Is Facebook A New Convert to Free Speech?
Juergen Graf R.I.P.
Our dear Juergen Graf, a grand veteran historical revisionist, had alerted me in December that his time was ending very soon when he asked for photographs taken at the little tea-party I gave for him and his lovely Russian wife Olga along with the courageous Bishop Williamson in London. This meeting – after some years when we first met at the Tehran Conference 2006 – arose having found ourselves the evening before at the good Bishop Williamson’s 80th birthday party.
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.
NP View: The age of Trudeau’s censorship schemes is over
NP View: The age of Trudeau’s censorship schemes is over
The campaign to place the internet under government control died when he prorogued Parliament
Author of the article:
(National Post View Published Jan 11, 2025)
653 Comments
Article content
By proroguing Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau snuffed the life out of one of his favourite darlings: Bill C-63, also known as the online harms act.
There’s no excuse for suspending democracy at a time like this, but we should at least celebrate the death of this atrocious bill. Had it (or the two bills the Liberals were to replace it with) passed, the Canadian Human Rights Commission would have been made sheriff of the Canadian internet, empowering it to drag anyone through a lengthy tribunal process making online comments perceived to be hateful. What’s worse, anyone reporting mean comments to this tribunal would be allowed to remain anonymous, which would have allowed the process to be weaponized with ease.
The bill would have also added “hate crime” to the Criminal Code, with a maximum penalty of life in prison — which is little consolation when the line between mean comments and criminal hatred was left dangerously vague. Further, it would have forced social media giants under the boot of a new digital safety bureaucracy, expanding government once more while creating more costs for outside firms operating in Canada.
Its death marks the end of an era in Canada. There will be no more internet-tampering legislation from the Liberals. This. Is. It. Stamp this in your calendar as the time when online freedom began its comeback.
Most of this story hasn’t been a positive one. During its mid-life crisis years, the government grasped what authority it could over online media. And — to the horror of Canadians — it gained a considerable amount of ground.
After a long campaign that started in 2020, a beachhead for online interference was established with the 2023 passing of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which placed digital streamers under the ambit of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
The act gave the CRTC the government’s blessing to impose Canadian content requirements on streaming giants, as well as some form of diversity requirements — similar to the ones imposed upon the CBC not too long ago. It also permitted the CRTC to take a cut of their Canadian revenues.
Despite the many objections they faced, the Liberals fast-tracked the bill through Parliament.
Now, not only is the government preparing to tell streaming companies what to produce and how to spend their budgets, it’s also making these services more expensive. (The fate of the CRTC’s house rake is currently in legal limbo as the streamers are currently challenging them in the courts, but some subscription prices have already been raised to account for these costs).
The Liberals wanted more control. They put millions of dollars into the dystopically named Changing Narratives Fund, to ensure that more media featuring favoured groups would be available to Canadian viewers. Even more millions were funnelled into a grab-bag of projects that claimed to combat disinformation and hate online.
To finally top it off, the government made its move to become censor-in-chief last February by tabling C-63 — and failed.
The culture is moving on, so it’s unlikely these efforts will be revived anytime soon. Just look at the private sector. The censorship-for-your-own-good schtick got old fast during the COVID pandemic, which saw the reach of social media accounts criticizing lockdowns mysteriously sink, and the banning of many users who had the gall to question a COVID vaccine’s ability to prevent infection. When it turned out lockdowns and vaccine efficacy weren’t as solid as once thought, outrage ensued.
That’s how it went with any contentious issue in those days: unflattering news about President Joe Biden’s son was suppressed; those who didn’t believe in transgender identity could have their accounts frozen or even banned.
By 2022, Elon Musk went as far as buying Twitter, promising an end to the ridiculous censorship — and now, in 2025, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is following in his steps. The consensus in Silicon Valley is shifting against telling people what to think, and it’s about time. The United States government isn’t likely to interfere, either — though the Biden administration eagerly had state agents commandeer the back end of social media giants, president-elect Trump is more interested in reducing the number of state agents.
Canada isn’t far behind.
The future of the internet is one of comments, both mean and nice. It will require adults to be the masters of their online experiences, without the bubble wrap of government and social media authorities, but that’s a burden we’re willing to shoulder. We don’t need more government messing around with our feeds, getting human rights tribunals to decide which comments go too far. We need them to buzz off entirely.
