Poll: Only 18 Percent of Germans Feel Free to Voice Views in Public
For years, we have discussed the unrelenting attacks on free speech in Europe with the expansion of hate speech laws and the general criminalization of speech, including international speech crimes.
Some in the United States would like to follow down that dangerous path (and universities are reinforcing the view of the need to regulate speech). The implications of such anti-speech policies are evident in Germany where a survey, conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach(and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) found that only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their views in public. It is the most vivid example of how Europeans are learning to live without free speech. Undeterred, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the successor to Angela Merkel, is now calling on greater limits on free speech during election periods — a concept that would normally be viewed as counterintuitive outside of the new European model.
Notably, over 31 percent of Germans did not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Just 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the Internet and 35 percent said that freedom to speech is confined to the smallest of private circles.
Even at the height of the Stasi, citizens were not nearly as controlled in East Germany. It is the irony of our times. It has been otherwise liberal governments that have succeeded with authoritarian regimes failed in getting people to give up their free speech rights. All in the name of fighting intolerance . . . by codifying intolerance to an ever-expanding range of speech.
Over the course of the last 50 years, the French, English and Germans have waged an open war on free speech by criminalizing speech deemed insulting, harassing or intimidating. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). There are encroachments appearing in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Notably, the media celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech
Antifa Smashing Camera at “Zombie” Youth Climate Strike
I’ve had a dramatic week which got recorded and is on the videos below. My camera got smashed at the Youth Climate Strike on Sept.27th. Three Antifa attacked me. They man in black mask threw it over the Cambie Bridge and it got smashed. — Brian Ruhe
Many people have expressed their concern for my safety so I have listened. My $350 video camera with memory card was destroyed which I need to replace soon. Please donate as I am succeeding in waking a lot of people up. A few of months ago I was getting 1000 views a day but now it is 2000 a day so the mission is going well. Below is an easy link to donate online.
The Conservative Party of Canada has dropped Heather Leung as their candidate in the Burnaby North—Seymour riding, after video interviews surfaced in which she made homophobic comments.
In a video that appears to be from 2016, Leung said conversion therapy provides hope to those living “the perverted homosexual lifestyle.”
In a 2011 “Heather Leung is no longer representing the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Burnaby North—Seymour,” the party said in a news release. “Recent media reports have brought to light offensive comments made by Ms. Leung saying ‘homosexuals recruit’ children, and describing the sexual orientation of the LGBTQ community as ‘perverted.’”
Leung has not responded to a request for comment.
Conservative spokesperson Rudy Hesny said the decision came after the party had time to review Leung’s comments.
Hesny said the Conservatives intend to send a letter to Elections Canada informing the agency that Leung no longer represents the party, but that it may be too late to have her party affiliation removed from the ballots, which may have already been printed.
Earlier on Friday, Robinson, the NDP candidate in the riding, challenged Scheer to denounce Leung, strip her of the candidacy and take away her party membership after the video interviews resurfaced earlier this week.
Robinson became Canada’s first openly gay MP in 1988, which resulted in death threats and the trashing of his constituency office. Through the 1980s and 1990s, he introduced at least five different private member’s bills aimed at amending Canadian laws to include same-sex marriage.
He said statements like Leung’s are hateful and hurtful, especially to vulnerable youth who are struggling with their identity.
Scheer’s decision Friday echoes that of his predecessor, Stephen Harper, who set the precedent during the 2015 election when he stripped membership from an Ontario candidate who called homosexuality “unnatural,” but it also serves to push back against critics who have called the Conservative leader anti-gay.
Scheer has refused during the campaign to say whether his views have changed since 2005 when he opposed same-sex marriage.
He has promised, however, to protect LGBTQ rights.
“There is no tolerance in the Conservative Party for those types of offensive comments,” the Conservatives said.
Hesny said that the party’s decision Friday reflected Scheer’s vision for Canada, laid out in a keynote speech delivered last May.
