Cultural Marxist Britain’s Tories Trample Free Speech Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet

Cultural Marxist Britain’s Tories Trample Free Speech

Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet

By Jonathan Turley

October 06, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.

Prime Minister Theresa May has previously called for greater government control of the Internet. Now, the government not only would make reading material on the Internet a crime, but would not necessarily tell you what sites will be deemed the ultimate click bait. Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.” So sites deemed “far-right propaganda” (but not far-left propaganda) could lead to your arrest — leaving the government with a sweeping and ambiguous mandate.

The law would move from criminalizing the downloading of information to simply reading it. The move confirms the long criticism of civil libertarians that the earlier criminalization would just be the start of an ever-expanding government regulation of sites and speech. Rudd admits that she wants to arrest those who just read material but do not actually download the material.

In the past, the government assumed near total discretion in determining who had a “reasonable excuse” for downloading information.

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Daily Newsletter

You can’t buy your way onto these pages

Britain has long relied on the presumed benevolence of the government in giving its sweeping authority in the surveillance and regulation of speech, including the media. This move however is a quantum shift in government controls over speech and information. Indeed, this comes the closest to criminalization not just speech but thought. It is a dangerous concept and should be viewed as disqualifying for anyone who want to hold (or retain) high office.

What is particularly striking is that this new law seeks to create a new normal in a society already desensitized to government controls and speech crimes. Thee is no pretense left in this campaign —  just a smiling face rallying people to the cause of thought control.

Sound familiar?

We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. … We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.George Orwell, 1984

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law.  https://jonathanturley.org/

 

 

Whatcott Replies to Oger’s Lawyer’s Demand that the Tribunal Say O is a Woman

Whatcott responds to delusional letter from Ronan’s lawyer

Postby Bill Whatcott » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am

Image – Image
Ronan (picture left) when he was a husband and father of two children 5 years ago. Ronan (picture right) campaigning for NDP in Downtown Toronto riding Vancouver False Greek.

Bill Whatcott’s response to Ms. Susanna Quail’s long winded letter to the BCHRT asking the member Walter Rilkoff to reconsider his decision to not rewrite one sentence in his decision on interveners in Oger vs Whatcott to suit Ronan Oger’s gender delusion.

October. 1, 2017
BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)

The defendant hereby responds to the spurious and factually erroneous arguments of the complainant and his counsel, Ms. Quail.

Ms. Quail started this circus by claiming in her e-mail exchange with the BCHRT that the complainant “was not born as male.”

The defendant, the complainant’s obstatrician who gave birth to him, the French government and the complainant’s ex-wife to only name a few, know otherwise. The bottom line is, if the complainant and his counsel are deluded on a fact as basic as the complainant’s sex at birth then they won’t be credible on just about anything else. Indeed the defendant can demonstrate that Ms. Quail is light on facts with just about everything she says in her latest letter by doing a very quick and superficial critique of her arguments in her September 27th, “Application for reconsideration.”

Ms. Quail claims “The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record.”

Actually, the complainant’s gender identity is on the record.

On page 1 of the original complaint against me, Ms Quail wrote: “The Flyer attacks Ms Oger’s gender identity. It says Ms. Oger’s gender identity is false and an “impossibility” and that transgender people like Ms. Oger are at elevated risk of various diseases and violent acts.”

As the Tribunal can see in the above paragraph Ms. Quail refers to the complainant with a female pronoun and Ms. Quail tells the tribunal and anyone reading the complaint that the complainant is transgender.

Ms. Quail states “The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint.”

With all due respect the complainant seems to believe his gender identity is relevant to the complaint. On Twitter three days after launching his complaint, the complainant wrote: “Monday I filed a BC #Human Rights tribunal (sic) complaint against Bill Whatcott due to hateful acts over my gender identity + expression.”

Ms. Quail incorrectly states, “It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of their identity as their sex.”

In actual fact defendants are entitled to discovery, especially in matters that are pertinent to the defendant’s defense. In any event the complainant’s so-called gender identity is not really all that personal or private of a matter. A quick perusal of the CBC, Globe & Mail, Youtube, Vancouver Province, Xtra, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc, etc….. will show quite definitively that the complainant’s gender identity is just about the only thing he actually talks about when speaking to the public. And a quick check will confirm the complainant likes to talk about his gender identity in public often.

Some pertinent questions that the defendant believes should be answered by the complainant’s counsel if the BCHRT is actually going to entertain this request for the reconsideration of Walter Rilkoff’s September 13, 2017 decision in regards to interveners in the Oger vs Whatcott case where Mr. Rilkoff aptly noted “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a female.”

1. What does the complainant’s French Birth Certificate identify him as?
2. Did the complainant’s obstetrician and/or midwife identify him as a male or a female when he was born?
3. Did the complainant’s mother think she had a boy or a girl when she gave birth to the complainant?
4. Did the complainant identify as a woman when he first met his ex-wife? Did the complainant’s ex-wife think the complainant was born male or female when she got married and had children with the complainant?
5. Did the complainant’s foundational Canadian identity documents (passport, citizenship papers) identify him as a boy or a girl 10, 20, or 30 years ago?
6. When the complainant applied for entry into the University of British Columbia in 1986 did he check the male or the female box?
7. If the complainant presented himself as a male when applying for university or when courting his ex-wife, why should the BCHRT or Defendant think the complainant was born a female?

