Joy Behar claims Elon Musk is pro-racial segregation then walks back comments: ‘Don’t sue me’
“Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. So, don’t be suing me okay, Elon.”
Hate Machine Hiccups
Tag Archives: Elon Musk
Suppression of Free Speech Is A Greater Threat to Europe Than Russia or China, Says VP J.D. Vance
JD Vance attacks Europe over migration, free speech
U.S. vice president stunned the audience with his broadside on the way Europe is run.
February 14, 2025 3:24 pm CET
By Paul McLeary, Jan Cienski, Suzanne Lynch and Robbie Gramer
Live coverage from Munich: POLITICO is on the ground at the Munich Security Conference, where we’re having conversations with top officials, lawmakers and experts at our POLITICO Pub. Follow our exclusive coverage here.
MUNICH — United States Vice President JD Vance launched a blistering attack on European governments on Friday, chastising them for ignoring the will of their people, overturning elections, ignoring religious freedoms and not acting to halt illegal migration.
It was a U.S.-style MAGA, red meat speech that eschewed detailed discussion of defense and security — the topic of the Munich Security Conference. Vance instead hit on some recent hot button cultural issues, from abortion laws in Britain to the recent election in Romania.
“The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia. It’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within,” the vice president said. “The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”
It was clear that this is a very different administration from the transatlantic White House of former President Joe Biden.
“In Washington there is a new sheriff in town, and under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square agree or disagree,” Vance said, adding: “Dismissing people, dismissing their concerns … shutting down media, shutting down elections … protects nothing. It is the most surefire way to destroy democracy … If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.”
Vance’s comments brought the audience of policy wonks and defense experts to a standstill.
Culture wars
His speech focused largely on culture war issues and populism, with Vance accusing European governments and what he called European Union “commissars” of being more interested in stifling free speech than in providing security for their citizens.
In one case, he slammed the U.K., highlighting the case of anti-abortion activist Adam Smith-Connor, who was convicted last year of breaching a safe zone for praying near an abortion clinic.
He also lambasted Romania’s top court for its November decision to overturn the first round of that country’s presidential election after far-right presidential candidate Călin Georgescu was accused of benefiting from an illegal Russian-style social media campaign.
“When we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard,” Vance said.
He attacked high levels of migration, touching on the same themes that animated Trump’s return to power in the United States. He said he was praying for the victims of Thursday’s attack in Munich, when a migrant drove a car into a crowd, injuring 28.
“How many times must we suffer these appalling setbacks before we change course and take our civilization in a different direction?” Vance said, adding that the number of immigrants from non-EU countries who entered the bloc doubled from 2021 to 2022.
This was “the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent,” Vance said.
Taking an absolutist view of free speech, Vance said: “I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people.”
Stunned reaction
The speech caused consternation in Munich, where the audience had been expecting some clarity on the U.S. administration’s recent confusing comments on reaching a peace deal in Ukraine, its views on Russia, and whether U.S. troops will be pulled out of Europe.
“Nuts,” was the reaction of former U.S. ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. It’s “not the kind of language you would expect in the 21st century and certainly not from the U.S. vice president at Europe’s most important security conference,” he told POLITICO.
Daalder said Vance also missed an opportunity to explain the Trump team’s positions on Ukraine talks with Russia. “All he said is we believe there should be a peace at some point and that’s it. The question of territories and borders, the question of security guarantees, the question of sanctions and their future, the question of support for Ukraine and its future was not mentioned at all.”
But not all found the speech so objectionable.
Elon Musk, Trump’s billionaire adviser, was ecstatic, posting on X: “Make Europe Great Again! MEGA, MEGA, MEGA.”
One European diplomat applauded Vance, calling it “a very strong speech. Many will not like it. Many will silently agree with him but will choose not to express it. There has been double standards when it comes to how the EU institutions have approached the democratic process in different European countries.” …
Vance’s speech comes at the tail of a week of confusion and frustration in Europe, after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth surprised allies by saying that Ukraine cannot return to its pre-invasion borders and ruled out Ukraine’s future membership in NATO.
In Israel, ADL Chief Jonathan Greenblatt Appears to Call for Using Terrorism to Murder Critics of Jews and Israel?
In Israel, ADL Chief Jonathan Greenblatt Appears to Call for Using Terrorism to Murder Critics of Jews and Israel?
Andrew Anglin January 15, 2025
The head of the Israeli lobbying group the Anti-Defamation League was in Israel last week, where he appeared to call for using Israeli terrorist tactics to maim and murder “antisemites” who criticize Jews on the internet.
Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, Jonathan Greenblatt bemoaned the fact that people are complaining about Jewish behavior online, saying that Jews are “losing the battle” against “antisemitism.” He framed the fight to silence critics of Israel on the internet as the “eighth front” of Israel’s “seven-front war.” He then said that last year’s terrorist attack against Lebanon, which involved explosives being implanted into pagers which were detonated to mutilate and murder Lebanese people, should be the inspiration for silencing people on the internet.
It would have been bad enough if he had said this as a joke, but based on the context and the way he spoke, there is no indication he was joking.
“We need the kind of genius that manufactured Apollo Gold Pagers and infiltrated Hezbollah for over a decade to prepare for this battle,” Greenblatt said.
He went on to state that terrorism is a characteristic of Jewish people: “This is the kind of ingenuity and inventiveness that have always been a hallmark of the State of Israel, that have always been a characteristic of the Jewish people. I know we can do it.”
You can watch the video above to get the full context of the statement, and see if you think he is saying something different. The most generous interpretation would be that he is saying that it took a certain kind of cunning to do the terrorist attack against Hezbollah and that this type of cunning is needed to silence critics of the Jews. It is seemingly unfathomable that he would want to leave people with the impression he was calling for terrorism against internet critics, and furthermore, he calls on the Israeli Defense Force to form a group to shut down these online critics, which definitely implies he is talking about real violence being used.
However, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose he is calling for some kind of metaphorical terrorism, we must ask what exactly it is he is talking about doing to prevent people from holding opinions he opposes.
Believing that Jews should not slaughter children in Gaza, or that they shouldn’t push child transsexualism, mass immigration, pornography, abortion, and other socially deleterious schemes in the West is an opinion. How can you stop people from having an opinion, other than by killing them? What are the other options?
The ADL is primarily a censorship group, which lobbies governments to pass laws criminalizing the criticism of Jews, and lobbying Silicon Valley to silence critics of Jews online. This is obviously anti-American, fundamentally, but the ADL is one of many Jewish groups which engages in this activity. Internet censorship is ubiquitous, and even the supposed “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk has recently begun silencing his critics on Twitter.
Jewish groups successfully lobbied for TikTok to be banned in America due to the fact that the Chinese owners feel that Americans have a right to criticize Israel in a way that no American company allows them to.
However, none of this has to do with the government of Israel. If Greenblatt was suggesting that Israel should engage in more active lobbying for internet censorship and hate speech laws, he could have simply said that. Instead, he invoked terrorism and called for the IDF to fight people who criticize Jews online.
Being on the frontlines of criticism of Israel and the collective behavior of individual Jews, I have personally had an adversarial relationship with the ADL for more than a decade, regularly being a target of slander and hate from Jonathan Greenblatt and others in the organization, so this call for the Israeli military to use terrorism to silence people like me is particularly disturbing.
At this point, there is so much criticism directed at Israel, and to some extent also the behavior of diaspora Jews, that it would be virtually impossible to censor all of it. Twitter and Facebook would have to ban tens or hundreds of millions of people, and banning that many people would definitely result in those who weren’t banned criticizing Jews for getting all of those people banned.
However, if the Jews began assassinating critics, that may prove to be a significant deterrent.
Although I’ve said it many times, I want to put it on the record again that I am in very good health, I did not take the coronavirus vaccine so I am not at risk of dying suddenly, and I would never, under any circumstances, kill myself.
The video linked above is a week old and has fewer than 100 views. I have not seen this story reported anywhere else. I hope that others will clip the relevant portions and spread them on Twitter and elsewhere. I would like to see Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Judge Napolitano, and others with large platforms addressing these statements by Greenblatt and demanding that he explain what exactly it is he is calling for when he says that terrorism needs to be used to silence people whose opinions he does not like.
The Jewish [lobby’s] agenda to shut down freedom of speech was already extreme enough, but calling for violence to be used as a solution to internet posts takes this into a whole new realm. If America was a serious country, traveling to a foreign country and calling for state terrorism against American citizens would be grounds for serious criminal charges.
Elon Musk calls for release of British activist Tommy Robinson
Elon Musk calls for release of British right-wing activist
Tommy Robinson should be freed while Keir Starmer should face charges for his mishandling of a mass-rape scandal, the billionaire has declared
Tommy Robinson speaks at a demonstration in London, England, April 23, 2024 © Getty Images / Peter Nicholls
Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk has called for the release of Tommy Robinson, a controversial British right-wing activist jailed in October for airing a documentary containing libelous claims about a Syrian refugee.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for claiming in a documentary that a Syrian teenager who was attacked at a Yorkshire secondary school in 2018 had a lengthy record of attacking female students.