“I find the notion that one’s race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation would make anyone in any way superior or inferior to anybody else absolutely repugnant,” Scheer said then. “And if there’s anyone who disagrees with that, there’s the door. You are not welcome here.”
NDP MP TOO URGES BOYCOTT OF CHRISTIAN PASTOR’S ALL CANDIDATES’ MEETINGI
[So wedded are the NDP to the fanatical LGBTQ agenda that Peter Julian, an NDP MP, seeks to sabotage an all candidates’ meetings hosted by a conservative Christian pastor. Perhaps, he fears that the pro-tranny, pro-LGBTQ, pro-sexually weird sex ed indoctrination in school (SOGI) NDP might do too well in an open debate.]
I’ve just received word of an all candidates debate tomorrow at the Justice Institute of British Columbia: JIBC organized by Pastor Paul Dirks. Paul Dirks is well known for opposing the rights of transgender members of our community and opposing SOGI which is a framework that makes our schools more inclusive.
This is my sixth federal election campaign and the first time I’ve refused to attend an all candidates meeting and I believe it’s important to communicate why. Knowing the history of the organizer, I refuse to provide a platform for hate. I stand with the LGBTQ2S+ community and I encourage my fellow candidates Megan Veck, Will Davis For MP, Suzanne de Montigny – New Westminster/Burnaby Greens, and Hansen Ginn – PPC New Westminster-Burnaby to likewise stand up against hate and refuse to attend this meeting. — Peter Julian
The press isn’t entirely free in Canada – Michael’s essay
Late last month, the Supreme Court of Canada put some legal muscle, sort of, behind the right of a Canadian journalist to protect a confidential source.
At the same time, though, it said that reporters could be ordered to reveal a source if that source knowingly provided false information.
The decision came as the first test of a federal law called the Journalistic Sources Protection Act.
Why, you might very well ask, do journalists need such a law?
Well, without sources there is no journalism, and without guaranteed protections, there are no sources.
If we really believed in a truly free press, we wouldn’t throw publishers in jail for the words they publish
– Michael Enright
But before we reporters crack open another Jeroboam of bubbly in celebration, let’s remember that the press isn’t entirely free in this country.
In late August, a Toronto judge sentenced the editor of a small newspaper to a year in jail.
The odd thing about the fact that a man was sentenced to lose his liberty for a year for printing nasty things, was that it caused barely a ripple in the halls of Toronto journalism.
The only reporter I could find with the grit to denounce the court’s action was Globe and Mail columnist Marcus Gee.
He wrote: “None of the usual guardians of free speech seemed to find it even a little troubling.”
Judging from the “thunderous silence,” he said, they must consider it perfectly acceptable to send the editor to jail and put the publisher under house arrest for a year.
The judge’s decision comes at a particularly parlous time for journalists and the idea of a free press.
Inside our courtrooms, judges have been leaning more and more to publication bans denying the public the right, and it is a right, to know what is going on inside them.
If we really believed in a truly free press, we wouldn’t throw publishers in jail for the words they publish.
To many, this seems rather puny when positioned alongside what is happening to reporters, and the functioning of free journalism, in other parts of the world.
Around the world, reporters and editors are being arrested, tortured, silenced — even murdered.
The 2019 World Press Freedom index this year found that hatred of journalists has degenerated into violence. The number of countries considered safe for journalists has continued to decline.
Last October, we heard of the gruesome murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.
This past spring, Irish journalist Lyra McKee was murdered in Derry by a dissident IRA cell.
The numbers suggest that a free press is gradually scaling down to a few countries in the West.
But even in the US, where local newspapers are dying, the country’s leader calls reporters “enemies of the people” and says they traffic in fake news. The result is that Trump rallies have turned into beat-the-press meetings which could easily boil over into violence.
Violence such as the murder of five employees of the Capital Gazette last year in Annapolis.
The cops called it a targeted shooting. Jailing a hatemonger in Toronto does nothing to reduce hate in this country.
But it does reduce, albeit slightly, the idea that a free press is something more than a slogan.
That in some parts of the world, it is life and death. All the more reason to make sure we protect it here.
