Tag Archives: free speech

Gov. DeSantis Flies to Israel for the Second Time to Sign Anti-free Speech Law

Posted on by

Ron DeSantis Flies To Israel To Destroy Free Speech In Florida

This week Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida made a trip to Israel to sign HB 269, a bill that makes it a felony with up to five years in jail for passing out “offensive” flyers or pamphlets. This move has been widely criticized by free speech advocates and legal experts as a gross violation of the First Amendment. The bill states that anyone distributing “any material for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the owner” could be convicted of a felony “hate crime.” While we often write about the “hate speech” rules on Big Tech platforms, this is far worse. This is the state of Florida violating the First Amendment of the United States.

The legislation came about after activists from a group called the Goyim Defense League made headlines for several years for their activism efforts. The Goyim Defense League’s activism takes the form of distributing flyers that contain “uncomfortable truths” about the individuals who control the mainstream media in the United States. These flyers have been handed out across multiple states, including Florida, and have been met with mixed reactions from the public.

Despite the controversy surrounding the flyers, it is worth noting that they contain no threats of violence or threatening language. Rather, they present what the Goyim Defense League sees as a reality about the individuals who control the mainstream media, and invite readers to consider a different perspective. While some might consider this information to be “offensive,” there is nothing inherently threatening or “intimidating” about the distribution of flyers with factual information on them. The flyers even have a statement on them noting that they are “distributed randomly without malicious intent.”

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. This means that individuals have the right to express their opinions, even if those opinions are controversial or unpopular. The government cannot censor or punish individuals for their speech, unless it poses an imminent danger or threat to others.

HB 269, however, seeks to criminalize speech that is deemed “intimidating” by the state. This is an extremely vague and subjective standard, and it could be used to silence a wide range of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that speech that some may find offensive is still protected under the First Amendment.

This isn’t the first time Ron DeSantis has signed anti-First Amendment legislation while in Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 741, also known as the “Combating Public Disorder” bill, into law on May 14, 2019, in Jerusalem, Israel. The signing ceremony took place at the David Citadel Hotel, where DeSantis was joined by several prominent Jewish leaders and members of the Israeli government.

The bill aims to protect religious institutions and their members from discrimination and harassment. However, many have argued that it does much more than that, and that it represents a serious threat to free speech and civil liberties.

One of the main provisions of HB 741 is a requirement that all Florida public schools, colleges, and universities adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that includes certain forms of criticism of Israel. The definition in question is the one adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and includes examples such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”

Critics of HB 741 argue that this definition is overly broad and could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies. They point out that the definition includes language that could be interpreted as equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, even though the two are not the same thing. They also argue that the definition is not necessary, as schools and universities already have policies in place to address discrimination and harassment.

Another provision of HB 741 requires law enforcement agencies to conduct training on identifying and responding to anti-Semitic incidents. Many have raised concerns that this provision could be used to target legitimate forms of protest and dissent. For example, if a group of pro-Palestinian activists were to stage a peaceful demonstration outside an Israeli consulate or embassy, could they be accused of engaging in an anti-Semitic incident?

Perhaps most controversially HB 741 creates a private right of action for people who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion. This means that individuals who feel that they have been the victim of anti-Semitic discrimination can sue the alleged perpetrator for damages. This is highly likely to be used to stifle free speech and dissent. For example, a professor who expresses a controversial opinion about Israel could potentially be sued by a student who disagrees with them and feels that their religious beliefs have been discriminated against.

The fact that Governor DeSantis flew to a foreign country to sign both of these bills is absurd. Florida is a state in the United States, and its laws should be signed within the state’s borders. The reality that Gov. DeSantis chose to sign these bills in Israel, a foreign country, raises serious questions about his priorities and commitment to upholding the Constitution for the citizens of the United States and his state of Florida.

The implications of HB 269 and HB 741 are deeply troubling. They could be used to silence political dissent, punish those who criticize government officials, or suppress speech that challenges the status quo. In short, it is a direct attack on the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are so essential to a healthy society.

We must be willing to engage in open dialogue with those who hold different views, and to stand up for our rights even when it is uncomfortable or unpopular to do so.

This means supporting organizations and individuals who are working to protect free speech, like Gab, and advocating for policies that promote openness and transparency in government. It also means being willing to speak out against efforts to silence dissent or suppress speech even when they come from our own political allies.

