All Aboard with Transgender Ideology


All Aboard with Transgender Ideology

RAINBOW FLAG

 BC Ferries—steering a course set by the transgender lobby and its political agents

On Thursday night I attended a Campbell River meeting of the Freedom Defence Council, a growing grass roots made-in-Vancouver Island group of some 200 social conservatives.. The meeting was intense, informative and geared for action. The discussion moved from the broader picture—the demolition of our Christian heritage and culture and the war on free speech —to the immediate threat posed by the aggressively imperialistic transgender lobby, insatiable in its appetite for more public spaces to occupy.

Specifically, it was about the alarming imposition of LGTBQ posters and banners and flags on city owned facilities, and the implementation of a trans-friendly curriculum in schools.  To give you a measure of these conquests,   on Pride Day, the public library even hosted a Drag Queen Folk Tales event for children! Lesbian sex toys were  on full display at a nearby waterside public park—with  children in close proximity! Dolls are apparently passé. Dildos are the rage now.

The conclusion is inescapable.  Children are being sexualized with few ‘safe’ spaces to find refuge.  One powerful lobby group has claimed the public space.  Their message:  Move over or go home—and shut up.  The media and the politicians are on our side and the BC Human Rights Tribunal stands behind us.

Hmm.  This sounds pretty alarmist. Are things really that bad? Are the barbarians really at the gates, or inside them?  The answer came soon.

When I took the returning ferry to Quadra Island, I noticed that the ship was flying the rainbow Pride flag,  17 days after Pride Day! This is on  a taxpayer subsidised ship! Which made me think that it would be appropriate if the BC Ferries Corp. was renamed the” BC Fairies Corp”.  Should that change transpire, I may one day feel compelled to do something I would never have dreamed of doing.  I may have to run to catch a fairy. But I will be damned if I’m ever made to ride one! I’d rather swim.

If the BC Ferries Corp was indeed to become the BC Fairies Corp maybe the CEO should be replaced in favour of a Rear Admiral, eg. Svend Robinson. After all, every vessel in the fleet can unload at either end, although docking can be problematic at times.   Since most ships are referred to as “she”, as in “there she blows”, it is certain that this sexist practice will be soon come to an end when our progressive provincial NDP-Green government realizes that the fate of the nation depends on its immediate termination.  Every ship must eventually be referred to using a non-binary pronoun, or maybe a traditional pronoun with a gay male connotation, as in “there he blows”.

 Perhaps BC Fairies vessels could be gender fluid. They could leave one terminal as a ‘she’, and arrive at the destination terminal as a ‘he’, depending on the fluctuating mood of the non-binary captain who was hired to meet the new quota targets. “ The Queen of New Westminster” could leave the Tsawassen terminal at 11 am and be received 90 minutes later in Swartz Bay as “The King of New Westminster”.  Alternatively, the vessel could simply be called the “Drag Queen of New Westminster”, a venue for reading Queer Folk Tales to children with or without parental approval or supervision. Tsawassen-to-Swartz Bay and back could then become a world class trans-portation route.

 If the vessel should collide with another, take on water and begin to sink, the “women and children first” protocol would have to be changed to a “gender dysphoric children and gender fluid mothers first” rule. Biological male passengers eager to claim a seat on a lifeboat would not need to offer proof that they are actually women–they need only declare that they presently ‘identify’ as a woman. Any ship officer or crew who would challenge such an assertion would be subject to immediate dismissal and a BC Human Rights complaint adjudicated by political hacks.  To hammer that point home, vessels would be re-christened to honour the contributions of trans activists who have contributed so much to our progressive and tolerant society, especially in the area of free speech. How does “MTV Morgane Oger” sound? It would be designated as the Mother Ship of the fleet, but It wouldn’t need a wide berth owing to the fact that it can’t give birth.

Seriously, as one speaker at the meeting said, “Things are moving so fast that if we don’t soon get off our butts, organize and ACT now, it will be game over….for one thing, we need the ability to call upon a quick response group to counteract Antifa and LGBT bully groups who show up to shout us down…..of those in our congregations who feel as strongly as we do, many feel too intimidated to stand up to them……as a result, our children are being abducted by this evil cult, made ever more powerful by the ardent support it receives from local council, the provincial government, and the local media…. (words to that effect).

