Author Archives: admin

Silencing Dissent: Chatham-Kent City Council Fines Councillor for Her opinions

Posted on by

C-K councillor faces 90-day pay ban

By

Pam Wright

–

July 28, 2023

4

2314

Rhonda Jubenville

Integrity Commissioner recommends North Kent councillor receive three-month salary suspension

By Pam Wright
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

The Integrity Commissioner for Chatham-Kent is recommending that North-Kent Coun. Rhonda Jubenville’s pay be docked for 90 days.

According to a 47-page report prepared by Mary Ellen Bench, the sanction relates to social media posts made by Jubenville’s, plus her behaviour. The commissioner said both at times are in violation of two sections of C-K Council’s Code of Conduct.

The councillor does not agree with the commissioner’s findings.

“I absolutely disagree with the report. It infringes on my Charter Rights and is filled with half-truths, untruths and subjective opinions,” Jubenville, who has retained counsel, said in an e-mail.

In the report, Bench explained she had received “many complaints” about Jubenville’s actions in the period from April to June 2023.

The document indicates the chain of events leading to the inquiry began with C-K council denying Life in Motion – the educational arm of Right to Life Kent – the opportunity to fly its flag at the Chatham-Kent Civic Centre.

Subsequently, at the April 24 council meeting, Jubenville brought forward a motion that would allow only three government flags to be flown at municipal sites – the Canadian flag, the Ontario flag and the C-K’s municipal flag.

However, council, in a 12-to-5 vote, defeated the motion.

Bench goes on to say she received an additional complaint May 2 in conjunction with comments made by Jubenville on social media relating to flying the Pride flag and the Canadian flag at Blenheim District High School. On her Facebook page, Jubenville stated it wasn’t an “accepted practice,” and advised those who felt “impassioned about this to please, respectfully” let high school officials know.

Days later, a man was cautioned by Chatham-Kent police after threats were made against the school about taking down the Pride flag.

In the report’s conclusion, Bench states that Jubenville breached the code by “engaging in behaviour that unduly used her influence as a public official and did so to be intimidating and use bully tactics to silence her critics.”

Bench noted that while not all of Jubenville’s posts violated the conduct code, some were concerning.

“The nature of certain complaints and the response of the councillor however, require me to complete a formal investigation and report to council,” said Bench in the report.

The report says the complainants – the commissioner is keeping their identities anonymous – cover a number of objections to Jubenville’s words, ranging from singling out other councillors, to targeting the 2SLGTBQ community, to creating a toxic work environment within council.

Bench also points out that somewhere along the way, media reports made the flag issue synonymous with the Pride flag, indicating Jubenville is opposed to the 2SLGTBQ community.

However, Jubenville has stated publicly she’s is not against anyone in the gay community and “loves” people within it.

In the report, Bench said she believes Jubenville “was aware of the power she wields through her use of social media and the influence she has on her supporters,” citing comments she made to the media as examples that demonstrates this, especially when Coun. Jubenville “exercises her voice to call others to action.”

Bench further stated Jubenville “used the influence of her office to promote causes that were important to her and in doing so failed to uphold the high standard of ethical behaviour” council members are required to adhere to under the current rules.

The code states that no member of council shall use the influence of her or his office for any purpose other than for the exercise of her or his official duties.

Bench said that she had reached out to Jubenville in April following the Life in Motion flag flap in an attempt to resolve the matter. The commissioner said the councillor was open to discussion and removed some of the posts in question, but refused to remove others.

Jubenville also made posts decrying a workshop for Lambton Kent District School Board teachers to learn how to facilitate a Drag Queen story time, tying such events to the “normalization of pedophilia,” the report said.

To that end, Jubenville received a number of online messages that wished her dead but did not threaten specific acts of violence against her. She has also received a great deal of support from online followers.

Some of those supporters even sent messages to Bench, despite the fact the probe was not made public and only Jubenville knew. The commissioner also received six phone calls.

One of the messages sent to Bench said the commissioner’s “harassment of Coun. Jubenville” was “disgusting and contemptible.”

Another stated that the “real violence will be incited if this investigation results in her being disciplined or shut down by this finding.”

In her conclusion, Bench has not prohibited Jubenville from using social media in the future, but she said the first-term councillor should use her social media presence “responsibly” to uphold the values laid out in the code of conduct rules.

Jubenville has repeatedly told media outlets that flag flying is a matter of fairness and that municipal sites should raise all special interest flags or none at all.

A response from Toronto lawyer Michael Alexander, who is acting as counsel for Jubenville on the matter, was also included in the report.

Alexander’s letter states that Jubenville’s comments are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and censuring her is a “violation of the Charter and a betrayal of our democratic way of life, and it would enable the true enemies of freedom – the complainants and their supporters – to take control of public discourse.”

According to Alexander, the IC report’s recommendations will “violate Ms. Jubenville’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Currently, Chatham-Kent has no official flag flying policy and whatever flag flies is up to the discretion of the mayor’s office. However, a policy is in the works. A motion made by Chatham Coun. Marjorie Crew has asked administration to explore the issue and return a report to council this fall.