The defense of our fundamental rights is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic human dignity and freedom and it requires all of us to stand up and be counted. We must remain vigilant in the face of attempts to suppress speech and dissent, and be willing to push back against these efforts wherever they arise. Only by doing so can we ensure that America remains free for generations to come.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus Christ is King of kings

Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights

Posted on by

Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights

Why Canada should abolish Section 1 Author of the article: Arjun Singh, Special to National Post Publishing date: Sep 23, 2021  •  September 23, 2021  •  4 minute read  •  370 Comments

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Photo by The Canadian Press

By all accounts, vaccine passports are here. Quebec, with the most provincial chutzpah, first introduced them, and B.C. followed suit. As have Ontario and Alberta, after Doug Ford’s U-turn from his “Hard no” earlier this year and Jason Kenney’s similar opposition . Outside government, scores of businesses are mandating vaccinations for employees, with proof being required — else, they be terminated.

Article content

One would think, in governments’ cases, that the law would safeguard citizens’ freedoms. Indeed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canadians have the “freedom of conscience and religion” (Section 2a), freedom of movement within Canada (Section 6) and “equal protection … before the law” (Section 15). At the very least, this would prevent the imposition of vaccine passport requirements on citizens — vaccinated or otherwise — for travelling, let alone while accessing basic services: for most charter rights are fundamental. Quebec’s programme and the Trudeau Liberals’ recent federal vaccine mandate for flights and trains, thus, ought to be dismissed.

But this is Canada: where, for years, left-wing Liberal values have slowly invaded our legal system. This was true for Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot, as it is now. Hence, in 1982, when the charter was introduced, its first section included the following proviso: “The Canadian Charter … guarantees the rights and freedoms set out subject only to reasonable limits … as can be justified in a free and democratic society.” In essence, the charter rights of anyone may be limited for what the state considers “reasonable.”

By itself, this clause is only partly dangerous. Absolute freedom, in any context — especially if causing physical harm — is undesirable; as the ever-pithy Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, “the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” But, as most would agree, allowing the government to judge whether its own acts are “reasonable” is, itself, an invitation for power to abuse such privilege. From Quebec’s strict curfews to Ontario’s police crackdowns, the pandemic and its oppressive responses in the name of “science” have laid that truth bare.

In response, one would expect the courts, upon petition, to step in and stop government overreach, being the constitution’s supposedly “non-partisan” referees. Until 1986, in Canada, that was true — until left-wing jurists, after rewriting the law, captured the judiciary that interpreted them. That year the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Trudeau appointees, established the Oakes Test in R. v. Oakes to determine what restrictions on charter rights were “reasonable.” Among others, it allowed the curbing of charter freedoms in the name of “a commitment to social justice and equality” and “respect for cultural and group identity.”

With this decision, a faction of activist judges — seeing the constitution as a ‘living tree’ to be pruned without the people’s consent — reset the foundations of freedom overnight, bending them towards progressive politics. Instead of having minimal restraints for public order, all charter freedoms could now be legally impeded in the name of contested left-wing concepts like “social justice” and protecting “group identity.”

Worse, neither did the court define what these terms meant, enabling the left — via its dominance of social science academia — to influence their meanings, suiting the moment’s political objectives. As its late Chief Justice, Antonio Lamer, himself said, Section 1 empowered judges to “make essentially … a political call.” In effect, the constitutional “referees” changed the rules mid-game, to ensure their side would always win.

Thus, with Oakes, the dangers of Section 1 were fully unleashed, and have since beat a toll on Canadians’ civil liberties — capturing our constitution for the supremacy of “woke” social mores. “Whoever would overthrow a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech,” said Benjamin Franklin; and, true to form, it was one of the first casualties. In the Keegstra and Andrews decisions, the Supreme Court used Section 1 to allow the criminalization of speech “inciting hatred” — an ambiguous offence, at best, which effectively curbs free speech for the sake of hurt feelings. Once more, in the Little Sisters case, Section 1 rubber-stamped the Chretien Liberals’ banning of LGBTQ books’ import for their “obscenity.” This spate has continued, with governments and courts in concert over the years using Section 1 to curb the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (R. v. Stone), conservatives’ participation in elections (Harper v. Canada) and, most recently, to ban travel by citizens during COVID-19 (Taylor v. The Queen).