The issue here is not just about free speech, but the flagrant transgression of the formerly respected boundary between ideology and state.  The former is the privilege of the elected custodians of the state, and the latter is, or should be, a neutral instrument employed impartially for the benefit of all taxpayers regardless of their political orientation.  In an authentically democratic nation, civil servants, public sector employees and the institutions they work in should be politically neutral.  In Canada, neither the RCMP, nor a City Hall, nor a public school, nor a public library, nor a publicly subsidized ferry—to cite a few examples—should dare display a political message that promotes a given ideology no matter how many citizens there are who may ascribe to it.  That’s basic Canadian Civics 101.

But in the emerging soft totalitarian society, the Party that controls the state, feels little compunction in using public resources to propagate a partisan line and commandeering  state property for use as a platform for that same purpose.  In this case, they frame their shameless display of rainbow flags and posters as an acknowledgement and celebration of the ‘diversity’ that exists in our society. But they celebrate cultural or sexual ‘diversity’  to the utter neglect of the ideological diversity that is as much a reality in the community as anything else.  The Left is keen on the diversity of people, but not on the diversity of ideas.  They are all for “inclusion”, but their inclusion is not inclusive of ideas and views they detest.

 They assume that all taxpayers are on the same page. They pretend that Christians and social conservatives do not exist, or if they do, are too marginal and too out of sync with the times to warrant consideration. In their eyes, conservative thought or expression is an atavism that needs to be suppressed, silenced and ignored, until its aged proponents  pass into the dustbin of history. The implication is clear.  Bigots pay taxes, but they do not deserve representation—or an audience for that matter. Consequently, our entreaties and LTEs are ignored.

 Soon, it seems, the rainbow flag will be a permanent feature of every flag pole every day of every week in the calendar. The most worrisome part of this story is, as a few speakers pointed out, the active dissidents are predominantly male, white and over 60, and the pastors are too timid and ostrich-like to lead them or rally younger parishioners to the cause.  They choose to ignore the fact that if the bullies continue to have their way,  ten years hence their churches may be on life support. If that.  The window is rapidly closing and having feasted on blood,  the sharks are circling ever closer. We need the younger generation to step up and pick up the torch. That was the consensus.

Tim Murray

Monika Schaefer Gets Some Books Back from Customs Censors Thieves, Some Must Be Appealed

Monika Schaefer Gets Some Books Back from Customs Censors Thieves, Some Must Be Appealed 

CBSA Notice of Determination: Some Books Good, Some Books Bad

Two of the five books seized from me at the Calgary airport back in April have been returned to me, along with a Notice of Determination. What follows is my letter of appeal.

2019 June 26

Prohibited Importations Unit
Canada Border Services Agency
c/o CBSA Mail Processing Unit
2215 Gladwin Crescent, Entrance C
Ottawa Ontario, K1A 0L8

RE: Seizure of personal books at Calgary YYC Airport on 2019/04/24
This is my SECOND written correspondence.

Regional control No. 2019-7011-K19-0001; PIU No. 2019-0041

I have received two of the five stolen books back, thank you very much. A Notice of Determination was sent with the books, as well as a copy of the Notice by mail. I am hereby appealing the Notice of Determination.

The returned books are:
⁃ Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust” by Germar Rudolf
⁃ Government by Deception by Jan Lamprecht

The books remaining in your (temporary) possession are:
⁃ The Commission by Richard Barrett
⁃ The Great Impersonation – The Mask of Edom by Pastor Eli James
⁃ Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol 1 by Eli James & Clay Douglas

I am asking, nay, telling you to send back the latter three books immediately. The seizure of those books constitutes theft. I did not consent and I do not consent to the theft of my books.

It is nobody else’s business which books I choose to read. I did not write these books. I wished to read them. They were my personal property. I did not have commercial quantities; they were single copies, not for sale. The attempt to control what I read or do not read constitutes thought control.

Singling me out at the airport in Calgary was an attempt at intimidation and pure harassment.

It is of great interest to me that the Notice of Determination has, as part of the generic form, a list which outlines exactly that which the “identifiable group” is guilty of. Why else would there be such a detailed and precise list? It proves the point, that there is such an “identifiable group” guilty of exactly those things!

The following is on the official classification (D9-1-15) form, with check boxes beside each item.

