Criminal charges laid against man for spreading fake news

As Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I have warned that “coronavirus” will be used as an excuse for restrictions on free speech, state bullying and restriction of our rights, Here’s an example from Soviet South Africa.

Criminal charges laid against man for spreading fake newsn

06 Apr 2020

The Eastern Cape Department of Health has condemned a video doing the rounds on social media where a man is calling on citizens to refuse being tested for Covid-19.

The man, who identifies himself as Stephen Donald Birch from Cape Town says the tests are contaminated.

A criminal charge was laid against Birch on Monday morning.

The spokesperson for the Eastern Cape Department of Health Sizwe Kupelo says they condemn this video spreading fake news.

He says getting tested for the virus is the only way to flatten the curve.

The National death toll for COVID19 rose to 11 on Sunday night.

In the Western Cape, nine patients are currently receiving treatment in ICU.

On Monday, the government rolled out a massive screening and testing programme countrywide.

You Tube in Bed With Red-China Friendly WHO & Bans Content that Questions WHO Party Line

You Tube in Bed With Red-China Friendly WHO & Bans Content that Questions WHO Party Line

As civil liberties erode, Canada must not allow COVID-19 outbreak to infect the rule of law

Skip to Main ContentCBCMenu COVID-19: What you need to know

As civil liberties erode, Canada must not allow COVID-19 outbreak to infect the rule of law

Government can suppress civil liberties in the name of protecting them, but how far will it go?

Joseph Arvay, David Wu · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: Mar 26, 2020 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: March 26

Measures taken by the federal, provincial and municipal governments to try and stop COVID-19 from spreading have some asking where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands in light of this pandemic. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

This column is an opinion by Joseph Arvay QC and David Wu, lawyers at Arvay Finlay LLP in Vancouver and Victoria, B.C. For more information about CBC’s Opinion section, please see the FAQ.

When the lock-downs started occurring in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei, China, quarantining more than 50 million people, many observers in Western countries thought it impossible for such Draconian measures to be implemented in the democratic West.

Only an authoritarian government could implement such liberty-infringing measures, right?

Yet the premier of Nova Scotia announced strict legal measures Sunday to enforce isolation and social distancing, measures that include fines and even potential imprisonment. He said, “a failure to follow public guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19 puts our civil liberties at risk.”

That statement might have struck some as counter-intuitive or something of an oxymoron. We usually see our civil liberties as being a bulwark against state action that seeks to deprive us of our rights and freedoms, such as the right to liberty, and the freedoms to assemble in public places and associate with our friends, families and colleagues. And yet here was a provincial premier claiming that these new laws — laws that would do just that — are in effect civil libertarian measures.

Similar measures to counter COVID-19’s transmission are now in place or expected at all levels of government in Canada: federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal.

Provinces, cities crack down on social distancing rules

  • 8 days ago
  • 1:59

Provincial and local governments are cracking down on people who are not following social distancing or quarantine rules to try to prevent further spread of COVID-19. 1:59

This raises legitimate legal questions – how far can the state go to erode our civil liberties in the name of protecting them? And where does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,which applies to federal, provincial and municipal laws, stand in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic?

A declaration of a local, provincial, or federal emergency does not in and of itself suspend the operation of the Charter. Our fundamental Charter rights currently remain in place, and all laws and government actions aimed at tackling the pandemic still need to be compliant with the Charter.

We have no doubt that the measures taken so far by governments – from orders in some provinces to close all non-essential businesses, to the bylaw amendments in some cities to increase fines to up to $50,000 for breaches of emergency orders – are compliant with the Charter, because none of our rights and freedoms are absolute. All can be infringed by laws that “are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

These various measures would strike most people as proportionate to achieve the pressing and compelling state objectives of protecting our citizens from a deadly virus. Rights and liberties must sometimes make way in the pursuit of other legitimate societal objectives, like public health.

And such rights and liberties can themselves sometimes be in conflict (for example, one’s right to liberty and association versus another’s right to life and security of the person in the current pandemic).

‘Enough is enough,’ Trudeau toughens talk on isolation

  • 8 days ago
  • 1:58

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau toughened his language around self-isolation and social distancing while considering implementing the Emergencies Act. 1:58

How much further might the government go?

There is now much talk of social unrest. Scuffles have broken out in grocery stores that ran short of items, and on March 19 the London Daily Telegraph reported that, “Food retailers have warned that riots and civil disobedience could break out within weeks if production is unable to keep up with demand.” Meanwhile, gun and ammunition sales in Canada are rising significantly.

Desperate people sometimes take desperate measures. If the COVID-19 pandemic worsens and poses an even greater threat to our society, we can expect government measures increasingly to infringe on our civil liberties if needed to deal with unrest.

Is a total lock-down in our future? Unrestricted state spying or surveillance? Suspension of habeas corpus? Martial law?

It seems safe to say that Canadians are in uncharted territory, and that includes our governments.