The matter of Jubenville’s pay suspension is expected to come before council at the Aug. 14 meeting as the first order of business. Council as a whole will vote on the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations.

Jubenville disagreed with the proposed disciplinary action.

“The three month suspension of pay is absolutely not fair, nor justified,” she said. “If I actually committed the breaches of conduct that I am accused of, I would humbly concede. That is not the case.”

The Commissioner states it is “council’s role to set the policy, direction and vision for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, and when a member of council does not agree with that direction, that member is expected to accept it.”

Victoria Fireman Josh Montgomery Punished for Speaking Out On Homeless Problem

Posted on by

Josh Dehaas: Firefighter shouldn’t be punished for talking about homeless violence

A Victoria father asked his premier to keep a homeless hub from opening in his neighbourhood — only to be reprimanded at work

Josh Dehaas, Special to National Post

(National Post, Aug 26, 2024)  

175 Comments

Homeless people have set up tents in Harris Green neighbourhood in Victoria on Wednesday Oct. 11, 2023.
Homeless people have set up tents in Harris Green neighbourhood in Victoria on Wednesday Oct. 11, 2023. Photo by Dirk Meissner/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Article content

In July, Victoria firefighter Josh Montgomery wrote a letter to British Columbia Premier David Eby, imploring him to stop the city from relocating a homeless hub where people are expected to use drugs to a new space next to a senior’s residence — and only steps from his own home, where his young daughters play outside.

He drafted the letter after 60 homeless people swarmed local first responders as they tried to help a paramedic who’d been assaulted by a patient, frightening them so badly that they now refuse to go into that part of the city without police escorts. For speaking up, Montgomery was suspended for a day without pay.

There is strong legal precedent to suggest this violated Montgomery’s expression rights.

Many people believe that public sector employees leave their right to free speech at the door. That’s not correct. Although public sector employees must remain non-partisan, and, like all employees, have a “duty of loyalty” to their employers that prevents them from disparaging their organization, they aren’t required to keep their lips sealed.

In the 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote that public employers must balance an employee’s duty of loyalty against his or her right to free expression. Our democratic system, he reasoned, is “deeply rooted in, and thrives on, free and robust public discussion of public issues” and as such, “all members of society should be permitted, indeed encouraged, to participate in that discussion.”

Dickson recognized that because so many people work for the public sector, we can’t have the robust public debates needed to self-govern unless public employees can also speak up in certain circumstances.

.

He explained that although public servants cannot engage in “sustained and highly visible attacks on major Government policies,” public employees can still “actively and publicly express opposition to the policies of governments.” This is especially true when those policies jeopardize the “life, health or safety of the public servant or others, or if the public servant’s criticism had no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or the public perception of that ability.”

In the case of senior federal public servant Neil Fraser, the court decided he could not repeatedly compare Pierre Trudeau’s government to the Nazi regime.

Dickson offered a number of examples of speech that public employees may engage in without violating their duty of loyalty. A city bus driver may attend a town council meeting to protest a zoning decision. A provincial clerk may join a weekend protest against the provincial government’s decision to cut funding from a daycare centre or women’s shelter. A federal commissioner may speak at a Legion meeting about a lack of support for veterans.

Dickson also gave an example of speech that would cross the line. Although a low-level government clerk could not be fired for protesting provincial daycare policies, a deputy minister could be fired for speaking “vigorously against the same policies at the same rally.” In other words, the balance may tip in favour of the public employer if the employee is more senior.

The Alberta Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court’s guidance in Fraser to overturn the reprimand of a social services employee who sent a letter that was critical of provincial policy to a member of the opposition. The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered Fraser when overturning school board directives prohibiting teachers from discussing political issues such as class sizes during parent-teacher interviews.

Surely a firefighter wary of the dangers that come with moving hundreds of homeless and often drug-addicted people into a residential neighbourhood has a right to express his public safety concerns — without being suspended and losing a day’s pay.

Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Arrested in Paris for Not Imposing Censorship

Posted on by

i

 
READ IN APP
 

Kafka described with wonderful imaginative power the future concentration camps, the future instability of the law, the future absolutism of the state Apparat.

— Bertolt Brecht

In a scene straight from a Franz Kafka novel, Pavel Durov, the enigmatic founder of Telegram, was arrested in France upon landing at Le Bourget airport near Paris. As he disembarked from his private jet, he was apprehended by French authorities who had been lying in wait, armed with a warrant accusing him of enabling criminal activities through his messaging platform. The charges, as surreal as they are severe, include complicity in drug trafficking, pedocriminal offenses, and money laundering — all stemming from Telegram’s alleged lack of moderation. His arrest is not just a personal catastrophe but a stark reminder of the absurdity that awaits those who challenge the invisible but omnipresent hand of power in a world that claims to protect freedom while methodically dismantling it.