Description(s)

Alleging that an identifiable group:
▪ is to blame for serious economic or social problems
▪ manipulates media/trade/politics/government to the detriment of society
▪ is inferior/superior
▪ weakens or threatens society

Who is the judge of truth? Could it be that the very group which is implied by “identifiable group” is guilty of all those things, and that they have cleverly made it an offense to talk or write about it? Just a little food for thought for the servants of the system.

I insist that my books be sent to me without delay, at your expense. I also insist on receiving a copy of your entire report in this file.

Sincerely,

Monika Schaefer

The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show (429) Paul Fromm – Not Enough Free Speech And Too Much Immigration

The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show (429) Paul Fromm – Not Enough Free Speech And Too Much Immigration

 
 

On today’s show I was joined by Paul Fromm to discuss, “Not Enough Free Speech And Too Much Immigration.”

We discussed: Paul’s background; how he was fired from his teaching post in 1997 after suffering years of attacks by the Jewish lobby; how he has been warning for decades about the attack on free speech which we are now experiencing; how all the laws in White nations elevating Third World immigration above White Race immigration, were introduced in 1965; why politicians in White nations keep telling us diversity is our greatest strength; and many other topics.

Click Here To Listen To The Show

Click Here For Paul’s, “Canadian Association For Free Expression,” Website

Click Here For Paul’s, “Canada First Immigration Reform Committee,” Website

Click Here For The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show Archive Where You Can Listen To Or Download All My Shows

ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL REPORT & HOT INSIDE INFO ON CHARLOTTESVILLE

ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL REPORT & HOT INSIDE INFO ON CHARLOTTESVILLE

Jim Rizoli interviews Paul Fromm, Aug 18, 2017, discussing the Tribute to Ernst Zundel and the manufactured crisis that is called CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, violence compliments of the Alt-Left.

https://jrizoli.wordpress.com/2017/08/19/jim-rizoli-paul-fromm-interview-8-18-17/

Captain Airhead Strikes Again!

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 2017

 

Captain Airhead Strikes Again!

It has been almost two years since a gullible Canadian electorate was duped into giving the Liberal Party a majority government in the last Dominion election. This means that that government, headed by Captain Airhead, is approaching the half-way point in its four year mandate. It has recently been reported that the Grits have passed less than half the legislation in that time than the previous Conservative government had. This is not surprising. The Prime Minister has been far too busy flying around the world, handing out money, and looking for photo-ops, all at the taxpayers’ expense, to actually do the job of governing the country. John Ibbitson, writing in the Globe and Mailmade the observation that “the amount of legislation a Parliament creates matters less than the quality of that legislation.” As true as that is, the quality of the bills the Trudeau Grits have passed is enough to make one wish that they had, the moment they were sworn in, called a term-length recess of Parliament and sent every member on a four-year paid Caribbean vacation.

One example of this is Bill C-16, which passed its third-reading in the Senate on Thursday, June 15th and which was signed into law by the Governor-General on Monday, June 19th. Bill C-16 is a bill which amends both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. To the former it adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of grounds of discrimination prohibited by the Act. To the latter it adds the same to Section 318, the “hate propaganda” clause of the Code. The Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code were both inflicted upon us by the present premier’s father in his long reign of terror and it would have been better had the present Parliament passed legislation striking both out of existence rather than amending them to increase the number of ways in which they can be used to persecute Canadians. When, a century and a half ago, the Fathers of Confederation put together the British North America Act which, coming into effect on July 1, 1867, established the Dominion of Canada as a new nation within what would soon develop into the British Commonwealth of Nations, their intention was to create a free country, whose citizens, English and French, as subjects of the Crown, would possess all the freedoms and the protection of all the rights that had accumulated to such in over a thousand years of legal evolution. The CHRA and Section 318 do not belong in such a country – they are more appropriate to totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the Third Reich.

The CHRA, which Parliament passed in 1977 during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau, prohibits discrimination on a variety of grounds including race, religion, sex, and country of origin. It applies in a number of different areas with the provision of goods and services, facilities and accommodations, and employment being chief among them. Those charged with enforcing this legislation have generally operated according to an unwritten rule that it is only discrimination when whites, Christians, and males are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but even if that were not the case, the very idea of a law of this sort runs contrary to the basic principles of our traditional freedoms and system of justice. It dictates to employers, landlords, and several other people, what they can and cannot be thinking when conducting the everyday affairs of their business. It establishes a special police force and court – the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal respectively – to investigate and sit in judgement upon those private thoughts and prejudices. Those charged do not have the protection of the presumption of innocence because the CHRA is classified as civil rather than criminal law.