”Free Tommy Robinson!” Musk declared in a post on X on Thursday, before posting a link to the libellous documentary.
Robinson is an ardent critic of mass immigration and Islam, and was one of the leading voices on the right condemning the ‘grooming gangs’ scandal, in which groups of Asian men raped and tortured thousands of underage girls in towns across northern England over the last two decades. Almost all of the perpetrators were Pakistani men, and the victims white British girls.
Successive British governments have declined to investigate the scandal, while the police mishandled cases, arrested victims and covered up the existence of the gangs, official inquiries later found.
In a slew of posts on Thursday and Friday, Musk drew attention to some of the most egregious cases of police mishandling of the scandal, including one incident in Rotherham where officers arrested a father who attempted to rescue his daughter from a house where she was being raped, and another where they arrested a rape victim without questioning the alleged perpetrators.
The scandal was a case of “state-sponsored evil,” Musk wrote in one post.
Musk shared posts condemning Lord Ahmed, the Muslim mayor of Rotherham who was later found to have sexually assaulted two children, and Prime MInister Keir Starmer, who led the Crown Prosecutorial Service between 2008 and 2013.
“In the UK, serious crimes such as rape require the Crown Prosecution Service’s approval for the police to charge suspects,” the billionaire wrote. “Who was the head of the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice? Keir Starmer, 2008 -2013.”
“Starmer was complicit in the RAPE OF BRITAIN,” he continued in another post, adding that the prime minister “must go and he must face charges for his complicity in the worst mass crime in the history of Britain.”
Musk also shared a poll showing widespread discontent with Starmer’s government, declaring that “a new election should be called in Britain.” The Tesla tycoon – who has previously clashed with Starmer over the PM’s crackdown on online dissent following a spate of riots this summer – described Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party as “the only way to save” the UK.
Musk earlier met with Farage at US President-elect Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, with some media outlets claiming he had pledged as much as $100 million in support for the British party. Musk, however, denied the reports.
Small Victory for Journalist in Thought Control U.K.
Note: But the fear lingers on. That is how police states operate RH
Police drop investigation into Allison Pearson over tweet
Force ditches inquiry after facing criticism for ‘appalling’ attack on free speech
Allison Pearson will face no further action from police
Connor Stringer Senior reporter. Charles Hymas Home Affairs Editor
21 November 2024 8:41pm GMT
Essex Police has dropped its investigation into Allison Pearson, the Telegraph journalist, for an alleged hate crime.
Pearson, an award-winning writer, was being investigated for allegedly stirring up racial hatred with a social media post made in November last year.
Two police officers called at her home at 9.40am on Remembrance Sunday to tell her she was under investigation and invited her to a voluntary interview.
The officers refused to tell her any details about which post on X, formerly Twitter, was being investigated, or who made the complaint against her.
After a major backlash, including from Boris Johnson who called the inquiry an “appalling” attack on free speech, Essex Police announced on Thursday that it had closed its investigation.
Chief Constable Mark Hobrough, the National Police Chiefs’ Council hate crimes lead, will now conduct an independent review of the force’s handling of the case.
Reacting to the decision, Ms Pearson said that she was “vindicated”.
Allison Pearson speaks at an event on Thursday, an hour after receiving the news that her case would be dropped Credit: ELLIOTT FRANKS
She said: “I am relieved but also it has been a dreadful experience, waking up, and going to sleep with dread. Waking up in the small hours thinking I am under police investigation, that’s not nice for anyone let alone a law-abiding citizen.
“I feel angry with Essex Police, I do not believe there was ever any case to answer, I was expressing my opinion in what I thought was a free society.”
She added: “It is a win for The Telegraph. I hope it is a win for common sense. I am vindicated personally but I have become far more concerned about how widespread this is and how it is casting a chilling effect on free speech.
“I would like to sincerely thank all the Telegraph readers, their support has meant the absolute world.”
The Crown Prosecution Service advised that no charges should be brought against Ms Pearson after reviewing the case. Essex Police said it would therefore take no further action and dropped the investigation.
Pearson initially believed that the matter was being treated as a non-crime hate incident (NCHI) rather than a criminal investigation.