In defending such overreach on the charter, the progressive establishment has often asserted the notion of “collective rights” as the reason for restraining individuals, e.g., “safe spaces” precluding free speech to avoid public offence. There are few greater absurdities than this; “rights” exist to protect individuals and minorities from tyranny of the majority, which — with strength in numbers — needs no further safety in a democracy. By claiming a “collective right” of any kind, the Canadian left turns the very notion of rights on its head. It is legal fiction at best, and a neo-Marxist praxis at worst — a desperate attempt to stir up “class conflict” between the majority and minority where none ought to exist.

In the future, it’s highly likely that Section 1 will be used again to uphold encroachments upon citizens’ rights — from vaccine passports to online censorship (e.g., Bill C-10) and others. Canadians must, hence, stand on guard for thee and expunge this threat — regardless of the high bar for constitutional change. If Section 1 is the end of charter rights, we must end it, first.

Arjun Singh is a recent graduate of political science from the University of Toronto.

Paul Fromm on Free Speech and the 2021 Federal Election

Posted on by

Paul Fromm on Free Speech and the 2021 Federal Election


Talk given in Hamilton, October 17, 2021

* UPDATE ON RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONER DR. JAMES SEARS

* Almost daily a new abuse — vaccine apartheid in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba & B.C.

* Freedom protests banned outside hospitals in Alberta & Quebec


https://worldtruthvideos.website/watch/paul-fromm-on-free-speech-and-the-2021-federal-election_XAHBzeJa2AoVzWs.html

Free Speech the Latest Casualty in Kim Jong Kenney’s Alberta

Posted on by

Free Speech the Latest Casualty in Kim Jong Kenney’s Alberta

Alberta bans anti-vaccination protests, all other demonstrations outside health-care facilities

CBC News · Posted: Sep 28, 2021 11:16 AM MT | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

Premier Jason Kenney and Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, were joined by the province’s health and justice ministers at the Tuesday afternoon COVID-19 update. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press, Art Raham/CBC)

Anti-vaccination protests and all other demonstrations outside hospitals will be banned in a move to make Alberta health-care facilities safer for staff, patients and families, Premier Jason Kenney said Tuesday.

But no new restrictions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 were announced, despite recent calls from medical professionals to enact “fire-breaker” measures to protect the struggling health-care system.

Kenney told a news conference the province is still monitoring the impact of public health measures that went into effect on Sept. 20. He said unvaccinated Albertans who are currently filling up hospitals beds would be unlikely to comply with any new measures.

“It is a paradox and there’s no easy solution to it,” he said.

Instead, the regulations of the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act have been amended to ensure that health-care facilities are subject to the same legal protection as railways, highways and pipelines, carrying punishments for trespassing, interfering with operations and construction or causing damage.

WATCH | Kenney says unvaccinated unlikely to comply with new measures:

Kenney says unvaccinated unlikely to comply with widespread restrictions

7 hours ago1:37Asked whether Alberta would introduce stricter COVID-19 rules, Premier Jason Kenney says now is not the time. 1:37

The measure is in response to protests two weeks ago across the country by anti-vaccination groups, Kenney said.

“Recently, Albertans watched anti-vaccine protesters stand in front of our hospitals, hurling mistruths and misinformation about our health-care system, our doctors and our nurses,” he said.

“People were rightly shocked to see this totally inappropriate behaviour from a vocal minority.”

Kenney and Justice Minister Kaycee Madu reiterated that the intention was not to interfere with any individual’s constitutional right to lawful protest.

“Albertans must have the ability to access health care when they need it and health-care professionals must have the ability to do their work free from interference,” Madu said.

Posted on by

Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights

Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights

[Social justice warriors now dominate our judiciary and are making the always limited guarantees of individual rights in Pierre Trudeau’s Charter a joke. Far from protecting free speech or freedom of movement, the Courts have endorsed massive state repression as long as it advances “equity” and other leftist goals. — Paul Fromm]

Why Canada should abolish Section 1 Author of the article: Arjun Singh, Special to National Post Publishing date: Sep 23, 2021  •  1 day ago  •  4 minute read  •  368 Comments

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Photo by The Canadian Press

By all accounts, vaccine passports are here. Quebec, with the most provincial chutzpah, first introduced them, and B.C. followed suit. As have Ontario and Alberta, after Doug Ford’s U-turn from his “Hard no” earlier this year and Jason Kenney’s similar opposition. Outside government, scores of businesses are mandating vaccinations for employees, with proof being required — else, they be terminated.