Ontario closes all non-essential services to slow COVID-19 spread

  • 8 days ago
  • 1:51

Ontario Premier Doug Ford ordered all non-essential stores and services to close at the end of Tuesday, to slow the spread of COVID-19. 1:51

Undoubtedly the state will be accused by some of doing too much, and by others of doing too little. Both sides could potentially rely on the Charterto bolster their position.

But the reality is that the Charterwill not hamstring unprecedented government measures that are designed to tackle an unprecedented crisis, as long as such measures can be justified.

What the Chartermandates is proportionality and balance. Particular care needs to be taken not to worsen the already precarious situation of our homeless, prisoners, those seeking refugee status, sex workers, drug addicts and other vulnerable and marginalized communities.

These are, no doubt, very fearful times. But what we hope is not in the cards is a government invoking the “Notwithstanding clause” in section 33 of the Charter. That would mean that there are no restrictions on those governments that decide to enact laws that abolish our legal rights and fundamental freedoms.

That, in our opinion, would be an unnecessary overreaction and a dangerous one.

Let’s not give the COVID-19 virus that power. It is causing enough havoc; let it not infect the rule of law.

About the Author

Joseph Arvay

Joseph Arvay QC is a lawyer at Arvay Finlay LLP in Vancouver and Victoria, B.C.CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices|About CBC News

  • 5 days ago
  • 5 days ago

Seattle Police Chief Tells People To Call 911 If They Hear ‘Racist Name-Calling


[Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White. One wonders whether this apparently affirmative action appointee has ever heard of the First which ensures that people have the right to use even offensive language without fear of being hauled off by the cops.]

Seattle Police Chief Tells People To Call 911 If They Hear ‘Racist Name-Calling’

Don’t the authorities have better things to do with their time right now?

Robby Soave | 3.31.2020 1:02 PM


(Paul Christian Gordon/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Seattle’s top cop may want to get her priorities straightened out. In the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Police Chief Carmen Best used her most recent “chief’s brief” update on the coronavirus crisis to urge residents to dial 911 if they are the victims of racist name-calling.

It’s a time-wasting imperative—and one that’s at odds with the First Amendment.

In her briefing, Best called upon the expertise of a former local news anchor, Lori Matsukawa.

“Hate crimes have no place in our community,” said Matsukawa. “We are all trying to deal with the COVID-19 public health crisis together. If you are a victim of a hate crime or hate-based harassment, please call 911.”

“We will document and investigate every reported hate crime,” Best continued. “Even racist name-calling should be reported to police. If you aren’t sure if a hate crime occurred, call 911. We are here to help.”

Jews Target Free Expression in Fight Over ‘Hate Speech’

The tyrannical assault on the First Amendment and freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry has reached a whole new level, as establishment spokesmen and media outlets openly advance the notion that America needs “hate speech” laws.

In a recently published op-ed in The Washington Post, Richard Stengel, a former high-ranking State Department official under President Barack Obama and a former editor of Time magazine, argued that the United States should consider enacting “hate speech” laws similar to the tyrannical laws in many European countries that criminalize such things as “Holocaust denial” and “incitement of racial and religious hatred.” These types of laws have effectively been used to persecute and punish any individual investigating complex and disputed aspects of history, particularly relating to WWII, as well as those who criticize massive Third World immigration into the West, refugee resettlement, globalism more generally, and other politically incorrect topics.

“All speech is not equal,” Stengel hypocritically argues in his op-ed. “And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

The very concept of “hate speech,” long promoted by organizations such as the ADL and SPLC, essentially amounts to any criticism of any aspect of the New World Order agenda and the forces behind it. Freedom of speech, thought, and historical and scientific inquiry, bedrocks of the American political tradition specifically and Western civilization more generally, have increasingly been undermined and eroded by private entities such as Google, YouTube, and Twitter that censor and punish dissenting opinions on their platforms. Individuals expressing politically incorrect opinions also increasingly face the risk of becoming targets of radical leftwing organizations and activists, such as Antifa, that work tirelessly to publicly shame and expose “thought criminals,” often leading to social ostracization and loss of employment.

With establishment figures openly pushing for “hate speech” laws, the Senate and House have both established Bipartisan Task Forces for Combating Anti-Semitism, an initiative lobbied for by the Zionist lobby dominating Capitol Hill in an effort to punish those who criticize Israel and the pro-Zionist policies promoted by the D.C. establishment. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, praised the recently established task force, arguing that “we must all come together to fight the rise in anti-Semitism that threatens communities everywhere.”

Ronald Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress, likewise has called for more laws to combat anti-Semitism, especially online anti-Semitism.

“After three decades, anti-Semitism has now reared its head,” Lauder said in part during the recently concluded Second World Jewish Congress International Meeting of Special Envoys and Coordinators for Combating Anti-Semitism. “We want laws that really mean something.”

Of course, to them, anti-Semitism is not just about racism against Jewish people. It includes criticism of Israel as a way to muzzle opposition to that country’s policies.