What becomes of Telegram in the wake of Durov’s arrest? The question stirs an unease that quickly metastasizes into countless speculative whispers, each more uncertain than the last. One rumor, already slithering through the digital corridors, insists that Durov’s team is prepared for this eventuality, that a clandestine protocol exists, poised to be enacted at the stroke of midnight. But as with all rumors, it thrives on the lack of verifiable sources. The truth, shrouded in ambiguity, is as elusive as the man himself. Whether Telegram will persist, and in what distorted form, lingers as a troubling enigma, a question suspended in the void where certainty should be.

Eurosiberia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

In the modern West, freedom of speech is paraded as a sacred principle, a shining emblem of democracy that supposedly contrasts sharply with the “despotic regimes” of Russia and China. Yet, beneath this polished facade lies a reality as suffocating and absurd as any Kafkaesque nightmare — a place where dissidents are relentlessly pursued, their voices smothered, their liberties extinguished. The stories of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and now Durov serve as eerie reminders that the West’s devotion to free expression is a hollow claim, a charade masking a darker truth.

Durov possesses citizenship in four nations — Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, France, and the UAE. His multiplicity of identities reflects his desperate attempt to evade the ever-tightening grip of state power, to remain an untethered soul in a world where true autonomy is all but a fleeting dream. Yet, the revelation that Durov has forsaken his Russian citizenship, coupled with his recent detention in France, underscores the futility of such efforts. No matter how many borders you cross, how many nationalities you assume, the iron claw of censorship will inevitably track you down if you refuse to bow to the liberal authority of the West. People who value authentic freedom should not “flee” to the West but run far away from it.

The notion of a free press, so often celebrated in the West, reveals itself as a bitter farce. We are served the comforting fiction that the media operates without chains, that journalists pursue truth without fear of retribution. Yet, Durov’s ordeal, echoing that of Assange, uncovers the frailty and deception behind this fake “freedom.” When Durov left Russia, it was not in search of greater liberties but because he refused to submit to the demands to censor VK, the widely used Russian social network, resisting the pressures to hand over user data to the authorities.

Kafka, the master of bureaucratic despair, would find in Durov’s fate an unsettling familiarity. It is a destiny that harkens back to the plight of Josef K. in The Trial, condemned not for any specific crime but for the insidious and omnipresent suspicion that invades every aspect of existence. In a world where even the smallest lapse triggers the gravest suspicions, how can freedom be anything more than a bitter illusion? Are we not all, in some way, trapped within a vast, faceless bureaucracy, where every action is scrutinized, every intention questioned, and every individual reduced to a carbon copy of himself?

The terror that seeps through this world is not just the fear of punishment. It is something deeper, more pervasive — a terror that immobilizes the soul. It is the dread of uttering an unspeakable word, of harboring an unthinkable thought, of challenging the all-seeing gaze that watches from every corner. This terror, as Kafka intuited, is an anticipation of retribution as well as a profound and paralyzing anxiety — a yearning for something beyond the grasp of those who wield power, yet also a fear of everything that power touches. In the West, this dread is cloaked in the rhetoric of “freedom,” wrapped in the comforting lie that we are free to speak, free to think, free to resist.

However, the entanglement of powerful media conglomerates with other elite forces exposes this grotesque clown show. Once a media empire grows large enough, it ceases to view itself as a watchdog over power; instead, it becomes entangled within the web of influence it was meant to scrutinize. No longer an adversary, it becomes a collaborator, complicit in the perpetuation of the structures it once claimed to challenge. This silent betrayal, this unspoken collusion, ensures that dissent remains carefully controlled, neatly contained, and, ultimately, obliterated.

The West’s most glaring hypocrisy lies in its faith in the moralizing mission of multinational corporations like Google, whose creed, “Don’t be evil,” has devolved into a banal catchphrase. The architects of Google sincerely believe they are molding the world for the better, yet their so-called open-mindedness extends only to views that align with the liberal-imperialist undercurrent of American policy. Any perspective that challenges this narrative is rendered invisible, dismissed as irrelevant or dangerous. This is the dull terror of their mission — the quiet horror of a world where dissenting voices are not forcibly silenced but simply ignored into oblivion.

No society that has erected a system of mass surveillance has avoided its abuse, and the West is no different. It has become commonplace to assume that the government monitors our every move, while it is deemed paranoid to believe otherwise. This normalization of surveillance is the final testament to how deeply entrenched these mechanisms of control have become. We exist in a reality where privacy is an anachronism, where every gesture is recorded, every word cataloged, every murmur of dissent logged for future judgment. The surveillance state is no longer a distant dystopia; it is the world we inhabit, the nightmare we cannot awaken from.

In this world, the transformation of the individual is inevitable and exceptionally Kafkaesque. As Oge Noct awoke from restless dreams, he found himself inexplicably altered into a monstrous insect. This metamorphosis is a physical aberration and a symbol of the dehumanization inflicted by a system that grinds down the soul. Whether Assange, Snowden, or Durov, the pattern is the same: those who dare to defy the system are not lionized but degraded, their humanity eroded by the relentless machinery of control that declares itself a champion of freedom while perpetuating an unyielding tyranny.