One would think, in governments’ cases, that the law would safeguard citizens’ freedoms. Indeed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canadians have the “freedom of conscience and religion” (Section 2a), freedom of movement within Canada (Section 6) and “equal protection … before the law” (Section 15). At the very least, this would prevent the imposition of vaccine passport requirements on citizens — vaccinated or otherwise — for travelling, let alone while accessing basic services: for most charter rights are fundamental. Quebec’s programme and the Trudeau Liberals’ recent federal vaccine mandate for flights and trains, thus, ought to be dismissed.

Arjun Singh: Left wing values have invaded Canada’s legal system and diminished our charter rights

But this is Canada: where, for years, left-wing Liberal values have slowly invaded our legal system. This was true for Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliot, as it is now. Hence, in 1982, when the charter was introduced, its first section included the following proviso: “The Canadian Charter … guarantees the rights and freedoms set out subject only to reasonable limits … as can be justified in a free and democratic society.” In essence, the charter rights of anyone may be limited for what the state considers “reasonable.”

By itself, this clause is only partly dangerous. Absolute freedom, in any context — especially if causing physical harm — is undesirable; as the ever-pithy Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, “the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” But, as most would agree, allowing the government to judge whether its own acts are “reasonable” is, itself, an invitation for power to abuse such privilege. From Quebec’s strict curfews to Ontario’s police crackdowns, the pandemic and its oppressive responses in the name of “science” have laid that truth bare.

In response, one would expect the courts, upon petition, to step in and stop government overreach, being the constitution’s supposedly “non-partisan” referees. Until 1986, in Canada, that was true — until left-wing jurists, after rewriting the law, captured the judiciary that interpreted them. That year the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Trudeau appointees, established the Oakes Test in R. v. Oakes to determine what restrictions on charter rights were “reasonable.” Among others, it allowed the curbing of charter freedoms in the name of “a commitment to social justice and equality” and “respect for cultural and group identity.”

With this decision, a faction of activist judges — seeing the constitution as a ‘living tree’ to be pruned without the people’s consent — reset the foundations of freedom overnight, bending them towards progressive politics. Instead of having minimal restraints for public order, all charter freedoms could now be legally impeded in the name of contested left-wing concepts like “social justice” and protecting “group identity.”

Worse, neither did the court define what these terms meant, enabling the left — via its dominance of social science academia — to influence their meanings, suiting the moment’s political objectives. As its late Chief Justice, Antonio Lamer, himself said, Section 1 empowered judges to “make essentially … a political call.” In effect, the constitutional “referees” changed the rules mid-game, to ensure their side would always win.

Thus, with Oakes, the dangers of Section 1 were fully unleashed, and have since beat a toll on Canadians’ civil liberties — capturing our constitution for the supremacy of “woke” social mores. “Whoever would overthrow a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech,” said Benjamin Franklin; and, true to form, it was one of the first casualties. In the Keegstra and Andrews decisions, the Supreme Court used Section 1 to allow the criminalization of speech “inciting hatred” — an ambiguous offence, at best, which effectively curbs free speech for the sake of hurt feelings. Once more, in the Little Sisters case, Section 1 rubber-stamped the Chretien Liberals’ banning of LGBTQ books’ import for their “obscenity.” This spate has continued, with governments and courts in concert over the years using Section 1 to curb the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (R. v. Stone), conservatives’ participation in elections (Harper v. Canada) and, most recently, to ban travel by citizens during COVID-19 (Taylor v. The Queen).

In defending such overreach on the charter, the progressive establishment has often asserted the notion of “collective rights” as the reason for restraining individuals, e.g., “safe spaces” precluding free speech to avoid public offence. There are few greater absurdities than this; “rights” exist to protect individuals and minorities from tyranny of the majority, which — with strength in numbers — needs no further safety in a democracy. By claiming a “collective right” of any kind, the Canadian left turns the very notion of rights on its head. It is legal fiction at best, and a neo-Marxist praxis at worst — a desperate attempt to stir up “class conflict” between the majority and minority where none ought to exist.

In the future, it’s highly likely that Section 1 will be used again to uphold encroachments upon citizens’ rights — from vaccine passports to online censorship (e.g., Bill C-10) and others. Canadians must, hence, stand on guard for thee and expunge this threat — regardless of the high bar for constitutional change. If Section 1 is the end of charter rights, we must end it, first.

Arjun Singh is a recent graduate of political science from the University of Toronto.

