Latest news with #liberalism
Malay Mail
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Selangor Mufti defends fatwa against liberalism, says SIS court win doesn't affect individual Muslims
SHAH ALAM, June 23 — The concepts of liberalism and religious pluralism contravene the true teachings of Islam and may lead to deviations in faith and confusion within the Muslim community, according to Selangor Mufti Datuk Dr Anhar Opir. He said that although the recent Federal Court ruling stated that the fatwa dated July 31, 2014, does not apply to Sisters in Islam (SIS) Forum Malaysia as an organisation, the fatwa remains valid and binding for individual Muslims. The mufti explained that the decision does not undermine the fatwa's legitimacy with regard to individuals or the prohibition on any Muslim embracing pluralism, liberalism, or any other beliefs contrary to Islamic teachings. The fatwa was issued in accordance with Syariah law requirements and the Maqasid Syariah principles, including the preservation of religion, intellect, and lineage. 'Our department stands firmly with the Selangor Islamic Religious Council and respectfully supports the Sultan of Selangor's expression of disappointment regarding the Federal Court's recent decision, which stated that the fatwa does not apply to SIS Forum Malaysia due to the fact that it is an organisation, association, company or institution, but instead only applies to individuals. 'However, our department respects the rule of law and judicial decisions made by the Federal Court as the highest judicial institution in the country's legal system,' he said in a statement. In this regard, Anhar advised Muslims not to be influenced by misguided ideas promoting liberalism and religious pluralism under the guise of freedom or human rights propagated through social media, writings, and open forums. He stressed that true Islamic law should be the benchmark, not merely human logic, as the latter could jeopardise one's faith. The Mufti Department also reiterated its commitment to supporting authorities, non-governmental organisations, and individuals in monitoring and correcting any deviant teachings, beliefs, or ideologies that contradict the true Islamic teachings. Prior to this, the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, urged SIS Forum Malaysia to stop using the term 'Islam' in any of its publications, as misuse of the term could confuse the Muslim community. On June 19, the Federal Court allowed the appeal by SIS Forum Malaysia and its co-founder Zainah Mahfoozah Anwar, in their legal challenge against a fatwa issued in 2014 by the Selangor Fatwa Committee declaring the organisation to have deviated from Islamic teachings. A four-judge panel led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat in a 3-1 majority decision set aside the fatwa, insofar as it applied to companies and institutions. — Bernama
Washington Post
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
The flags we fly
It has taken a pretend king to bring out a dormant patriotism lying deeper in the hearts of some on the left than they realized — myself included. I predicted in an Aug. 27 letter to the editor, 'Ms. Harris, Democrats add the 'genius spoonful of sugar' we all needed,' that it was possible liberals would co-opt right-wing flag-waving and start waving tiny American flags of their own. Apparently, I was right. At the nationwide 'No Kings' protests, according to an Associated Press article, some organizers handed out little American flags. Were those organizers outliers, or were they harbingers of changes in the left's latent vision for America? I'm proud to fight the right's version of patriotism with our own. That version includes championing democracy and liberal causes. We are proud Americans fighting for our America. I suspect our Democratic leaders are proud Americans, too, and they should say so explicitly. When will it become commonplace for people on the left to start proudly calling themselves patriots instead of acknowledging their nationality sotto voce? Or is that too far-fetched? The idea of progressives waving American flags seemed far-fetched to me a year ago. Look at where we are now. Gary Milici, Milwaukee I totally agree with Enrique Acevedo in his June 16 op-ed, 'Why we fly the Mexican flag at the L.A. protests,' that America is a multicultural society. It makes our country stronger that many if not all Americans identify with other nations, religions, cultures and holidays. It makes sense that many Americans are waving flags from places such as Ukraine, Gaza and Israel at rallies as statements of support. However, flying a Mexican flag at a rally protesting aggressive deportations might inadvertently send the message that the flag bearer would rather be in Mexico, an unnecessary and unproductive interpretation. For example, people against immigration who see images of Mexican flags waved at protests on social media or television might then have their belief that it is perfectly okay to 'send them back' reinforced. Signs in Spanish are okay but put away the flags of other countries. Barry H. Epstein, Silver Spring Enrique Acevedo's June 16 op-ed raised some valid points regarding the complexity of citizenship and identity. We should respect the rights of individuals to protest peacefully and allow them to wave whatever flag they choose, regardless of their citizenship status. That is a right protected by our Constitution. What is troubling, and what Acevedo failed to address