The United Nations appears to be attempting to shred the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution again. While many conservatives have decried this move, a columnist at Hello Giggles, a Time Inc. property, is applauding the move. That columnist is not alone.
The dustup centers on an effort by a number of activists aiming to build a political wall around their own customs and culture under the guise of “cultural appropriation.”
As usual the leftists at the UN and in US academia forget to consider consequences.
National Review summed up the efforts a committee within the UN World Intellectual Property Organization is undertaking:
“As reported by CBC News, James Anaya, the dean of law at the University Colorado, spoke to the committee on Monday and demanded that the final document “obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions.”
Anaya is a perfect example of authoritarian academics who make you stop and ask yourself why someone with such a narrow mind was placed into such a position.
“The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions [in] place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language.”
At Hello Giggles, a site created by a Tinseltown type and purchased by Time Inc., one columnist apparently loves the idea of a world body policing speech and commerce. In the article 5 things you may have not realized are cultural appropriation, the writer includes this:
“You’ll often see or hear people jokingly talk about their “spirit animal.” That’s a very offensive form of cultural appropriation, though, because there is a significant meaning behind the idea of a spirit animal, one that is deeply rooted in indigenous cultures.”
I forced myself to read the whole Hello Giggles polemic and decided the columnist deserves an award for complete idiocy.
You can read the politically correct argument on cultural appropriation at the UN website.
Activists want this to be written into international law.
This is another in a very long line of examples of globalism run amok. Any politician endorsing an initiative like this that is a de facto nullifier of the US 1st Amendment should be shown the door when Election Day rolls around. This is one of many reasons US sovereignty must remain intact despite the attempts of globalists on left and right to dilute it. Thus far, one of the few in Washington who is committed to defending US sovereignty is President Donald Trump.
Who decides what culture owns a particular practice, considering ongoing changes in the way we look at the evolution of man and migration patterns in antiquity? Why would any free people agree to having their language, creative expressions, and thoughts policed by a world body?
The UN is in sore need of reformers who believe in actual freedom because at present, it has become a gigantic bureaucracy held accountable by no one.
Finally, for one moment consider what such a law might mean to the world’s major faiths. Christians and Muslims would by necessity have to give up Abraham. Judaism had him first. Technically speaking a person of color could not choose to dye her hair blond, and a white person could not wear cornrows. Halloween? Nix it—Americans didn’t come up with it first.
These activists from a number of countries are likely just seeking another avenue to redirect money from others’ pockets to their own. Follow the money. Works every time.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 19, 2017)
Please help us by sharing our articles. If possible, consider making a donation via the PayPal link in the sidebar. We will not be able to continue to publish without your help.