Trump, Teacher Education Groups Agree to End DEI Grant Suit Bloomberg Law News
from news.google.com
Wokeness
The highest court in the EU, the Court of Justice of the European Union, has ruled that all 27 members states of the union must allow all citizens to have photo ID that matches their “lived gender.” The ruling is sure to bring the differences between progressive globalism and traditional Europeanism to a head.
EU’s top court rules all 27 member nations must recognize ‘transgender’ identities – lifesitenews.com
Specifically, the judgement targets countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria, which do not permit the changing of sex on official IDs and reject the premises of gender ideology.
The case, C-43/24 Shipova, was brought by a transgender-identifying man in Italy, who has been trying for a decade to get his name and gender changed on official documents. The Bulgarian courts have denied this requests. In 2023, the Bulgarian Supreme Court issued a binding interpretation stating that lower courts cannot permit LGR; this followed a 2021 Constitutional Court ruling affirming that “sex” is biological and that the LGBT concept of “gender” does not exist in Bulgarian law.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor has ruled the Department of Education cannot receive student admission data from colleges and universities. The Department was seeking information on race, gender, standardized test scores, and GPAs of applicants. The data would be collected and reviewed in a way that does not expose student IDs.
The data is needed to determine whether colleges and universities are complying with a SCOTUS order ending affirmative action in college admissions. The ruling will be appealed. The lawsuit was initiated by 17 Progmerican states. We believe they are seeking to protect their Progmerican institutions from an American plumb line.
Court pauses ‘unprecedented’ federal demand for 7 years of college admissions data – thecollegefix.com
A judge has sided — for now — with the attorneys general for 17 states who recently filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education’s demand for reams of student admissions data.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor on Friday granted a temporary restraining order through March 25 blocking the department from collecting the data as he reviews the lawsuit.
China’s National People’s Congress approved a new law called the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.” The law aims to harmonize the country’s 55 state-recognized ethnic minorities with the Han majority. The law was passed on March 12 and signed into law by Chairman Xi. The law takes effect on July 1st.
It is feared that the law will be used to further crack down on these minorities, leading to more genocidal pogroms such as were carried out against the Uyghurs (and are still going on). Some of the tactics of the past include forcing minority groups to have more abortions, taking children and raising them as Han, and banning the use of the minority group’s languages and artistic traditions.
China’s ‘Ethnic Unity’ Law Deepens Repression of Minorities International Christian Concern
from news.google.com
China’s National People’s Congress this week approved a sweeping new law titled the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.
Marketed by Beijing as a measure to foster “unity” among the country’s 55 officially recognized ethnic minority groups, critics — both inside and outside China — warn that it represents a significant legal entrenchment of policies that have long sought to assimilate, suppress, and control ethnic and religious minorities across the country.
Passed on March 12 and signed by President Xi Jinping, the new law will take effect on July 1. It mandates broad implementation of what the Chinese state calls a “strong sense of community of the Chinese nation” across government bodies, schools, enterprises, and social organizations. Mandarin Chinese is prioritized as the language of instruction and public life, effectively diminishing the official space for minority languages such as Uyghur and Tibetan.
Although framed as a measure to promote “progress” and “common prosperity,” outside observers argue the legislation cements an assimilationist agenda that undercuts minority identity and autonomy. Anthropologists and analysts note that the law expands the legal basis to restrict religious, cultural, and political activities of ethnic minorities and could be used to criminalize dissent or cultural expression as separatism.
After the U.S. 9th circuit court ruled religious groups cannot keep trans men out of women’s spaces, they receive a fiery dissent. 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke began his dissent with the phrase, “This is a case about swinging d#%ks.”
He then added, “The fact that the religious owners of a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa are prohibited by law from preventing a naked adult male, who remains sexually attracted to women, from exposing himself to thirteen-year-old girls tragically illustrates the sick and twisted consequences of erasing sex as a coherent legal category
My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words in my opinion, yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague Judge Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia,” he wrote. “That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself.”
Judge Blasts Liberal Colleagues For Forcing Christian Spa To Allow Men In Women’s Space: “Collectively Lost Their Minds” – louderwithcrowder.com
According to Judge Lawrence VanDyke, “the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds.” He said this in response to his colleagues forcing a Chrisitan spa to admit men into female-only spaces.
According to TPM:
“This is a case about swinging dicks,” began 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke in his dissent.
The case in question centered on the policy of two Korean spas in Washington state that allowed only “biological women” to use their services — or more specifically, barred trans women who had not yet undergone surgery. Washington’s Human Rights Commission took enforcement action against the spas for violating an anti-discrimination state law. The spas sued, arguing that the enforcement action had violated their First Amendment rights. A district court dismissed the complaint, and a 9th Circuit panel upheld that dismissal. In a Thursday ruling, the full 9th Circuit declined to rehear the case.