The podcast known as Catholic vs… interviewed me last week
https://www.americanthinker.com/article … anity.html
An article written by Amy Contrada in the American Thinker
The sad and absurd saga of Mr. Yaniv vs. Mr. Whatcott continues:
On July 22nd, I received notice of Mr. Yaniv’s rather bizarre “human rights” complaint and demand for $35,000: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HXBWjX … sp=sharing
Anyways, as per the (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s (BCHRT) direction I filed my response on Sept 23rd, you can see it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ssq460 … sp=sharing
Notwithstanding, I did not ask for this engagement with Mr. Yaniv, and generally speaking starting a conversation by serving me with a frivolous lawsuit demanding $35,000 is not the best way to warm me up to a guy, it seems Mr. Yaniv went into a hissy fit that I am not referring to him using his preferred pronouns.
Please keep in mind I have never threatened Mr. Yaniv, nor have I swore at him or even seriously insulted him, though I would understand someone being less charitable than me; the guy is after all behaving in a predatory fashion and is using a lawless government agency to enforce a make-believe speech code and is expropriating people’s money in a discreditable fashion. Mr. Yaniv does not deserve to be spoken to politely, but in any event, I have been nothing but polite to him. I have merely stated the obvious after Mr. Yaniv chose to seek me out, sue me. and engage with me; I have simply told the BCHRT the truth, they are an abusive government agency and their behaviour is not credible, as demonstrated by their prosecuting Yaniv’s victims and I have stated the obvious that Yaniv is a predatory, disturbed, biological male.
Anyways in response to my compelled BCHRT response Mr. Yaniv started with this e-mail to the BCHRT and ccd it to me:
Then Yaniv sent some attachments to myself and the BCHRT asking for additional costs to be imposed on me and asking for increased security to be provided for him at the hearing. When I clicked on his attachments I was unable to open them so I sent a polite e-mail that seems to have provoked an agitated response from the complainant insisting I engage with him using female pronouns.
Mr. Yaniv and the BCHRT had a little hissy fit and refused to respond to my request for Mr. Yaniv’s increased security and costs application, presumably because they are both mad at my personal rule that I only use reality based pronouns when engaging with human beings. Anyways, after a week I sent an e-mail reminding both of them the BCHRT’s own rules clearly state all form correspondence is to be shared between the parties. Within a few hours I finally got Mr. Yaniv’s application for another $7500 in costs and his perceived need for more security. Here is the most relevant excerpts:
Here is the July 26th incident that Mr. Yaniv is talking about
My “abusive” behaviour consists of my September 23rd response (see above) to Mr. Yaniv’s human rights complaint and the above above e-mail where I respond to the complainant with the correct gender pronoun.
Here is more of the application:
Keep in mind I never asked for this engagement, it is Mr. Yaniv who sought me out and used the BCHRT government kangaroo court to force me to engage with him. I never agreed to maintaining any sort of confidentiality with either him or the kangaroo tribunal. I have grave concerns that the BCHRT and predators like Yaniv thrive best when there is no public exposure or awareness as to what they are up to.
As for respecting the process? Mr. Yaniv is not alone in demanding I “respect” the process. I recently received an e-mail from a Christian lawyer whom I have a degree of respect for who has declined to help me with this case citing my response to the BCHRT as being “disrespectful, lacking in decorum, and injudicious” that means I am going into this fight alone.
Reflecting on the matter, I am not sure that Canadians should be so deferential to kangaroo courts. We are not merely in a legal dispute where lawyers are politely arguing over who has rights to a property or a disagreement over what constitutes “facts” in an alleged crime; this is an ideologically driven judicial body compelling Canadians to call biological men women and enabling a predatory male to victimize vulnerable women and men who dare to criticize him. The BCHRT is out touch with reality, has disregarded real due process in preference to having a veneer of due process (to give them the air of legitimacy that they do not deserve), so they can ram their neo Marxist gender ideology down our throats and do their part in deconstructing the western European Christian foundation that our nation was built upon.