At last, the Liberal government is now in palliative care, closely following C-63 to the grave. With any hope, a new government will torch C-11 and the ant colony of online-harms grants geared at inventing problems where there are none.
The zeitgeist is long past Trudeau Liberal-style suppression. Silencing one’s opponents by crying hate just isn’t going to work anymore. It’s over, censorship advocates. The age of free expression is here.
National Post
Follow us
The Martyrdom of Gloria Lemay
As I compose this, Gloria Lemay is sitting in gaol in Nanaimo : reason why is explained at the URL and in the text below.
I’m sending this link to folks whom I know already understand what-the-hell really went on with the Covid19 HOAX
Gloria Lemay and midwives in B. C. who carry on like her, outside the deathcare Establishment, are very skeptical about automatic vaxxxsinashun of newborns. The recent attacks on her from several angles, all of a sudden, tell me that they’re calculated to vilify her so as to head off people thinking about adverse results from the quack-zeeen injections into which pregnant women are being tricked
Get the facts. Think for thyself
Gordon S Watson
Metchosin British Columbia
On January 7th, traditional birth attendant Gloria Lemay was arrested and charged with manslaughter on Vancouver Island.
***
I met Gloria in the year 2000 when I was 19 years old, and pregnant with my first child. She attended the birth of my first baby, and my second baby.
*
Helio, me, and Gloria in September 2024.
*
Gloria is one the most inspiring midwifery teachers—and people—on the planet. I consider her to be one of my primary mentors, and a dear friend. She has been immensely supportive to me over the years, especially when I was beginning my own career in birth-work.
*
I loved Gloria from the moment she welcomed me into her sunny South Granville apartment. Her wisdom, her respect, her love for birth, mothers, and babies, and her steadfast devotion to me as a young pregnant mother altered the course of my life. She introduced me to my power, and to the very idea of self-ownership.
*
Throughout my 50-hour long first birth (at almost 44 weeks’ gestation), Gloria sat quietly by my side and mopped my brow while I screamed, wept, begged for mercy, then finally, after 8 hours of pushing, roared my beautiful boy into the world. In doing the nothing that was necessary during my initiation into motherhood, Gloria gave me everything.
*
In late July of 2002, fifteen months after my first son’s tempestuous arrival, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a crowd of other mothers, fathers, and children outside the Vancouver courthouse in support of Gloria as she was sentenced to five months in jail and twelve months’ probation for supposedly violating a court injunction prohibiting her from practicing midwifery without a license.
*
I had travelled with my toddler that morning from the Sunshine Coast across the Georgia Strait on a ferry, and taken two public buses to join over a hundred people in support of this woman who had witnessed and held so many of us during the spiritual transformation of birth that had created our families.
*
The atmosphere at Robson Square was celebratory and defiant. We knew exactly what this was.
*
It was a witch-hunt.
*
And like most witch-hunts, there was no witch—only a woman whose true power and courage represented an immense threat to the repressive, tyrannical cult of medicine.
*
During the court proceedings, Gloria was referred to as “incorrigible.” She responded by saying “I hope I am incorrigible. I hope that until the day I die, I fight for women’s freedom to have who they want in their own bedroom to help them give birth to their baby.”
*
It was reported that soon after arriving in prison, Gloria was threatened with solitary confinement “after she offered comfort to a pregnant woman” who was serving time alongside her.
*
When I spoke with Gloria six months later, after her release, she told me that jail had been a wonderful opportunity to continue right along with the work to which she had committed her life.
*
Incorrigible indeed.
I had met Gloria initially through word of mouth, soon after I fired the legal, licensed, midwife that the newly minted BC College of Nurses and Midwives had assigned to me during my first pregnancy. This was only a couple of years after midwifery had “finally” been regulated in my home-province of British Columbia, and as a clueless, broke, naive young mother, I was eager, at first, to take advantage of the “privilege” of socialized healthcare (lol).
*
But during my first encounter with the registered midwife, I knew something was off. Her attempts to coerce me into submitting to an ultrasound were unwelcome (to say the least). I had already decided I would not be subjecting any of my pre-born children to non-ionizing sound waves which are known—even within the scientific community—to objectively damage mammalian cells and tissue, yet the midwife seemed deeply uncomfortable with this boundary.
*
I quickly realized that the fact that the medical system signed her paycheque meant that she was beholden to the interests and values of that institution, which happened to be in direct conflict with my own values and priorities. This was unacceptable to me (as it would be to any individuated, sovereign woman).
*
Furthermore, she seemed timid and terrified. At our second appointment, I brought with me a printed copy of the BC Midwifery Act and her practice guidelines, which I had painstakingly researched and annotated by hand, delineating the hundreds of reasons why I sadly had to let her go. She then confessed that she understood exactly why I was firing her, and that she would have done the same in my position.
*
This woman, like so many others, had elected to undergo the hazing process that was now required of all the formerly “independent” midwives in BC who wanted to be “grandmothered” into the new regulated system. These women had been recruited throughout the 1980s and 1990s and successfully indoctrinated to believe that regulation would offer them job security, the protection of the state, and social legitimacy. They had sadly bought the deception that by uniting under the banner of the medical complex they were going to “change the system from the inside,” and “re-humanize birth.”
*
This was, of course, a farce. There is no “changing the system from the inside.” Instead, as all the hopeful, tired, deluded midwives who decided to crawl under the obstetric system’s umbrella soon discovered, the system will only contort you, subsume you, and condition you into believing that your collaboration is radicalism, when in fact, you are being used as a puppet and a tool.
*
As I have pointed out thousands of times, the industrial obstetric system was never broken. It has been deliberately designed to *break us*. And when I describe the medical industrial complex as a cult (and obstetrics as one of its most fundamental cornerstones) this isn’t hyperbole. More explicitly than any other organization, obstetrics and its ceremonial rites of industrial birth exhibit all the hallmarks of a satanic cult ritual (which happens to be the subject of my upcoming book—subscribe here to stay in the loop).
***
The regulation of midwifery, and in particular, the slandering of independent traditional birth-attendants, is a back-handed attempt to indirectly dominate birthing women, which, in the end, is in service to the long-term project of controlling population, sentience, and human life entirely. The objective of the state appropriation and medical usurpation of midwifery all over the world is totalitarian control, architected as part of the techno-feudalist movement to homogenize medicine, healthcare, and biology itself.
*
This isn’t a new phenomenon—these cycles of institutional crackdowns on birth and birth-work have been playing out for ages. But during the 1980s and 1990s, a new and more subtle disciplinary strategy emerged. Instead of stamping out midwifery completely, the medical cartel would simply assimilate it. This was aided by harnessing the enthusiasm for midwifery and homebirth that had fomented within the counterculture movement, using the iconic Ina May Gaskin to great effect as an advocate for regulation. Thus midwifery was re-branded.
*
The new, “official” sanctioned midwifery, was midwifery in name only. In reality, it resembled….wait for it…obstetrics! What a surprise! Many of the independent midwives who had been working in BC (and throughout Canada) prior to regulation acquiesced, and entered into these re-education programs eager to reap the promised benefits of the endorsement and protection of the system, but most of these women were filtered out, intimidated and dismayed by the hoops they were made to jump through, the humiliations they were made to endure, and the disorientation of having to completely re-vamp their practices and perspectives to align with a highly medicalized, bureaucratic, regimented approach to birth.
*
A few women, however, held out, and politely declined to comply with the medical commandeering of a sacred vocation which many view as antithetical to state control.
*
Gloria Lemay was one of them.
*
Gloria saw from the very beginning, that regulation was a trojan horse; a form of ideological subversion. A trap.
*
The simple, inarguable truth—and a truth that Gloria saw clearly—is that it is not possible to serve two masters, let alone those whose interests may potentially be in conflict. If a midwife’s “scope or practice” is being dictated (ie: regulated) by any external entity other than the mother herself, whether that’s a medical organization, a state organization or an insurance company—if a midwife has any tether to an institutional framework that could even theoretically have interests that depart from, or are in contradiction to the interests of the mother—then that midwife’s loyalties are divided and compromised.
*
Does this matter to most women? Clearly not. If you’re looking for a medicalized birth experience with a near-guarantee that your birth will be sabotaged by unnecessary interference, or you enjoy having random people stick their fingers in your vagina, and/or you have no problem submitting to industrial medical authority, or to continuous invasive digital surveillance, then birth with a regulated midwife might be ideal for you.
*
But I didn’t want that as a 20-year old giving birth to my first baby, and I don’t want that now, as an almost-44 year old woman who may indeed become pregnant again with my eleventh child (God willing!).
*
Furthermore, as a human being, I have (as does every biological woman on this planet) an intrinsic, God-given right to give birth where, how, and with whom I choose.
*
And I chose Gloria Lemay.
***
From the very beginning of our relationship, Gloria was utterly transparent with me about her level of formal education in birth and medicine (none), her degrees (none), her status within the system (none), and her life experience (extensive). She spoke to me openly about her prior legal issues, and about the fact that she had indeed been present during two births (at that time, 24 years ago) that had resulted in tragic losses.
*
I invited Gloria to my birth with full knowledge of every potential variable, including the possibility of death—my own, and that of my child.
*
I chose Gloria because I loved her, and because her values were aligned with mine, and because I trusted her to support my autonomous choice to embrace spontaneous birth and all the risks and rewards that could potentially arise from that choice, in whatever measure. I also saw and felt that she believed me, and believed *in* me, and that she knew that I had the power to give birth to myself and my child (as every woman does).
*
I also chose Gloria Lemay precisely because she was unlicensed, unregulated, and totally unaffiliated with the medical industrial complex, the obstetric system, or the BC College of Nurses and Midwives. The latter organization, I wanted nothing to do with ever again, especially given that after I fired the licensed midwife, she reported me to the regulatory college. From that point on, the registrar and director of the BC College of Nurses and Midwives proceeded to harass me with phone calls on a regular basis throughout the duration of my pregnancy, hysterically informing me that by declining regulated midwifery, I was recklessly endangering my child and that I would be going to jail when I ended up with a dead baby.
*
How’s that for “informed consent”? “Informed consent,” is, of course, one of the favourite mantras of the midwifery world, but interestingly, it only seems to apply to women who are “consenting” to the correct things.
*
Indeed, if “informed choice” or ‘informed consent” were anything but a coercive applied linguistics tactic, there would be no reason to criminalize women who attend each other’s births independently.
*
Wouldn’t it be logical for independent birth-work to co-exist alongside regulated midwifery and for women to simply choose who they wanted to attend them during birth, in the spirit of “informed consent”?
*
The fact is, though, there is no truly “informed consent” within the system—there are only bounded choices that lead to either approval or punishment. “Informed consent” is double-speak. “Consent” culture within the medical paradigm is a form of psychological warfare.
*
The only way “consent” can truly be valid is in the context of a relationship of equal power, or one in which the power lies with the party to whom the procedure or treatment is being offered, in which case, the very idea of “informed consent” is meaningless anyway.
*
What those who argue for the prohibition of independent midwifery don’t seem to realize (or don’t care about), is that they are necessarily contradicting the doctrine of informed consent.
*
Thankfully, I was not subjected to a single stilted, condescending conversation with Gloria Lemay about “informed consent.” Why? Because I was, and am the only authority over my body, my baby, and my birth. And from my first encounter with Gloria, and every encounter since, my authority as The Mother was honoured and implicit. As such, I had no need to “consent” to anything.
*
Leaders and authorities do not “consent.” We decree and decide. The invitation to “consent” is a commandment to submit to a limited array of choices that have been pre-ordained. Consent is a totally meaningless concept in a system in which force and coercion have been normalized.
*
Within the regulated midwifery system, midwives operate according to a hierarchical structure in which they are subordinate to obstetricians and hospital administrators, and subject to the rigid standard protocols of their “scope.” If they fail to engineer compliance from their patients, they may face disciplinary measures themselves, which creates an often unconscious dynamic of tenuous and inferred incentivization and self-governance.
*
This is at the very crux of it all. The regulation of birth goes hand-in-hand with the suppression of the inherent, natural rights that every human being has to *life.* Birth is the most rudimentary expression of our biology, but it’s also the most powerful and transformative spiritual journey available to us as human beings (which is the subject of my bestselling book, PORTAL: The Art of Choosing Orgasmic, Pain-Free, Blissful Birth).
*
The very idea of regulating birth is an example of perhaps the most dangerous, most morally repugnant violation of natural law and of our sacred connection to source that has yet to be conceived (ha). And exponential numbers of women (and men) are waking up to this profound truth.
*
This is precisely why Gloria Lemay has so much support.
Yes, I am aware that Gloria was present at five births during which a baby died, and that one of those deaths happened a year ago, according to media reports.
*
And I am so very sorry for those families—and for the mothers, especially. As a mother myself, I have only ever experienced loss during my pregnancies (I have had 4 losses before 14 weeks). Those experiences were heartbreaking enough, and yet I know the pain of miscarriage cannot compare to losing a baby at term, or during or after birth.
*
I can only imagine the unfathomable grief these families are carrying.
*
But what I know, after having worked with thousands of families as they have prepared for birth and processed death and loss at various stages of their children’s lives, in various contexts, is that there is no risk-free option for any of us, ever.
*
And as much as this may sound wrong, or unbearable, not one of us deserves, or is guaranteed, a healthy child, or a child who lives to see adulthood.
*
Likewise, it simply is not the case that choosing hospital birth can guarantee safety, nor can any midwife (regardless of her training or credentials or lack thereof), or doctor, promise or deliver a particular outcome.
*
Sometimes babies die. At home, at birth-centres, and in the hospital. As I wrote in my earlier article “Freebirth and Death: The Shadow Side of Motherhood”, “Every birth experience, no matter the milieu or the situation, whether at home or in the hospital, whether “natural” or highly technologically mediated, could ostensibly result in death.”
*
The difference, of course, between a death that occurs at home vs. a death that occurs in the hospital, is that when death is the outcome within the institution, the assumption will almost always be that everyone did everything they could, that the doctors tried their best, and that *thanks to* technology, intervention, and medical attention and expertise, the death was therefore inevitable.
*
This is despite the fact that approximately 300,000 people die every year in the US alone from medical error—according, again, to the system’s own statistics. Yet physicians and medical professionals in general, are nonetheless protected by liability insurance, plausible deniability, and moral superiority.
*
When a baby dies at home, however, the automatic assumption is almost always be that there was some element of recklessness, irresponsibility, or stupidity involved, and there will be an attempt, at least, to lay blame.
*
In the context of freebirth, the mother herself will likely be held culpable.
*
But in the case of attended homebirth, the obvious scapegoat is the birth attendant—especially one who is unlicensed, un-registered, and operating outside the system.
*
Is it possible that Gloria Lemay has made mistakes? No, it’s not possible. It is a guarantee. Because Gloria is a human being, and we all make mistakes.
*
What I know beyond the shadow of a doubt, however, is that Gloria has only ever had the best interests of mothers, babies, and fathers at heart, that her intentions have always been pure, and that she has never lied about who she is.
*
I also know that she has attended well over 2500 births. Though life and death are, I maintain, God’s business, my strong suspicion is that there are very few, if any, obstetricians whose statistics could rival hers.
*
Yet we don’t tend to read in the legacy media about all the babies who die under the care of obstetricians, or the many many more babies who are tortured, maimed, and traumatized within the walls of the institution (and, sadly, by the hands of well-meaning regulated midwives, which are among the most common stories that are brought to me consistently by mothers in my birth-related trauma coaching practice).
*
We also don’t tend to hear about the immense risks to our their families that women take on, when they agree to support their sisters in birth outside the system.
*
Gloria’s arrest comes right on the heels my own recent decision to retire indefinitely from in-person birth-witnessing. Luckily, I don’t live in Canada or in the US, and I have always been very careful not to ever break any laws, but I have experienced the sudden turn that can take place, when a birth results in an unfortunate or unexpected outcome.
*
One of the rarest, most precious virtues is self-responsibility. But while most of us like to believe that we embrace the value of self-responsibility, true self-responsibility is only ever proven when things fall apart.
*
Everyone loves the idea of accountability and true responsibility until the very moment things don’t go our way. Then we scramble to point the finger.
*
This impulse to condemn permeates the public social media post written by the father of the baby who died a year ago, during the birth that Gloria apparently attended. I won’t share the text here (it’s readily searchable), but it’s full of rage, conspicuous contradictions and above all, a wholesale abdication of any personal responsibility as a parent.
*
This man describes being “victimized” by Gloria Lemay, and his post implies that Gloria maliciously convinced him and his wife to invite her to attend their child’s birth. He also blatantly states that she is responsible for the fact that his child tragically died. — Yolande Norris-Clark
What “Hate” Will Manitoba’s New Hate Crimes Unit Find
It has come to the attention of Manitobans that a special hate crime working unit has been commissioned to undertake investigating “hate” within the province. See Manitoba News Bulletin text down below.
It will be interesting to observe what transpires from and replicated within Manitoba concerning this new and trendy initiative that other jurisdictions elsewhere have adopted. Maybe Manitoba will be a novel first in discovering the whole range of behaviors that may be considered hate. Will this pogrom also consider prosecuting individuals for maybe, possibly, thinking what the government thinks they are thinking?
The process for arriving at what constitutes “hate”.
Who gets to decide what constitutes “hate”? Special interest groups funded by the government whose claims would not have been thoroughly vetted for accuracy, similar to a previous government funded special interest group from the last 40 years? Will special interest groups influence government to examine only what they believe would be considered “hate”, and cancel any attempt at identifying other sources of “hate”?
Will the government of Manitoba investigate the lounge at the University of Winnipeg that excludes white people? Or will the government claim that alleged past grievances – not thoroughly vetted for accuracy – should trump the present and be a deciding factor in allowing this particular brand of hate at the U of W to continue?
Another example of hate in some Manitoba schools, and some in Winnipeg. See graphic below. It is currently considered a joke among individuals influenced by a long-standing government funded special interest group not vetted for accuracy.
Here it is: “Boys Are Stupid. Throw Rocks At Them”
An image above was displayed on bulletin boards in a Winnipeg school. This is considered proper? “Equality” groups from the past have over time influenced the acceptance of what you see above. Since when does “equality” mean disparaging half the school and other populations? Equality was originally meant as “Equality before the law”. Will the 40 year government funded special interest group be investigated for their hate? Or will the personnel in a WINNIPEG school be under investigation for promoting hate? Or retroactively holding Winnipeg organizers of Black Lives Matter responsible for inciting hated?
You think this attitude from the image above is fitting for your boys? Or are you requiring or asking 6 to 12 year old boys in elementary school to “man up” by accepting this ridiculous attempt at “equality”, or humour. If so, what the hell is the matter with you? The following would likely never have occurred in the schools of western culture if the sexes were reversed – “Girls are stupid. Throw rocks at them”. This is yet another example of what occurs in the real world when special interest group claims are not vetted for their veracity – one in particular for the last 40 years costing Canadians billions of dollars, and forced upon us by government. You two are OK with this as well?
We do not need another special grievance or special interest group to decide the fate of what constitutes proper thought or behavior, considering their own thought and behavior may be in more need of examination.
Not counting on a reply from the NDP administration regarding this letter – if it isn’t trashed before arriving in your inbox.
Paul Fromm’s Report on the First Week of Political Prisoner Les Bory’s “Hate” Trial: Two Charges Dropped https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=10328
Paul Fromm’s Report on the First Week of Political Prisoner Les Bory’s “Hate” Trial: Two Charges Dropped
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Km84r023mz8j
- Les testifies Monday, January 13, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
The Leslie Bory Story Explained https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=10323
THE LESLIE BORY TRIAL: The Obliteration of Free Speech in Canada
Paul Fromm of Canadians for Free Expression (CAFE) and I (the Red-Pilled Philosopher) attended the first session of Leslie Bory’s trial regarding free speech. We discuss our views regarding it. We also look at how this trial may impact all Canadians who believe in free speech.
Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE, Defends Free Speech at Weekly Rally in Port Credit
Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE, Defends Free Speech at Weekly Rally in Port Credit
Bill C-63 — Internet Censorship is Dead With Proroguing of Parliament
Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled
The purgatory prime minister has put Canada in a precarious position, but at least no more of his bad ideas can be churned out of Parliament
Get the latest from Jamie Sarkonak straight to your inbox
Author of the article:
Published Jan 07, 2025 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
257 Comments
By proroguing Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have just sabotaged the fate of our relationship with the United States. But this, at very least, came with a happy side-effect: he also sabotaged the progressive legislative agenda that’s overtaken both houses of government.
In other words, a whole bunch of bad bills just died. Good riddance.
The online harms (censorship) bill? Dead.
The Liberals were already backing off Bill C-63, having announced in early December that the hulking piece of legislation would be split in two in hopes of making at least parts of it into law. Now, the whole thing is off the table. It’s mostly good news: the draft online harms law would have subjected social media companies operating in Canada to a new government bureaucracy in the name of “safety.” Moreover, it would have introduced the vague crime of “hate crime” and tasked the Canadian Human Rights Commission with regulating comments online.
Now, this also means the death of the parts of C-63 that worked to crack down on child sexual abuse online, but even that had its flaws.
Also dead is that bill that would have made thousands of people around the world eligible for Canadian citizenship.
Bill C-71, if you remember, would give the children of Canadians born abroad citizenship through descent, as long as the parents can establish a “substantial connection” to Canada. The guardrail wouldn’t be a secure one, since some judges don’t believe that there are any citizens who lack a connection to the country.
Platformed
This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)
The bill’s proponents marketed it as a remedy to a rare problem that sometimes afflicts Canadian families who live abroad, such as military families. However, in trying to solve their problems, the bill would have made it much easier for citizenship to be obtained by the grandchildren of birth tourists (people who travel to Canada to give birth, which secures Canadian citizenship for their child).
Lesser-known Senate bills of grave consequence are in the grave, too, including a bill that would have allowed every minority group to establish its own healing lodges (that is, low-security incarceration facilities for prisoners).
Bill S-230 would have required a lot worse, too. If passed, the law would require the Correctional Service of Canada to approve all requests by prisoners to transfer to their respective healing lodges, unless a court were to decide that such a transfer was “not to be in the interests of justice.”
Introduced by the same senator jockeying for identity-based healing lodges, was Bill S-233, which is also now dead. It would have required the government to create a Universal Basic Income framework that would cover anyone in Canada over the age of 17 — even non-Canadians like temporary foreign workers, permanent residents and asylum seekers. Though it was more a concept of a plan and didn’t set out any dollar figures, the bill would have opened the door to even more unproductive spending.
And finally, the Senate bill that would have commandeered Canadian banks to regulate the climate impact of its clients has met its timely end as well.
The draconian Bill S-243, which was midway through the Senate, would have allowed the federal financial regulator to mandate banks to increase the amount of capital clients need to finance loans related to the fossil fuel industry. The bill would have also mandated that corporate directors in the finance industry uphold the federal government’s climate commitments, violating the public-private boundary that free countries are supposed to respect.
“The bill would effectively discourage — in some cases probably even block — financing of pipeline operators, natural gas distributors and fuel companies,” wrote Financial Post columnist Joe Oliver in 2023.
Though these troubling Senate bills weren’t introduced by the Liberals, they might as well have been. Their sponsors are members of the Independent Senators Group, which is the heir to the Liberal senate caucus, and their work certainly aligns with the Liberal government’s agenda.
Article content
Also dead is the capital gains inclusion rate hike, which, for the Liberals to even get on the order paper as a bill, required a successful notice of means and ways motion. Though, this one’s still twitching: the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is still applying the new rules that were announced by the Liberals, and is thus asking people to prepare to pay them in their next filing. This isn’t a radical new change on the CRA’s part, however: convention (backed by law) holds that tax changes are applied as they’re announced, under the assumption the legislation will pass. If legislation ends up not passing (which is looking to be the case here), taxpayers can expect a refund instead.
Not all bills before Parliament will die, unfortunately.
Private members’ bills that start in the House of Commons are immune to prorogation, according to House rules. That means that the jurisdiction-defying school food program bill (which comes with all sorts of cultural restraints), Bill C-322, will live to see another session.
As will C-332, which would criminalize “coercive control” — that is, behaviour that makes a person’s spouse or partner that makes the other person feel unsafe. The latter is an honourable goal, but the way it’s drafted is so broad that it risks capturing relationships that, though toxic, aren’t dangerous.
Realistically, though, private progressive bills that don’t offer much benefit probably don’t have much to look forward to in the new session. With new governments come new priorities …
It’s a relief that the age of messy Liberal legislation is coming to a close. The purgatory prime minister will cause us a lot of problems in the coming weeks — but sloppy new laws cranked out of Parliament won’t be one of them.