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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau toughened his language around self-isolation and social
distancing while considering implementing the Emergencies Act. 1:58
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
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
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
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
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
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.
[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?
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.
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.”
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
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
Ronald Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress,
likewise has called for more laws to combat anti-Semitism, especially online
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
rather the government instead of guessing that people are or are not
complying. I’d rather that they have accurate evidence.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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
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.,
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
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.
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
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?
• 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
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.
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
• 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2020 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. POSTED BY GERRY T. NEAL AT 3:18 AM LABELS: ENVIRONMENTALISM, FREE SPEECH, JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRO-LIFE, PROTESTS, RAILROAD BLOCKING, WET’SUWET’EN