This is the true face of the modern West — a Kafkaesque downward spiral in which the promise of freedom is little more than a cruel joke, and those who seek it are condemned to live in perpetual fear.

It is like a river, is it not? A river that breaks its banks, spilling over into fields, losing its depth as it stretches further, until all that is left is a filthy, stagnant pool. That is what happens to revolutions. They begin with force, with purpose, but as they spread, they thin out, they lose their substance. And when the fervor finally evaporates, what is left behind? Nothing but the muck of bureaucracy, thick and choking, creeping into every corner of life. The old shackles that held us were at least visible, tangible, but these new ones — they are made of paper, of forms and stamps and signatures, endless and suffocating. And yet, we wear them just the same, without even realizing how tightly they bind us

Mark Zukerberg Reveals He Was Part of U.S. Gov’t Black Op During COVID Tyranny to Censor Dissent on the Internet

Posted on by
Vindicated: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Regrets Collusion with Government on CovidJUSTIN HARTAUG 27 


READ IN APP Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024, letter to Congress offers a long-awaited acknowledgment of what many of us at Rational Ground—and across the nation—have known all along: Facebook was an active participant in the systematic censorship of American voices during the COVID pandemic.Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Upgrade to paidIn his letter to Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg admits that “government pressure was wrong” and expresses regret for not being “more outspoken about it” at the time.



But let’s be clear—this is no minor regret. Facebook, a platform that touts itself as a modern-day digital town square, was complicit in silencing American citizens. This wasn’t just a passive response to government pressure. Facebook actively enforced policies that stifled discussion, flagged dissenting opinions as “misinformation,” and crippled debate during one of the most critical periods in recent history.Zuckerberg now claims, “with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make [those choices] today.” But where was that judgment when we needed it most? For months, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, pressured social media companies like Facebook to censor COVID content—content that ranged from humor and satire to serious debates about policy.This wasn’t about protecting public health. This was about controlling the narrative, ensuring that only one perspective—often one that aligned with flawed or incomplete data—was allowed to reach the public. The result? Millions of Americans were deprived of critical information and perspectives that could have shaped public understanding and policy.Everything Changed on July 15th, 2021On July 15th, 2021, the mask was ripped off. In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that senior White House staff were “in regular touch” with Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms regarding COVID posts. More egregiously, the Surgeon General’s office was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” that spread what the administration deemed “disinformation.”This wasn’t just coordination—it was collusion. The government wasn’t just advising these platforms; they were actively steering the censorship of Americans. They even released a blacklist of so-called “super-disseminators” of COVID “disinformation.” We’re talking about doctors, scientists, and everyday citizens whose only crime was questioning the dominant narrative.These actions represent a gross violation of the principles on which our country was founded. Freedom of speech isn’t just a footnote in American democracy—it’s a pillar. Yet, in the name of “public safety,” this administration weaponized social media platforms to suppress dissent and silence critics. Facebook and Twitter, companies that were built on the ideals of free expression, became tools of government censorship.The Damage Is Done, but the Proof Is HereZuckerberg’s letter is too little, too late. The damage has been done. Lives were impacted, businesses shuttered, and children were forced into isolation—all while reasonable discussions about COVID policies were being suppressed. But what’s more, this letter provides clear proof of what we fought against in our lawsuit: the unlawful collusion between the government and social media companies to suppress free speech.While we’re not currently pursuing our lawsuit, these revelations vindicate everything we’ve been fighting for. They demonstrate beyond a doubt that the censorship efforts during the pandemic were not just real—they were orchestrated at the highest levels of power. And though the lawsuit is paused, we may yet resurrect it in the future.That’s one of the reasons why we built the AI ChatGPT bought for Rational Ground. To be the collective mind and repository of everything we went through and everything we can use to fight in case they rear their ugly hat again.Subscribers have unlimited full access to the tool here.At Rational Ground, we’ve been documenting these issues for years. We’ve exposed the coordinated efforts between government agencies and Big Tech to stifle dissenting voices. In our article, [“Facebook Files: Rep. Jordan Revelations”], we highlighted just how deep this collaboration ran. And in our piece, [“Breaking: FOIA Emails Reveal CDC and Big Tech Collaboration“], we showcased the direct involvement of the CDC in shaping what information was allowed to be shared.These revelations affirm that our fight was justified. The principles of free speech and open debate must be upheld, even in times of crisis. As we move forward, we remain vigilant. And while the lawsuit may be on hold, we will continue to pursue every avenue to ensure that these wrongs are addressed.You’re currently a free subscriber to Rational Ground by Justin Hart. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.Upgrade to paid LIKE
COMMENT
RESTACK © 2024 COVID Reason
3953 Corte Mar de Hierba, San Diego, CA 92130 
Vindicated: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Regrets Collusion with Government on CovidJUSTIN HARTAUG 27 


 Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024, letter to Congress offers a long-awaited acknowledgment of what many of us at Rational Ground—and across the nation—have known all along: Facebook was an active participant in the systematic censorship of American voices during the COVID pandemic.Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Upgrade to paidIn his letter to Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg admits that “government pressure was wrong” and expresses regret for not being “more outspoken about it” at the time.