Shouldn’t the defendant have a right to have an answer to these questions if the defendant is being charged under Section 7a and b of the BC Human Rights Code, because the defendant allegedly offended the complainant’s alleged gender identity?

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

Ms. Quail’s long letter not letting go of a BCHRT member’s decsion to not waste more time and money pandering to Ronan’s neurosis over a sentence referring to him as “born a male.”

BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170-605 Robson St
Vancouver BC V6B 5J3
September 27, 2017

ATTN: Daniel Varnals, Case Manager

Re: Morgane Oger v Bill Whatcott (Case Number: 16408)

The Complainant hereby applies for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision
communicated in a letter dated September 13, 2017, in which the Tribunal declined to
correct an error in decision number 2017 BCHRT 195, at paragraph 2.

For clarity, the Complainant is not seeking reconsideration of the merits of 2017 BCHRT
195, granting intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression and
denying intervenor status to Gordon Watson. The Complainant only seeks
reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision not to correct an error made in 2017 BCHRT 195
at paragraph 2.

The first sentence of that paragraph says: “Ms. Oger was born as a male but identifies as a
female.”

Counsel for the Complainant brought this error to the Tribunal’s attention on September
12, 2015, by email (attached hereto as Appendix A). As set out in that email, the
Complainant was not born male. The Tribunal responded stating that the Tribunal
Member did not understand where the error was, and asked counsel for the Complainant
to describe how this sentence was in error.

Counsel responded, stating: “Ms. Oger was not born as male.”

On September 13, 2017, the Tribunal responded by letter (attached hereto as Appendix
B), stating that it would not correct this error. The Tribunal stated that the burden is on
the person seeking a correction to persuade the Tribunal that the particular statement
said to be in error was indeed an error, and Ms. Oger had not done so.

page 2

Demanding that the Complainant, a transgender person, prove her identity is
itself discriminatory

It is not the normal practice of the Tribunal or of any decision-making body, to the
Complainant’s knowledge, to require parties to prove such personal, intimate elements of
their identity as their sex. To do so would be (and is in this case) highly invasive.
Individuals are taken at their word that they are male, female, transgender, or any other
applicable gender identity.

The Tribunal has required Ms. Oger to persuade it that the statement that she was “born
a male” is false. Ms. Oger telling the Tribunal that that is not her gender identity is
sufficient proof.

Ms. Oger has offered to provide a copy of her identity document, which indicates that her
sex, in the eyes of the law, is female. It is not “born male but now identifies as female.”
Ms. Oger stated and continues to assert that she should not be required to furnish
identity documents for the Tribunal to accept that her gender identity is as she says it is.
This is a burden imposed on her, a transgender person, but not on any other party to any
other case before the Tribunal to the Complainant’s or counsel’s knowledge.

The Complainant is not aware of any case in which a cisgender complainant has been
required to persuade the Tribunal that they are the sex or gender they say they are.
Transgender persons are routinely challenged on the veracity of their gender identity. In
fact, that is what this case is about: the Respondent and Intervenor refuse to accept that
Ms. Oger’s, and other transgender individuals’, gender identity is real.

For the Tribunal to require Ms. Oger to furnish proof of her sex or gender identity is a
further perpetuation of this very discrimination. It relies on and extends the stereotype
that transgender people’s own statements about who they are cannot be accepted as true.

The Complainant’s gender identity is not on the record

There was nothing in the application or anywhere in the record for the Tribunal member
to make the statement made in paragraph 2, that Ms. Oger was born male. The Tribunal
member invented this fact.

It is not open to the Tribunal to invent facts about parties and then require parties to
persuade them that those invented facts are false.

The Complainant’s gender identity is irrelevant to the complaint

Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to this complaint. Ms. Oger is a transgender
woman, not a person “born as male who now identifies as female”, but even that fact is

page 3

irrelevant. As determined in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran, 2005
BCCA 201, a complainant need not actually possess the personal characteristic forming
the basis of the discrimination in order to succeed in establishing a breach of the Code.
The Tribunal Member has asserted a fact that is not only false, but entirely irrelevant to
the complaint before the Tribunal.

This is not a case in which the applicant for reconsideration seeks to submit
information they should have previously put forward

Reconsideration applications cannot be used to put information before the Tribunal that
should have been, but was not, put before the Tribunal at an earlier stage: Hanlon v City
of North Vancouver and another (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 152 at para 7.

In this case, argument about or proof of Ms. Oger’s gender identity is not information
that the Complaint ought to have previously put forward. It is not the case, ever, that a
complainant must prove that they possess the characteristic that is the subject of
discrimination in order to succeed in a complaint before the Tribunal. As stated above, it
perpetuates discriminatory stereotypes to assert that transgender complainants must
prove their gender identity in order to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal.