The force responded that this was “wholly inaccurate” and said that “as the public would expect” it had body-worn video of the encounter, which it claimed “entirely supports our position”.
However, it prompted criticism of the incidents, which do not meet the criminal threshold but are recorded by police regardless.
Ms Pearson’s treatment was attacked by MPs, a leading barrister and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, amid claims it was an “Orwellian” over-reaction and a potential threat to free speech.
Graham Stringer, the Labour MP, who accused the police of Stasi-like behaviour over Pearson in the Commons, said: “I am pleased to see that the exposure to discussion in the Commons seems to have helped persuade the police to withdraw their action.”
Writing in The Telegraph he added: “The police have enthusiastically embraced the recording of non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime incidents have never been required by parliament in legislation and it is certainly not a crime to make somebody feel uncomfortable. In this category, the police have interviewed people for tweeting feminist songs and not allowing a guide dog into a shop. If only Orwell was alive today.”
Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, said the decision was an “embarrassment” for the police and demonstrated why the recording of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) needed to be scrapped.
“What a waste of vital police time and resources. This is an embarrassment for the police and the government and questions need to be asked about how this matter got so out of hand in the first place,” she told The Telegraph.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: “It should never have come to this. The police should not be policing thought or speech. Police time should only be spent on criminality or behaviour likely to lead imminently to criminality.
“I urge the Government to urgently change the guidelines on NCHIs to stop it happening again.”
An Essex Police spokesman said: “We investigate crimes reported to us without fear or favour.
“We’re sometimes faced with allegations of crime where people have strong opposing views. That’s why we work so hard to remain impartial and to investigate allegations, regardless of where they might lead.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory leader, said: “Hallelujah!! Common sense at last.
“However I still think that serious questions need to be asked about the leadership of the police which seems to have been sold out to the malicious protesters who represent a tiny proportion of the electorate.
“Get back on the streets where shoplifting is rife and gang violence ever present.”
The scale of the investigation was revealed by The Telegraph, with officers from the Metropolitan Police, Sussex Police and Essex Police all handling the complaint over the past year.
The Telegraph understands that the post was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act in November last year. The case was then passed to Sussex Police, which marked it as a possible non-crime hate incident.
Sussex Police passed it to Essex, where Pearson lives. It is understood Essex made two assessments of the complaint before opening an investigation under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to material allegedly “likely or intended to cause racial hatred”.
Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union that provided legal support for Pearson, said Essex Police should now return to “policing our streets, not our tweets”.
He said: “Essex Police should never have investigated this tweet in the first place. It didn’t come close to being a criminal offence, which they’ve now effectively acknowledged.
“I hope the public outcry over this huge waste of time and resources means Essex Police will go back to policing our streets, not our tweets. It’s not their job to investigate newspaper columnists for wrongthink.”
ALLISON PEARSON
My week from hell is proof the Britain we love is gone
Roger Hirst, police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex, said he would “closely scrutinise Essex Police’s approach to this case on behalf of the public”.
He added: “Having discussed this with the Chief Constable I have agreed that he should commission NPCC national hate crime lead, Chief Constable Mark Hobrough, to undertake an independent review. This will support my scrutiny of the force’s approach.
“It is important the public have confidence in their police service. This investigation has caused significant distress for Ms Pearson and a large amount of public concern. It has raised a number of important questions that need to be addressed so all of us can be confident the police are acting properly.
“My role as the police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex is to ensure the police exercise their powers effectively, without fear or favour, and that is what I will continue to do.”
When politicians oppose free speech — except their own
J.D. Tuccille: When politicians oppose free speech — except their own
Power-hungry legislators are exactly who the U.S. Constitution was intended to thwart
Author of the article:
(National Post Oct 12, 2024)
Join the conversation
Article content
The U.S. political system is peculiar. While it’s wandered far from its origins, it’s a government based on the principle that people who seek power can’t be trusted, and it’s a democracy rooted in the belief that majorities can be as tyrannical as dictators. Not everybody agrees, of course, including members of the political class who propose to “save the republic” from rivals while rejecting restraints on power.
Last month, former Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complained that the competing voices of social media make it difficult “in terms of building consensus around any issue” because “people self-select where they go for their news or for their information.”
He fretted that if people prefer a news source that “is sick and has an agenda … our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer it out of existence.” His hope was to overcome this impediment by “winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”
The same month, 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Americans are spreading what she calls “Kremlin propaganda” and should be “civilly or even in some cases criminally charged” for their speech. Last week she complained “we lose total control” if online discussions aren’t heavily regulated.