When before a real court we should show respect and when dealing with broken sinners we should have compassion. However, look at how the prophet Eijah dealt with King Ahab and his false prophets (the highest authority figure in the Kingdom of Israel) and both the King and his prophets would have commanded a great deal of respect from the population.
Elijah mocked the false prophets in the presence of King Ahab:
“At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
1 Kings 18:27
Then once their fraud was fully exposed Elijah called on the people to kill the false prophets
“Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.” And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there.”
1 Kings 18:40
Now maybe stating the obvious that Ronan Oger and Jonathan Yaniv were born with wangs between their legs and they are therefore male is too much for the tender ears of so-called transgenders, well meaning Christian lawyers who can’t sully themselves by associating with such common sense, and BCHRT kangaroos who donate to transgender causes, refuse to recuse themselves when their political sympathies are exposed, and who with no pang of conscience destroy freedom of speech and equate correctly gendering a transvestite, far left, political candidate with white supremacy, but still my speech and actions are downright refined compared to how the Prophet Elijah handled King Ahab and the false prophets of Baal.
Now maybe I am not too overly deferential to a fake legal body who already has trampled on our election freedom and fined me $55,000 for not calling a biological male, NDP candidate a woman, but what I said and did and the consequences I am suffering is all small potatoes compared to Christianity’s first martyr.
“Some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council.” Acts 6:9-13
St. Stephen due to his public preaching and works was brought before the high priest and a council of Jewish elders (an authoritative body commanding more respect and judicial power than the BCHRT). While a Jewish council was held in high regard by the common man in ancient Israel, many people besides myself correctly hold the BCHRT in contempt, as they have discredited themselves with their insane rulings, complete disregard for real human rights, and attempts to impose gender non-reality on those of us who disagree.
When the High Priest and council allowed themselves to be consumed with bias and rejected the truth of St. Stephen’s preaching, look at what St. Stephen said to them.
“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
St. Stephen’s blunt truth telling so enraged the elders and those listening to him that his trial was cut short and he was stoned to death on the spot. What would a “polite” Canadian Christian lawyer who demands decorum out of those who care enough to plainly speak against injustice do with St. Stephen if he was their client?
Anyways, the $42,500 that Mr. Yaniv wants (likely to grow to $50,000 + after he reads this update and files it with the BCHRT as evidence of my further misconduct) is but a distraction in comparison to Oger vs Whatcott where literally Canada’s election freedom is at stake. It seems to my horror that most Canadians are asleep and unaware of what is at stake in Oger vs Whatcott where a political candidate decided their so-called gender identity is off limits from discussion, even though their gender identity was destined to be what drives them in their political career. Worse yet the BCHRT kangaroo tribunal agreed with Oger that Canadians can’t express a critical opinion about his gender identity as that might cause voters to think about how fake gender identities might impact government policies that directly effect their lives and indeed their very freedom.
Then there is my upcoming “hate crime” trial on January 6 for distributing 3,000 “zombie safe sex” packages that contained the Gospel and wholesome good news that homosexuals and transgenders CAN change their sexual behaviour and realign their gender identities with reality.
Please pray for all of the above. I am a weak and flawed Christian going into these battles with few earthly resources. Left on my own I will surely bring disgrace to Christ’s cause. However, our Lord also promised “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” 1 Corinthians 12:9.
While I am weak, sinful, maybe not cultured enough, and not always too wise, we will see what God does…..
“You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.”
2 Timothy 2:1-3
- Posts: 6898
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:33 am
- Location: Edmonton, AB
I cannot believe that so many Canadians are asleep or don’t care.
However, I can assure you that there are more Canadians, little by little, who have woken up and who are waking up others to fight this LGBT perversion!
No more “Human Wrongs Tribunals”!
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:54 pm
SHOCK: Andrew Scheer has Rebel News reporter David Menzies arrested, handcuffed at campaign event
I cannot believe it.
We sent David “The Menzoid” Menzies to report from an Andrew Scheer campaign event. Like we normally do.