Additionally, local and federal officials have even launched investigations into harmless flyers simply declaring “It’s OK to be White” at various universities across the country in an effort to determine if those responsible for posting the flyers committed a “hate crime.”

At Oklahoma City University School of Law, investigators are searching for the man who posted the flyers “to determine his intent and whether the actions are a hate crime,” according to a local ABC affiliate in Oklahoma. Similar flyers were posted on the campus of Western Connecticut State University recently, prompting an official investigation by local and state police as well as the FBI. University President John Clark described the posting of the flyers as “an attack on our university community” and assured students that his office is “making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished.”

The trouble is, even if the posters of these flyers only intended to state the obvious in protest of the vilification of white people especially on college campuses and never intended violence, it wouldn’t matter to leftists. Once their identities are exposed, they will be harassed, threatened, fired from their jobs, and likely driven from society all because they had the audacity to try to push back against the establishment today.

NB: This article was originally published by American Free Press on November 25, 2019. Subscribe to America’s last real newspaper today!

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Do you appreciate the work we do here? Please consider making a donation to help keep us going. Donations may be sent to:

A ‘dramatic increase’ in coronavirus deaths could make Prime Minister invoke rules to track cellphone data

A ‘dramatic increase’ in coronavirus deaths could make Prime Minister invoke rules to track cellphone data

Shruti ShekarTelecom & Tech ReporterYahoo Finance CanadaMarch 26, 2020

El primer ministro canadiense, Justin Trudeau, se dirige a canadienses sobre la pandemia de COVID-19 desde Rideau Cottaga en Ottawa, Canadá, el jueves 26 de marzo de 2020. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press vía AP)

In an effort to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked the Quarantine Act requiring those returning from abroad to self-isolate. Ontario’s former information and privacy commissioner says if deaths increase exponentially the government could enact measures to track cellphone data to further limit the spread. 

“Let’s say the number of COVID-19 [deaths] in Toronto or Ontario tripled. Maybe they would use that as the excuse or a reason needed to invoke it,” Ann Cavoukian said in an interview. 

“I don’t know because I don’t want to think about it. I don’t want my mind to go there. But I would think a dramatic increase would possibly get them doing that.”

As of March 26, there are a total of 13 deaths reported in Ontario that are related to the coronavirus; there are 35 deaths in the country.  

During a press conference on March 25, Trudeau indicated that the government was “not taking measures” like collecting anonymous cellphone data to track the spread of the virus. 

“We recognize in an emergency situation we need to take certain steps that wouldn’t be taken in a non-emergency situation, but that is not something we are looking at now,” Trudeau said. “But all options are on the table to do what is necessary to keep Canadians safe.”

Cavoukian said that Trudeau said nothing was off the table because he is aware of these rules. 

“There are, unfortunately, privacy laws that can be invoked by the government that will enable them to engage in behaviours that wouldn’t be permitted under the [privacy] act. All privacy acts have these kinds of emergency measures, they’re supposed to be a last resort,” she said. 

“They’re supposed to be time-limited, clear sunset clauses, full transparency associated with what the government is doing.”

Cavoukian said that she didn’t think we were at that point yet for the prime minister to invoke rules and said “we should never get to that point.”

“When you are collecting all the personal information of citizens that just encroaches upon their freedom without privacy,” she said. 

Toronto Mayor John Tory initially said the city was collecting anonymous location data already, as first reported by The Logic, but later retracted his statements. A spokesperson clarified in an email that Toronto was not collecting any data. 

Bell, Telus, Rogers, and Shaw Communications’ Freedom Mobile confirmed in emailed statements that they have not been approached by the City of Toronto to gather cellphone data. 

Jesse Hirsh, president of Metaviews, said in an interview that these measures should have already been invoked. 

“I’m surprised that they have not already collected anonymized location


because given that both the federal government and the provincial government over the last few days have been escalating language around voluntary self-isolation, this would be one way to verify and find evidence instead of the government guessing,” he said. 

“I’d rather the government instead of guessing that people are or are not complying. I’d rather that they have accurate evidence.”

He added that collecting this data raises privacy concerns but they’re “minor privacy concerns” as this data is helpful in terms of informing public health policy. 

Hirsh noted that if the government drafted policy they would be able to work with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure the protection of the data and how it would be used. 

“We can have our cake and eat it too,” he said. “The expertise exists within the federal government.”

Stephanie Carvin, a security expert and assistant professor at Carleton University, doesn’t think these measures will be taken any time soon and most likely would be taken at a later date when things have restored back to normalcy. 

“You would almost want to implement something like this if the situation improved and we had an open society again,” she said.

“Let’s say if you were able to flatten that curve and then over a period of 18 months, you’re waiting, and all of a sudden there are flare-ups in the country and you want to contain it. That’s when something more targeted might be useful.”

Carvin indicated that even if the government were to take these measures it would require a lot of moving parts and individuals to get on board to make it happen. 

“People think that there’s some kind of switch we can flick, and it’s not that easy,” she said.