But let’s be clear—this is no minor regret. Facebook, a platform that touts itself as a modern-day digital town square, was complicit in silencing American citizens. This wasn’t just a passive response to government pressure. Facebook actively enforced policies that stifled discussion, flagged dissenting opinions as “misinformation,” and crippled debate during one of the most critical periods in recent history.Zuckerberg now claims, “with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make [those choices] today.” But where was that judgment when we needed it most? For months, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, pressured social media companies like Facebook to censor COVID content—content that ranged from humor and satire to serious debates about policy.This wasn’t about protecting public health. This was about controlling the narrative, ensuring that only one perspective—often one that aligned with flawed or incomplete data—was allowed to reach the public. The result? Millions of Americans were deprived of critical information and perspectives that could have shaped public understanding and policy.Everything Changed on July 15th, 2021On July 15th, 2021, the mask was ripped off. In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that senior White House staff were “in regular touch” with Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms regarding COVID posts. More egregiously, the Surgeon General’s office was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” that spread what the administration deemed “disinformation.”This wasn’t just coordination—it was collusion. The government wasn’t just advising these platforms; they were actively steering the censorship of Americans. They even released a blacklist of so-called “super-disseminators” of COVID “disinformation.” We’re talking about doctors, scientists, and everyday citizens whose only crime was questioning the dominant narrative.These actions represent a gross violation of the principles on which our country was founded. Freedom of speech isn’t just a footnote in American democracy—it’s a pillar. Yet, in the name of “public safety,” this administration weaponized social media platforms to suppress dissent and silence critics. Facebook and Twitter, companies that were built on the ideals of free expression, became tools of government censorship.The Damage Is Done, but the Proof Is HereZuckerberg’s letter is too little, too late. The damage has been done. Lives were impacted, businesses shuttered, and children were forced into isolation—all while reasonable discussions about COVID policies were being suppressed. But what’s more, this letter provides clear proof of what we fought against in our lawsuit: the unlawful collusion between the government and social media companies to suppress free speech.While we’re not currently pursuing our lawsuit, these revelations vindicate everything we’ve been fighting for. They demonstrate beyond a doubt that the censorship efforts during the pandemic were not just real—they were orchestrated at the highest levels of power. And though the lawsuit is paused, we may yet resurrect it in the future.That’s one of the reasons why we built the AI ChatGPT bought for Rational Ground. To be the collective mind and repository of everything we went through and everything we can use to fight in case they rear their ugly hat again.Subscribers have unlimited full access to the tool here.At Rational Ground, we’ve been documenting these issues for years. We’ve exposed the coordinated efforts between government agencies and Big Tech to stifle dissenting voices. In our article, [“Facebook Files: Rep. Jordan Revelations”], we highlighted just how deep this collaboration ran. And in our piece, [“Breaking: FOIA Emails Reveal CDC and Big Tech Collaboration“], we showcased the direct involvement of the CDC in shaping what information was allowed to be shared.These revelations affirm that our fight was justified. The principles of free speech and open debate must be upheld, even in times of crisis. As we move forward, we remain vigilant. And while the lawsuit may be on hold, we will continue to pursue every avenue to ensure that these wrongs are addressed.You’re currently a free subscriber to Rational Ground by Justin Hart. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.Upgrade to paid LIKE
COMMENT
RESTACK © 2024 COVID Reason
3953 Corte Mar de Hierba, San Diego, CA 92130 

Woke Madness In Australia: Women Have Been Eliminated

Posted on by
,  Last week was a very dark week for Australia.  Women were erased from law and we no longer have the right to exclude males from our spaces, services or sport. In the Federal Court, Justice Bromwich stated humans can change sex and women don’t have the right to exclude males from their spaces or services. He penalised Sall Grover by ordering her to pay $10,000 to a man who identifies as a woman for indirect discrimination. The thing is, how can Roxy Tickle be a woman if women no longer exist in law? There is no legal definition of a female or woman in Australian law thanks to Julia Gillard. That means there are no legal protections for females in law. Males can enter female spaces and services at will and simply identify as female. If we don’t accept them we end up in court facing lengthy and very expensive legal battles.  I still have cases seven, eight and nine ahead of me. We are now in dire straits but there is no need to despair. As I wrote last week, once upon a time slavery and racial discrimination were legal.  Now they are not thanks to brave individuals who rebelled against bad laws. Claiming males can be female in law is a very bad law and we must resist and rebel. 