The question of the Complainant’s gender identity will not be resolved in a
determination of the merits of this complaint

The Tribunal’s letter of September 13, 2017 refers to the fact that this is an interim
decision and suggests that “even that simple sentence” (describing Ms. Oger as “born as a
male”) will be the subject of argument at a hearing of the complaint on the merits.

Ms. Oger’s gender identity will not be the subject of argument at a hearing of the
complaint on the merits.

Ms. Oger’s gender identity is irrelevant to the merits of her complaint.

The question before the Tribunal at a hearing on the merits of the complaint will be
whether the Respondent has breached section 7 of the Code. There is no reason for the
Tribunal to make a finding of fact as to the Complainant’s gender identity in order to
answer that question.

In any event, the parties do not dispute that Ms. Oger is transgender: the parties dispute
whether transgender people’s gender identity is real, and whether persons like the
Respondent may publish hateful materials about transgender people without offending
the Code. The Tribunal is not asked to determine Ms. Oger’s gender identity at any point
in this complaint.

The Complainant suffers prejudice by having the decision stand uncorrected

page 4

The erroneous statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is
based on pernicious, discriminatory stereotypes about transgender people, and is wrong
in law.

When transgender people legally change the sex marker on their birth certificates or
other foundational identity documents, that change is not prospective only. A birth
certificate that was formerly marked “M” is not now marked “Born M but now identifies
as F”. It is marked “F”. In the eyes of the law, the individual was always female but was
mis-identified as male prior to the correction of the birth certificate.

More importantly, transgender people experience their own gender identities in many
different ways. While some people might experience that they used to be one gender but
now identify as a different gender, many transgender people experience that they have
always been one gender, but were misidentified by the world around them.

The idea that transgender people were “born” one way but “identify” differently rests on
the assumption that there is a true, biological gender of each person, determinable by the
shape of their external genitalia, and that a transgender person has deviated from that
true, biological gender.

The statement that Ms. Oger “was born as male but identifies as female” is false and
perpetuates stereotypes about her and other transgender people. It now exists in a
published decision of a legal decision-making body. It is available on CanLII and on the
Tribunal’s website. There exists a binding legal statement that Ms. Oger’s sex and gender
are something other than what they are. Ms. Oger is a prominent activist for transgender
rights and other social causes, and the impacts of this false statement on her sense of self
and public reputation are significant.

The interests of fairness and justice and the purposes of the Code militate in
favour of reconsideration

Reconsideration may be granted where to do so would serve the interests of fairness and
justice: Grant v City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 8.

The erroneous statement is not only patently false, it perpetuates the very discriminatory
thinking that is at the centre of this case. The erroneous statement makes a finding of fact
on something that is wholly irrelevant to the complaint. The Tribunal has gratuitously
invented a fact about the Complainant and then required the Complainant to prove that
this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” is false.

The inclusion of this erroneous, extraneous, and discriminatory “fact” in 2017 BCHRT 195
is contrary to the purposes of the Code.

page 5

It is contrary to promoting a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are
equal in dignity and rights (s. 3(b)): it creates a standard where cisgender people are who
they say they are, but transgender people have to persuade the Tribunal that their selfdeclarations
are true.

It is contrary to the prevention of discrimination prohibited by the Code (s. 3 (c)), because
it perpetuates stereotyped thinking that assumes that transgender people have a “true”
biological sex, assigned at birth, and change from that true sex to something else that is
merely an identity.

It is contrary to the provision of a means of redress for persons discriminated against
contrary to the Code (s. 3(e)): transgender people will be dissuaded from seeking redress
through the Tribunal if the message to them is that they will have to prove their sex or
gender, or risk having a false statement about who they are published by the Tribunal in a
binding decision, which the Tribunal refuses to correct.

For all of the above reasons, the Complainant asks that the Tribunal’s decision refusing to
correct the error in 2017 BCHRT 195 at paragraph 2, communicated by letter dated
September 13, 2017, be reconsidered.

All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Complainant,

ALLEVATO QUAIL & WORTH
per Susanna Allevato Quail
Barrister & Solicitor

cc Morgane Oger
Bill Whatcott
CAFE

JUSTIN’S VIRTUE-SIGNALLING IS ACTUALLY VICE-SIGNALLING

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

Justin’s Virtue-Signalling is Actually Vice-Signalling

So it appears there are things happening in the world other than Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un calling each other names and threatening to blow each other up. The American news has been dominated this week by a bizarre religious controversy that is dividing their country over whether it is ritually correct for people to kneel or stand while their national anthem is sung during a sacred Yankee ceremony that is called a “football game.” Meanwhile, here in Canada, Justin Trudeau has been trying to divert our attention away from his vile speech to the United Nations last week expressing his hatred of the country whose government he leads and his scheme to bleed small business owners dry, by preening and grandstanding and virtue-signalling his supposed moral superiority to his political and ideological opponents on the matter of “women’s rights.”