Current presidential hopeful Kamala Harris worried in 2019 that social media sites are “directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.” Harris is vice-president in an administration that tried just that through back channels, leading Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to tell Congress “senior officials from the Biden administration … repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor” discussions about COVID-19 and Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, wrongly claims ”there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” Robert Reich, the Clinton-era secretary of labour, wants Elon Musk arrested “if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) threatened “to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets” after Amazon slapped back at her over tax policy.
This flurry of threats to speech protected by the First Amendment comes from a rogues’ gallery of Democrats who will respond that Donald Trump did it first and that they need to save democracy from his threat. They’re right the GOP presidential hopeful also has a taste for abusing power, though who started it is a judgment call, as is the question of who poses the greatest threat to the republic.
“Burning the American flag, I want to get a law passed … you burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year,” Trump harrumphed in August. It wasn’t the first time he’s called for jailing protesters who use flags as fiery props. He made the same call in July and floated the idea when he was in the White House, even though flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment.
Trump also thinks people who criticize judges and Supreme Court justices “should be put in jail,” as he commented last month (he might want to be careful about that, given his own criticism of the bench).
Also worthy of legal attention, says the former and potential future president, are “lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, & corrupt election officials” involved in what Trump, who claims the 2020 presidential contest was stolen, considers unscrupulous election-related behaviour. They “will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our country.”
Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, wants to ban pornography, though it generally enjoys constitutional protection. Vance’s instincts extend to political opponents. In 2021, Vance asked interviewer Tucker Carlson, “why don’t we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation” and other non-profits that pursue left-wing policies on hot-button issues. The veep nominee also wants to “seize the administrative state for our purposes,” replace existing bureaucrats with “our people” and defy the courts if they object.
Florida’s Republican Governor and recent presidential contender, Ron DeSantis, and his party’s lawmakers pushed the Stop WOKE Act to ban controversial racial training adopted by private companies. It was blocked on First Amendment grounds.
If you seek evidence that candidates for public office and political partisans disdain restraints on power when that power is in their hands, and want to punish opponents, there’s plenty of evidence on both sides of the aisle. This would come as no surprise to the founders. During debates over adopting the constitution, James Madison wrote about the balance necessary in designing a government. “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
Madison feared letting majorities run roughshod. “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger,” he warned.
The imperfect result was a constitution that limited government with checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights that forbade officials from interfering with many freedoms. The intent was to let people do and say a good many things that officials don’t like but are powerless to prevent or punish. It goes without saying that the U.S. government is now much larger than intended, and exercises far more authority than was contemplated by the founders. But that’s still not enough for some critics.
Advertisement 6
Story continues below
Article content
Writing last month in The New Yorker, Louis Menand noted a new crop of scholars who are dissatisfied with the constitution. In their ranks is Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California–Berkeley, who hopes to strip anti-majoritarian elements from the system. Others want to completely scrap the document and start over with something that would deliver their preferred results.
But these scholars are playing catch-up with a political class intent on simply ignoring First Amendment protections for speech and constitutional restraints on their power. Ironically, efforts to abuse the power of office to hurt opponents is precisely what the founders intended to prevent with the constitution.
That authoritarian politicians justify their actions as responses to opponents who they allege are the real danger to the republic is also no surprise. Those who think coercive government is a solution to problems will inevitably try to apply it to opponents they see as problems.
The American Constitution was intended to thwart the kind of people who now make up pretty much the entire political class. We’ll see if it’s up to the challenge.