We must make the legislators – that is the politicians – stand up and take note. They are the ONLY ones who can change this. Look up and then send politicians the images of Tickle v Giggle and the Flying Bats Football team. Our eyes don’t lie, it is plain to see men are not women despite their efforts to appropriate female stereotypes. The Flying Bats just won their grand final over the weekend.  A team with five males claiming to be female humiliated their opposition week in and week out.  They were undefeated over 17 games, scored 76 goals and only had 8 goals scored against them.  When you see images from the game you will understand why they were able to win so comprehensively, and so will the politicians. Do not grow weary and do not tire of doing good. We will be victorious; it is only a matter of time. Yours in protecting children and promoting parental rights, Kirralie Smith
Binary Spokeswoman
Tickle v Giggle: Women lose protection in law Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard famously said, “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.”     The Flying Bats complete the humiliation of women by winning the grand final The Flying Bats football team has won the North West Sydney Women’s Premier League grand final 5-4.     AFL women express safety and fairness concerns AFL, also known as Aussie Rules, recognises males present a threat to female safety and fairness at elite levels of the game, but they couldn’t care less about women and girls playing at grassroots levels.     On the WarPATH against WPATH by Dianna T. Kenny PhD Australian Professor of Psychology, Dr Dianna Kenny has written a scathing article about WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) and its impact on gender incongruent minors in Australia.  
m Protecting children
Supporting parents
Defending truth www.binary.org.au Authorised by Kirralie Smith
Gender Awareness Australia Limited
Melbourne VIC ABN 53 629 535 271

More Deplatforming Dissidents : New Order Deplatformed

Posted on by

More Deplatforming Dissidents : New Order Deplatformed

The arbitrary power of major communications near monopolies has been used by the deep state to silence dissent. Here is the latest example.

“I have just received word from our webmaster that our website has been deplatformed. As of 7:30 pm (Eastern time) August 22, 2024 it has been offline.

Specifically, the company that registers domain names has suspended our address. They gave a vague reason why, basically accusing us of extremism.

We are working to get the site back up. We do not know why our enemies have chosen this moment to attack us. All other NEW ORDER operations are unaffected.

In the meantime, you may access previous versions of our site which have been archived by the Wayback Machine, here: — Martin Kerr

Interesting Freedom News from Australia

Posted on by

Qld Senator Gerard Rennick quits LNP, launches ‘People First’ party

Steve Blizard

Aug 25, 2024

Peter Dutton and Gerard Rennick.

Peter Dutton and Gerard Rennick.

By Geoff Chambers The Australian 25 August 2024

Maverick Queensland senator Gerard Rennick has quit the LNP to establish a new ‘People First’ party ahead of the federal election, marking the fourth Coalition crossbench defection since 2022.

Senator Rennick – who narrowly lost preselection by three votes to party treasurer Stuart Fraser for third spot on the LNP ticket – will apply for party status with the Australian Electoral Commission on Monday to establish his Gerard Rennick People First party. The 53-year-old will run at the next election on a platform underpinned by five key economic, energy and social policies.

People First policies include increasing the tax free threshold from $18,200 to $40,000, paying childcare support directly to families, ending renewables subsidies and abolishing renewables on agriculture land and waterways, making superannuation voluntary and re-establishing a public bank and government insurance office.

Senator Rennick, who maintains a close relationship with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton despite his recent preselection fight with the LNP, said “I have decided to fight for the Australian people as an independent senator at the next federal election”.

In addition to Senator Rennick, Andrew Gee, Russell Broadbent and David Van have exited the Coalition since the 2022 election. The rogue senator has linked his preselection loss to withholding his vote from the Morrison government during the pandemic in protest against mandatory vaccinations.

“While I would have preferred to lobby for issues that are important to the Australian people inside the tent of the LNP that option is no longer available to me,” Senator Rennick told The Australian.

“I believe that government overreach is killing individual responsibility, aspiration and entrepreneurship in Australia.

“Governments need to get back to service delivery of essential services and standing up for Australians who try to stand up for themselves. As such I want to draw on my experience to promote a range of policies that will empower Australians and their families to live a prosperous life and provide abundant opportunities for their children.”

The new Gerard Rennick People First party logo.

The new Gerard Rennick People First party logo.

Senator Rennick, who has almost 320,000 followers on Facebook and Twitter, was expected to alert Mr Dutton and LNP president Lawrence Springborg of his decision to resign from the party on Sunday. The Queenslander, who decided against joining other conservative minor parties, is considering running other candidates on his Senate ticket.

Minor parties including Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the Jacqui Lambie Network, Katter’s Australian Party and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party are all hopeful of picking-up a Senate spot amid Labor concerns of replicating its disastrous 2019 election results that saw only one ALP senator elected in Queensland. Senator Rennick was elected to the Senate in 2019 on the back of Labor’s capitulation.

Senator Rennick told The Australia there “needs to much greater accountability and transparency within our bureaucracy, judiciary and corporations … too many leaders today do not put the interests of the people they are meant to serve, first”.

“There is also a lack of vision from the same leaders who in the main seem to promote ideologies that seek to divide and shame us, rather than inspire us. As such the Australian people have become cynical and divided rather than optimistic and united,” he said.

“This needs to change. Australia is a great country with tremendous opportunity that has a proud history of tolerance, resilience and egalitarianism. We owe it to our forefathers whose legacy gave us so many opportunities, to do the same for our children.”