or explain, are the images of the Mexican flag being waved in front of cars that had been lit on fire. Acevedo referenced people waving the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day and their loyalty or patriotism not being questioned. That example missed the point of people's fury completely. It was the juxtaposition of the Mexican flag and violence that is troubling to many Americans. It's simply not a good look, even to those of us who oppose President Donald Trump's immigration policies. James Regan, Oak Hill In sharing his opinion as to why protesters in Los Angeles wave the Mexican flag, Enrique Acevedo wrote 'that being American doesn't require being less of anything else.' My father, a native of the Bronx whose parents came from Southern Italy, flew 62 missions in World War II as a bombardier in the U.S. Army Air Forces. Most of his targets were in Southern Italy. I learned enough from my father about being an American to be able to reply to Acevedo's statement: 'Yes, it does.' Stephen Munro, Silver Spring Nothing hurts the cause of migrants more than the flying of the Mexican flag at protests. Many Americans, including those opposed to President Donald Trump's policies, react warmly to minorities waving the American flag. Waving the flag says that despite the United States' past mistakes and current problems, your loyalty is still to this nation. That's important. We're talking tactics here: Fly the Mexican flag in your home but not in public. Try to make the American flag represent something more, and greater, than what anti-immigration supporters want it to represent. Fly the American flag high, and more people will listen. Jack Dolan, Arlington Flying the Mexican flag at protests is not the real issue. The real issue is that protesters and sanctuary cities are opposing and hindering lawful Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities. That is what gets me upset. Flying another nation's flag, burning cars and rioting are just pouring gas on the fire. Steve Henry, Springfield My father was wounded twice in North Africa, and two of my husbands served in the Navy during that war, so I have the greatest respect for members of the military and their families. I do not care about the cost of the military parade, but I do care about the cost to stroke President Donald Trump's ego. There are far more important programs that the funds could have been used for. I want to thank people such as retired National Guard Maj. Gen. Randy Manner for his courage in speaking out against the parade. More service members should have followed his lead. I did not watch the parade because I did not want my attention to go toward Trump. I fly the flag every day, and I contribute to the United Service Organizations. I pay tribute to the military privately. Margaret Munson, Penn Valley, California Leading up to Juneteenth, which observes the June 19, 1865, emancipation of the last enslaved Black people, we again saw the bigotry of President Donald Trump's administration. During President Joe Biden's term, his administration rightly re-designated several military bases that had been named for Confederate generals. The new names honored true American heroes such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Now, the Trump administration has restored the names of Fort Bragg in North Carolina; Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Lee in Virginia; Fort Benning and Fort Gordon in Georgia; Fort Hood in Texas; Fort Polk in Louisiana; and Fort Rucker in Alabama. To do this, the Trump administration named the bases for decorated but mostly obscure soldiers who just 'happen' to have the same last names as the Confederate leaders. In this transparent ploy, Fort Bragg, which the Biden administration renamed Fort Liberty, is supposedly being renamed to honor Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper, instead of Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general. Every intelligent, decent person should be offended by this duplicity. Today's U.S. soldiers will serve at bases that share the name of some of our nation's most shameful figures — some of whom, such as Braxton Bragg, were enslavers. It's an insult to our service members and to the principle of freedom for all, which those soldiers are expected to defend. What a country commemorates — in statues, flags, monuments and names — shows what it stands for. They are statements both reflective of us and influential to us. They are symbols that create models, good or bad, for Americans to emulate. We should learn from our country's dark side and glorify its bright side. Hopefully, in time, the recent regressions will be rectified as the United States reaffirms its highest values. Roger Buckwalter, Tequesta, Florida The writer is a retired editorial page editor of the Jupiter Courier. The parade on June 14 was unforgettable. I'm incredibly proud and grateful to be part of our Army's 250-year legacy of service to the nation. Serving as one of many ambassadors on the National Mall — supporting the parade and engaging with thousands of fellow Americans — I was filled with powerful reminders of why I serve. This celebration gave the American public a rare chance to connect with soldiers up close and in person, to experience the Army's proud traditions, capabilities and people. These kinds of moments showcase the professionalism and heart of our force and open the door to real conversations. The exchanges that stuck with me most were the ones I had