safety policies, provide prominent and transparent complaint and reporting mechanisms, offer more support resources on safe dating practices and online enabled harm, and remain proactively engaged with Australian law enforcement.
The dating platforms will also be required to supply regular transparency reports detailing the number of Australian accounts terminated and content moderation processes.
The code comes after the federal government sat down with both online dating platforms, including Bumble, Grindr, and Match Group – which owns the platforms, Tinder, Hinge, OKCupid and Plenty Of Fish.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the code, which has been given the tick of approval from the eSafety Commissioner, would offer online dating users better peace of mind knowing they’re safer online.
“Online dating is now the most common way to meet a partner in Australia, however the level of violence and abuse experienced by users of these platforms is deeply concerning,” Ms Rowland said.
“That is why we are taking the steps needed to ensure a safer experience for Australians using online dating platforms.
“The Australian government’s constructive engagement with industry means that the largest online dating services operating in Australia have made clear, public commitments to improve the safety of their services – including to crack down on abuse and remove dangerous users from platforms.
“Now that the code is operational, the government will be watching industry closely to ensure they take the steps needed to keep their users safe.”
Dating platforms will now have six months to implement changes, with strict enforcement to begin from 1 April next year.
Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth said it is essential people feel protected from harm when interacting with potential dates.
“Dating app violence is a form of gender-based violence, and it has to end,” Ms Rishworth said.
“Our government is committed to ensuring Australians are safe from sexual violence and abuse in both online and physical spaces.
“We must create communities – both in the physical and online world – where everyone is treated equally and with respect.
“This world-leading industry code will improve safety for Australians using dating apps and help them make choices about the apps they use.
“Everyone deserves to live a life free of violence no matter where they are – and this includes online.”
After nine months of operation, the eSafety Commissioner will assess the effectiveness of the code and determine if it has helped reduce harm to Australians.
If the code has seemed to not live up to expectation, the Government will consider whether further action is needed, including regulation.
The dating apps that have signed up to participate in the code are Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, Grindr, eHarmony, OK Cupid, Plenty Of Fish, RSVP, MeetMe, Zoosk, Badoo (part of Bumble), Tagged, Skout and Growlr.
***********************************************
School Threatened to Arrest Parents for Wearing Pink Wristbands in ‘Protest’ of Boys in Girls Sports
A coalition of parents sued the Bow School District in New Hampshire on Monday after being punished and threatened over a “silent protest” standing up for women’s sports.
Multiple parents and one grandfather decided to wear pink wristbands during a soccer game to show support for protecting women’s sports, to which the school district threatened to have them arrested for trespassing, the complaint states. The New Hampshire Department of Education was preliminarily enjoined by the court in September from enforcing a state law that cracked down on biological males from participating in women’s sports.
The parents claim that the district “conspired” with a referee and police officer to intimidate and prevent the group from expressing their First Amendment rights, the lawsuit states. After the soccer game, the school banned anyone speaking out from being on school property and attending future games.
“Bow School District’s ban on demonstrations criticizing the decision to allow biological boys to play girls’ soccer—cloaked in the language of ‘disruption’ and ‘harassment’—is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,” the lawsuit states. “The First Amendment does not allow state-operated schools to become ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”
The school district’s policy allows officials to monitor the behavior of anyone on school property or in attendance at a school event, which includes “any buildings, vehicles, property, land or facilities used for school purposes or school-sponsored events, whether public or private,” the complaint continues. The high school’s athletics handbook also states that it regulates the conduct and speech of individuals in attendance at games.
Days before the soccer game, Nicole Foote, a mother of one of the players on Bow’s team, met with the athletic director to express concern regarding the potential risks of allowing a biological man to compete in women’s sports, to which the director said the court prevented the school from doing anything, the lawsuit states. The athletic director sent an email the night before the game stating that following the handbook, they would “impose obligations” on any actions from the sideline, noting that any “inappropriate signs, references or language” would not be allowed.
The athletic director also claimed that some differentiating opinions regarding the game would be fine, according to the complaint.
Some individuals who wore the pink wristbands wrote “XX” on them to support female athletes, and no parents on the sidelines wore them in the first half of the game. Besides the wristbands, there were no other indications of parents outwardly protesting, but the athletic director told one parent that he had to take off the wristbands, to which he then argued that First Amendment rights protect the use of the wristbands.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed a bill in 2023 that banned transgender individuals from participating in women’s collegiate sports. Similar to Texas, West Virginia passed a law banning biological men from partaking in women’s athletics, but a court blocked the law in April.
