A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election
From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017
A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election
From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017
Dear YouTube, this is SATIRE ~ POLITICAL MUSICAL SATIRE, based on an Edith Paif song ‘La vie en rose’. Edith Piaf performed regularly in occupied France duri…
Dear all, a short account of my brief but unpleasant ordeal last week.
The new charge for causing yet more gross offence by way of singing satirical songs concerns a YouTube version (now removed) of this song which, for obvious reasons, I am unable to share on my above blog post:
Musical wishes, Alison Chabloz.
Last week, for having expressed myself musically via the Internet, I was entertained at Her Majesty’s pleasure during 48 hours.
Clearly at the beck and call of my predatory stalkers, police first arrested me for an alleged breach of bail outside Court 8 at Westminster Mags then, ten minutes later, de-arrested me. Within half an hour, I was re-arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for my songs (again), handcuffed and carted off to Charing Cross police station where I was held for six hours to await two officers from Derbyshire police to take me back to my home county for questioning.
In Buxton, I spent another 31 hours in custody, was interviewed, rearrested for breaching bail and for another count of sending a ‘grossly offensive message’ – i.e. posting another humorous song on YouTube, clearly marked as SATIRE and which contains NO HATE SPEECH whatsoever – and finally charged with the latter two offences. I was told that the incitement charge is pending police investigation. I was refused bail and informed that police had requested I be held on remand.
On the morning of October 6th, I was again handcuffed and driven in a prison bus to Chesterfield Immediate Remand Court where I pleaded not guilty to malicious communications and was freed under the same bail conditions with the new charge transferred to the next legal argument hearing at Westminster on October 25th.
Now, three days after being released and of course being the subject of all-too-predictable arrogant gloating online from my predatory stalkers (yet total silence from the mainstream press), my impression is that my persecutors were trying to break me.
I was treated badly at Charing Cross, made to suffer three hours of torture in a freezing cold police van with no seat and refused a number of my rights. I have compiled a fully detailed report which has been sent to my lawyers.
All for singing satirical songs? What has happened to this country, when the authorities behave in such a despicable manner towards an artist who has never caused any harm to anyone? What do my predatory stalkers hope to achieve?
Anyway, I am absolutely fine. As I have said before, this kind of persecution only strengthens my resolve. Thanks to everyone who has sent me kind words of support.
The Crown now must convince District Judge Zani that ridiculing Jewish lies, power and influence in a song is grossly offensive. Other points of law to be discussed at the next hearing are whether sharing a URL constitutes sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message and deciding whether YouTube is a public communications network.
My bail terms specify that anything I post has to be BOTH racist/anti-Semitic AND grossly offensive in order for me to be charged with a breach. Certainly, one of the interviewing officers didn’t seem to be offended at all – one foot tapping the beat during the showing of a police screencapture video of my alleged musical crimes!
If my trial goes ahead, all the footage of the three songs concerned will be shown in court – the third clip clearly showing a YouTube warning notice for delicate flowers who might be offended by watching! If the authorities want to make themselves look utterly ridiculous then I can’t really see any problem. Likewise, if they decide to put an artist on trial for singing satirical songs, find me guilty and send me to prison, I have absolutely no problem with that either.
Once again, my predatory stalkers have omitted to include another of my songs which, considering the definition of what they claim to be ‘grossly offensive’, could easily have been subject to similar nonsense charges. I wonder why?
Oct 10, 2017 visiting Horst Mahler,
German Excerpt with English below in red :
Es freute uns sehr, Horst Mahler in akzeptablem Zustand, den Umständen entsprechend, wieder zu sehen. Sein Geist ist ungebrochen und in den Gesprächen
We are very happy to find Horst Mahler in an acceptable state, considering the circumstances, to see him again. His Spirit is unbroken and in our conversations
sprühte er vor Zuversicht. Diese Zuversicht bezog sich nicht auf das Wohl seiner Person, vielmehr auf den Ausgang des Kampfes. Seine Worte „Nicht ich bin
he sparkles with confidence. This confidence was not in reference to the wellbeing of his person, but it is in the end result of the battle. His Words “ Not I is
angeklagt, sondern mein Buch und die Wahrheit die aus ihm spricht“, machen uns wieder deutlich, wie richtig er mit seinen Erkenntnissen über den Feind der
accused, but my book and the truth that is revealed in it”, will confirm to us again, how right he is with his recognition of the enemy that
Völker liegt. Horst Mahler klagt nicht über seine Situation, befürwortet kein Mitleid und erst recht keine defätistischen Ansichten. Sein Wollen ist der Kampf
lies over the People. Horst Mahler is not complaining about his situation, seeks no sympathy and especially has no defeatist attitude. His goal is the fight
gegen den jüdischen Ungeist durch das Erwachen des deutschen Geistes.
against the Jewish Daemon through the awakening of the German Spirit.