In a speech delivered in the Senate last week, Senator Rennick said “I did lose my Senate preselection because I withheld my vote from a party because Greg Hunt didn’t take my concerns about those vaccine injuries seriously”.

“I’m happy to lose my position in this party over that because that’s what representing the Australian people is all about: putting the people first. Listen out for that phrase in the future: putting the people first. I make no apologies for doing that. I come in here as a genuine, impartial person who cares deeply about the Australian people.”

Original article here

Readers Comments:

Charles – Excellent, Senator Rennick is a valuable Conservative voice that should be kept in parliament.  I wish him every success. Likethumb_up 60

Chris – That is a great loss as he is someone with real integrity and intellect, sadly missing from most of todays politicians. There needs to be more of him and less Lambies, Thorpes and Bandts to help turn this country around. Likethumb_up 58

William – Senator Rennick ideas are very close to basic Liberal ideals, boils down to people know what they want, and it’s less government interference, we don’t need socialism. Likethumb_up 52

Andrew – Rennick is a quality politician. Hardworking. Intelligent. Articulate. The liberals were crazy to let him go. I wish him all the best.  Likethumb_up 43

Banjo – A top man and top performer – he has my vote for sure. Likethumb_up 42

Gordon – Senator Rennick is one of the hardest working politicians in the country. Those who think he is in it for himself don’t know of him very well. What affected his selection was standing up against his own party in order to ensure the vaccination compensation scheme was implemented. He was maligned for things he said during Covid but the fact is he was very knowledgeable about the issues as he did considerable research and spoke to many experts. We need more politicians like him not less and LNP made a mistake in replacing him with somebody with no support from the conservative side of politics. I hope you gets reelected. Likethumb_up 39

ABC 24 NEWS ELECTION COVERAGE DARWIN: Eleni Roussos, ABC Journalist & Election Panel member commented on her ongoing pericarditis vaccine injury, and hammered Labor MP Natasha Fyles about why individuals continue to be denied employment by Labor’s unfair vaccine mandate exclusions that still exist in the Northern Territory. News Link here

Thanks for reading Steve’s Blizard’s Notable Observations! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Best Wishes,
Louis.



Posted on by

Bill Whatcott gets his new “hate crime” trial date

Bill Whatcott gets his new “hate crime” trial date

I just got out of what appears to be my last hearing in Practice Court for this seemingly never ending “hate crime” trial. To give some history for those who may not know. In 2016 I applied to march in the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade as an openly Christian man and desired to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the participants. 

This parade after all is funded by three levels of government (you and I pay for it) and it is supposed to be “inclusive.” In fact two of Pride Toronto’s “values” as stated on the front page of their website is “Diversity” and “Inclusion.” What could be more diverse than an open Christian sharing the Gospel with Toronto pride participants right in their parade?

And yes, Christians should go and share the Gospel at the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade and everywhere else where lost souls can be found. 

“Go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation.” Mark 16:15

Sadly, notwithstanding the parade’s alleged commitment to “inclusion” and “diversity,” the parade was not accepting of Bible believing Christians like me, so I had to apply as a Gay Zombie Cannabis Consumer to get in.

“To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” 1 Corinthians 9:21-23

Bill Whatcott (rainbow tutu) and his crack Christian commandos were accepted by the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade in 2016, once they self identified as the Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association.

Anyways, once we got into the parade, we proceeded to deliver 3000 “Zombie Safe Sex” packages to the parade participants. I am no longer able to show you the Gospel flyer contained in the “Zombie Safe Sex” package, as the Ontario Attorney General is alleging the flyer is a “hate crime.” Mass Resistance decided to put the flyer up on their website in the United States where free speech enjoys greater protection. You can see my flyer there if you are so inclined and decide for yourself if it is criminal hate speech. The flyer contained the Gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, criticism of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party’s homosexual activism, a testimony of a former transvestite who regained his manhood, as well as warnings about the health risks related to homosexual behaviour.

Here is one example of what the Ontario Attorney General is alleging to be criminal activity. Not the two naked sodomites with their wangs hanging out. Rather the “zombie safe sex” package that my brave activist handed to one of the sodomites and that he is clearly fascinated with. My activist is not use to being in parades with naked dudes and she appears to be trying to look dignified as the sodomite fumbles with his “zombie safe sex” package and chatters away to her.

Anyways, by all accounts our crack Christian commando Gospel infiltration of the Toronto homosexual pride parade was a smashing success. We got out all 3,000 “Zombie Safe Sex” packages containing valuable Gospel and health information for lost homosexuals.

Bill&Leatherman.jpg
On the way out I also got a photo op with Mr. Leatherman Toronto
Christblasphemed.jpg
The 2016 Toronto homosexual pride parade was a somewhat spiritual event, but not very sensitive to the feelings of Christians. Note the sodomite on the left who decided to march with an image of our Lord on his crotch.
Homosexual Activist Lawyer Doug Elliott (left) and Ontario Deputy Premier George Smitherman (right) announce a $104 million class action lawsuit against Bill Whatcott in the Parliament Hill press gallery.