There is a standing committee in the House of Commons that addresses the “Status of Women.” This should not be confused with the Cabinet Ministry or the National Action Committee (a private lobby/activist group, albeit one that once was heavily funded by the government) of the same name although historically these all have their beginnings in the Pearson/Trudeau Liberal cultural revolution of the ’60’s and ’70s and have been ideologically in sync with each other. The House committee is one whose chair, by established custom, is selected not by the governing party, but by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, which at this time happens to be the Conservative Party of Canada. Accordingly, the new Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer nominated Rachael Harder, the MP representing Lethbridge to chair the committee. When this was announced on Tuesday, all the Liberal MPs on the committee walked out, along with the New Democrat members, and Trudeau immediately called a press conference in which he declared his support of those who walked out.

What was the reason for the walk out? Does Harder support the importing into Canada of cultures in which the genitals of young females are ritually mutilated or in which male relatives are encouraged to kill daughters and sisters that in their opinion have brought dishonour upon their family through promiscuity or dress that they see as being too provocative? No, it is the Liberals and NDP themselves who do that, who want to criminalize all criticism of such cultures, and who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of racism, xenophobia, and bigotry (and probably anti-Semitism and homophobia as well since in left-liberal usage these kind of words have a purely expletive function that has little to do with their literal meaning). The reason the progressives are having conniptions over Harder is because she is pro-life. She does not believe that women should have the right to murder their unborn babies.

The neoconservative press has subjected the MPs who walked out and the Prime Minister who supported them to much deserved criticism and ridicule. The Sun newspaper chain, for example, published an editorial entitled “Liberals Fail to Embrace Diversity of Opinion” which pointed out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who loudly proclaim their devotion and dedication to “diversity” but seem to have little regard for diversity of viewpoint in that they are notoriously intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. The Grits deserve every word of this criticism which brings to mind the old quip of William F. Buckley Jr. about how liberals “claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” On this particular issue you might recall that a year and a half before the 2015 Dominion election Trudeau had announced that new candidates seeking the nomination of the Liberal Party would be required to give their full support to women’s “right” to murder their unborn babies. Not to be outdone in his support for the right of baby murder, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair declared that all NDP candidates, new and old, were required to vote the party line on this issue.

Yes, the Grits and their socialist doppelgangers, with their idolatrous cult of diversity on the one hand and their neo-Stalinist, ideological, party line on the other, are every bit the hypocrites the Sun editorial makes them out to be. There is other, far more important, criticism that deserves to be heard, but which sadly, you will never read in the pages of a mainstream Canadian publication. Neoconservatives, which is to say people who call themselves conservative but by this term mean “American classical liberal”, such as those who set the editorial policy for the Sun chain, are the only dissenters from the left-liberal ideological monolith that are tolerated in the mainstream Canadian media.

What really needs to be said is that the pro-life position is the only sane position and that anyone who believes that women have some sort of natural right to terminate their pregnancies that ought to be protected as a legal right is bat-shit crazy and ought not to be allowed into any position of authority, power, and influence or entrusted with any responsibility higher than that of sweeping the floors in an institution in which they are humanely kept for their own safety and that of society. No, in case you are wondering, my saying this does not make me guilty of the mirror image of the hypocrisy displayed by the Liberals and NDP. I don’t worship at the altar of diversity.

When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg a zygote is formed that is a) living and b) human, ergo, a human life. To deliberately take a human life is murder except in the following circumstances: when you are acting out of necessity in self-defence, when you are the state official entrusted with executing a sentence of death determined by a lawfully constituted court on someone found guilty of a capital crime, or when you are a soldier fighting for your country. None of these exceptions can possibly apply here and so the termination of the life of the unborn is murder. It should not be thought of as a medical procedure since it is in complete violation of everything the medical practice has traditionally stood for. It is a particularly odious form of murder in that it is done at the request of those who have a particular responsibility to love and cherish that life.

Those who defend it, rely entirely upon spurious, easily-refutable, arguments such as the hard cases argument about pregnancies that ensue from rape or incest, or those which endanger the life of the mother. Even if it were not the case – and it is – that such cases represent only a tiny percentage of the total number of terminated pregnancies each year, it is a well-established legal maxim that hard cases make bad law.

Even the real motivation behind the demand for legal abortion is ultimately a lie. Giving one sex the unilateral power of life and death over the next generation does not create “sexual equality.” Feminists accuse the traditional, patriarchal, family, of dehumanizing women but if anything does that it is this insane insistence on their supposed right to murder their children.

There is one other thing that really needs to be said about all of this and that is that a standing House committee – or a Ministry for that matter – devoted to the “Status of Women” sounds like something out of George Orwell’s 1984. The status of women – and of men for that matter – in any society, arises out of the way the sexes interact and relate to each other, primarily within the family, and it is best to allow it to evolve within the living tradition of a culture rather than to try and artificially engineer it. If you reflect for a moment on the slogan of the 1960s revival of feminism, “the personal is the political”, you will see that this is a recipe for totalitarianism. Which is why this is the sort of thing that belongs in a regime like the former Soviet Union, Red China, or North Korea and not in a free, parliamentary country of the British Commonwealth that is heir to the Common Law under the Crown.

Hope Not Hate infiltrates alt-right – heeds advice on how to improve website

Hope Not Hate infiltrates alt-right – heeds advice on how to improve website

A year has passed since my legendary performance at the London Forum, now subject to criminal proceedings as already explained in detail here on this blog. 