with young people who were curious about what I do, and how the Army and its core values (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage) have shaped my life. I had a moment of revelation on the Mall talking to a young man thinking about his future: So many young people don't know anything about the military, and what they do know is colored by bias, distortions perpetuated by the media and fiction. The Army isn't my whole life, but it has been the most formative experience of my life. Reconnecting the public to the people, sacrifice and history that define our military helps avoid diluting our American story to meaningless pageantry and hollow patriotic platitudes. The memory and legacy of millions of soldiers who sacrificed for our freedom in blood endure only if we take time to understand and honor our past. Think of the Americans who held the line at Cantigny, our first major offensive in World War I, or the 77th Division trapped behind enemy lines in the Argonne Forest, surviving days without food, water or relief. Think of the soldiers at Omaha Beach, who waded through gunfire and surf on D-Day during World War II, or those who endured the siege of Hürtgen Forest, fighting inch by inch through freezing mud and relentless artillery. In Korea, soldiers froze in place at the Chosin Reservoir, outnumbered and surrounded, yet fought their way out with courage that defined a generation. These are not just stories; they are the foundation of our service. That legacy lives on in every soldier who raises their hand today, choosing to serve something greater than themselves. If we don't tell these stories — if we don't show our citizens who we are and what we stand for — how will our children understand the cost of the freedoms they enjoy? We owe it to them. We owe it to every soldier who never made it home. And we owe it to the future of our Army. Roxanne Wegman, Fort Belvoir The writer is a major in the U.S. Army. The views expressed herein are her personal views and do not reflect an official position of the Army or the Defense Department.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Economics Nobel Laureate calls for a 'working-class liberalism'
Economics Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu has called for working-class liberalism. In his talk at the London School of Economics on Wednesday, as part of LSE Festival: Visions for the Future, professor Acemoglu said that despite liberalism's enormous success, he's become convinced that the old version of liberalism is dead and needs remaking. "I have become convinced over the last decade that liberalism's enormous successes are being overshadowed by some problems. So it does require remaking of some sorts," he said. In the Great Hall of LSE's Marshal Building, packed to the brim, Acemoglu, the joint winner of of 2024 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences and an MIT professor, said the ideas space was being won by those on the right. "This may come as a shock to some of you, but my view is that right now, new ideas are coming not from the liberal side, but they're coming from the anti-liberal, the right. Read more: Nobel economics prize awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson & James A Robinson "If you look at ideas that are spreading and articulating new ways of organising society, which many ... find very unattractive, they are the ones that are getting traction." He said the old version of liberalism was not enough. "Liberalism failed to adjust to being the establishment," Acemoglu said. The Nobel laureate sketched out his case for "Remaking Liberalism", which is also the working title of his forthcoming book, scheduled to be published in 2026. Delving into the history and the development of the moral and political philosophy that underpins liberalism, he said it played a crucial role as a force of good, mostly delivered via a democratic state. "Liberalism, broadly speaking, is respect for individual liberties and freedoms, efforts to create a rule of law, a level playing field, commitment to helping the disadvantaged via redistribution and other public investments. "So sort of not classical liberalism, but a little bit more left leaning liberalism, which has been the dominant force in generating new ideas for much of the 20th century, is responsible for many of the achievements that we have witnessed over the last 150 years, perhaps longer." Read more: UK borrowing rises in May, making tax hikes 'increasingly likely' He said liberalism's success was rooted in three implicit promises. First: shared prosperity, meaning that economic growth would take place and pretty much every group in society would get some share out of it. Getting voting rights was part of this agenda of creating shared prosperity, he said. Second: public services or drains. "I think the mood is captured by the once poet laureate of Britain, John Beecham, who said our nation stands for democracy and proper drains; getting services to people which did not exist for the most part in the 19th century." Shared prosperity and public services are the secret sauce of liberalism, Acemoglu said. The third promise of liberalism was economic growth. "Shared prosperity already bakes in economic growth. I think one of the most inspiring things about liberalism was that its belief in progress, not [the] inevitability [of it], but possibility of progress. He said liberalism allowed for the building of democracy from the bottom up, it allowed people to