COVID, EVANGELISM AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

I can highly recommend reading an article by Roger Steer, published by Brave New Europe on the 12^th January 2021, entitled Management of Covid within Europe. The group states:

BRAVE NEW EUROPE is an educational website publishing expertise with a radical face and attitude concerning European politics, economics, and environmental policy. We promote critical thinking and the creation of an alternative to neo-liberalism. Our goals are to create the first pan-European educational platform to support a democratic exchange of ideas and to serve as an interface between experts and civil society groups supporting the creation of an egalitarian, just, sustainable, and social Europe.

This is the link: 

https://braveneweurope.com/roger-steer-management-of-covid-within-europe

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the article:

…“How the UK faced the crisis:

The UK has a depleted and under-resourced capacity in its healthcare and social care systems compared to other large European countries but it has large and capable pharmaceutical, biotechnology and university sectors enabling it to mobilise resources to take advantage of historical investment in vaccine research and production. In addition the UK lacked indigenous PPE and a national Test and Trace system (TAT) capable of mobilising quickly enough (even now it cannot cope).

It also has physically smaller houses making it more onerous to impose long-term lockdown conditions. Labour laws that give workers fewer rights and less protections than in Europe generally also mean that workers have not been able to self-isolate as readily if they suspect infection, for fear of losing income, and it has been easier to push the burden of Covid onto the low paid, self-employed and those on basic benefits

Secrecy and a highly centralised management of public messaging has also undermined confidence and generated mistrust as to whether everyone was being treated fairly and equally.”…

“This is not an international competition to show who is a better manager of Covid but a battle to prevent and control a pandemic about which the daily death count tells its own story and in which the well-prepared Far East (who had already suffered the SARS epidemic) has performed much better.”

It expresses a point of view with some clear research behind it and is definitely worth a read.

Whether or not the American cousins can gather any useful information from it is, of course, a matter for them, but I would urge them to read the Conclusions of the Article. Mr Steer has made 8 bullet point with which some may agree or disagree. I have some doubts about conclusion number 5, particularly as it relates to the current state of the Union in the United States. There too, I have had pointed out to me a piece to camera by Frank Schaeffer:

I did allude to this in my stereotyping of your average Trump supporter, but Mr, Schaeffer is clearly very conversant with the evangelical side of the American political scene. His rant if well worth a view. It will do little to change the views of the faithful, but it may strengthen the resolve of those who would prevent them from taking over the affairs of state.

As to that, the impeachment of Donald Trump seems to be gathering pace and support from members of the Republican Party. Let us hope there are at least 17 Senators together with the now 50 Democratic Party Senators, to make up the two thirds require to find Mr. Trump guilty of the various charges, should the evidence permit, of course. Unlike Mr Trump, it is right and proper that allegations made must be backed up with evidence. The question of incitement to commit an offence is not too difficult to ascertain. The main evidence comes from the, fortunately, recorded words of the President himself. On one matter, the phone call with Mr Raffensperger and on the other his closing words to his supporters just before they invaded the Capitol. His defenders will argue that the President can rely on the First Amendment to claim his innocence:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From his point of view, it is very clear, freedom of speech, right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As against that, the assembly must be peaceable. The video evidence shows quite clearly that the assembled crowd had come prepared for some form of confrontation as they had in their possession, crash helmets, pepper spray and they then picked up any implement they could find to break down doors and windows and strike police officers, resulting in a death. The event resulted in several deaths. It would be impossible for any impartial clear thinking individual to classify the assembly as peaceful.  As to Petitioning the Government to redress a grievance, a Petition is generally regarded as a document signed by a number of individuals who have a specific grievance. It is written down and presented to the powers that be, or oral argument can be made to the Government authority by those who have been grieved. The argument is usually backed up by evidence supporting the grievance, the written details of which are usually contained in the text of the petition. One would be hard pressed to define shouts of “Stop the Steal” and “Hang Pence” accompanied by vandalism, criminal damage and physical violence as presenting a petition, but I suppose one could say it is presenting a petition of grievances in an emphatic manner, but then again perhaps not. Does a mob qualify as a peaceful assembly presenting a petition, or is it a criminal enterprise intent on hanging someone from the nearest high beam? I’m only asking.

Of course, one can look at the establishment of the Religion of Trump. One could not possibly interfere with the exercise thereof. So that would naturally allow for the repetitive mantra of “Stop the Steal” “We woz robbed” and such exclamations in support. That must be clearly protected by the first amendment, so no fault there.

We then have freedom of speech. Mr Trump is perfectly at liberty to express and opinion. Had he limited himself to opinion, that would be one matter, indeed the opinion does not even have to bear any relationship to facts or the truth, it is after all, just a point of view; but there is a difference between opinion and action. I believe it has been long established that one does not shout fire in a crowded theatre. That would cause panic and lead to injury. By stating ‘we’ve got to be strong and not weak’, together with ‘we’re going to march to the Capitol’ etc. that was the equivalent to shouting fire in the theatre. That moves into the realm of inciting, particularly if the words are acted upon, and they were acted upon more than he could hope.

Mr Trump later remarked, “We love you, now go home” What else can one infer from that except that he knew full well what to expect. “We love you, NOW go home”, meaning, you’ve done what I wanted, it’s all over, you can go now, well done. How else can one view that remark? The President did nothing to try to stop the violence. He went home and watched it happen on TV.

Nothing that the President did on the 6^th January was appropriate, as he claims, nor was it protected by the first amendment of the constitution. The man is a sham and he should be dealt with accordingly no matter how close the end of his term in office. He should never be allowed to hold public office ever again, and if impeachment is the way, go for it.