National Post
Bill C-63 — Canada’s Darkest Hour
| Canada’s darkest hour In the present day and considering the status of free speech in Canada, it would not be a stretch to say this country is facing its own “darkest hour”. What else to think when its longstanding history and tradition of Magna Carta-inspired rights and freedoms stand to be lost with the enactment of Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act). The legislation in questions has been remarked on by C3RF patron, David Solway, as being “nothing less than a censorship closely reminiscent of the justice apparatus in authoritarian states likes China and North Korea”. He is not alone in this assessment as other notables both domestic and international, such as Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand and Margaret Atwood, have likewise chimed in to describe the new law in terms of the “lettres de cachet” once issuable by the king of France to enforce “arbitrary actions and judgments that could not be appealed”. It’s like Canada has retreated back into the 17th century and the days of the “Star Chamber”. |
| Margaret Atwood – Bill C-63 will give Canada its own “lettres de cachet”-style legal system It’s easy to see how the Online Harms Act could give rise to Star Chamber or kangaroo courts in Canada. After all, the legislation calls for: the creation of a “Digital Safety Commission” that can, on the basis of anonymous charges, punish alleged wrongdoers of past and even potential future acts with fines, house arrest, electronic tagging or communication bans; Commission-appointed investigators to conduct warrantless searches and for the Commission to conduct its business without the need to be bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence; and the use of vague definitions of hate speech that will flood the Canadian human rights system with “eye-of-the-beholder” complaints of offensive, discriminatory speech. Such blatant disregard for the most basic tenets of Western judicial philosophy, including “innocent until proven guilty”, are more than a little remarkable. It might be for this reason that the act throws a bit of a sweetener into the mix with popular measures that serve to protect against the “sexual abuse of children, intimate images shared without consent, and material that can be used to bully a child or encourage them to commit self-harm”. These clearly harmful activities, however, are already illegal under Canada’s criminal code and seem to be included in Bill C-63 only to give cover to its freedom-crushing measures. |
| Justice Minister Virani, Bill C-63 will not be split into two parts! Sweetener aside, the legislation represents a baldfaced attack on the Charter rights of everyday Canadian citizens. The ability of the Digital Safety Commission, for example, to turn anonymous charges, of potential future offenses no less, into serious fines and punishments is a direct assault on the Charter’s Section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Then there is its ability to demand warrantless searches in direct contravention of Section 8 of the Charter and its protections to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. When all of these injustices are tied together with a bow in the form of the Commission’s authority to dispense with the evidence requirements of Section 1 of the Charter, we can see that anyone entrapped within the net cast by Bill C-63 will find themselves in a very dark place. Indeed, the country as a whole may feel it has descended into its darkest hour as the rights and freedoms that used to underpin its reputation as a Western liberal democracy will have evaporated. |
| Looks like Bill C-63 will supersede the Charter as the supreme law of the land? |
| Descent into darkness David Solway has made note of the darkened depths to which Canada has descended. Indeed, if Bill C-63 passes the House and is ratified by the Senate “Canada would no longer be a country any sensible and freedom-loving individual would consider worth living in.” The rule of law would most certainly be pitched out the window as the citizen would become “utterly dependent on the favour of the government” as he or she was forced through a gauntlet of informers given the power to issue “damaging but unverified accusations”. And so, citizens will be forced to tread on eggshells as they try not to say, do or even think of anything that, in accordance with Bill C-63, is “likely to foment hatred”. A subjective standard if ever there was one and one that is inextricably influenced by the eye-of-the-beholder. |
| Canadian essayist and C3RF patron, David Solway, queries whether Canada “is worth living in” Given the pressure that can be brought to bear on everyday citizens by the subjective eye-of-the-beholder strictures associated with Bill C-63, it’s easy to see how other Charter rights like freedom of religion, assembly, association and mobility, along with a fair and responsible press, will need to be sacrificed to keep offence at bay. The new Canada that prioritizes the sensibilities of the thin-skinned over the civil liberties of the all is quite a stretch from the nation that had been built up on the tradition of individual sovereignty and the concept of “free men” as conceptualized in the Magna Carta of 1215. Concepts marvellously captured by John Stuart Mill in his “On Liberty” of 1859 which is well suited as an addition to the reading list of any authority involved with enacting Bill C-63. After all, its analysis of the “nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” is one the Bill could have benefited from. |
| John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” needs to be on the reading lists of Canadian legislators? The framers of the Canadian Charter, like The Honourable Brian Peckford, might have intended for individual sovereignty to be accommodated in the “fundamental” rights section of the document but the intention seems to have faded away over time. This vanishing act has been aided and abetted by a judiciary besotted by the ever-flexible concept of the “living tree”. This doctrine has proven popular with Canadian courts and paved the way for “progressive interpretation” to address the “realities of modern life”. These new realities, eagerly taken up by the political class, have oftentimes distinguished themselves by their rejection of traditional mores and the development of diverse identity groups which are open to division on the basis of being oppressed or being an oppressor. Conflict and acrimony reign supreme and the situation is ripe for exploitation by psychopaths with the help of useful idiots. And so the descent into darkness began. |