There are more protections for defendants under Section 318 because it is part of the Criminal Code but it is still a bad law. Incitement of criminal violence was already against the law long before Section 318 was added. It is not, therefore, the incitement of criminal violence per se that Section 318 was introduced to combat, for the existing laws were sufficient, but the thinking and verbal expression of thoughts that the Liberal Party has decided Canadians ought not to think and speak.

Bill C-16 takes these bad laws and makes them even worse. By adding “gender identity and expression” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination the Liberals are adding people who think and say that they belong to a gender that does not match up with their biological birth sex to the groups protected from discrimination. Now, ordinarily when people think they are something they are not, like, for example, the man who thinks he is Julius Caesar, we, if we are decent people, would say that this is grounds for pity and compassion, but we would not think of compelling others to go along with the delusion. Imagine a law that says that we have to regard a man who thinks he is Julius Caesar as actually being the Roman general! Such a law would be crazier than the man himself!

Bill C-16 is exactly that kind of law. Don’t be fooled by those who claim otherwise. The discrimination that trans activists, the Trudeau Liberals and their noise machine, i.e., the Canadian media, and everyone else who supports this bill, all want to see banned, is not just the refusing of jobs or apartments to transgender people but the refusal to accept as real a “gender identity” that does not match up with biological sex. Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto who has been fighting this sort of nonsense at the provincial level for years, and who testified against the Bill before the Senate committee that reviewed it, has warned that it could lead to someone being charged with a “hate crime” for using the pronoun – “he” or “she” – that lines up with a person’s birth sex, rather than some alternative pronoun made-up to designate that person’s “gender identity.” Supporters of the bill have mocked this assertion but we have seen this sort of thing before – progressives propose some sort of measure, someone points out that the measure will have this or that negative consequence, the progressives ridicule that person, and then, when the measure is passed and has precisely the negative consequences predicted, say that those negatively affected deserved it in the first place.

Indeed, progressive assurances that Peterson’s fears are unwarranted ring incredibly hollow when we consider that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has said that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” would be considered discrimination under a similar clause in Ontario’s provincial Human Rights Code, if it were to take place in a context where discrimination in general is prohibited, such as the workplace. Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, writing in the National Post, explains that this new expansion of human rights legislation goes way beyond previous “hate speech” laws in its infringement upon freedom of speech. “When speech is merely restricted, you can at least keep your thoughts to yourself,” Pardy writes, but “Compelled speech makes people say things with which they disagree.”

It is too much, perhaps, to expect Captain Airhead to understand or care about this. Like his father before him – and indeed, every Liberal Prime Minister going back to and including Mackenzie King – he has little to no appreciation of either the traditional freedoms that are part of Canada’s British heritage or the safeguards of those freedoms bequeathed us by the Fathers of Confederation in our parliamentary government under the Crown. For a century, Liberal governments have whittled away at every parliamentary obstacle to the absolute power of a Prime Minister backed by a House majority. The powers of the Crown, Senate, and the Opposition in the House to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accountable have all been dangerously eroded in this manner. Last year the present government attempted to strip Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition of what few means it has left of delaying government legislation. The motion in question was withdrawn after the Prime Minister came under strong criticism for behaving like a spoiled, bullying, petty thug in the House but it revealed his character. These Opposition powers are a necessary safeguard against Prime Ministerial dictatorship but Captain Airhead, the son of an admirer of Stalin and Mao, regards them, like the freedoms they protect, as an unacceptable hindrance to his getting his way as fast as he possibly can. Years ago, George Grant wrote that the justices of the American Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had “used the language of North American liberalism to say yes to the very core of fascist thought – the triumph of the will.” This is also the modus operandi of Captain Airhead and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Playlist of Paul Fromm’s podcasts on immigration and free speech topics

Playlist of Paul Fromm’s podcasts on immigration and free speech topics

Paul Fromm’s political experience goes back 50 years and he has a great memory and intelligence and speaking ability. He is one of Canada’s truth treasures.
 
Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/.
 
Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/
 
Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
 
You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com .
 