She also added that even if the government were able to track the data, they would have to be explicit in terms of what they were collecting and how it was to be used. 

“It’s just not clear to me, how that would be done, by who, under what circumstances,” she said. 

Sweden: Anti-White Totalitarianism and the Death of Free Speech

Sweden: Anti-White Totalitarianism and the Death of Free Speech

Chris Rossetti

Chris Rossetti · 19 January, 2020 4

by Simon Lindberg

The Nordic people’s constitutional freedoms and rights are being abolished. Repression against critics of the system is increasing. The situation is starting to get very serious…

THE MEDIA, politicians and celebrities in Sweden (in other words, the entire establishment) often talk about the lack of “democracy” in other countries. They speak with condemnation about totalitarian states and citizens who cannot say or think what they want, about the shameful treatment of the opposition by the ruling regime, and about police who violently retaliate against public protests and investigative journalists. We hear it about Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and China, just like we heard it before about countries like Libya and Iraq.

This article will not attempt to provide an account of the conditions in these countries or concern itself with the veracity of the establishment’s reporting on them. Instead we will examine what the situation looks like in Sweden. This country is nowhere near as free as the system would like people to believe — the rights and privileges of dissident Swedish citizens have been completely decimated.

In recent years, freedom of expression has been restricted more and more in Sweden. At present the establishment is discussing how both freedom of association and the freedom to demonstrate can be limited. Naturally, the ones being impacted and feeling the effects are those who go against the state and the establishment — i.e., the Swedish opposition.

The Sweden of today is a globalist country. The establishment is comprised of globalists, from the media to the politicians. Sweden’s constitutional laws have even been re-written to suit the globalists; for example, when it was enshrined in the constitution that Sweden would be a multicultural country and a member of the EU. As such, the opposition is not represented by the Moderates or Leftists, who instead can both be said to be the other side of the same coin as the Social Democrats and the rest of the parties in parliament. The opposition is instead the anti-globalists — i.e., the nationalists.

In this article I will examine some practical examples of how the people’s freedoms and rights are being increasingly restricted in Sweden, against nationalists in general and against those who are engaged in the most radical nationalist alternative — the Nordic Resistance Movement — in particular. These types of restrictions always begin with the most radical and refractory groups (and those with the most growth potential), but they will hardly stop there. Only when the entire population thinks exactly as those who rule desire them to will the restrictions cease. Only when every individual applauds the globalist agenda and their own national destruction will the witch hunt be over.

You will not hear about any of this in the mainstream media, other than in a strongly distorted form in which you as a consumer are encouraged to contribute to the death of freedom of expression and your nation. According to such editorials, opinion pieces, news items, radio reports, TV debate programmes and documentaries, it’s only “violent terrorists” who are subjected to repression. Of course, the number of people classed as “violent terrorists” and those affected by the ever-increasing banning craze will only grow larger and larger in time as the system becomes bolder.

Basic Freedom of Speech Does Not Exist in Sweden!

For example, did you know?

• What people are allowed to express is being increasingly restricted. Not only that which clearly defies the regime and its representatives is now punishable, but also that which biased prosecutors arbitrarily interpret as defiance.

The legislation which falls under the classification of “incitement to racial hatred” in Sweden is not — as the establishment would have you believe — a law which primarily exists to protect ethnic, religious and sexual minorities from abuse. These minorities already possess full legal protection under laws pertaining to defamation and illegal threats. In fact, via the hate crime amendment, these “minorities” enjoy a higher level of protection than we White heterosexual Swedes. It is also worth mentioning in this context that neither the hate crime amendment nor incitement to racial hatred legislation is applied when non-Swedes discriminate against Swedes on ethnically motivated grounds.

Instead the incitement to racial hatred law primarily exists to protect the regime from all forms of public criticism of their globalist world order. Representatives of the regime have even officially stated that there isn’t a need for a ban on “racist” groups in Sweden because the incitement to racial hatred law already exists and fulfils the same purpose: “Although the criminalisation focuses on the actions [of an organisation], the purpose of the Swedish legislation is that such organisations’ activities shall be prevented.”

One example of the real purpose of the law is demonstrated by the fact that a clear majority of all prosecutions relating to incitement to racial hatred do not originate from police reports by individuals from various minority groups who felt offended or upset, but from pro-system, taxpayer-supported political associations whose only purpose is to trawl the Internet for posts to mass report. Two culprits of such activities are Juridikfronten (The Legal Front), whose work attempts to restrict press freedom, and Näthatsgranskaren (Net Hate Inspectors), who hound pensioners who express themselves “incorrectly” online.

The Swedish Defence Research Agency (together with the police) has also launched a “hate-o-meter”, a piece of software designed to actively search the Internet for comments that could be regarded as constituting incitement to racial hatred.