UK: Political Judge Sentences Political Prisoner Alison Chabloz To Jail For Calling Holocaust A “Cash Cow

Posted on by

UK: Political Judge Sentences Woman To Jail For Calling Holocaust A “Cash Cow”

Eric StrikerApr 4, 2021 | 600 words  1,498MORE:CURRENT EVENTS

alison-chabloz.jpg

‘I’m not sentencing you on the basis that you are anti-Semitic, I’m not sentencing you on the basis that you are a Holocaust denier,” said Westminster District judge Michael Snow, after doing exactly that. 

This was Snow’s confusing message to 56-year-old Alison Chabloz, a political commentator who was dragged to court for stating that the Holocaust is an “eternal cash cow” on a podcast. She will be serving four and a half months in jail. 

While Judge Snow has no legal basis for jailing a person specifically for comments critical of the Holocaust, he was able to exploit an open-ended and subjective “gross offense” law to punish Chabloz for comments questioning the Auschwitz gas chamber narrative and how the Jewish community uses the Holocaust story for political and financial gain.

The vaguely defined “gross offense” law is often exploited by political actors to suppress critics of privileged groups and powerful interests. A police officer is currently being tried in British court for the “gross offense” of sending a George Floyd joke in a private WhatsApp chat. Free speech in the United Kingdom is not a guaranteed right. 

Snow’s treatment of Chabloz fits a pattern. Many believe the district judge is primarily concerned with being a thuggish proxy for the powerful rather than enforcing the law and protecting people’s rights. 

One high profile example is judge Snow’s behavior while overseeing the Julian Assange case in 2019. In order to please the US Department of Justice, Snow ruled that the Australian journalist be held in custody to be tortured in solitary confinement at a high security prison.

During the trial — ostensibly over Assange jumping bail in 2012 — Snow taunted and berated the prisoner of conscience, referring to him as “laughable” and a “narcissist.” During one hearing, he demanded Assange “get over to the US” and “get on with your life.” Former ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray has referred to judge Snow as a corrupt, politically motivated “disgrace.”

The climate for open discussion and social criticism in Britain is virtually indistinguishable from third world totalitarian nations. Judge Snow and other high ranking figures in the UK know the public stigma of running kangaroo courts that imprison people based on what wealthy Jews say offends them, but in 2021, these “liberals” no longer care what the people think. 

Fromm Gate: Quebecois de Souche/Old Stock Quebecker’s Publication Le Harfang Comes to Derek Sloan’s Defence After Erin O’Toole Seeks to Purge Him from Party After Paul Fromm Donation

Posted on by

Fromm Gate: Quebecois de Souche/Old Stock Quebecker’s Publication Le Harfang Comes to Derek Sloan’s Defence After Erin O’Toole Seeks to Purge Him from Party After Paul Fromm Donation

Le FrommGate
La culture woke – nous en parlons souvent– est la version « à la mode »
de la rectitude politique à la sauce stalinienne. Comme il est considéré
comme passéiste de réclamer le goulag pour les opposants, on impose
plutôt la « cancel culture », terme « globish » à la mode cachant une
réalité nettement plus sombre. Que cette vision séduise la gauche au
sens large, on le comprend. Rare sont ceux qui veulent réellement
protéger la liberté d’expression de leurs ennemis; alors on approuve
plus ou moins tacitement, on dénonce ici et là les excès quand ils
frappent un des nôtres sans raison, mais au final, la gauche aime bien
ce pouvoir débordé qui lui permet en jetant une fatwah d’effacer ni plus
ni moins l’ennemi potentiel.


Ce qui est plus difficile à comprendre, c’est pourquoi la droite
commence à adhérer à la culture woke.


Le 18 janvier, le Canada apprenait avec stupeur que l’un des candidats à
la chefferie conservatrice, Derek Sloan, avait reçu un chèque de 131$ du
« suprématiste blanc » Paul Fromm. Dans les heures qui suivaient, Sloan
était éjecté manu militari de Parti conservateur, sans pouvoir répondre
de ces accusations (mais au fait de quoi l’accuse-t-on vraiment?).


Pour comprendre l’affaire, il faut d’abord savoir qui est Derek Sloan,
qui est Paul Fromm, et en quoi 131$ représente un enjeu.


D’abord, Derek Sloan fut le candidat le plus à droite de la campagne
conservatrice, le seul à être ouvertement opposé à l’avortement, le seul
à être pour une droite morale et le seul à être en faveur de la liberté
d’expression. Et justement, Paul Fromm est le directeur du Canadian
Association for Free Expression, une organisation basée sur la défense
de la liberté d’expression. On peut aisément comprendre pourquoi ce
dernier a jugé bon de faire un don à la campagne de Sloan.