With every passing day it should be clear that “diversity” is a code word for anti-White.
The CBC (August 22, 2017) explained: “A man who was seen proudly flying a Confederate flag from his truck at a downtown Hamilton construction site has been fired, his employer says. Keith Lipiec posed for pictures with the flag at a Yoke Group job site at Hamilton’s historic Treble Hall at the corner of King and John Streets yesterday.
Yoke Group owner and CEO Anthony Quattrociocchi told CBC News Monday evening that Lipiec has been fired.
“I have absolutely zero tolerance for this behaviour. He will no longer be working for Yoke Group,” Quattrociocchi said in an email.
evening, saying the company believes “strongly in diversity, inclusiveness and acceptance.”
“There is zero tolerance for racism and discrimination in our business and on our sites,” the statement reads. “We were deeply offended by the actions of the rogue temporary employee at our Treble Hall site today.
“We do not condone or support this individual’s actions. We encourage freedom of speech but not when it evokes any form of hatred or discrimination.” So, freedom of speech to say “nice” or bland things. Keith Pipiec was only flying a flag; he wasn’t hating or discriminating against anybody!Hamilton Man Fired for Showing A Confederate Flag
Ugly dispute at festival last summer led to councillor’s motion
Toronto city council is set to discuss a call for a ban this week on the Confederate battle flag in public spaces stemming from a raucous confrontation during a festival in suburban Toronto this summer.
Coun. Neethan Shan of Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River has introduced a motion that aims to clarify what symbols can be displayed during events in parks and other public spaces.
He’s also calling for an outright ban on the Confederate flag, in particular from city-owned spaces and at city-sponsored events.
- Man displaying Confederate flag
fired from job site
- Confederate flag: 10 facts about the controversial symbol
“I think at some point we have to put our foot down and say what is not acceptable when it comes to symbols of hate,” Shan told CBC Toronto on Friday.
His interest was sparked by an incident during last summer’s Highland Creek Festival, which is held annually on public lands in the city’s Highland Creek Village neighbourhood.Coun. Neethan Shan has asked city staff to investigate the feasibility of banning the Confederate flag from city-owned spaces and city-sponsored events.
Ybia Anderson was visiting the festival with her three-year-old son when she noticed a replica of the General Lee, the customized Dodge Charger from the U.S. TV program The Dukes of Hazzard.
The vehicle was displaying two Confederate flags — one on its roof and the other on its bumper. Despite her objection, organizers refused to move the car.
In a tape she recorded of the incident, Anderson can be heard demanding that the person in charge of the car remove it, which he refuses to do.Anderson’s dispute over a Confederate flag last summer led to this week’s motion by Shan. (Ybia Anderson)
“Let me tell you what I want: I want the car gone. “I want it out of sight. It does not belong here,” she says.
“It represents lynching and death of black people… This is racist … This does not belong here.”
On Friday, Anderson told CBC Toronto she’s glad Shan is trying to ban displays of the flag in public places.
“I absolutely support it, because I think there’s a disconnect happening … I think people do not understand and define the Confederate flag as a hate symbol, which it is,” she said.
Not a free expression issue, Shan says
Shan’s motion calls on city staff to look into the feasibility of banning the flag.
He said he doesn’t believe a ban could be construed as a violation of a person’s right to free expression
“This is not a case of freedom of expression or freedom of speech,” he said. “It is a symbol of hate that infringes on the well-being of other people in a place that is public, and a place that is publicly funded, in a place that is publicly maintained or supported by the community.”
Two-thirds of councillors must agree to discuss his motion at this council meeting. Otherwise, it will be referred to a city commitee, where it could be killed, or sent back to next month’s council meeting for a vote.
* An elite running scared
* New repression — Motion-103 (Islamophobia) now in committee
* Little rebellions across Canada
Spirited greetings to all after 48 hours detention including four arrests, one de-arrest, six hours’ custody at Charing Cross (Desk Sergent: Alison, you’re definitely not the usual kind of customer we get in here).
Bundled into police van, filthy, freezing cold, no seat belt, no seat! Three hours of hell to Chesterfield then car to Buxton. Finally charged at eleventh hour for causing yet more musical gross offence to delicate flowers desperate to see me detained on remand for alleged breach of bail.
Court hearing in Chesterfield this morn. Great lawyer. Not guilty plea. New charges transferred back down to Westminster Mags for legal argument hearing October 25th. No change to bail conditions.
Loveliest court guard was as happy as me: You’re saying everything that everyone thinks but daren’t say out loud.
I made it quite plain in my interview that if the authorities wish to lock up a politically incorrect singer, then they can go ahead.