The intention of the law becomes even clearer when one considers the flexibility with which it can be interpreted. One thing that strongly differentiates Sweden’s racial hatred legislation from the equivalent laws abroad is that in other countries it is often very clear and straightforward what is illegal to express and what is not. In Sweden, however, the law is always open for interpretation by the court, which leads to the unique and unjust situation in which people are judged in retrospect for things they believed were legal to express at the time. This means you can go to prison without even knowing that you did something illegal, no matter how well versed you are in the law. For obvious reasons, this should not be the case in a legal state, and there is no other law in the country that is applied in this way.

Increasingly, the Orwellian term “interpreted facts” is being used in Sweden, which in practice entails a judgement being based not only on what is expressed but also on who expressed it, leading to inequality under the law. As such, symbols, expressions, words and gestures are completely legal if, for example, a known Social Democrat uses them, but illegal if a known nationalist says, does or writes precisely the same thing.

• Troll factories attempting to influence elections are being operated openly by parliamentary parties and more covertly by pro-system journalists and the media.

More and more examples are continually being discovered of government parties, big media outlets and various state institutions actively organising people behind anonymous Internet accounts in order to combat dissident thinkers. One such case is the infamous apparatchik Dan Eliasson’s MSB (Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency), whose foremost task is to tackle so-called disinformation in society — in other words, views that are controversial, oppositional and critical of the system. In addition we have supposedly private initiatives (with personnel and financiers who clearly connect them to the current system) launching astroturf hashtag campaigns like jagärhär [I am here] or “interasistmen” [not racist but…]. The Social Democrats have also quite openly admitted to running troll operations.

The media are complicit here too. By openly and mendaciously reporting on troll factories and “fake news” by the opposition and attempting to make the system appear legitimate at all times, they themselves do more trolling than the trolls they are supposed to be responsible for exposing.

• Symbols, including those representing millennia-old culture — and even greetings that are used by opponents of the system — are continually being banned. It is now even illegal to honour individual people who historically stood up against the system.

For many years, the millennia-old solar symbol of the swastika, or fylfot, has been completely banned in Sweden. It is also prohibited to wear certain death’s-head symbols and some ancient Nordic runes and other cultural symbols in various combinations. Sweden’s interior minister, Morgan Johansson, said in 2018 that a committee had been appointed to investigate banning the Tyr rune, which, as well as being a letter in our forefathers’ runic alphabet, is also the symbol of the Nordic Resistance Movement. If the ban goes through, it will pave the way for the prohibition of all Nordic runes.

It is sometimes argued that the swastika and runes, despite their historical significance, have now taken on another meaning which legitimises a ban. Firstly, the belief that certain ideas should be forbidden from being manifested in symbols is a highly totalitarian point of view — but, as with the aforementioned examples, it is also noteworthy when considering where the boundaries are drawn and who has the right to set them. Where does it end?

Örebro city court ruled in October 2018 that it is forbidden to display an image of Adolf Hitler if the person responsible does not simultaneously repudiate Hitler’s life and actions. Here, just as in the case of the banned symbols, you can think what you want about Hitler, but the fact that someone is no longer allowed to publish photographs of people the establishment disapproves of is a glaring example of just how far our anti-free speech laws have been extended. Who will be forbidden from being portrayed next remains to be seen… Why not the old Swedish prime ministers Pär Albin Hansson and Tage Erlander, who clearly stood for a policy that, according to the system, would be regarded as very controversial today?

• Organisations the establishment disapproves of are defamed by the state’s public representatives and threatened with bans.

Almost every high-ranking politician or chief editor has on at least one occasion in recent years utilised the largest media outlets to urge for the curtailing of freedom of association and the banning of the Nordic Resistance Movement. In all cases, smears, shameful epithets and barefaced lies are used to justify the ban of what is a fully legal and — according to all the rules — correctly registered political party.

When the Center Party’s leader Annie Lööf calls the Resistance Movement a “hate sect”, and the prime minister himself, Stefan Löfven, labels the party “disgusting” and its members “the scum of history”, one realises just how extreme the level of defamation is. No logical reasoning or ideological arguments are ever used; instead it’s almost like a competition to see who can agitate against us in the most obscene way — all from the most high-ranking members of the establishment.

A large number of powerful lobby organisations also participate in the agitation. One particularly vociferous example is the World Jewish Congress (WJC), the world’s most powerful openly Jewish lobby organisation, which was the main culprit responsible for the incitement to racial hatred law coming to Sweden in the first place, in addition to being openly involved in the outbreak of World War II. The WJC employ outright lies in their agitation against the Resistance Movement and often repeat in their rhetoric that the organisation would use terror and violence to achieve its goals.

• The bank accounts of oppositional political parties and associations are shut down and they aren’t allowed to open new ones.

The various bank accounts the Nordic Resistance Movement had at its disposal and operated impeccably for many years were shut down by Nordea two years ago. Shortly thereafter, the accounts of the majority of other nationalist groups and websites were also shut down by other banks in addition to Nordea.

When the Nordic Resistance Movement registered as a political party to stand in elections, the party was denied an account by all registered banks in Sweden.

