Cultural appropriation? Freedom of speech?

Well yes, but there are issues of flip-floppery here as well, aren't there?


To Spain, where there’s been a series of disturbances, well, let’s call a spade a spade – riots, over the arrest and jailing of a radical Left-wing Catalan rapper. Now, you, like me, might have immediately assumed that this whole story somehow relates to the idea of a Western European actively appropriating another culture, the product of an ethnically different culture that has nothing to do with white people, but you’d be wrong.

Perhaps the fact that this young man is identified as belonging to the radical Left is what ensures that nobody even thinks to consider whether it’s appropriate at any level, for a white man to express himself via rap, complete with copied hand signals and a collection of postures that were once the sole traits of black, American rappers.

The cause of the riots is due to his incarceration. His incarceration in turn is due to his rapping. Having received a suspended sentence related to his lyrics that called for the deaths of several Spanish politicians, in addition to him glorifying terrorist organisations such as ETA and Al-Qaeda, he has now been jailed for nine months (reduced from the original two years), but this time his sentence was not suspended, due to his previous conviction.

Now, the Spanish appear to have a fair bit of soul-searching ahead of them. The extreme Left-wing government is, in essence, using laws that they inherited from Franco’s dictatorship, but there don’t seem to be any extenuating circumstances. Franco died in 1975, and by 1978 Spain was operating as a democratic constitutional monarchy. The governments of Spain have had plenty of time to have changed the formation of laws on their statute books.

But enough of what the Spanish chose or chose not to do. This rapper, far from being castigated for cultural appropriation like so many others, has been imprisoned and, upon completing his jailtime, will find himself disqualified from employment in the public sector. Presumably he’s upset about only one of these two punishments.

Amongst those who have openly criticised the decision to prosecute and punish this young man, there is one group which stands out from the crowd. Amnesty International has thrown itself into the tumult that surrounds him. The Director of Amnesty International Spain, Esteban Beltrán, had this to say:

“It’s a sad consequence for our society: self-censorship for fear of repression”

Further, Beltrán stated that:

“No one should face criminal prosecution for expressing themselves on social media or for singing something that may be distasteful or shocking. Expressions that do not clearly and directly incite violence should not be criminalised.”

Amnesty International rarely criticises decisions made by Left-wing governments or organisations, does it? And yet here it is, criticising the actions of the Socialist Workers’ Party, although it could be argued that what Amnesty really finds objectionable is the laws left in place after Franco’s departure.

Fine. They, too, have some issues to work through, but this surely opens a can of worms, doesn’t it?

I mean, here’s the Spanish Director of Amnesty stating explicitly that there is a need to ensure that anything that is not a direct call to violence is not turned into a crime, and yet, we all recall what just happened to the President of the United States, don’t we?

Yes, it’s hard to forget. A person who is meant to be the world’s most powerful (or one of the world’s most powerful) leaders was silenced by a social media company because they chose to interpret his words in a particular manner, and then judged him on the basis thereof.

Amnesty International followed suit.

Now, who can recall what it was that Trump tweeted that caused all the trouble? What was the incitement to violence which saw the Democrats attempt to impeach him for a second time?

Well, it’s a long speech, read it at your leisure, but the noticeable thing is that there is a dearth of evidence of Trump inciting violence. If someone finds it, then that person has been fishing for it. But Trump was banned from Twitter because of this ‘incitement to violence’. The President of the USA was subjected to an impeachment procedure on this non-existent evidence of him inciting people to commit violence. And Amnesty International was all over him as a result. Now, obviously there are substantial differences between a white Spanish rapper and the President of the USA, but you’d have to be blind, or stupid, to not recognise that Amnesty has as much true credibility as North Korea at any time of the day or night.

In Spain, Amnesty International have, surprisingly, attacked what is, in essence, a Communist government, the Socialist Workers’ Party. Normally, Amnesty fights for these guys. When attacking Trump, they maintain their traditional form. He’s a conservative, and so fair game. But what are we witnessing here? Certainly it’s a confusing situation. The Socialist Workers’ Party, utilising laws that were introduced by a "fascist dictator" to silence the voice of a Left-wing Catalan who is busy insulting various Spanish institutions whilst appropriating someone else’s culture. Jesus.

The adjective ‘complicated’ barely covers it, but what we might be witnessing, in amongst all this, could be the development of genuine independence in place of Leftwaffe orders from the top down within the organisation that is Amnesty. All right, all right, they’re still intent on decrying Trump as the inspiration for Darth Vader or something similar, which very much indicates where their financing comes from, but the Spanish chapter is bucking the trend. The Spanish chapter has bucked the trend, the historical trend, and has gone on record as criticising the Socialist Workers’ Party.

Perhaps, but there’s precious little real progress for us to cheer. This week, Amnesty returned to their more typical, confused rhetoric which seeks to outdo itself in political correctness. Yes, the bump in the road that saw a Socialist Workers’ Party coming in for criticism was merely that; a bump in the road. Amnesty have since retreated on the flip-flop front, and reaffirmed their Leftwaffe credentials, stripping Russian opposition politician Alexi Navalny of the ‘prisoner of conscience’ status that they granted him on 17 January.


This woker than woke approach, that which we’re used to from Amnesty, results from the fact that they’ve been unable to come to terms with Navalny’s right-wing views and comments regarding Muslims, Georgians and illegal migrants. Only those can be prisoners of conscience whose opinions fit the Leftwaffe mould.

Flip. Flop. And back to flip. This is Amnesty back on the secure footing of following woke trends, not logic, in their politically-correct bubble.