Seulement, on reproche à Fromm, qui est aussi un farouche opposant à
l’immigration de masse, de défendre la liberté d’expression de tous, ce
qui n’est pas convenable dans notre société très « Charlie », pas ni «
Soral », ni « Ryssen ».


Bref, on assiste à une double association douteuse : Fromm défend la
liberté de ceux qui sont bafoués; il donne de l’argent à Sloan, donc
Sloan est un nazi. Bingo! Il a fallu quelques heures, voire quelques
minutes au Conservateur Erin O’Toole pour conclure sur cette affaire.
Mais la somme aussi représente un certain intérêt. En acceptant une
somme d’un homme, on estime que le politicien est lié à ce dernier.
Peut-être même qu’il lui doit quelque chose. C’est ce que les
journalistes et O’Toole semble croire du moins. Et, conscients de ce que
valent les politiciens à l’heure actuelle, ils semblent enclins à croire
que la somme de 131$ est suffisante pour acheter un député à Ottawa!
Il faut croire que la famille Rizzuto qui a « investi » des milliers de
dollars dans le Parti libéral du Québec depuis des années aurait dû
investir à Ottawa et profiter des aubaines ontariennes.


Au-delà de ces réflexions sur l’éthique et la corruption que soulèvent
inévitablement cette histoire de 131$, il reste que cela nous prouve une
énième fois le manque de clairvoyance et d’épine dorsale du clan
conservateur. Les stratèges conservateurs semblent passer trop de temps
à écouter la CBC : ils ne réalisent pas que les délires woke sont
minoritaires et qu’il n’y a rien à gagner à jouer contre son propre
camp. Que CBC fasse du 131$ l’affaire du siècle, c’est normal, et c’est
même une preuve qu’on dérange un peu. Un candidat conservateur, un parti conservateur, un homme de droite, ne doit pas chercher à obtenir
l’assentiment du principal organe de gauche au pays. En cela, les
conservateurs devraient regarder ce qui se passe à gauche. Personne à
l’UQAM ne recherche le sceau d’approbation de l’Institut économique de
Montréal et Manon Massé n’a jamais expulsé personne de son parti pour
plaire à Richard Martineau ou Joseph Facal. Ça, tout le monde le
comprend et l’accepte. Alors pourquoi l’opposé n’est-il pas vrai?


Ceux qui connaissent l’expression « cuckservatives » ou « cocuservateurs
» pour les besoins de la francisation, savent pertinemment pourquoi
O’Toole agit ainsi. Pourquoi avant sa démission « choc » Andrew Scheer
refusait de parler de ses idées. Pourquoi l’ancien homme fort de la
droite Stockwell Day décida de dévouer sa vie à la lutte contre le
racisme, démissionnant de toutes ses fonctions pour avoir « nié » le
racisme systémique. Pourquoi le Parti conservateur a éjecté Richard
Descarie de la dernière course à la chefferie.


La véritable question n’est pas pourquoi cette fausse droite agit ainsi
– elle n’a pas le courage de ses convictions et la vision nécessaire
pour les défendre efficacement. La véritable question est : pourquoi y
a-t-il encore des gens pour voter pour elle?

Quebecois de Souche/Old Stock Quebecker's Publication Le Harfang Comes to Derek Sloan's Defence After Erin O'Toole Seeks to Purge Him from Party After Paul Fromm Donation                      