Desperate to see me further punished for the crime of singing humorous songs about Jewish power and influence, my accusers and longtime stalkers fail to grasp that I am not in the least afraid. Once one knows the Truth, it simply feels right and there is no going back. If the British authorities wish to imprison a singer for her satirical songs – so be it!

Unable to perform and speak freely (my laptop STILL in police possession after almost a year), I might just as well be in prison: the experience would no doubt spark further artistic inspiration, not to mention increase Joe Public’s ever-growing distrust of police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and our elected leaders.

Anyway, on to the topic of this blog which deals with last week’s news concerning how a Hope Not Hate ‘researcher’, Patrik Hermansson – a queer Swede – managed to infiltrate the alt-right in a ‘year-long’ investigation which began last January.

Already, I can hear you say we are still only in September. Yes, the consummate liars down at Hope Not Hate (HNH) never fail to impress when it comes to trying to outdo mainstream gutter press for touting misleading headlines. Hermansson’s infiltration ended with the Charlottesville demonstration in August: seven or eight months at the most – hardly a year.

Admittedly, the Swede did manage to fleece several hardened dissidents by worming his way into the London Forum, masquerading as a masters student researching the doxing and deplatforming of figures such as David Irving, Vincent Reynouard, myself and others. The tactics used to infiltrate are largely described on HNH’s website for those of you who are interested. I shan’t be sharing any links here – apologies, but you’ll have to search for yourselves.

Hermansson used a top-of-the-range button camera to secretly film ‘interviews’ with some of the world’s leading alt-right figures. Yes, some of the footage is rather embarrassing. However, at the same time, Hermansson fails utterly to reveal anything of note. The short clips published so far prove that those targeted say the exact same things in private as they do in public. A documentary is scheduled for release at a later date.

There have been a few lukewarm press reports, mostly from the state-funded BBC. When interviewed, the Swede sticks to HNH boss Nick Lowles’ predictable script.

It is an eyebrow-raising reflection of the times we live in when a queer publication reports more even-handedly than the state-funded broadcaster.

No doubt attracted to the story by way of the Swede’s sexual preferences, Pink News has produced the most balanced report so far. Hermansson admits to engaging in dishonest behaviour, as well as lamenting the fact that he has received ‘murder threats’ – from people he’s never met!

My interview with Hermansson took place early April, just after my scheduled ‘trial’ had been adjourned and Senior District Judge Arbuthnot had recused herself after being outed as a pro-Israel stooge.

With hindsight, Hermansson had been well-trained in the art of deception.

We met in a cafe near Victoria Station in London and for the first half hour, as far as I can remember, we chatted generally about my case. Hermansson then feigned dismay that he hadn’t switched on his iPhone voice recorder from the start. Of course, all the while he’d been secretly filming me through his very expensive button camera.

I told him the facts as recorded here on my blog. As well, I gave my opinion of Hope Not Hate and the poor content of their website. A musician’s memory is a useful tool. Checking my email history confirms that, at the time, I had been researching the very organisation which had sent a paid infiltrator to spy on me in the hope of gleaning intelligence about the UK alt-right.

Unlikely that that particular section of footage will be used in the upcoming documentary. With my ‘trial’ ongoing, it’s equally doubtful that a documentary would show any discussion involving my case – especially not the part about my accusers outing themselves as abusive Twitter trolls in court last December.

Two weeks after my interview with Hermansson, HNH trumpeted their brand new revamped website. Little by little, all the archives that had back then been wiped and transferred to a holding site have begun to reappear. The main difference with the old site is that comments are no longer possible – not that anyone bothered commenting much on the old site, something I remember pointing out to Hermansson during our conversation. The content is as predictable and shoddy as ever. In fact, HNH’s MO can be summed up in four words:

Nazis! Nazis everywhere! Donate!

HNH’s infiltration of the alt-right coincides with the organisation’s desire to branch out into the US Donate Button For Gullible Goyim market. There is now a second website – a dot com – as well as a new US Twitter account. Perhaps a necessary move if Lowles and Co are to continue to live in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed?

It would appear that certain sources of funding within the UK – including from government and trade unions – may have dried up somewhat following exposure from several sources. There is plenty of evidence detailing HNH’s dishonesty, duplicity and downright incompetence in running a supposed charitable trust which is, in fact, a cover for state surveillance of political dissidents and a militant, pro-Zionist campaigning wing of the UK Labour party.

Hermansson’s write up includes a couple of predictable paragraphs – no doubt heavily edited by Lowles – about me being one of the UK’s most notorious ‘Holocaust’ deniers.

Interestingly, ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon described Lowles’ thus in one blog article dating back to 2012:

 

Lowles, himself an ex Jewish student activist, is not against revisionism in general. He is not against Israelis dismissing the Palestinian holocaust – he has no quarrel with Nakba denial. Nor does he oppose the deniers of the Arminian Holocaust. And for some reason, HOPE not hate is also strangely silent  about the Ukrainian holocaust, the  Holodomor – that according to prominent Israeli Zionist writer Sever Plocker and others, was largely inflicted by Stalin’s Jews.Nick Lowles and ‘HOPE not hate’ are completely uninterested in the denial of any holocaust – any, that is, except one.