Good luck to them.
Tue, October 03, 2017 | Author: Ron Voss | Volume 24 Issue 40
The Heritage Committee has started to meet as required by parliamentary M-103. I listened to the first hour of the hearing on September 20th, when Tarek Fatah, a secular Muslim, and Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former officer in both the RCMP and CSIS, appeared as witnesses.
We have a former federal police officer basically toying with the censoring of the media and the prosecuting of individuals when “things go too far.”
On the other hand, in a subsequent article in the Toronto Sun, Fatah, reflecting on his experience appearing before the Committee, concluded that it was “evident” to him that “this was not a ‘hearing,’ but an exercise to rubber stamp a pre-determined outcome.”
The testimony by Juneau-Katsuya, presumably an “expert” hand-picked by the Liberals, brought to mind a more malignant version of Winston Smith who worked at the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. Winston Smith’s job was to overwrite the truth, replacing the history of what really happened with a revised version. Juneau-Katsuya sketched out an alarm about the supposed rise and threat of a “radical right,” which voice—he said—needs to be silenced. As if our Charter right to free speech should be forfeited because Juneau-Katsuya’s imaginary enemy might…well…do something.
Juneau-Katsuya started his opening 10-minute segment saying, “My comments today…will focus on the rise of the right which, to my mind…represents a greater threat than radical Islam…a greater threat because it creeps into the thoughts of our fellow citizens so much so that it distorts reality and eventually, over time, withstands dispassionate and measured debate” A greater threat to whom, he doesn’t tell us. He contends that the right of free citizens to hold opinions is more dangerous than the death, maiming, and fear created by Islamic radicalism, despite the almost daily accounts of terrorist activities? With this opening statement by Juneau-Katsuya, the revisionism underway is very detectable.
Most of what he said, as in the following examples, makes sense if you invert what he said, for example, substituting the real threat of the “radical left” (like Antifa) and Islamic terrorists, for his imagined “radical right.”
Juneau-Katsuya tells us, “The rise of the right already has many victims and we are pretty close to being on the eve of domestic terrorism far more severe as a threat.” If we take away the “Ministry of Truth” snow job and look at the facts, we see that since 9/11, in the name of Islam, there have been 34,102 attacks worldwide, with 220,173 killed and 301,002 injured across some 59 countries, as of October 2, 2017, that we can confirm.
Juneau-Katsuya continues, “…the discourse of the English-speaking extreme right in western Canada is much closer to that of neo-Nazis and so-called conventional white supremacists.” Here, he regurgitates the leftist mainstream media narrative and misrepresents the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi) as being on the “extreme right” when they were actually on the “extreme left” (socialists) along with their communist cousins.
His misrepresentation of truth continues with, “I deplore the current lack of leadership and concrete measures by our political leaders, from all parties and orders of government, to offer a counter-discourse to the allegations and outright lies perpetuated by agitators on the right.” The lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” is easily ignored along with the various terrorist activities having no connection whatsoever to Islam.
Juneau-Katsuya’s rejection of our freedom of speech continues with, “While respecting the right to free speech, perhaps it is time to examine the degree of acceptability of the aberrations of certain opinion leaders or agitators.” He was very short on specifics throughout his presentation, but he gave some hints as to how he would propose drawing the line, for example, suggesting that the licenses be withdrawn for “trash radio” stations in Quebec, whose viewpoint he considers as being responsible for the attack on the mosque in Quebec City. As well, when asked by a Liberal committee member, “On the Anglophone side, would you perceive Rebel Media (an online news and commentary source offering the ‘the other side of the story’ from a conservative perspective) to be amplifying the message of the extreme right?,” Juneau-Katsuya unhesitatingly answered, “Absolutely.”
Unfortunately, there was no push back from the Conservative MPs present with respect to this fanciful storytelling with its implications of totalitarian overreach on free speech. Liberal MP Arif Virani (himself a Muslim) bluntly told Tarek Fatah, who also addressed the committee, “I disagree with virtually everything you’ve said in your opening discourse and response to questions,” which is what the Conservative MPs should have told Juneau-Katsuya. Virani when he cited the example of an innocuous tweet, by Fatah (again a secular Muslim), related to the attack on the mosque in Quebec City without referencing its author as being Fatah. Chillingly, Juneau-Katsuya declared that the author of such a tweet should be “denounced and if possible prosecuted.”
In just these few examples, we can see how the Liberals are choreographing the desired outcome of these hearings.It appears (ominously) that “the writing is on the wall.”
CHP Canada is the only federal political party willing to stand against these encroachments on our freedoms. If you are concerned then it’s time to join your voice with ours by becoming a member and supporting the Christian Heritage Party. The time to fight is short…join today!
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
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.
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/