In a country like Sweden, where the possibility of using cash is quickly disappearing, being refused the use of bank accounts is a serious restriction of one’s rights. In effect, this is a partial ban of an organisation, as it prevents (or in our case makes it extremely difficult for) sympathisers who want to contribute financially to its operations, as well as making it harder for organisations to conduct vital aspects of their activities by paying invoices for goods and services.

The private banks’ justification for this repression is that the organisations’ activities violate the banks’ ethical values. There is never any mention of any economic impropriety such as money laundering; rather, it is totally motivated by ideology and political standpoints.

This means that either private businesses in Sweden are allowed — without any central judicial control or rules of conduct — to decide which political parties, media outlets and associations can exist and operate on the same terms as all the others, or that the state issues directives to private businesses dictating how they must act. Whatever the case, the message is that if you are not a globalist, you do not have the same rights as those who want to destroy our nations.

• Journalists are abused by police when they attempt to document what the state doesn’t want reported.

The police often blatantly use excessive force against nationalists in general and the Resistance Movement in particular. When journalists from Nordfront — a registered newspaper with publishing rights — document this, it isn’t unusual for them to be subjected to violence as well. On a number of occasions, people with video cameras and media vests have been pepper-sprayed and beaten with batons just because they filmed police attacks on activists. Earlier this year in Nyköping, for example, a police dog was set on a journalist and inflicted serious bite wounds.

It is also more the rule than the exception that the police break the law by confiscating legally source-protected material like cameras and hard disks from Nordfront’s journalists. When combined with incitement to racial hatred laws, which hit oppositional newspapers hard, this makes it all the more difficult to run a media operation that does what all media outlets should do: truly investigate the power-holders and their lackeys.

• The freedom to demonstrate — which was previously safeguarded despite other restrictions on people’s liberties — is now also under threat. Prosecutors assert that dissidents should be allowed to demonstrate in theory, but that they will be punished for other fictitious charges if they do so.

The Resistance Movement do not receive permission to hold demonstrations with anywhere near the same preconditions as other parties and political organisations — both in relation to the length and location of marching routes and the time before the conditions are typically severely reduced compared to those in the original permit.

Permission is still being granted at the time of writing, and so far there hasn’t been a case in Sweden in which an opposition party has been denied permission to demonstrate outright under all conditions. However, an upcoming trial in Gothenburg this autumn could result in the effective abolition of the freedom to demonstrate for dissidents if the prosecutor and police leadership of the West Sweden Region get their way. According to them, just attending a demonstration organised by the Nordic Resistance Movement will be regarded as incitement to racial hatred because the participants are “taking part in a march whose overall impression makes people think of 1930s Germany”. If an organisation is allowed to demonstrate in theory, but the people who participate in the demonstration are then convicted for racial hatred, the system has clearly banned the organisation from demonstrating in practice.

Even if the outcome of the trial leads to the demonstrators’ acquittal, the whole case is still a very interesting example of how the establishment deals with these issues. Just bringing such a case to court (together with the media’s headlines about being convicted for crimes for taking part in the Resistance Movement’s demonstrations) has had a visibly negative effect on the number of participants at the organisation’s events and has essentially paralysed sections of the nationalist demonstration culture which had been built up over the years.

• All large media outlets are pawns of the regime. As well as regularly publishing blatant lies about opposition politicians, they do not permit the broadcast of opinions not sanctioned by the government.

All established TV and radio channels and major newspapers — private and state-owned, national and local, news services and entertainment — are operated according to a globalist agenda. No media is neutral. A majority of media owners aren’t even Swedish. In addition, nobody is ever held accountable for the lies and defamation directed at organisations or associations.

All of this combined means that — aside from reading and watching alternative media — you cannot access information that doesn’t benefit globalist interests and which all too often is permeated with untruths. Individuals who are active in the opposition are also regularly doxxed, hounded and smeared purely because of their political engagement.

An example of a mainstream media doxxing article: “Expressen investigates the Swedish Nazi women”

News that doesn’t fit the globalist narrative is omitted or distorted beyond recognition. All opinion pieces and reports convey a globalist image of the world, and every time the nationalist opposition conduct any kind of activity, it is met by either silence or denunciation. For example, they always talk about the Resistance Movement, never with the Resistance Movement — or at least not without heavily editing and misrepresenting what is said. Even reader contributions and replies which are not to the liking of the new world order are consistently denied publication.

The media climate in Sweden is not just a narrow “opinion corridor” but an immense and total opinion vacuum. This is particularly serious because the media’s power is without a shadow of a doubt greater than that of the elected politicians. It is the media which actively influences and shapes the opinions of the people and makes them vote “correctly” in elections. In many cases, it is evidently the media that governs the politicians and not the reverse.

• International social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter are closely involved in the repression and delete accounts and posts the state wants censored.