 
Inline image 1
 
 
The host is Brian Ruhe. Go to my website at: http://www.brianruhe.ca/in-the-news/ to see what I’m up to these days. If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please consider making a donation on my website to support my work.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTeOxXTeSV1hk1hjABDmGqMjNI53TM1x

Geert Wilders’ Final Statement to the Court in The Netherlands

Geert Wilders’ Final Statement to the Court in The Netherlands
 
Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party in the Netherlands which is now number one in the polls, gives a courageous speech to Members of the Court in the Netherlands where he has been accused of discrimination and inciting racism for remarks in 2014, televised live, in which he led a roomful of followers in chanting that they wanted “fewer” Moroccans in the Netherlands. And he is absolutely correct that the Criminals Justice (sic) System is becoming a farce and will suffer a fate similar to the Lying Main Stream Media which is populated increasingly by journalistic whores. When true justice diverges from natural law, truth and morality, then the justice system has lost its legitimacy and we are on the road to tyranny.
 
The European Union’s White-hating elite,with Polish part Jewish Angela Merkel leading the pack, seeks to replace the indigenous people of Europe with a malleable Third World mish-mash. This was the evil goal of the EU’s mastermind Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who dreamed of a Europe without nationalities, a new mixed-raced European man, part African, part Asian, with a new moral aristocracy of Jews. This nightmare blueprint for genocide has never been honestly presented to Europeans.
 
But brave Europeans are rebelling. That is why the present, discredited gray order of elite conspirators is frantic. That is why they are persecuting a brave Dutch nationalist, Geert Wilders,
 
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
Mr. President, Members of the Court,
When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am.
Because I never give up. And I have a message for you and The Netherlands.
 
Inline image 1
For centuries, the Netherlands are a symbol of freedom.
Who one says Netherlands , one says freedom. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition.
And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.
We, Dutch, say whatever is close to our hearts.
And that is precisely what makes our country great.
Freedom of speech is our pride.
And that, precisely that, is at stake here, today.
I refuse to believe that we are simply giving this freedom up.
Because we are Dutch. That is why we never mince our words.
And I, too, will never do that. And I am proud of that. No-one will be able to silence me.
 
 
Moreover, members of the court, for me personally, freedom of speech is the only freedom I still have. Every day, I am reminded of that. This morning, for example. I woke up in a safe house. I got into an armored car and was driven in a convoy to this high security courtroom at Schiphol. The bodyguards, the blue flashing lights, the sirens. Every day again. It is hell. But I am also intensely grateful for it.
Because they protect me, they literally keep me alive, they guarantee the last bit of freedom left to me: my freedom of speech. The freedom to go somewhere and speak about my ideals, my ideas to make The Netherlands – our country – stronger and safer. After twelve years without freedom, after having lived for safety reasons, together with my wife, in barracks, prisons and safe houses, I know what lack of freedom means.
I sincerely hope that this will never happen to you, members of the court.

That, unlike me, you will never have to be protected because Islamic terror organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS , and who knows how many individual Muslims want to murder you. That you will no longer be allowed to empty your own mailbox, need to carry a bulletproof vest at meetings, and that there are police officers guarding the door whenever you use the bathroom. I hope you will be spared this.
However, if you would have experienced it – no matter how much you disagree with my views – you might perhaps understand that I cannot remain silent. That I should not remain silent. That I must speak. Not just for myself, but for The Netherlands, our country. That I need to use the only freedom that I still have to protect our country. Against Islam and against terrorism. Against immigration from Islamic countries. Against the huge problem with Moroccans in The Netherlands . I cannot remain silent about it; I have to speak out. That is my duty, I have to address it, I must warn for it, I have to propose solutions for it.