| Charter framers Brian Peckford et all intended for the development of competing camps? |
| Darkest hour “call to action” The descent in darkness, amazingly begun on the heels of the patriation of the Charter in 1982, has accelerated over the 2015 investiture of Canada’s current Liberal government. The quickening pace could be seen to pick up almost immediately with the passage of Motion M-103 (Islamophobia). This motion, true to form and in line with the strategy of identifying and dividing people into camps, shamelessly stated that Canada and Canadians were “systemically racist” and prone to discriminating against whole religions – particularly Islam. Many, many accusations would follow as the good folk of once “strong and free” Canada would be labelled as genocidal, climate denying anti-vaxxers who were in urgent need of being reigned in through draconian measures that restricted their ability to express such hateful mutterings. |
| If diversity is our strength, then why are we so divided and so oppressed? As Canadians navigate through their darkest hour one thing has become abundantly clear, only they have the power to force their betters to reverse course. As the events of the Wuhan virus pandemic have shown, there is no cavalry coming over the hill to restore our free and democratic society. Indeed, if anything, it is quite apparent that those given this power over Canadians have abused it to place ever more restrictions on speech as demonstrated by Bill C-63. As Billboard Chris so eloquently stated, “politicians don’t change the culture, we do!” You can join in the battle to change our wayward, anti-free speech culture by confronting your federally elected representative by phone, email or, best yet, a personal visit at their constituency office. Your own Member of Parliament’s contact information may be found here and here are some thoughts for your MP to ponder: using ill-defined “hate speech” to bring citizens to task for what they say is a subjective mug’s game that stands to be abused by “eye of the beholder” sensibilities; allowing anonymous charges to result in prohibitive fines, house arrest, electronic tagging and communication bans is an abuse of your right to security of the person; allowing charges to advance on the basis of what a person might say, or think, is truly Orwellian; and allowing for warrantless searches and seizures is simply a slap in the face to Canada’s supreme law in the form of the Charter that is embedded in our Constitution. Your decision to intervene is critical to turning Canada away from a truly dystopian future for your children and grandchildren. It’s worthwhile remembering that although Churchill recognized a nation in its darkest hour, he also, in the same speech, recognized the opportunity to turn it into its “finest hour”. |
How We Lose Our Freedoms to Creeping Gov’t
How We Lose Our Freedoms to Creeping Gov’t
Elon Musk says Justin Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada
Elon Musk says Justin Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada
Elon Musk’s statement came in response to a journalist’s tweet on the Canadian government having “one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes”.
By CNBCTV18.com Oct 2, 2023 10:10:31 AM IST (Updated)
SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of “crushing free speech” in the country. Musk’s statement came in response to a journalist’s tweet on the Canadian government having “one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes”.Remaining Time -10:58https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.593.1_en.html#goog_604699895
“The Canadian government, armed with one of the world’s most repressive online censorship schemes, announces that all “online streaming services that offer podcasts” must formally register with the government to permit regulatory controls,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted on October 1.Retweeted Greenwald’s post, Musk said, “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada. Shameful.His remark came in the wake of tense diplmatic ties between India and Canada. The Canadian PM created an uproar after he alleged India’s role in the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey in July this year.India has denied the claims, calling it ‘absurd’ and ‘motivated’, while Canada has yet to provide any public evidence to support the claim about Nijjar’s killing.This is not the first time the Trudeau government has been accused of acting against free speech.News agency ANI reported that in February 2022, Trudeau had invoked emergency powers – for the first time in the country’s history – to arm his government with more power to respond to the trucker protests, who were opposing the vaccine mandates at that time.(Edited by : Akriti Anand)
Godspeed Elon Musk! In Your Battle With the ADL
Godspeed Elon Musk! In Your Battle With the ADL
The richest man in the world takes on the most subversive group in the world
By James Edwards
We are witnessing what could turn out to be one of the most important battles in American history—Elon Musk vs. the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). I want to stress that while this could possibly be a pivotal point in American history, there’s certainly no guarantee of that. There is a very real risk that Elon Musk will cave in, or that the corrupt judicial system will sell him down the river to save their own hides.
The controversy began in late August, with calls by users on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to ban the ADL for maliciously lying about and arguably defaming Musk and his free speech policies. Musk began to chime in on the trending topic, #BanTheADL, offering insight into the subversive nature of the ADL and its efforts to harm the financial success of the platform by organizing advertising boycotts and smear campaigns following Musk’s takeover.
Musk noted that Twitter revenues are down by billions of dollars due to the ADL intimidating corporations into pulling their ads from the social media platform. I want to focus on how high the stakes are for the future of free speech and the ability of the ADL to dictate what can and cannot be discussed in the modern day public square—social media.