Another fierce critic is Larry O’Hara, ‘anti-fascist researcher’ (!) and editor of Notes From The Borderland (NFB) who describes Lowles as being out of his depth when it comes to serious politics:

Lowles mistakes impulsiveness for decisiveness, and simply lacks the grey matter needed for original grounded thought.

O’Hara is equally scathing with regard to HNH company secretary Ruth Smeeth MP, as well as longtime HNH researchers Joe Mulhall and Matt Collins.

Funding for the Swede’s infiltration no doubt partly came from the seemingly aborted HNH threats to sue Nigel Farage: two crowdfunding campaigns, each to the tune of £100,000 (which I already commented on here), would easily buy a specialised button camera, numerous plane tickets, rail fares, hotel rooms and cover the rental cost of a North London flat.

Hermansson’s Twitter profile reads ‘researcher for @hopenothate’. I bumped into him again a couple of times at various meetings since our encounter but he seemed to take only a scant interest into delving deeper into my personal story. He clearly had bigger fish to fry.

At least I finally got a mention from HNH – which, amusingly, certain of my detractors seem to think is a badge of honour:

 

Jonathan Hoffman must be over the moon! Although, as I am officially Too Extreme For the BNP, Hoffman and his Kahanist pals really don’t have too much to worry about.

*

Rendez-vous next Wednesday, 10am at Westminster Magistrates Court for yet another hearing – the fifth so far, now with a third district judge in attendance. 

Thank you so much to everyone who has helped me by donating. I am very grateful. 

Alison. 

https://hatreon.net/AlisonChabloz/
https://www.paypal.me/ajctmusic

Can it get any more surreal than this? Banned revisionist history books that are banned by “Banned Books Week”

September 23, 2017

 

Can it get any more surreal than this?

 

 Banned revisionist history books that are banned by “Banned Books Week”

Oren Teicher, CEO
The American Booksellers Association
White Plains, New York 10604
 

Dear Mr. Teicher

 
Are you aware that Banned Books Week, which your American Booksellers Association sponsors, has banned all mention of Amazon’s ban on World War II revisionist (“Holocaust Denial”) books by historian Germar Rudolf and others? 
 
Mr. Rudolf’s many volumes, including a landmark work of erudite historiography, Lectures on the Holocaust, were banned for sale by Amazon earlier this year.
 
 
Banned books that are banned by Banned Books Week? 
 
Can it get any more surreal?
 
Do you intend to do anything about this farce?
 
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
Independent History and Research
Publishers of the periodical, Revisionist History®
For Further Research:
 
Press release: “Amazon bans hundreds of titles in one day”
 
________________
 
 
Keep us in the Fight by sending a donation or making a purchase
 
________________

STALINIST ONTARIO COURT SENTENCES MAN TO 5 MONTHS FOR ANTI-MOSLEM GRAFITTI

STALINIST ONTARIO COURT SENTENCES MAN TO 5 MONTHS FOR ANTI-MOSLEM GRAFITTI

Did a Moslem judge decide to “get” a petty vandal who had criticized Moslems? 

Justice Ferhan Jevad handed out a brutal Stalinist 5-month sentence to a man who scrawled a few anti-Moslem messages with a magic marker at Durham Region bus stops. Since when did petty grafitti merit five months in prison? Well, when the grafitti expresses politically incorrect thoughts or hurt the feelings of privileged minorities and the judge made that clear.

Inline image 1

Joseph Porco, 56, had scrawled “No More Muslims” on several bus stops around the region. Justice Ferhan Jevad focussed on Mr. Porco’s opinions in handing down this brutal sentence: ““Mr. Porco’s message left black marks on a public bench but even after the words are scrubbed away with a guilty plea, it leaves stains that may be more permanent,” the judge said. “Mr. Porco’s message was both hateful and hurtful to the community and needs to be deterred.”(Durham Region News. September, 21, 2017)

The judge continued: “Also a factor is Porco’s failure to recognize the true nature of his behaviour, the judge said; Porco has apologized, but seems to think his offence is limited to vandalism. “What is plainly missing from the apology is any insight about his actions in choosing hateful words and any semblance of what effect his words would have on the community,” Justice Javed said. “It does not matter that he wasn’t charged with a specific hate crime, because this was a hate crime disguised as mischief.”

So, Mr. Porco was unrepentant and that required punishment. Furthermore, his words were “hurtful”. However, only certain people’s hurt feelings merit court action. Many Old Stock Canadians feel hurt when they see four turban wearing Sikhs (less than 1% of the population) comprising 16% of the Trust Fund Kid’s cabinet. Many Old Stock Canadians or Quebecois de souche feel hurt at special privileges for Moslems with separate prayer rooms in supposedly secular institutions.

So, privileged minorities have some legally sanctioned right not to have hurt feelings, but the Majority has no right to freedom of speech. This is the future of “diverse” anti-White Canada. Mr. Porco should never have pled guilty. One hopes he will appeal the sentence.