exercise their freedoms, including economic freedoms within a market system with economic growth as the glue that kept the system intact. But how did the political economy of this work out? Acemoglu explained how the two elements of political economy, the economics and the politics, manifest to produce what he called "an industrial compact" in the decades following the second world war, leading to a rise in demand for labour and wages – creating a pathway for prosperity. The industrial compact peaked with rapid economic growth, the spread of technology and the beginning of mass production. However, cracks started to appear as the industrial compact gave way to post-industrial economics, especially with the introduction of digital technologies alongside globalisation and deregulation. "Digital technologies did a couple of things at the same time. The first one is that by their nature, early digital technologies were very complementary to more skilled, educated workers. "They started creating a wedge between what the economic opportunities were for the less educated and the more educated." More importantly, however, digital technologies ushered in automation where firms could produce more with less labour which severed links of industrial compact, Acemoglu said. This, in turn, saw inequality exploding and the less-educated, manual workforce not keeping up. The labour that was shed from manufacturing was less educated and the labour that was needed for new industries was highly educated. This divergence accentuated the fortunes of the educated and the uneducated, creating crisis for liberalism or liberal democracy, he said. "But I think the big crisis came because post-industrial economics – in a classic political economy fashion – then was coupled with post-industrial politics ... where the highly educated group starts viewing itself as a distinct from the rest of society, and also cutting, severing its links with the rest of society." Read more: Why bitcoin and gold are rallying as bond yields hit 30-year highs Acemoglu said that the highly educated [elite] are a big part of the story of failure of liberalism. Money and status followed, as did a different set of values, especially in countries like the US and the UK, with the elite marrying among their status group. This has led to less mixing of communities and more segregation, eventually leading to to the rise of a "cognitive elite" with disproportionate influence on policy making. "Silicon Valley in the United States is one microcosm of the cognitive elite, they are much more pro-market. [They think] they're more entitled to redistribution. They think success is very much merit. And they have a number of other more right leaning ideas. Whereas if you ask people in the education sector or public administration, etc, they have very different values." The cognitive elite upended the bottom-up approach of liberalism. "That doesn't work with the nature of liberalism, because once you try from the top down to change the values of communities at the bottom, you are damaging the communities and you are destroying the basis of self-government, which is so important for liberalism and even more consequentially, perhaps you're going to create backlash. "So I think that's the basis of the crisis of liberalism." The Nobel laureate's proffered solution to the crisis was to create a working-class liberalism. "We need to create what I would like to call a working class liberalism, a liberalism that actually gets buy-in from the working classes. Read more: Why the UK's AIM is struggling 30 years on "So not a liberalism that is so centred on the educated, but much more about communities and much more about self-government at the community level." Acemoglu said that there are two elements that will make that feasible: "All of these communities want self-government. I think a lot of the discontent, a lot of the backlash is about the feeling of lacking self-government that should be part and parcel of any liberal project. "Second, they want jobs. Shared prosperity cannot be achieved without anything other than jobs. So this has to be a liberalism that is much more tolerant to the diversity of communities, especially working class communities, different religions, different traditions, different prejudices, takes their cultural concerns seriously, but also prioritises economic growth, especially job creation." Acemoglu said his next book will delve deeper into his case for "Remaking Liberalism". Acemoglu won the economics Nobel in October last year alongside Simon Johnson and James A Robinson "for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity." He's also the best-selling joint-author of Why Nations Fail, published in 2012, and Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.
Washington Post
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Protests, parades and Pride: One week in June 2025 is drawing stark American fault lines
WASHINGTON — On the first weekend: a vision of the nation built upon inclusivity and the tenets of liberalism — a conception of country that incorporates generations of fights for equity, for compassion, for expanding what it means to be an American. On the second weekend, in the same town: a public show of strength and nationalism constructed on a foundation of military might, law and order, a tour de force of force.
ABC News
07-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
As the planet warms and liberal democracy is attacked, does the government care?