The ADL claims to be a “civil rights” organization, but it’s just a viciously anti-white hate group that exerts tremendous control over business, politics, and culture in America. Over the past few years, it has become increasingly brazen with ever-escalating demands for censorship of opinions it doesn’t like. For anyone who wants an in-depth look at the history of this sordid outfit, a good place to start is the books by the late, great AFP writer, Michael Collins Piper.
If not for the fact that the ADL works to promote Jewish interests while masquerading as an “anti-hate” civil rights group, the government might have long ago declared it a criminal organization, seized its assets and locked up its executives. Many observers say that the ADL is essentially an extortion racket. In just one example, last year when NBA player Kyrie Irving tweeted his approval for a movie the ADL doesn’t like, the ADL demanded “consequences.” Almost immediately, Irving’s team suspended him. He was only allowed to play again after “donating” half a million dollars to the ADL and issuing a public apology.
Many Americans are just now learning about the ADL, thanks to the #BanTheADL campaign. They’re shocked at what they’re discovering from men like Irish YouTuber Keith Woods on Twitter, but trust me, the current scandal is only the tip of the iceberg.
Most Americans under the age of 40 have no idea that “hate crimes” are a novel concept in jurisprudence. They just assume that crimes motivated by “hate” have always received harsher sentences. They would be shocked to learn that there was no such thing as a “hate crime” until the late 1980s when the concept was invented by the ADL. That’s no exaggeration; they boast about inventing the concept of “hate crimes.” It was part of their war on white people. “Hate crime” charges are rarely pursued against non-whites, although they are oftentimes genuinely warranted.
The ADL never stops seeking to portray white people as monsters who are always on the verge of lynching a black person or burning down a synagogue, and are only stymied in their efforts by the constant vigilance of the ADL.
More recently, every time President Trump did anything to restrict immigration, the ADL immediately went to court and filed paperwork seeking to have a federal judge declare his efforts unconstitutional—and they almost always got their way. The ADL paints white Americans who oppose mass immigration as “Nazis,” while at the same time defending Israel’s extremely race-based immigration policies.
The ADL is also a gigantic and Orwellian surveillance outfit. Author Matt Taibbi once described Goldman Sachs as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” The ADL does the same thing to truth, freedom, and Christian culture.
Did you know that for decades, when many U.S. Representatives and Senators received letters from “right-wing conservatives,” they would forward the letters to the ADL so they could “keep an eye on” them? Did you know that many newspaper editors across America used to do the same thing? Even more incredibly, PayPal recently gave the ADL access to its database to search for transactions from groups it doesn’t like. This isn’t a secret; PayPal admits it. Every American should be up in arms over this, but nobody seems to even be aware of it.
The ADL is the #1 enemy of free speech in America. In 2012, after Pat Buchanan appeared for the third time as a guest on my radio program, the ADL demanded that MSNBC fire him, and MSNBC complied. The media-manufactured controversy made national news, and Buchanan was asked by National Public Radio if he regretted associating with someone the ADL refers to as an “anti-Semite” and “white supremacist.”
Buchanan responded, “I think there’s an awful lot of smearing being done by the Anti-Defamation League, frankly, over the years of individuals who simply disagree maybe with U.S. policy towards Israel, and a lot of name calling.”
The ADL’s subversive activities do not stop at smearing its political opponents. They dictate to Amazon what books they’re allowed to sell. They tell Facebook what opinions users are allowed to post. They demanded that Fox News fire Tucker Carlson—the most popular host on the network by far—and Fox News complied shortly thereafter! When Elon Musk bought Twitter, the ADL told big brands to stop advertising on Twitter, and Twitter’s revenue dropped by tens of billions of dollars in a flash.
And one more thing: The ADL says that saying “Christ is Lord” is anti-Semitic, demonstrating their hostility towards Christians and traditional Christianity.
I’m supporting Elon Musk, even though I was banned from Twitter after he took it over, along with several other honorable men, including Paul Fromm, Kevin MacDonald, and Tom Sunic. I am supporting Musk because it was almost certainly to please the ADL that we were banned in the first place. The fact that he’s finally standing up to this powerful hate group bodes well for more free speech in the future for us and other truth-tellers.
I’m also proud to say that I’m a supporter of the man who started the #BanTheADL movement on Twitter, Keith Woods. Keith and I were both speakers at last month’s American Renaissance conference and he is the rarest of combinations—an absolute genius and an effective pro-white activist.
Keith got the #BanTheADL movement started, and he got the attention of the world’s richest man, who has a long and difficult journey ahead if he has the courage to stick to his convictions.