So, who is Justice Ferhan Javed? News Ontario (December 5, 2014), an official outlet o the Ontario General’s Department, reported on Javed’s judicial employment: ”  Justice Javed has been involved in continuing legal education programs for justices of the peace, was a member of the Area Committee of Legal Aid Ontario, a consultant to Muslim Family and Child Services of Ontario and a volunteer with the Ontario Justice Education Network. He is fluent in French, Urdu and Punjabi (and, presumably, English).” 

One wonders why Mr. Porco’s lawyer did not ask the justice to recuse himself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” 

Muslims Demand Infidel Owner Remove ‘Perfect Man’ Sign — He Has Brilliant Counter-Offer

The truth shall set you free!!!!

Muslims Demand Infidel Owner Remove ‘Perfect Man’ Sign — He Has Brilliant Counter-Offer

 
After Muslims demanded the removal of a billboard criticizing the Islamic prophet Muhammad (left), owner Don Woodsmall (right) had a brilliant response. (Photo Source: The Indiana NewsPBS)
 
Just days ago, leftists and Muslim groups across the U.S. loudly condemned a billboard along Interstate 465 in Indianapolis, Indiana.
 
The sign contains a simple message which reads, “The Perfect Man,” with check-marked bullet points including “Rapist,” “13 wives, 11 at one time” and “Tortured & killed unbelievers” Instantly, Muslims knew the billboard was calling out their prophet.
 
When Muslims noticed a billboard calling their prophet Muhammad a “rapist” who “married a 6-year-old” and “beheaded Jews,” they immediately demanded the removal of the “racist and Islamophobic” message. However, the uproar forced the billboard’s owner to come forward — and he has just one thing to say to them.
 
Although Islam was never mentioned, instantly, Muslims knew the billboard was calling out their prophet Muhammad, prompting them to demand the sign’s removal in accordance with Sharia blasphemy laws. This national outcry has already prompted the sign’s owner to relinquish his personal safety by coming forward to not only take credit for the billboard’s construction but issue yet another daring message to “truthophobes” who deny its credibility.
WTHR reports that Don Woodsmall, who is a Duke law school graduate, has proudly taken responsibility for the billboard but says that while he is unafraid to show his face to the dangerous Muslim community, he’ll protect his clients’ identities. Woodsmall came forward to local media to slam free speech objectors, confidently declaring that he would gladly remove the sign himself — all they have to do is prove the statement wrong.
In his statement, Woodsmall says, “It is interesting to note… the Muslim community knew exactly who it was referring to. The truth is a powerful weapon.”
Woodsmall explained that he only agreed to erect the sign after thoroughly researching each claim and finding proof directly in the passages of the Quran and hadith. In addition, he spoke to at least half a dozen Islamic scholars who confirmed the scriptures in question.
“I was convinced that each point listed on the billboard was historically and factually true. I would encourage others to do their own research to verify the veracity of each and every point,” Woodsmall wrote. He also noted that he would remove the billboards if the statements are proven to be false.
Despite Muslims demanding that Woodsmall names his clients, undoubtedly for nefarious purposes, the billboard owner refuses to endanger their lives. The unwavering owner slammed the sign’s critics, reminding them that it is the very definition of free speech to question and tear apart lies and toxic ideologies.
“My clients want this national conversation to happen if we are ever to overcome the violence that plagues Islam,” he wrote to 13 Investigates. “This is not only pro-American, but beneficial to Muslims who came to America to escape the Sharia.”
Disturbingly, designated terrorist group CAIR and lying Muslims are declaring the message “racist” and “Islamophobic,” although none can provide any scripture or historical text to back up their claims. On the other hand, each one of the bullet points has a direct correlation to the Quran and hadith.
§  “Married 6 year old” — Sahih Muslim (8:3309), Sahih Bukhari (58:234, 3896, 5158, and 3311)
§  “Beheaded 600 Jews in one day” — Quran (33:26), Ibn Ishaq/Hisham (674), Abu Dawud (4390)
§  “Slave owner & dealer” — Sahih Muslim (3901), Sahih Bukhari (47:743), Quran (4:2433:52)
§  “13 wives, 11 at one time” — Sahih Bukhari (62:6), Sahih Bukhari (5:268)
§  “Rapist” — Abu Dawud (2150), Sahih Muslim (3433), Quran (4:2433:50), Sahih Bukhari (34:432), Sahih Muslim (3371)
§  “Tortured & killed unbelievers” — Quran (8:67), Sahih Muslim (4322), Sahih Bukhari (52:25611:626), (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819, Ibn Kathir v.3 p.403), 109 verses of violence
 
If the Muslim critics were honest, they’d point out that the only flaw in Woodsmall’s message is that Muhammad didn’t necessarily behead 600 Jews in one day — historical records suggest it a number between 500 and 900 Jews and likely over a period of several days.
If the left considers it “hate speech” to summarize these violent and bigoted Islamic passages, it’s time for them to admit that the Quran and hadith are hate speech. It’s not racist to denounce Muhammad’s ownership of dozens of black slaves as racist. In fact, it’s racist of Muslims and leftist to defend Muhammad’s slave ownership and attempt to censor it.
The truth is that the prophet Muhammad boasted of his own racist slave ownership, sex slavery, marriage to a child and mass slaughter of unbelieving men, women and children. These are not fear-mongering allegations but direct quotations from the prophet, his closest companions, and even his favorite child bride, Aisha
It is inexcusable for Muslims to demand we shut up or apologize for pointing out the sadistic behavior of their prophet. Instead, they are the ones who should be apologizing for calling a slave-owning, murdering, pedophile rapist the ‘Perfect Man’ and denounce his actions immediately.