The opposition’s posts on social media are deleted, their official accounts and those of their representatives are shut down, and those who still manage to “like” or share anything are exiled to the periphery of the Internet. On Facebook and Instagram, all users who link to any of the Resistance Movement’s websites are banned. On Twitter there is even a block filter that stops links to some of the Movement’s sites being posted at all. On YouTube, videos and accounts that don’t serve the globalists’ interests are deleted on a daily basis.

All this happens with the consent and support of the state. Politicians have openly admitted that they have direct contact with Facebook via their own phone line, which they can use to get anything they want censored and removed. The state’s representatives have also held meetings with companies like Google regarding censorship on YouTube.

In today’s society, it’s increasingly important to be on social media. More and more organisations and businesses don’t even have websites anymore but manage all their web presence via these Internet giants. Many people don’t interact with others in the same way as before and get nearly all their social contact via social media. In other words, being completely silenced in this arena is an effective way for the system to stop the opposition being seen or heard.

It is Your Duty to Act!

All of the above instances really only scratch the surface of the system’s attempts to silence citizens, media and organisations with the “wrong” opinions. Further examples include how those engaged with the opposition — completely or partly with the system’s help — lose their jobs, hunting weapons, membership in trade unions and residents’ associations, and how they are harassed with daily “routine checks”, or for that matter by groundless investigations by the Swedish Tax Agency because of so-called “reverse burden of proof” rules. Then there are the occasions when SÄPO (the Swedish Security Service) contact community centres to prevent the hiring of local premises, or when municipalities buy up old buildings for excessive prices to stop the Resistance Movement from purchasing them.

Opponents’ liberties are restricted more with every day that passes. Swedish freedom of opinion is dying out. Today it mostly affects the Nordic Resistance Movement and closely related groups, but if one observes how the system actively works to push the boundaries on issues such as incitement to racial hatred legislation — or how they cooperate with private entities like the social media giants and the banks, who in practice are not being limited by any constitutional laws — then one understands it is very obvious that it will come to affect more and more people and organisations, until we eventually live in a dictatorship wherein only the most pro-system globalists are not subject to its repression.

So is this article just a series of complaints? Am I playing the world’s biggest victim card?

No, this is purely a presentation of information. These are facts that will hopefully rouse you as a reader and incite you to act. If not for something more distant like your people’s future survival, then at least for freedom of speech — your freedom of speech — which is disappearing here and now, right in front of you!

Those of us who have been actively engaged in the Nordic Resistance Movement for many years are hardly surprised by what’s happening. We have long understood that their “democracy” is just a veiled dictatorship and that we are only allowed to have our freedoms and rights as long as we don’t use them against the globalists and win the people to our side. We saw through their “freedom” façade back in 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed, and when hundreds of thousands of German women were raped during the occupation. We saw through it in recent decades when multiculturalism’s uncountable numbers of victims were brushed aside and mocked (according to the establishment, those who dare to report ethnically motivated assaults, muggings and rapes are not victims but racists who must be fought and silenced). And we see through it today when they duplicitously praise their so-called democracy, diversity and freedom of thought on the one hand, while seeking to crush all forms of public rule, biological diversity and oppositional freedom of speech on the other.

So is everything in this article just hypocrisy? Won’t the Nordic Resistance Movement ban all other views when we take power?

No. In a National Socialist society, the people’s liberties and rights are sacrosanct. Freedom of speech will be extended compared to today, and there will be considerably more policy-making referenda on a variety of issues. Meanwhile, an authoritarian state makes it possible to take decisions in more acute matters without bureaucratic complications and parliamentary bickering.

The truth is that the system projects its own thoughts and views onto us — its sworn enemies. When they accuse us of wanting to destroy freedom of speech, it’s because they themselves desire the silencing of the people. When they describe us as hateful, it’s because they are driven by a pronounced hatred of the planet and the people of the world. When they call us violent terrorists, it’s to hide the fact that they are responsible for the majority of all the violence and terror in the world today. Not only are their claims about us false, but they are also hypocritical on an unparalleled scale.

Now that you have read these words and understand what is happening, it is time for you to act. Do whatever you think is best — support the Nordic Resistance Movement if you believe that is right — do something else if you believe in that. The important thing is that you do something and don’t just continue to sit still while the system takes away everything you have. Do not give away your rights without a fight. Do not give away your people’s future without a struggle. Don’t let them take away your life without resistance!



The appeal against both the conviction and savage sentence of  one year in prison (the maximum) for YOUR WARD NEWS Editor Dr. James Sears and one year’s house arrest for publisher Leroy St. Germaine had been set for tomorrow in Toronto. The editor and publisher of the satirical tabloid had been convicted by a humorless judge under Canada’s notorious “hate” law, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, for wilfully promoting hatred against privileged groups, in this case, Jews and women.

Because of the Coronavirus pandemic scare, the appeal has been postponed, likely until June. Free speech supporters will pack the court when the appeal date is reset.