FrommGate
Woke culture - we often talk about it - is the “trendy” version
political correctness with Stalinist sauce. As it is considered
as backward-looking to demand the gulag for the opponents, we impose
rather “cancel culture”, a fashionable “globish” term hiding a
much darker reality. May this vision seduce the left to
broad sense, we understand. Rare are those who really want
protect the freedom of expression of their enemies; so we approve
more or less tacitly, we denounce here and there excesses when they
hit one of ours for no reason, but in the end, the left likes
this overwhelmed power which allows him by throwing a fatwah to erase nothing more
no less the potential enemy.
What is more difficult to understand is why the right
begins to adhere to the woke culture.
On January 18, Canada was shocked to learn that one of the candidates for
Conservative chiefdom Derek Sloan received a check for $ 131 from
"White supremacist" Paul Fromm. In the hours that followed, Sloan
was ejected manu militari from the Conservative Party, without being able to answer
of these accusations (but what are we really accusing him of?).
To understand the case, you first need to know who Derek Sloan is,
Who is Paul Fromm, and how $ 131 is at stake.
 people to vote for her? First, Derek Sloan was the campaign's most right-wing candidate
conservative, the only one to be openly opposed to abortion, the only
to be for a moral right and the only one to be in favor of freedom
expression. And precisely, Paul Fromm is the director of the Canadian
Association for Free Expression, a defense-based organization
freedom of expression. We can easily understand why this
last saw fit to donate to Sloan's campaign.
Only, we reproach Fromm, who is also a fierce opponent of
mass immigration, to defend the freedom of expression of all, this
which is not suitable in our society very "Charlie", not nor "
Soral ”nor“ Ryssen ”.
In short, we are witnessing a dubious double association: Fromm defends the
freedom of those who are scorned; he gives Sloan money, so
Sloan is a Nazi. Bingo! It took a few hours or even a few
minutes to Curator Erin O’Toole to conclude on this matter.

But the sum also represents a certain interest. By accepting a sum of a man, the politician is considered to be related to him. Maybe he even owes her something. This is what reporters and O’Toole seems to believe at least. And, aware of what are worth the politicians nowadays, they seem inclined to believe that the sum of $ 131 is enough to buy an MP in Ottawa! We have to believe that the Rizzuto family who "invested" thousands of dollars in the Liberal Party of Quebec for years should have invest in Ottawa and take advantage of Ontario deals. Beyond these reflections on ethics and corruption raised by inevitably this story of $ 131, it remains that it proves a umpteenth time the lack of clairvoyance and backbone of the clan conservative. Conservative strategists seem to spend too much time listening to the CBC: they don't realize that woke delusions are minority and there is nothing to be gained by playing against one's own camp. That CBC is making $ 131 the deal of the century is okay, and it is even a bit of a disturbing proof. A conservative candidate, a party conservative, a man of the right, should not seek to obtain the approval of the main left body in the country. In this, the conservatives should watch what is happening on the left. Nobody at UQAM does not seek the seal of approval of the Economic Institute of Montreal and Manon Massé never expelled anyone from her party for please Richard Martineau or Joseph Facal. That, everyone understands and accepts it. So why is the opposite not true? Those who know the expression "cuckservatives" or "cocuservateurs »For the purposes of francization, know very well why O’Toole does this. Why before his resignation "shock" Andrew Scheer refused to talk about his ideas. Why the former strongman of Right Stockwell Day decided to devote his life to fighting the racism, resigning from all his functions for having "denied" the systemic racism. Why the Conservative Party kicked out Richard Descarie of the last leadership race. The real question is not why this false right is acting like this - she does not have the courage of her convictions and the necessary vision to defend them effectively. The real question is: why is there do there still people vote for her?

A Nation Tuned to the Station of Freedom

Posted on by

A Nation Tuned to the Station of Freedom

Tony Perkins

For most Americans, there hasn’t really been time to stop and process what happened at the Capitol last Wednesday. Instead, we’re just trying to survive, fighting off daily waves of crackdown and retribution — punishment for a crime the vast majority of conservatives didn’t commit or condone. The people in power, the same ones who called the summer riots “the American Way,” are coming for our rights, our speech, even our livelihoods. Who will be left standing? If history is any indication — we will.

Right now, it’s a little hard to see beyond the present crisis, but our country has been at similar crisis points before. A generation who’s been robbed of the privilege of learning history can’t look backward — but if they could, they’d see that when our voice is threatened, the church always finds a way to respond. That doesn’t mean the next two years will be easy. What we’re witnessing in this moment may be the most dangerous corporate-political alignment this nation has ever seen. “Silencing, blacklists, social credit scores, threats…” We’ve woken up to an American where you support the wrong political ideology and suddenly, Tucker Carlson shakes his head, “you can’t communicate, and you have no legal representation, and you can’t fly in an airplane, and you can’t put your money in a bank.”

But the beauty of the American system is that we have the ability to correct this. In fact, that’s our nation’s story: the great obstacles and the greater comebacks. Our movement is a vital part of that. We can shrink back and wait for our powerlines to be cut or we can use the weapons we have: the airwaves, our broadcast booths, and any other means for getting our message out. Religious broadcasters still have reason to be concerned, attorney Craig Parshall agreed on “Washington Watch.” But this isn’t the first time an army of the Left has tried to cut off our microphones.