I had to give up my freedom to do this and I will continue. Always. People who want to stop me will have to murder me first.
And so, I stand here before you. Alone. But I am not alone. My voice is the voice of many. In 2012, nearly 1 million Dutch have voted for me. And there will be many more on March 15th.
According to the latest poll, soon, we are going to have two million voters. Members of the court, you know these people. You meet them every day. As many as one in five Dutch citizens would vote Party for Freedom, today. Perhaps your own driver, your gardener, your doctor or your domestic aid, the girlfriend of a registrar, your physiotherapist, the nurse at the nursing home of your parents, or the baker in your neighborhood. They are ordinary people, ordinary Dutch. The people I am so proud of.
They have elected me to speak on their behalf. I am their spokesman. I am their representative. I say what they think. I speak on their behalf. And I do so determinedly and passionately. Every day again, including here, today.
So, do not forget that, when you judge me, you are not just passing judgment on a single man, but on millions of men and women in The Netherlands.
You are judging millions of people. People who agree with me. People who will not understand a conviction. People who want their country back, who are sick and tired of not being listened to, who cherish freedom of expression.
Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of The Netherlands . And I tell you: if you convict me, you will convict half of The Netherlands . And many Dutch will lose their last bit of trust in the rule of law.
Of course, I should not have been subjected to this absurd trial. Because this is a political trial. It is a political trial because political issues have to be debated in Parliament and not here. It is a political trial because other politicians from – mostly government parties – who spoke about Moroccans have not been prosecuted. It is a political trial because the court is being abused to settle a political score with an opposition leader whom one cannot defeat in Parliament.
This trial here, Mr. President, it stinks. It would be appropriate in Turkey or Iran , where they also drag the opposition to court. It is a charade, an embarrassment for The Netherlands, a mockery of our rule of law.
And it is also an unfair trial because, earlier, one of you – Mrs. van Rens – has commented negatively on the policy of my party and the successful challenge in the previous Wilders trial. Now, she is going to judge me.
What have I actually done to deserve this travesty? I have spoken about fewer Moroccans on a market and I have asked questions to PVV members during a campaign event. And I did so, members of the court, because we have a huge problem with Moroccans in this country. And almost no-one dares to speak about it or take tough measures. My party alone has been speaking about this problem for years.
Just look at these past weeks: Stealing and robbing Moroccan fortune seekers in Groningen , abusing our asylum system, and Moroccan youths terrorizing entire neighborhoods in Maassluis, Ede and Almere. I can give tens of thousands other examples, almost everyone in The Netherlands knows them or has personally experienced nuisance from criminal Moroccans. If you do not know them, you are living in an ivory tower.
I tell you: If we can no longer honestly address problems in The Netherlands, if we are no longer allowed to use the word alien, if we, Dutch, are suddenly racists because we want Black Pete to remain black, if we only go unpunished if we want more Moroccans or else are dragged before the penal court, if we sell out our hard-won freedom of expression, if we use the court to silence an opposition politician, who threatens to become Prime Minister, then this beautiful country will be doomed. That is unacceptable, because we are Dutch and this is our country.
And again, what on earth have I done wrong? How can the fact be justified that I have to stand here as a suspect, as if I robbed a bank or committed murder?
I only spoke about Moroccans on a market and asked a question on an election night meeting. And anyone, who has the slightest understanding of politics, knows that the election night meetings of every party consist of political speeches full of slogans, one-liners and making maximum use of the rules of rhetoric. That is our job. That is the way it works in politics.
Election nights are election nights with rhetoric and political speeches; not university lectures, in which every paragraph is scrutinized 15 minutes long from six points of view. It is simply crazy that the Public Prosecutor now uses this against me, as if one would blame a football player for scoring a hattrick.
Indeed, I have said on the market in the beautiful Hague district of Loosduinen “if possible fewer Moroccans.” Mark that I did so a few minutes after a Moroccan lady came to me and told me she was going to vote PVV because she was sick and tired of the nuisance caused by Moroccan youths.
And on election night, I began by asking the PVV audience “Do you want more or fewer EU,” and I did also not explained in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because we need to regain our sovereignty and reassert control over our own money, our own laws and our own borders. I did not do that.
Then, I asked the public “Do you want more or fewer Labour Party.” And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because they are the biggest cultural relativists, willfully blind and Islam hugging cowards in Parliament. I did not say that.
And, then, I asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans” and, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because people with a Moroccan nationality are overrepresented in the Netherlands in crime, benefit dependency and terror. And that we want to achieve this by expelling criminals with also the Moroccan nationality after denaturalizing them of their Dutch nationality and by a stricter immigration policy and an active voluntary repatriation policy. Proposals which we have made in our election manifesto from the day I founded the Party for Liberty .
I explained this in several interviews on national television, both between the statement on the market and election night, as well as on election night a few moments after I had asked the said questions. It is extremely malicious and false of the Public Prosecutor to want to disregard that context.
Disgusting – I have no other words for it – are the actions of other politicians, including the man who for a few months may still call himself Prime Minister. Their, and especially his, actions after the said election night constituted a real persecution, a witch hunt. The government created an atmosphere in which it had to come to trial.