Monika Schaefer Protests Secrecy & Shunning by Yellowhead Festival & Attack on Her Livelihood

Monika Schaefer Protests Secrecy &  Shunning by Yellowhead Festival & Attack on Her Livelihood

Dear Board members of the Yellowhead Regional Arts Festival Society,

Your action of declaring me “not the correct fit” for your September 29th event goes much further than just a single one-time event. You have done something very consequential. You are affecting my livelihood and my reputation. You are signalling to the wider community that I am dangerous and untouchable, and you are signalling to current and potential students that Monika Schaefer should be avoided. You have also subverted your society’s role as a cultural organization to that of a thought-policing agency. 

If you think you can do this from a position of anonymity and zero accountability, with all due respect, that is simply not the way it works. Hiding behind a cloak of anonymity while taking this serious action is completely unethical and arguably illegal. The board of a Society must, by definition, be open, transparent and accountable to the public. By your nameless signing-off as a generic board, you demonstrate a profound contempt for civil society. If board-member names are kept secret, then it is not unreasonable for the public to assume that decisions can be dictated by just one person, and in this case someone who has a vendetta against me because they don’t like my thoughts. 

It is impossible to know if letters sent to your generic society email address are reaching all the board members. I have been on copy from many concerned people who have sent letters to you in which they genuinely support my right to free speech, and they profoundly disagree with your misguided actions. I wonder if those letters are being disseminated to all board members, or are they being seen by only one person, possibly the person(s) who has strong-armed the rest of the board into taking this drastic action against me. 

It has also come to my attention, through the grapevine, that you have been receiving some threatening and vile letters from people who pose as my “supporters”. I have been told that this is now your reason for not disclosing the names of board members, allegedly because there is concern for their safety. It is certainly not the original reason for hiding your identities, because that would have meant you had the power to predict the future.

In my truth-seeking quest, I have learnt many things about the tactics used by those who endeavour to shut down open discussion, investigation and disclosure of any nonconformist information about what may or may not have happened during WW2 . There are many methods being employed to destroy, defame, and shun those who try to point out the inconsistencies in the victors’ version of history.

If it is true that you have received threatening letters, then you need to know that those letters are unequivocally NOT coming from my “supporters”. That is a deliberate tactic, a psychological warfare tactic, to smear me by association. Those letters are coming from people who are actively engaged in “shooting the messenger” and thereby undermining and distracting away from the message. They are agents of deception. I have now seen this numerous times, whereby people exclaim to me your supporters have threatened me!” or your supporters have sent profanities!” or other similar statements. Who are those people sending vile messages, and why do they not also send those letters to me? They are definitively NOT supporters of me, my message, or of truth or decency.



By subverting the YRAF Society’s role as a cultural organization to that of a thought-policing agency, you are directly responsible for the messy situation you find yourselves in now. This is not of my making.

You have taken a drastic action against me without having the courtesy (or the courage?) to talk to me face to face. I am now calling for a fair and open hearing in front of your board. I am asking to attend your next board meeting (or please call a special meeting), so that we may have a frank discussion about these matters. I am eager and willing to answer any questions you have, and to address your concerns. 

I await your early response,

Monika Schaefer

CAFE Protests Monika Schaefer’s Exclusion from, Yellowhead Regional Arts Festival

CAFE Protests Monika Schaefer’s Exclusion from, Yellowhead Regional Arts Festival

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director



September 18, 2017

To: The Board of Directors 

Yellowhead Regional Arts Festival Society,

Re: Exclusion of Participation by Monika Schaefer

We recently became aware of your September 8th decision to exclude Monika Schaefer from participating in your festival.

Monika has frequently volunteered her musical skills free of charge for benefits,. She is a friendly woman  who has been deeply involved in environmental and social causes in the Jasper area for 35 years. She has four times run for public office. She is an accomplished violin player, as you well know, and teacher.

Now, she has been told by your Society not to attend.The reasons given are that your Society “promotes a safe learning environment” and that her presence “at our event would not be the correct fit.” These reasons are insulting, especially on the part of a community that proclaims its support for inclusion and diversity.

The insolence of this shunning is shocking. Monika would be paying for her own gas and donating her time and talent free of charge as she has many times for the same festival. The suggestion that the gentle Monika playing her violin would endanger someone’s safety is grotesque!

Your shoddy bit of backwoods bigotry is nothing more than punishment for Monika’s political or historical ideas. It stomps on the ideals of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that holds that all Canadians have the right  to “freedom of belief, freedom of expression.”

The Canadian Association for Free Expression, founded in 1983, is Canada’s leading free speech advocacy group and has intervened in numerous legal cases and before various human rights and administrative tribunals.

Hoping that you will rethink your position and welcome back this spirited musician, I remain

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm

Director