Notwithstanding, disrespectful displays and signs mocking Christians being allowed at the Toronto Pride Parade year after year, and notwithstanding homosexual activists crashing and cancelling Christian events when it suits them; it seems the homosexual activists are a vindictive and humourless bunch, and not really inclined to embrace the concept of free speech when a Christian pulls one over on them.

Within days of Pride Toronto realizing I utilized their taxpayer funded parade to spread the Gospel and accurate health information on the risks of the homosexual lifestyle while disguised as a gay zombie, homosexual activist lawyer Doug Elliott, with the Deputy Premier of Ontario and a gaggle of homosexual activists decended on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to announce a $104 million class action lawsuit against me and anyone connected with me. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal Party, as well as all the parade participants, were named as “victims” in the class action lawsuit.

After threatening me with jail if I didn’t give up the names of my helpers and wasting a pile of time and money for two years trying to extract blood out of a stone, the homosexual activists decided to drop their lawsuit as I wasn’t speaking and I didn’t have any money to give them. The homosexual activists/Ontario government opted to go after me in 2018 by issuing a Canada Wide Arrest Warrant, charging me with “Wilful Promotion of Hatred.” At the time the Attorney General was seeking 18 months in prison upon conviction.

I turned myself in, spent a few days in jail, and was flown to Ontario, where I went on trial and was eventually found “Not Guilty.”

I thought that was the end of the matter, but the Ontario Attorney General actually appealed my acquittal and The Ontario Court of Appeal  ordered me to go on trial again! My side appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse the Court of Appeal’s decision but they refused to hear my case. 

I was put on bail again, and had to linger in Ontario for a few months unemployed, going to court, and applying for legal aid as my legal fees for this next trial will be as expensive as the last trial ($100,000 or so). Over the years I was able to raise tens of housands of dollars for my lawyers, but barring a miracle there is no way I could afford a lawyer for this trial.

The Attorney General argued and the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that a second trial is needed to consider my “historical discreditable conduct.”

Bill Whatcott (pink hair, short shorts, wearing a t-shirt that reads “The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Gay” gets a hug from the organizer of the Vancouver Pride parade in 2014, after delivering 2500 “Gospel Condoms” (no condom all Gospel) to Vancouver Pride participants.

The above is an example of what the Attorney General thinks is “discredible conduct” that I engaged in “historically.” Bringing up these past missionary endeavours and flyers that go back as far as 25 years and actually have nothing to do with the 2016 Toronto Pride parade flyer, is supposed  to help make the case I am a hate criminal and my latest Gospel flyer is criminal hate speech.

The Ontario Court of Appeal also decided the first trial judge erred by declining to admit Nick Mule’ (the guy in the video video below) as an “expert.” Mr. Mule’ was paid a pile of taxpayer’s money to write an “expert” paper that was supposed to help the court understand that I committed “microagressions” against the parade participants and that my flyer was going to cause “minority stress” and lead to bad health outcomes, if I was not criminally convicted and stopped.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sy4MLPoNQ7k%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26fs%3D1%26hl%3Den%26autohide%3D2%26wmode%3Dtransparent

Full disclosure, I only listened for a few minutes and skipped to a few random parts of this guy’s lecture. If one does as I do, they will realize very quickly Mr. Mule’s “expertise” is on all things homosexual, and no doubt he would want me in jail for my flyer. But really, why is Nick Mule’s opinion more relevant than  Joe the welder’s opinion on my flyer?

Anyways, on Monday, August 12, I learned my new trial dates and the dates I need to travel to Ontario and be in court again.

I will be in person in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto for the week of June 23-27, 2025. If any friends wish to join me in court this week, I would be grateful. My legal team will be arguing I should have a right to a jury trial, as the Prosecutor is still arguing for substantial jail time (6 months to one year) and I will have a criminal record showing an indictable offencce

if I am convicted.

I will be in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto for the week of October 27-31, 2025. My friends are welcome to attend this hearing also. My defence team will be arguing against the Attorney General’s attempt to introduce my past flyers and missionary work as evidence of “discreditable conduct” that is relevant to my new trial.

Finally, my trial will commence the week of March 2, 2026 and is expected to last two weeks. The trial will take place in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto and of course I am required to attend in person. The trial is open to the public and my friends are welcome to attend. 

My legal defence is covered by legal aid and I am NOT raising money for legal fees, but obviously travelling to Toronto for all these court dates and trying to secure even a modest shelter, gas, food, parking, transit, etc…. for those months is going to be expensive.

I can live quite modestly and believe I can probably make the three trips for $7000 give or take a little and hopefully save some expenses by staying with friends or utilize travellers hostels to lower some of my costs. If you would like to help with this phase of my journey, I will be grateful.     

To donate to Bill’s Lifefunder you can go here:   https://www.lifefunder.com/whatcott                                                                                                                

“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Galatians 6:2