Prime Minister Rutte even told small children during the youth news that I wanted to expel them and then reassured them that this would not happen. As if I had said anything of that kind. It is almost impossible to behave viler and falser.
But, also, the then Minister of Security and Justice, who, it should be noted, is the political boss of the Public Prosecutor, called my words disgusting and even demanded, he demanded that I take them back. A demand of the Minister of Justice, you do not have to be called Einstein to predict what will happen next, what the Public Prosecutor will do, if you do not comply to the demand of the Minister of Justice.
The Interior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, too, both from the Labour Party, expressed themselves similarly. In short, the government left the Public Prosecutor no option than to prosecute me. Hence, in this trial, the Officers of Justice are not representatives of an independent Public Prosecutor, but accomplices of this government.
Mr. President, the elite also facilitated the complaints against me. With preprinted declaration forms. Which were brought to the mosque by the police. In which, it has to remarked, the police sometimes said that they, too, were of the opinion that my statements were inadmissible.
And a sample made by us showed that some complaints were the result of pure deception, intimidation and influence. People thought they were going to vote, they not even know my name, did not realize what they were signing or declared that they did not feel to be discriminated against by me at all.
Someone said that, at the As Soenah mosque after Friday prayers alone, 1,200 complaints had been lodged because it was thought to be an election. There were parades, led by mayors and aldermen, like in Nijmegen , where CDA mayor Bruls was finally able to show off his deep-seated hatred of the PVV. The police had extra opening hours, offered coffee and tea, there were dancing and singing Moroccans accompanied by a real oompah band in front of a police station, they turned it into a big party.
But meanwhile, two representative polls, one commissioned by the PVV, the other commissioned by De Volkskrant, showed that, apart from the government and media elite, 43% of the Dutch people, around 7 million people, agree with me. Want fewer Moroccans. You will be very busy if the Public Prosecutor is going to prosecute all these 7 million people.
People will never understand that other politicians – especially from government parties – and civil servants who have spoken about Moroccans, Turks and even PVV members, are being left alone and not prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor
Like Labour leader Samsom, who said that Moroccan youths have a monopoly on ethnic nuisance.
Or Labour chairman Spekman, who said Moroccans should be humiliated.
Or Labour alderman Oudkerk ,who spoke about f*cking Moroccans.
Or Prime Minister Rutte, who said that Turks should get lost.
And what about police chief Joop van Riessen, who said about me on television – I quote literally: “Basically one would feel inclined to say: let’s kill him, just get rid of him now and he will never surface again”?
And in reference to PVV voters, van Riessen declared: “Those people must be deported, they no longer belong here.” End of quote. The police chief said that killing Wilders was a normal reaction. That is hatred, Mr. President, pure hatred, and not by us but against us. And the Public Prosecutor did not prosecute Mr. Van Riessen.
But the Public Prosecutor does prosecute me. And demands a conviction based on nonsensical arguments about race and on concepts that are not even in the law. It accuses and suspects me of insulting a group and inciting hatred and discrimination on grounds of race. How much crazier can it become? Race. What race?
I spoke and asked a question about Moroccans. Moroccans are not a race. Who makes this up? No-one at home understands that Moroccans have suddenly become a race. This is utter nonsense. Not a single nationality is a race. Belgians are no race, Americans are no race. Stop this nonsense, I say to the Public Prosecutor. I am not a racist and my voters are neither. How do you dare suggest that? Wrongly slandering millions of people as racists.

43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans, as I already said. They are no racists. Stop insulting these people. Every day, they experience the huge problem with Moroccans in our country. They have a right to a politician who is not afraid to mention the problem with Moroccans. But neither they nor I care whether someone is black, yellow, red, green or violet.

I tell you: If you convict someone for racism while he has nothing against races, then you undermine the rule of law, then it is bankrupt. No-one in this country will understand that.
And now the Public Prosecutor also uses the vague concept ‘intolerance’. Yet another stupidity. The subjective word intolerance, however, is not even mentioned in the law. And what for heaven’s sake is intolerance? Are you going to decide that, members of the court?

It is not up to you to decide. Nor to the Supreme Court or even the European Court . The law itself must determine what is punishable. We, representatives, are elected by the people to determine clearly and visibly in the law for everyone what is punishable and what is not.