This warning was published in 1762: "As soon as man can disobey with impunity, his disobedience becomes legitimate." It comes from The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau's words inspired the French Revolution, and the American revolutionary war, and influenced the political and moral philosophy we call liberalism, on which modern Australian political society is based. The message contained in that warning is extremely important. If we want to live in a world in which individual human and civil rights mean anything, certain groups in society must not be allowed to behave with impunity. Why? Because if some groups can behave with impunity, and everyone else is forced to stand back and watch, it has a deeply corrosive effect on human culture. If they can behave with impunity, they'll keep pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with (who's going to stop them?), and their outrageous behaviour will become the new low "standard" for others to follow. It's obvious what that downward spiral in morality and ethics means for everyone. Do we believe freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to protest, and the media's right to tell the truth, are essential for a free society? If we do, then we can't allow privileged groups to dismantle those things in their effort to protect their "prerogative" to behave with impunity. When we let anyone hack away at those pillars of liberalism — and make it increasingly dangerous for individuals to tell the truth, to speak up, and to protest the abuse of power — what will happen to our "free society"? It will see illiberalism flourish. In some ways, the battle to protect important elements of liberal society has already been lost. In the 21st century, the right to privacy, which is essential to an individual's ability to speak freely in their own home, has been destroyed. The internet, which held so much promise in the 1990s, has been turned against us. It's become a tool to crush political dissent and compile lists of suspect individuals and their personal networks. The weaponisation of our data and AI technology is driving a rapid evolution in dystopian predictive policing and warfare. Some private companies operating at the frontier of this technology, like Palantir, are profiting from these developments. And we need to understand everything is connected. Take the environment, the very thing that sustains life on this planet. In December last year, researchers at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom released a study that showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environment protesters. It found more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involved arrests, more than three times the global average. It showed Australia's political leaders had joined the "rapid escalation" of global efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest in recent years, while sovereign states globally were failing to meet their emissions targets and international agreements. It complemented other reports (here and here) that illuminated the links between political donations and lobbying from fossil fuel companies, governments writing harsher laws and penalties for activists, policing agencies being used to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts bedding the laws down. Think about how that phenomenon is connected to the global economic system. Specifically, consider the role the "price mechanism" is supposed to play in industrialised society. At the moment, we're watching a nasty global battle over an attempt by scientists and environmentalists to have the true costs of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products fossil fuel companies sell to the world. If the true environmental, climate, and planetary costs of fossil fuels were really reflected in their prices, the price of petrol, gas and coal would be many multitudes higher than today's suppressed "market" prices. So the global fossil fuel industry is using every lever it can — political influence, legal systems, police forces, private security services, national armies, extra-judicial harassment and intimidation — to stop the true cost of their products being reflected in the market prices of their products. And climate and environmental activists and scientists are using every lever they can — research, letters to politicians, the legal system, protests, civil disobedience, and blockades — to have the true climate and planetary costs of fossil fuels reflected in their prices. Do we have a right to an inhabitable planet? It's not difficult to see how the battle over the price mechanism is deeply connected to the struggle to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples globally (including land rights, the right to cultural preservation, and participation in decision-making processes). Everything is connected. Last week, the climate analyst Ketan Joshi wrote a fiery article in Crikey that touched on many of these issues. It's really worth reading. Mr Joshi said the Albanese government's recent controversial decision to allow Woodside's North West Shelf gas project to continue operating until 2070 was a major blow to the climate movement and signified something sinister. He argued Labor was not a climate denier, it was something "far worse". He said if anyone in 2025 could work to worsen fossil fuel reliance in full acceptance of the consequences, without any willingness to work to prevent them, they were "far scarier" than climate deniers. "There isn't a great name for this, but we can call it "tactical fatalism": the intentional, weaponised insistence that a worse future is the only future (from those who benefit the most from whatever makes it bad)," he wrote. "The climate movement is ill-equipped to deal with a threat that looks like this. The easy binary of deniers vs believers died last decade. Any fantasy we had of a global moral pact of good intentions is dead. "This decade we are realising how much damage and death can be caused openly, without any shame. Genocidal countries know it, and the fossil fuel industry knows it, too. "A half-decade of wars, invasions, energy crises and a really nasty pandemic haven't been easy on our movement, and the tactical fatalist predators are circling." How do these sad political developments fit with the principles of "liberalism," where the right to speak freely, to tell the truth, and protest are supposed to be sacrosanct? In The Social Contract, Rousseau said when privileged groups can act with impunity we exist in a world where might is right. "And as the strongest is always right, the only problem is how to become the strongest," he wrote. Is that really the world we want to live in? Is that what younger Australians voted for?