Let Me Put it To You Plainly About Protests & Illegal Blockades

Let Me Put it To You Plainly About Protests & Illegal Blockades

Progressives and others on the “left” generally do not understand the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate protest. On the one hand they think that somebody who hands out a tract about the evil of murdering the unborn to a woman headed to an abortion clinic or who stands on the sidewalk across from it holding a placard with a pro-life message is doing something horrible that should be against the law. On the other hand they think that when a gang of environmentalist activists who claim to speak for aboriginal people blockades a railroad, preventing it from conducting its daily business of shuttling people and transporting goods across the country, and costing Canadian businesses multiple millions of dollars a day, that they are within their rights and may even consider it a noble and laudable act.

Since lefties have such difficulties with grasping this simple concept, I will explain it to them plainly.

Let us imagine that you are mad about some public issue and want to make your opinion known. You make up a sign expressing your point of view, go to the people who you want to hear it, and march up and down on the sidewalk in front of their building holding the sign up for everyone to read. Or, if a sign just won’t cut it, you write a pamphlet, have several copies printed, and start handing them out.

Note what you have not done. You have not gotten in anyone’s way. You have not used force to prevent other people from going somewhere or doing something.

Your protest, therefore, is a legitimate one. It does not matter whether your opinion is one that the vast majority of people would heartily agree with or one that the vast majority of people would find repugnant. You have made your position known without forcibly interfering with other people’s rights to go about their daily business.

Suppose, however, that you were to take a different approach. Let us say, for example, that the local university is hosting a speaker whose political views you disagree with. When the university refuses to listen to your demands that the lecture be cancelled you form a posse of like-minded individuals and go to the auditorium where the event is scheduled to occur and block all the entrances preventing speaker and audience alike from getting in.

In this instance you have not just made your opinion known, but you have forcibly interfered with the freedom of others to share and hear views different from yours. Your protest, in this case, is not a legitimate one. This has nothing to do with the content of your views, or the matter of whether they are right or wrong. It is because you are interfering with the rights and freedoms of other people.

Having made the basic difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate protest clear, let us consider one more scenario.

In the previous example of an illegitimate protest, you had interfered with the rights and freedoms of others but at least those others were people holding to the views you were protesting against. Suppose that you were upset that Project X was taking place somewhere in the country and in order to protest this you went somewhere else and erected an illegal barricade that interfered with the movement and daily business of millions of people regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with Project X.

Is it not obvious that by doing so you have exited the sphere of mere illegitimate protest and entered that of unlawful aggression against the civil order itself?

The duty of Her Majesty’s government in such an instance is clear. Unfortunately, since the First Minister of that government is still Captain Airhead, the Canadian electorate having proven itself foolish enough last fall to give him a totally undeserved second term, we are not likely to see that duty done any time soon. As the events of this past week have demonstrated, even beneath his fancy new beard, Captain Airhead is still Captain Airhead.

Should, however, Captain Airhead experience a miraculous epiphany, enduing him with a newfound sense of obligation towards the constitution, laws, and common good of our country, here is what he would do.

He would call a press conference immediately. He would address the “protesters” who have blocked the railroad, informing them that their action is one of unlawful aggression against the Dominion of Canada, its constitution, government, laws, civil order in general, economy and people. He would give them twenty four hours to cease and desist this aggression, remove their blockades from the railroad, and to surrender themselves to the police. He would then inform them that the police have been instructed that immediately at the end of that twenty four hour grace period they are to move in and remove any remaining barrier from the railroad and that the Canadian Armed Forces have been put on notice and are standing by to back up the police using whatever force is necessary to accomplish this end.

Yeah, I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen either.

The above arguments are, as stated, independent of any question of whether or not the protesters are right or wrong. Nevertheless, it is a fairly obvious observation that the illegitimate forms of protest are more likely to prove tempting to those whose cause rests upon a weak foundation. In the case of those currently blocking the railroad, you have environmentalist activists opposed to the pipeline project in British Columbia. They purport to be speaking on behalf of the Wet’suwet’en aboriginal tribe, but that tribe’s leaders have, in fact, approved the pipeline project, as have the other tribes in the area in question. This tribe has both elected and hereditary chiefs and the protesters claim that the latter are the legitimate chiefs for whom they speak, but even then only a minority of the hereditary chiefs have opposed the pipeline and it would appear that some shenanigans went down with regards to the hereditary titles apart from which this minority would have been even smaller. At any rate, contrary to the impression one would get from the CBC, the protesters are not all aboriginals, many appear to be of white European descent, and some have only recently come to Canada. As is often the case with environmentalist “protest” movements that speak entirely in neo-Marxist jargon, it is likely that the only people these protesters truly speak for are the American petroleum companies who benefit from environmentalist protests against Canadian pipelines because these pipelines, if constructed, would allow our major oil-producing provinces, both landlocked, to access world markets and no longer be dependent upon the American market.

Even if none of that were case and this was a sincere protest movement, however, its actions are intolerable and the government’s duty remains clear. It is the duty of all lawfully constituted civil authority to use lawful force to combat those who use unlawful force to wage anarchical war against order and civilization. Again, the government’s duty is clear. If only the Prime Minister cared.