That is not up to the court. You should not do that, and certainly not on the basis of such subjective concepts which are understood differently by everyone and can easily be abused by the elite to ban unwelcome opinions of the opposition. Do not start this, I tell you.
Mr. President, Members of the Court,
Our ancestors fought for freedom and democracy. They suffered, many gave their lives. We owe our freedoms and the rule of law to these heroes.

But the most important freedom, the cornerstone of our democracy, is freedom of speech. The freedom to think what you want and to say what you think.

If we lose that freedom, we lose everything. Then, The Netherlands cease to exist, then the efforts of all those who suffered and fought for us are useless. From the freedom fighters for our independence in the Golden Age to the resistance heroes in World War II. I ask you: Stand in their tradition. Stand for freedom of expression.
By asking a conviction, the Public Prosecutor, as an accomplice of the established order, as a puppet of the government, asks to silence an opposition politician. And, hence, silence millions of Dutch. I tell you: The problems with Moroccans will not be solved this way, but will only increase.

For people will sooner be silent and say less because they are afraid of being called racist, because they are afraid of being sentenced. If I am convicted, then everyone who says anything about Moroccans will fear to be called a racist.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, I conclude.
A worldwide movement is emerging that puts an end to the politically correct doctrines of the elites and the media which are subordinate to them.
That has been proven by Brexit.
That has been proven by the US elections.
That is about to be proven in Austria and Italy .
That will be proven next year in France , Germany , and The Netherlands.
The course of things is about to take a different turn. Citizens no longer tolerate it.
And I tell you, the battle of the elite against the people will be won by the people. Here, too, you will not be able to stop this, but rather accelerate it. We will win, the Dutch people will win and it will remember well who was on the right side of history.
Common sense will prevail over politically correct arrogance.
Because everywhere in the West, we are witnessing the same phenomenon.
The voice of freedom cannot be imprisoned; it rings like a bell.
Everywhere, ever more people are saying what they think.
They do not want to lose their land, they do not want to lose their freedom.
They demand politicians who take them seriously, who listen to them, who speak on their behalf. It is a genuine democratic revolt. The wind of change and renewal blows everywhere. Including here, in The Netherlands.
As I said:
I am standing here on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens.
I do not speak just on behalf of myself.
My voice is the voice of many.
And, so, I ask you.
not only on behalf of myself,
but in the name of all those Dutch citizens:
Acquit me!
Acquit us!

HEAR “EVALION”, SWEETHEART OF THE ALT-RIGHT

TORONTO, NOVEMBER 22, 2016:

evalion1
To Commemorate the 53rd Anniversary of the Assassination of anti-Globalist President John F. Kennedy, and to Celebrate the recent Election of anti-Globalist President Donald J. Trump, The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents, and Your Ward News Mischievously Sponsors, the world’s first public rally featuring Evalion as Keynote Speaker:

* She is an international teenage internet sensation, BANNED by Twitter and YouTube after over 2 million video views in 8 months!

* She was such a well-known Nationalist celebrity at the time she was BANNED, that the story was covered by European television programs.

* Her clever, sassy, engaging YouTube videos on immigration, National Socialism, pedophilia, the “gay” agenda, and more, are awakening a new generation… and threatening ZioMarxist entities committed to maintaining their oppression of the general population.

* Most recently, she was the victim of Canada Border Service harassment, with unwarranted confiscation of her laptop and personal journals, followed by an 8 hour detention!

* She is the latest and most high-profile target of B’nai Brith censorship.

Evalion will speak on the topic of “How I Became a YouTube Rebel & How to Disseminate Our Nationalist Message to a New Generation”.

DATE: Tuesday, November 22, 2016. 8:00 p.m.

LOCATION: “Your Ward News” Headquarters

ADDRESS: 163 Main Street, just south of Gerrard. Toronto, ON.

It is a 5 minute walk south of Main Station on the Bloor-Danforth Subway line.

[ $10.00 admission fee at door. ]

evalion2

Paul Fromm Discusses Arthur Topham, Monika Schaefer & Prof. Tony Hall Cases With Patricia Aitken on “The Sacred Cow Barbeque”

Paul Fromm Discusses Arthur Topham, Monika Schaefer & Prof. Tony Hall Cases With Patricia Aitken on “The Sacred Cow Barbeque”

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LOZJBlY4Ng

Becky Wald, court observer at the Oregon Refuge case discusses this week’s action. Paul Fromm, Canadian Free Speech Activist discusses the Arthur Topham, Mon…
YOUTUBE.COM