*************************************************
Wyoming Doctor Booted From Medical Board for Opposing Transgender ‘Treatments’ Asks Court to Reinstate Him
Wyoming’s governor removed a doctor from the state’s board of medicine because the doctor supported a law banning “gender-affirming care” for minors. The doctor is suing, and his lawyers are filing a motion Tuesday asking the court to reinstate him on the medical board. His legal team also revealed that more than 5,000 Wyoming residents have signed a petition asking the governor to reinstate him.
“I was removed from the Wyoming State Board of Medicine because I took a stand to protect the children in our state,” Dr. Eric Cubin, a radiologist, told The Daily Signal on Tuesday. The nonprofit law firm Liberty Justice Center is representing him. The center is best known for representing Mark Janus in the 2018 Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, in which the court protected government employees’ First Amendment right of free association to refuse to financially support a union they wouldn’t join.
“I am proud to stand with the Liberty Justice Center and fight this violation of my First Amendment rights,” Cubin added.
Chloe’s Law
Cubin supported Senate File 99, also known as “Chloe’s Law,” which Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, signed in March.
The law, named after detransitioner Chloe Cole, went into effect on July 1. As a minor, Cole had surgery to try to appear more like a boy, including having her breasts removed, and a few years later, detransitioned back to identifying as her actual sex. The law prohibits doctors from prescribing experimental “transgender” medical interventions for minors, specifically banning so-called puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries that remove healthy breasts or sex organs.
Internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a pro-transgender activist group, revealed that WPATH leaders knew about various side effects of “gender-affirming care,” including cancer in teens and reduced sexual function, as well as the lack of informed consent for procedures with lifelong impacts. These medical professionals endorse the experimental treatments anyway.
But some doctors have gone on record opposing such treatments. Back in 2023 in Florida, many doctors testified in favor of a rule that would prevent Medicaid dollars from funding “gender-affirming care.” The doctors—including psychiatrists, endocrinologists, neurologists, and a former WPATH leader—testified that these interventions are experimental and may do more harm than good.
Cubin, a member of the Wyoming Medical Society, sent a letter in February to every member of Wyoming’s Legislature to set the record straight after the society (a voluntary association for medical professionals in the Cowboy State) had opposed Chloe’s Law. (The society’s magazine attacked Chloe’s Law in 2023 and its executive director testified against the law that year. Cubin claims the society also opposed Chloe’s Law in 2024.)
“I had been misrepresented by the Wyoming Medical Society and had no choice but to speak up for what I believe to be right,” the doctor told The Daily Signal. “I urged our legislators to be circumspect about the information they were being provided and cautious about what they allow physicians to do to kids in our state—something that is now the law across Wyoming.”
The Governor Fires Cubin
So why did Gordon, who signed Chloe’s Law, remove Cubin from the board of medicine? It seems unlikely someone who supported the legislation would move against a doctor for supporting the same bill.
First, Gordon only grudgingly signed Chloe’s Law.
“I signed SF 99 because I support the protections this bill includes for children; however, it is my belief that the government is straying into the personal affairs of families,” the governor said at the time. “Our legislature needs to sort out its intentions with regard to parental rights. While it inserts governmental prerogative in some places, it affirms parental rights in others.”
Gordon had also expressed disapproval for a bill preventing biological males from participating in girls sports in public schools. In March 2023, he allowed the bill, SF 133, to go into effect without his signature (refusing to veto it but also refusing to sign it). He said the bill “is overly draconian, is discriminatory without attention to individual circumstances or mitigating factors, and pays little attention to fundamental principles of equality.”
Gordon announced his intention to remove Cubin in an April 22 letter. While Gordon acknowledged the doctor’s free speech right to express his opinion, he insisted that the five-member board of medicine must remain impartial. The board is responsible for issuing and renewing licenses for physicians and other medical practitioners in the state, along with overseeing medical regulation, compliance, and discipline.
“I have been made aware of your email to the members of the House of Representatives during this last legislative session regarding SF0099, in which you strongly encouraged the members to pass this legislation and criticized the Wyoming Medical Society’s opposition to the bill,” Gordon wrote.
“I believe your comments on this particular legislation could give doctors, who are licensed by the board of medicine, a reason to be concerned that you might use your position to advocate for a particular position when considering matters that should be considered absent an agenda or prejudice,” the governor added.
“I am certain you would understand that while you certainly are entitled to your First Amendment right to free speech, as an individual member of the board, you would not be entitled to speak for the board unilaterally,” Gordon wrote. He suggested that Cubin had chosen to “express personal beliefs in a way that can be construed as speaking for the [board as a whole],” and therefore he was removing the doctor.
**************************************************
My main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment