Author Archives: admin

Commentary / Why shouting down speakers is absolutely wrong

Posted on by

Commentary / Why shouting down speakers is absolutely wrong

Shouting down speakers, such as the recent suppression of Charles Murray’s speech at Middlebury College by a large crowd of protesters, is wrong. Plain and simple. It’s wrong. Shouting down speakers is morally wrong, unprincipled, anti-intellectual and utterly indefensible.

For a long time, I thought this was an obvious position, but it’s becoming increasing clear that some people on the left think it’s a good idea. So let’s examine in depth the question of shouting down speakers.

Why is it wrong? Let me begin with basic principles: What is the fundamental principle behind the idea of shouting down a speaker?

Is the principle that people should have the freedom to shout down those they don’t like? By that logic, white supremacist gangs should be allowed to shout down people of color whenever they try to speak.

Is the principle that a big crowd of people should get to shout down those they don’t like? Obviously, bigots can form a big crowd, too. There’s no good reason why an unpopular viewpoint should be shut down.

Is the principle that everyone has free speech, and therefore the right to shout down is equal to the right to speak? I’ve heard this argument before, from a conservative who told me, as he threw my newspapers in the trash, that I had the right to print a newspaper and he had the right to destroy it. You can heckle and chant a message to express yourself without continuing it endlessly in order to suppress a speech. This is just the verbal equivalent of blowing an air horn.

Is the principle that racists shouldn’t be allowed to speak? That may seem appealing at first. But deciding who is and isn’t a racist (and trusting the authorities to decide it) may be harder than you think. What if whites claim that anti-racist speakers are really racist against whites? What if it extends beyond race to religion and other categories? Should speakers who mock religious opposition to gay rights be banned for attacking religion? Should atheists be banned? Should critics of atheism be banned?

Right now, politicians around the country seek to silence critics of Israel on campus based on the claims that they are anti-Semitic. Why shouldn’t they get to ban them, if anybody called a racist shouldn’t be allowed on campus? What makes you think that if racists can be banned, your particular definition of racism will prevail in a country that elected a racist as president? This little game of shouting down a speaker not only opens up the floodgates for any speaker to be shouted down, it also makes it much easier to justify other kinds of censorship that have the same effect.

As a tactical matter, shouting down Charles Murray doesn’t stop racism. It reinforces the delusions of white people that they’re the victims of oppression. Censorship doesn’t refute anything Murray says, it only makes him a free speech martyr.

More important, those of you who shouted down Murray could not have done more to help Donald Trump and the Republicans. Right now, Republicans around the country are seeking to suppress free speech on campus under the pretense of protecting free speech from authoritarian leftists. By silencing Murray, you will help them silence you. They can’t say it publicly, but Republicans love what you did because you have done more to help their repressive bills and their re-election campaigns than anyone else on any campus.

One of the worst aspects of the censorship of Murray is how it distracts everyone from the far greater threats to free speech out there. I could be writing about the bill in Iowa to impose political hiring of Republicans on colleges. I could be writing about the bill in Arkansas to ban all public schools from having Howard Zinn in the curriculum, along with any materials “concerning” Zinn’s books, meaning any book that mentions or cites Zinn. Instead, I have to lecture the left about why censorship is wrong. This should not be a difficult thing to understand.

There are plenty of alternatives to shouting down a speaker. You can hand out information and post it online. You can stand up and turn your backs in disgust. You can ask tough questions. You can ignore Murray and have events about analyzing and ending racism. You can hold events about Murray’s racism and refute his ideas. These won’t end racism, either. But free speech has a far greater likelihood of changing people’s minds and making them think about racism and why it’s wrong.

Shouting down a speaker doesn’t take courage. It takes cowardice. Maybe it’s the fear of listening to someone with different views. Maybe it’s the fear that you won’t be able to disprove a racist’s ideas, so you need to silence them instead. Maybe it’s the fear that your peers are too stupid to understand reason and need to be intimidated instead.

Whatever the reason, censorship is the tool of authoritarians and idiots. It has no place in the progressive movement. It has no place on a college campus.

Will the Canadian Army Persecute the `Proud Boys`for Their Political Opinions?

Posted on by

Will the Canadian Army Persecute the `Proud Boys`for Their Political Opinions?

 
Any doubt that White-hating cultural Marxists are in control of this nation`s federal governmental institutions vanished after the hysterical fury of the military brass at five wholesome young members of the armed forces — out of uniform — who staged their own protest at Lord Cornwallis`s statue in downtown Halifax on Dominion Day. They carried the Red Ensign flag of the real Canada and sang `God Save the Queen“. `They approached a group of Micmacs holding a protest. The Micmacs want the statue of Lord Cornwallis, the founder of Halifax in 1749, removed because he put out a bounty for Micmac scalps, AFTER they had attacked White settlers.
 
 In those days, leaders actually believed in protecting their own people, instead of handing terrorists like Omar Khadr $10.5-million. There was no  violence. Several Indians threw some vulgarities at the young men — ‘get the fuck out of here’. Then, they left and the hysteria began. A few Indians complained that they were actually contradicted. In politically correct Canada, after Jews, Moslems, and the LGBTQ sexually unusual crowd, Indians are a privileged group that cannot be criticized.
 
Oh, my God, how radical! Handsome young men, calling themselves `Proud Boys`flying our flag and singing `God Save the Queen.
 
Inline image 1
 
CTV (July 3, 2017) picks up the story: Two First Nations gatherings in Nova Scotia were disrupted on Canada Day, and the Department of National Defence confirms five of the men involved in one of the incidents are members of the Canadian Forces.

A ceremony in downtown Halifax began with Chief Grizzly Mamma from Truro cutting off her braids and placing them at a statue of Edward Cornwallis, to symbolize the scalping and poor treatment of indigenous people during Cornwallis’ reign.

It was also a ceremony of mourning, and honoured missing and murdered indigenous women

RELATED STORIES

PHOTOS

indigenous protest

Chief Grizzly Mamma, who is originally from British Columbia, shaves her head in a ceremony to mourn the atrocities committed against Indigenous Peoples in Halifax on July 1, 2017. (Rebecca Moore/Facebook)

Five men interrupted the service by attempting to pay homage to Cornwallis, who is known for issuing bounties for the scalps of Mi’kmaq people.

“It was so frustrating, because we’re trying to do a ceremony, we’re trying to help heal and mourn, and here you have a group of young white men, who are interrupting a group of indigenous women who are trying to do ceremony. It just felt like once again, we were made to feel less than,” said Halifax’s poet laureate Rebecca Thomas

The men identified themselves on a video that was posted to social media. The video shows the men, dressed in matching black and yellow polo-style shirts, approaching the indigenous demonstrators to debate the Mi’Kmaq’s claim to the land on which the ceremony was held.

“This was Mi’Kmaq territory. This is now Canada. This is Halifax, Nova Scotia,” said one man who arrived holding what appeared to be a Canadian Red Ensign flag. “This is a British colony.”

The Canadian Red Ensign, which bears the Union Jack in the corner, was the national flag until it was replaced by the Maple Leaf design in 1965.

People who were in attendance say the men claimed they were members of “Proud Boys,” a U.S.-based ultra-conservative fraternity-like group that believes in “reinstating a spirit of Western chauvinism during an age of globalism and multiculturalism.”

National Defence spokesman Daniel LeBouthillier has confirmed that all five men involved in the incident are members of the Canadian Forces, and at least two of the men are in the Navy.

In a statement to CTV News, the spokesperson for the minister of defence said: “Canada is strong because of our diversity and our values of promoting peace, democracy and human rights for all. The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence are inclusive and diverse organizations, and racism and discrimination of any kind is not tolerated.”

Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd and Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk, the commanders of the the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Army, also posted a joint statement on Facebook, saying the actions of a few of its members don’t reflect its commitment to being an inclusive and diverse organization“

That`s modern Canadian military thinking: `We`re inclusive and diverse but won`t include proud Whites.

On July 4, Rear-Admiral John Newton, commander of Canada`s East Coast Navy., àpologized to the`Indians and announced that the young men had been put on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation.`’Their personal belief, whether religious, political or White supremacy, whatever the Proud Boys represent, — it`s^sic^ not a shared value of the Canadian Armed Forces. . It`s all so pathetic. Newton clearly doesn`t even know what Proud Boys stands for, but he`s against it. Indeed, any exprerssion of European pride is out of limits.

Even more pathetic was the reaction of ‘Chief of Defence Staff Jon Vance (who) condemned `what happened`as `deplorable`. Their future in the military is certainly in doubt.. (National Post, July 7, 2017). Pure blistering hatred of White pride.

Even more disgusting, if possible, was the reaction of our lying turbanned Defence Minister `Harjit Sajjan (who) said in a Facebook post that ,this kind of bvehaviour is not tolerated in the Canadian Armed Forces`and apologized to the Micmac community and Chief Grizzly Mama. `there will be consequences for CAF members whop express intolerance while in — or out — of uniform.`. So, the military owns you body and soul 24 hours a day? An expression in White or Canadian pride is ‘intolerance,.?

As Christie Blatchford noted in the National Post (July 7, 2017) ‘You`ll remember ole Harj, he who wrongly claimed to have been the àrchitect of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan, No so many consequences there!.

The cloying politically correct nonsense gets even wackier. Chief Grizzly Mama, the one who received an apology from our truth challenged Minister of National Defence, is actually a West Coast Indian, (There are no Grizzly Bears in Atlantic Canada) For some reason she was getting her hair cut off — scalped, sort of? — to protest Lord Cornwallis`s actions of 250 years ago. And somehow this was a religious ceremony or reconciliation ceremony. It is a sign how sick this country`s leadership is that this intolerable tomfoolery is taken seriously and the only ones in danger of consequences are the five young White men who respectfully stood up for THEIR culture.

Will these five young men be thrown out of the Canadian military in an orgy of political correctness? We urge you to send your views to:

Vice-Admiral John Newton,

c/o National Defence Headquarters

MGen George R. Pearkes Bldg, 11 ST,

101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa ON K1A 0K2

Canada

Phone: 613-995-2534 / Toll free: 1-888-995-2534

FAX: 1 800 467-9877

and

Hon. Harjit Sajjan,

Minister of National Defence,

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

613.995.7052

HARJIT.SAJJAN@PARL.GC.CA

The Disgraceful Payoff to Killer Khadr & Trudeau Invokes the Phoney Charter

Posted on by

The Disgraceful Payoff to Killer Khadr & Trudeau Invokes the Phoney Charter

Oh please Mr Trudeau, just do it, don’t insult us with your rationalizations about how the Charter protects us all “EVEN WHEN IT’S UNCOMFORTABLE”.  That wonderful charter you speak about didn’t protect Ernst Zundel back in the days when a powerful lobby (more powerful than our charter) wanted his head or Brad Love jailed on many occasions for writing letters to our privileged politicians or James Sears who puts out a satirical newspaper, loved by many but hated by the powerful few who can lobby the Government to have his postal rights taken away.  The charter didn’t work for them, nor has it helped the many many, many more Canadians who who have lost jobs and been pauperized for simply disagreeing with the party line.  Your smiley face may impress many but hypocrisy is an ugly thing. — Lynda Mortl

On Khadr, Trudeau says Charter protects all Canadians ‘even when it is uncomfortable’

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee received $10.5M this week, sources tell CBC News

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians “even when it is uncomfortable,” responding to a question about his government’s apology and controversial payout to former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr.

“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, every one of us, even when it is uncomfortable. This is not about the details or merits of the Khadr case. When the government violates any Canadian’s Charter rights we all end up paying for it,” he told reporters in Hamburg, where he’s wrapping up the G20 summit.

Khadr — who has been branded a terrorist by some and a child soldier subjected to torture by others — received a $10.5-million cheque Wednesday, sources told CBC News

Trudeau has been travelling all week with stops in Ireland and Scotland, before flying to Germany for the global leaders’ summit. Meanwhile, the Khadr payout has dominated headlines back home.

Khadr Payout Interview 20170707Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr, 30, is seen in Mississauga, Ont., on Thursday, July 6, 2017. The federal government has paid Khadr $10.5 million and apologized to him for violating his rights during his long ordeal after capture by American forces in Afghanistan in July 2002. (Colin Perkel/Canadian Press)

News of the settlement first leaked late Monday night, but it took until Friday for the government to officially confirm that a settlement had been reached — and Ottawa refused to disclose the amount.

“It is not about previous behaviour on the battlefield in Afghanistan; it is about the acts and other decisions the Canadian government took against Mr. Khadr after he was captured and detained,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Friday. “Those facts are not in dispute and there is no doubt about how the Supreme Court views them. The government of Canada offended the most basic standards.”

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said it was “disgusting” for the government to concoct a “secret deal” and hand over millions to a convicted terrorist.

“This payout is a slap in the face to men and women in uniform who face incredible danger every day to keep us safe,” he said Friday.

Scheer said he believes the Harper government’s decision to repatriate Khadr in 2012 was a sufficient response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Khadr’s rights were violated.

‘Restores a little bit my reputation’

In an interview with CBC News’ Rosemary Barton, the Canadian-born Khadr, 30, said he hopes the settlement will help restore his reputation.

“I think it restores a little bit my reputation here in Canada, and I think that’s the biggest thing for me,” he said.

Khadr was 15 when he was captured by U.S. troops following the confrontation at a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in 2002.

Suspected of throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer, he was taken to Guantanamo and ultimately charged with war crimes by a military commission.

In 2010, he pleaded guilty to charges that included murder and was sentenced to eight years plus the time he had already spent in custody. He returned to Canada two years later to serve the remainder of his sentence and was released in May 2015 pending an appeal of his guilty plea, which he said was made under duress.

Armed Thugs Raid Alfred Schaefer’s Studio Near Munich & Clean Out His Equipment

Posted on by

Armed Thugs Raid Alfred Schaefer’s Studio Near Munich & Clean Out His Equipment

Justin Trudeau’s e-mail is pm@pm.gc.ca

Dear Friends:

Yesterday morning, 6th of July, a 6:00 AM our door bell rang ferociously, as if some berserk madman was about to kick in the door. My wife and I jumped out of bed, I told her do not open just yet, hold them off for just a few seconds.  OK, then in they came, 7 armed thugs with guns, bullet-proof vests and handcuffs and one “witness” from the town administration. They were not about to make the same mistake as the last summer when they raided and robbed me, obediantly following their orders from the Jewish Criminal B’nai Brith Canada. That time I was able to provide my own “witness”, who happened to be a Graf, which is a Count, or an Earl who lived across the street.  Not only is he a Count, but he is well aware of the Jewish lies of the “Holohoax” and so much more, so obviously and visibly on my side. That time they only stole all of my computers, this time they were after my studio. I think it ticked them off that I made a video about that entire episode afterwords, which is:

Blog: Police Raid and my Confession

Video:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8mBgMaLVPc

My video’s are blocked in most European countries.

Inline image 1

These thugs working at the behest of the Jewish B’nai Brith, wanted my ability to make video’s destroyed. They know that nobody believes their lies anymore and are desperate now to prevent anyone from spreading truth about the things they have done, lest it may upset anyone.

On the “state prosecutors” paper to justify this theft of my equipment we find:  “Why do YOU support open debate on the Holocaust?” They claim that this is absolutely illegal. You may NOT question the six million gassed Jews that were turned into soap and lampshades and shrunken heads. After all, the German people paid a lot of money to all the millions of Jews who somehow did not end up as soap or a lampshade. And if you understand that it is all a big Jewish scam, the German people may ask for their shekels back. Or the goods. (Sort of like 9-11, which is why that is now also illegal to question). The “State Prosecutor” claims that any questions regarding 911 or the “Holy Cause” is incitement to racial hatred.

I wonder why they never bothered Steven Spielberg an outspoken Jewis propagandist for his evil fiction “Schindler’s List” which incited several generations of young children in schools to HATE the German people. Or what about all those “Holy Cause” memorials that our little children are obliged to visit at such a tender young age?    What about the fraud Anne Frank?

The irony is, it was Jews who wanted to exterminate the German people the after the Germans wanted to free themselves from the Jewish immorality and usury.  They came very close to succeeding by murdering many millions of Germans AFTER the end of the fighting. A million or more  died in the Rhine Meadow Death Camps and the deliberate poisoning of the meager bread being fed to the German prisoners as well as their the Jewish poisoning of the German water supplies with the intention of mass murdering millions more of innocent Germans. One of many documented examples of these intentions is the book written by Theodore Kaufman, “Germany must Perish“. The Jewish lobby is  busily trying to whitewash this information and make it disappear.

The fact that the “German authorities” raided me to shut me down and intimidate me, does provide us with great opportunity at this time. The double standards on display now, can not escape even the mentally challenged or zombies. (Zombies are those who, now in 2017, still believe the “Holocaust – TM” because, “if the Jews say it happened, then it must be true”.)

What is particularly interesting about this raid is that they not only stole all of my studio equipment worth thousands of Euros, but they also stole all of my stockpile of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth DVD’s and other information. They now consider this description of the forensic evidence as illegal as “denying the holocaust”. All of this information is now classified as “incitement to racial hatred”.   So, if you are an engineer, and you are caught with evidence of the controlled demolition of the three towers on 9-11, you are now deemed “guilty of racial incitement to hatred”.  If you tell your children that the German people turned Jews into soap and lampshades, then you are a hero.

The timing of this raid and the consequences are amazing.   I just returned from a Canadian speaking tour that consisted of 14 presentations in 11 cities, from Toronto to Victoria.   After arriving in Toronto I learned that Global News  wanted to interview me in Calgary when I was due to arrive there about a week later. Upon arrival, they backed down with a pathetic excuse after our team insisted on recording the entire interview as well.   It may also have something to do with the fact that B’nai Brith were the ones who provided me with priceless material for my most recent video’s, in particular this one:   1984 + 33 = 2017

The speaking tour in Canada, sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression, gave me great optimism, learning that many people are coming to the same conclusions, independently, and finding their new direction and purpose, by working to resolve this. In fact, most young people no longer need explaining when the meme “JQ” is used. They know it is the “Jewish Question”.

Every move that the Jews now make seems to accelerate the inevitable total implosion of their unsustainable construct of lies and deceptions. They will have a lot of explaining to do.

Some people may be depressed by what is happening, but I am so happy to be living now, with the ability to do constructive work to remedy an otherwise seemingly hopeless situation. With your help, we can do so much more.

Please contact me if you want to help.

Reply by email or you can phone me on +49-8158-9508

Alfred Schaefer

To send or not to send – that is the argument — English Chanteuse Bound By Severe Bail in Zionist-inspired Internet Restriction Case

Posted on by

To send or not to send – that is the argument — English Chanteuse Bound By Severe Bail in Zionist-inspired Internet Restriction Case

Dear All,

Firstly, apologies for not updating you all earlier. The latest twist in my court case effectively removes my right to publish anything other than the briefest of briefs for fear of being immediately summonsed for breach of bail or contempt of court. My every move and key stroke will be being watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the hope of my family and I being finally worn down to such an extent that I will plead guilty, thus giving my accusers the legal precedent they so desire.

Last Friday, the original charge brought against me in a private prosecution by Mr Faultfinder of the Campaign Against Britons Having The Right To Free Speech In Their Own Land (CAA) was dropped, bringing the total of dropped charges to four. Court was then briefly suspended in order to allow the Crown Prosecutor to serve me with four more charges – two for each song: I am now accused of sending and, at the same time causing to be sent(!), two songs which my accusers claim caused them gross offence. This, after they themselves had sought out one of my blog posts and clicked on a hyperlink which in turn redirected them to YouTube. In short, they chose to watch a video which I did not upload to YouTube and which was never sent to them in the first place.

With a lack of evidence to prove that I would, in fact, have sent or caused to be sent anything other than a hyperlink, my case has again been prolonged whilst the Crown seeks expert analysis, to be submitted in August. A new date for legal argument has been set down for October 25. This gives the CAA another four months of breathing space during which time their small but noisy army of Twitter trolls will no doubt continue to stalk and harass anyone they disagree with.

Last week’s hearing was in fact suspended twice whilst lawyers agreed on dates and discussed varied bail conditions. It was noticeable that the Crown Prosecutor used these breaks to liaise with a tall, olive-skinned young man and that each party was constantly checking their phone. Was this gent a representative of CAA? My original accuser and his chief witness were both conspicuous by their absence: since CAA won its costly campaign to bring about a judicial review of the Jez Turner case, at least one report suggests that it is now a Zionist lobbying organisation which is giving orders to the CPS – a supposedly independent body – when it comes to prosecuting anyone CAA dislikes.

[The Crown Prosecution Service] agreed to consult the CAA in future when making decisions regarding similar cases against Jewish people and whether it can be regarded hate speech or free speech.

Regards my bail conditions (imposed for a ‘crime’ without precedent and therefore likely to go to a higher court and, I might add, all at taxpayers’ expense), these limit not only my freedom of expression but now also my freedom of movement. I must notify my solicitor if I intend to stay anywhere other than my official address for a period of more than ten days. Offers of accommodation for nine days would be most welcome. It doesn’t have to be in the Bahamas – but I wouldn’t say no!

Unsurprisingly, there have been no reports in the media about this landmark case. The last thing my accusers and a pandering, corrupt Establishment want is more Britons waking up to the harsh reality of yet more tyrannical legal constraints undermining our most precious freedom – being able to think for ourselves and express those thoughts. Likewise, there has been complete silence from the press both about Falter’s original charge being dropped as well as the recusal of District Judge Arbuthnot who gagged me last December, resulting in never-ending bail. Frankly, it’s difficult to see how any advantage could be gained by way of further intimidation and harassment of my family and I, as a result of pressure being applied on the authorities by CAA. Or perhaps that’s just me being naive and we really do live in an Orwellian dystopia where patriotism is now a crime?

To conclude, I shall not be using the Internet much in the coming months but you can stay in touch by leaving comments on my blog or contacting me via email. I will try to respond as time and bail conditions permit. There is enough information already on my blog and elsewhere, detailing my ordeal, which exposes quite clearly the underhand methods used by CAA to try and force a conviction.

The good news is that I now have several new songs ready to record and perform, as well as ideas for two books. In the meantime, if you could please support me and encourage others to do likewise by ordering a copy of my Songs of the Shoah EP and/or by donating to any amount, large or small, to my PayPal account, I would be very grateful.

Much gratitude to my steadfast legal team and to those who made the trip to support me last Friday. Thanks for reading and blessings to all.

Delete Hate Speech or Pay Up, Germany Tells Social Media Companies

Posted on by

Delete Hate Speech or Pay Up, Germany Tells Social Media Companies

[More repression at the hands of former Communist Party operative in Stasi- riddled East Germany Angela Merkel. Social media giants threatened with huge fines for not removing dissent from their platforms.]

By MELISSA EDDY and MARK SCOTT

A new law in Germany will require companies including Facebook, Twitter and Google, which owns YouTube, to remove any content that is illegal in Germany — such as Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial — within 24 hours of it being brought to their attention. Tobias Schwarz/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

BERLIN — Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.

The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.

But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.

Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.

“With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.”

“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.

The law will take effect in October, less than a month after nationwide elections, and will apply to social media sites with more than two million users in Germany.

It will require companies including Facebook, Twitter and Google, which owns YouTube, to remove any content that is illegal in Germany — such as Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial — within 24 hours of it being brought to their attention.

The law allows for up to seven days for the companies to decide on content that has been flagged as offensive, but that may not be clearly defamatory or inciting violence. Companies that persistently fail to address complaints by taking too long to delete illegal content face fines that start at 5 million euros, or $5.7 million, and could rise to as much as €50 million.

Every six months, companies will have to publicly report the number of complaints they have received and how they have handled them.

In Germany, which has some of the most stringent anti-hate speech laws in the Western world, a study published this year found that Facebook and Twitter had failed to meet a national target of removing 70 percent of online hate speech within 24 hours of being alerted to its presence.

The report noted that while the two companies eventually erased almost all of the illegal hate speech, Facebook managed to remove only 39 percent within 24 hours, as demanded by the German authorities. Twitter met that deadline in 1 percent of instances. YouTube fared significantly better, removing 90 percent of flagged content within a day of being notified.

Facebook said on Friday that the company shared the German government’s goal of fighting hate speech and had “been working hard” to resolve the issue of illegal content. The company announced in May that it would nearly double, to 7,500, the number of employees worldwide devoted to clearing its site of flagged postings. It was also trying to improve the processes by which users could report problems, a spokesman said.

Twitter declined to comment, while Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The standoff between tech companies and politicians is most acute in Europe, where freedom of expression rights are less comprehensive than in the United States, and where policy makers have often bristled at Silicon Valley’s dominance of people’s digital lives.

But advocacy groups in Europe have raised concerns over the new German law.

Mirko Hohmann and Alexander Pirant of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin criticized the legislation as “misguided” for placing too much responsibility for deciding what constitutes unlawful content in the hands of social media providers.

“Setting the rules of the digital public square, including the identification of what is lawful and what is not, should not be left to private companies,” they wrote.

Even in the United States, Facebook and Google also have taken steps to limit the spread of extremist messaging online, and to prevent “fake news” from circulating. That includes using artificial intelligence to remove potentially extremist material automatically and banning news sites believed to spread fake or misleading reports from making money through the companies’ digital advertising platforms.

Posted on by

Canada Claims Authority to Censor Your Internet Searches

Not Canadian? Not in Canada? It doesn’t matter, according to its supreme court.

[While Justin Trudeau, the Trust Fund Kid, was dancing and prancing with his LGBTQ… constituency this past weekend, a media distraction, the unelected tyrants of the Surpreme Court were leeching away Canadians’ freedoms to search the Internet. — Paul Frromm]

|

CensorshipGeorge TsartsianidisThe Canadian Supreme Court today ruled the country has the authority to demand Google censor and remove links to certain web pages or online content.

The idea that governments can force Google to deindex links to pages is unfortunately not new (see the European Union’s “right to be forgotten“). What matters internationally in this case is the government is forcing Google to remove links from searches regardless of where the Internet user is. That is to say: Canada is demanding the authority to censor the internet outside of its physical borders and control what people who are not Canadian citizens can find online.

Today’s court ruling declares that because the Internet doesn’t have any borders, when Canada decides Google has to censor content it should be a global order: “The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.”

The case involves copyright and intellectual property claims. A tech firm was accusing another firm of stealing and duplicating one of its products and selling it online. Google was asked to deindex the links to the firm accused of stealing so that it wouldn’t show up in search results. Google complied with court orders, but only for searches from within Canada.

Canada’s Supreme Court sees geographical limits (even virtual ones) on its ability to censor speech as “facilitating” illegal commerce rather than a speech issue. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling that should give folks pause:

This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.

Canada has hate speech laws. Does it follow that Canada should require Google to deindex pages containing what it deems “hate speech” in the United States? If Canada does not because it acknowledges limits to its reach as a nation is it “facilitating” something unlawful?

The court notes Google removes links due to court orders based on content and still doesn’t seem to see an issue in a country’s boundary of authority:

[Google] acknowledges, fairly, that it can, and often does, exactly what is being asked of it in this case, that is, alter search results. It does so to avoid generating links to child pornography and websites containing “hate speech”. It also complies with notices it receives under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2680 (1998) to de-index content from its search results that allegedly infringes copyright, and removes websites that are subject to court orders.

The court, in justifying its ruling, is unwittingly bringing up problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is intended as a tool for fight online piracy and intellectual property theft by making it easier to remove copyrighted material through an ownership claim process. It is also prone to abuse.

People abuse the DMCA’s “take down” process in order to try to censor speech, critiques or commentary, they find objectionable. It can be as minor as trying to censor critical video game reviews, or extend as far as criticizing another country’s leaders. Ecuadorian officials once attempted to use the DMCA to censor criticism of government actions. Google itself has stepped in to try to help users fend off abusive DMCA take-down requests.

Invoking other forms of legally recognized internet censorship is not, perhaps, the defense Canada’s Supreme Court is looking for. A closer examination highlights the potential for abuses. And claiming the authority to censor Google links everywhere in the world is a decision begging to be abused.

Read the court’s ruling here. France has attempted similar international censorship methods.

Warren Kinsella’s Complaint re: sharing of participants’ e-mails

Posted on by

Warren Kinsella’s Complaint re: sharing of participants’ e-mails

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

June 28, 2017

 

Board of Review
c/o Jamal Family Law Professional Corporation
2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 301
Oakville , ON  L6H SR7

 

Re: Complaint By Warren Kinsella About Sharing of Participants’ E-mails

 

 

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

 

Earlier today, the Board sent out the Submissions of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and copied all the recognized parties and “interested parties” in this review.

 

Warren Kinsella, a major instigator in the three-year long attack seeking to shut down YOUR WARD NEWS, responded thus:

 

“Again: communicating with all of us in this manner, without keeping addresses confidential, is reckless and precisely what the panelists promised not to do. How do you propose to remedy this? — Warren Kinsella, LL.B”

 

On his website, he was a little more extreme:

 

“Because that’s what the panel investigating Canada Post’s delivery of the violence-promoting hate rag Your Ward News did this morning. And it was what I and others had warned them about, and what they promised never to do. 

If someone now gets hurt or targeted, it’ll be on their heads. 

I plan to raise Hell about this. Stay tuned.”

 

A press release by Mr. Kinsella and Lisa Kinsella’s Daisy Group is even wilder and is attached.

We suggest that the near hysterical language and name calling speak for themselves. The fact is that the Committee shared the e-mails of participants. This is scarcely a threat to anyone’s safety or security. Frankly, we have no problem with CAFE’s contact information being shared.

 

The only information conveyed  in the Committee’s e-mail are the participants’ e-mails. Sharing they will not hurt anyone. Being a lawyer of some experience, Mr. Kinsella knows or ought to know that in most proceedings the addresses and contacts (physical, e-mail, phone, and FAX) of the participants are readily exchanged.

The abusive accusations by Mr. Kinsella are unacceptable. Neither the Canadian Association for Free Expression nor, to our knowledge, those other parties supporting freedom of expression and YOUR WARD NEWS’ right to use the Canadian mails has threatened anyone. Accusing some participants of being “dangerous” is outrageous, unproven and decidedly not helpful.

We were uneasy about the fear-mongering and obsessive secrecy advocated at the Committee’s first hearing in April. Contrary to his submission, Mr. Kinsella is not a victim. The only victims here are Dr. James Sears and Mr. Leroy St. Germaine who have been denied their mailing rights for over a year.

Those who seek to curtail others’ rights to speak by making complaints or participating in this process should have the courage to come forth and participate with the same sort of openness (contacts, address) as participants in most legal proceedings. They should not be permitted to portray themselves a delicate petunias and cast their hurtful accusatory stones from virtual anonymity. If they want to contend in the kitchen, they should be prepared to face the heat, as CAFE does. We do not hide our contacts. Nor do the victims here, Dr. James Sears or Mr. Leroy St. Germaine.

Mr. Kinsella seems happy to try to curtail others’ freedoms and damage their business and lives but insists on hiding.

CAFE suggests Mr. Kinsella abusive press release speaks for itself. However, it is consistent with several decades in public life of being an outspoken and extreme partisan for a variety of causes both within and outside the Liberal Party.

In the mid 1990s, while promoting his book Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network, Mr. Kinsella told a Toronto paper that he and his then wife checked into hotels under assumed names as they were in danger from hit men sent by then Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi (supposedly angry at his book on Libya) or  “neo-Nazis” angry at Web of Hate. Frankly, Mr. Kinsella is a bit of a drama queen who loves to portray himself as a victim. while attacking others. It might be noted that, some 23 years since Web of Hate was published, there is no sign of those assassins, Libyan or local, being anything other than a figment of Mr. Kinsella’s self-promoting imagination.

 

Liberally hurling most ill-liberal invective like “White supremacist” and  “neo-Nazi”, Warren Kinsella has shown himself over the years to be the high priest of hyperbole. During the 2014 Toronto mayoralty campaign, he made some intemperate comments against eventual winner John Tory which saw him dropped from the campaign of Olivia Chow whom he’d been supporting. The Globe and Mail (August 22, 2014) reported: “The political strategist who came under fire for accusing John Tory of ‘segregationist’ policies – and whom the Olivia Chow campaign has attempted to distance itself from in recent days – has since deleted dozens of posts from his blog related to Ms. Chow and her run for mayor. Ever since Warren Kinsella, an outspoken Liberal strategist who is head of Ms. Chow’s rapid-response ‘war room,’ incited controversy this week by accusing rival John Tory of having a ‘segregationist’ transit plan, Ms. Chow has attempted to play down his role on her campaign. In recent days, Mr. Kinsella appears to have deleted more than 40 blog posts he’s written in support of Ms. Chow, dating back to at least November of last year — later writing on his blog that he still supports her, but is trying to be ‘positive’.”

CAFE urges the Committee to ignore Mr. Kinsella’s complaint and adopt the procedure followed in most legal matters, where all parties can directly serve their submissions on all other parties and be advised of the other parties’ normal contact information..

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Paul Fromm

Director