CBC journalists were welcomed. But David was kicked out.
They said David wasn’t “accredited”. Really? David’s been an accredited journalist for 30 years — he’s covered hundreds of political events from parties of every stripe.
Why would Scheer kick out David, but welcome the CBC — who despise the Conservatives?
None of this makes sense.
Anyways, David left the property. He went to the public sidewalk. He started filming a video about being kicked out. And then he was swarmed by police.
And this time, they arrested him and handcuffed him.
Why did they do that?
Who ordered them to do that?
He as on the sidewalk.
He’s a man in his fifties with two artificial hips. He’s not a screaming Antifa thug; he’s not a trespasser.
They handcuffed him. Why? To humiliate him?
They finally took off his cuffs and he called me. But then more police came and took away his phone. I immediately called a lawyer. Within an hour, the police let him go, without any charges.
But their point was made: don’t you dare try to ask questions of our political elites. Or the police will arrest you.
Well, point not taken.
I can tell you one thing: today’s outrageous treatment of David Menzies will not stop us from doing our jobs.
I’ll be candid, we’re more used to Justin Trudeau banning us — and Rachel Notley before she was fired by voters. It says more about them than it does about us. Actually it does say something about us: we ask questions that politicians would rather not be asked.
Can you please help us? We need your help.
There are three things you can do:
1. Tell your local conservative candidate that this is nuts.
It’s a Trudeau move, not a conservative move. Ask your Conservative candidate if they think it’s wise to have police arrest the only conservative-leaning video company in Canada. Frankly, no reporter of any stripe should be arrested. This is Canada.
2. Second, sign our petition to Andrew Scheer at LetUsReport.com.
It’s just what it sounds like. Let Us Report — just like Scheer lets the CBC report. We need to show him that Canadians — especially Conservatives — believe in free speech and freedom of the press. Maybe he’s been hanging out in Ottawa too long to remember that.
3. Please help us keep on reporting, no matter who kicks us out.
I just got off the phone with David, and I’ve told him to keep asking Andrew Scheer questions. Not gotcha questions, but real questions — the kind the CBC would never ask him. Questions like these:
• Justin Trudeau’s campaign platform calls for new political censorship of the Internet. Do you support or oppose this?
• If elected, would you end the $600 million newspaper bail-out?
• If elected, would you privatize the CBC?
• What do you think the optimum number of immigrants is each year for Canada?
• …and so many more.
Those aren’t trick questions. They’re questions any conservative should answer. But they’re questions that only Rebel News would ask. I mean, can you really see a CBC journalist pressing Scheer about ending the bail-out?
My goal as the publisher of Rebel News is to do journalism — to tell the other side of the story. Most of the time, that means asking accountability questions of the Liberals, NDP and Greens, because the mainstream media never does.
We lean conservative here at Rebel News, and we wear our heart on our sleeves — we want Trudeau gone. I just wrote the best-selling book called The Libranos: What the media won’t tell you about Justin Trudeau’s corruption. I think it’s clear what I stand for.
But that doesn’t mean we’re going to let Scheer become like Trudeau. Having police arrest David Menzies was a Trudeau move, not a move any conservative should be proud of. Actually it’s worse — I’ve never actually seen Trudeau have someone arrested, have you?
You can help us at LetUsReport.com. Sign our petition to Scheer to let us report. And then you can click on the link on that page to see all of our campaign plans and our budget there. We’re spending thousands of dollars flying David and our other journalists around the country, covering political events.
Andrew Scheer might think he’s at war with us, but we’re not at war with him. We just want to be able to do our job — and we will, whether he likes it or not.
So help us out — visit LetUsReport.com to sign the petition to Scheer. And if you want us to keep on going, and if you want Scheer to stop acting like Trudeau, you can chip in a few bucks, too. Please click here to help us out.
Let’s remind Andrew Scheer: he’s trying to replace Trudeau, not become him.
P.S. Please sign our petition at LetUsReport.com. I always worried about a government crackdown on our free speech. I just never thought it would come from the Conservative Party.