It wasn’t that long ago, Craig reminded everyone, that Bill Clinton tried to get a federal agency to create a definition of “hate speech” that they could use to shut down certain radio and television broadcasters. Of course, that fell flat when the agency, after about a year of work and public money, couldn’t come up with an accurate definition of the term. Then, Barack Obama took a crack at it with the FCC, floating the idea of local commissions that could enforce “community standards” and decide if content was appropriate. “That failed to gain traction,” Craig explains, “but it was threatened.”

For decades, liberals have tried to crack down on religious and conservative talk. We’re seeing it right now with Mark Levin. Cumulus Media is demanding that its host stop talking about a “stolen election.” “If you transgress this policy,” its memo warned, “you can expect to separate from the company immediately.” This same thing happened back in the communist era of the 1950s. People who wanted to preach the good news banded together, and look at the result! There’s more Christian programming out there today than there was 40 or 50 years ago when it was attacked. Obviously, there are bullies out there who think they can stop the truth or the gospel from going out. But I’ve got news for them: they never win.

Look at what happened with the Fairness Doctrine. It was entirely dismantled under the Reagan administration — and conservative talk flourished. Why? Because it goes to the heart of the American people who share these traditional values. “You just [have to] wonder,” Craig said, “what is the motivation for not having an open marketplace of lawful ideas?” And the answer is, the far-Left can’t compete with those ideas. So they want their opponents cowed, humiliated, and muted. “We’ve been marked as the enemy, because we oppose the idea that the state is superior to God… But there are those who believe that they have a better plan — and they [think] that we are better off under their soft totalitarian hand than we are with liberty.”

At the end of the day, we need to keep doing what we’ve been doing, regardless of how they mischaracterize us and our intentions. The battles are going to come — they always do — but we have to be just as resolute and unyielding. We’re going to continue to speak the truth in love, seek the face of God and His power, and rely on his strength to sustain us in what is going to be a very challenging chapter in the history of our country.

“The Great Commission is called ‘great’ for a reason,” Craig insisted. “When the apostle Peter got arrested, unlawfully dragged in before the council in Jerusalem, he said, ‘Look, you can do whatever you want to with me, but I can’t stop talking about what I have seen and heard in terms of the Savior, because I walk with him. We have the same commission today.” And that’s the determination the church needs right now. No matter what the other side does to us, no matter what they call us, we’re not going to be quiet.

University of Chicago Refuses to Punish Professor Who Opposed Anti-White “Diversity” Policies

Posted on by

FANTASTIC: A WHITE PROFESSOR STANDS UP: A VICTORY: UChicago refuses to punish professor protested for criticizing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts

4th December 20200 Comments

(001709.97-E004822.34NNORLOACC20V)   

[Finally a White man stands up, a scientist. We need this BADLY. BADLY. The universities are dominated by Jews, and their evils know no bounds. The insanity is beyond imagination. Here is a professor who went on to social media and did his thing. This is what many white doctors and experts have done in the insane covid year of 2020. I hope this is the first of many. It’s about time Western intellectuals, scientists and academics stood up to this Jewish insanity. This gives me hope and this is why I say: WORSE IS BETTER, just keep your head down and keep on fighting forward. DON’T STOP. Educate other Whites and get stuck into the fight folks. Jan]

‘To anyone who is reading this, I would say: don’t be afraid. If you see something wrong, speak out about it,’ embattled professor tells The College Fix

The University of Chicago has refused demands to punish a science professor for speaking out against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Associate Professor Dorian Abbot recently took on the push to hire women and underrepresented minorities rather than select the best candidate for the job, bias against Chinese and Christian students, and other hot-button topics, drawing the ire of protesting students who said the scholar made them feel unsafe.

But their efforts to get him sanctioned failed at the University of Chicago, considered the best university in the country for free speech.

“I’m just a simple physical scientist. The way I’ve always approached my life is to tell the truth and try to do what is morally right,” Abbot wrote in an email to The College Fix. Abbot is (and it looks like he will continue to be) a professor of geophysical science at the university.

After Abbot cut a series of videos in which he listed his specific grievances with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, “58 students and postdocs of the Department of Geophysical Sciences, and 71 other graduate students and postdocs from other University of Chicago departments,” published a letter calling for Abbot to be sanctioned, according to a petition in support of the professor.

“The contents of Professor Dorian Abbot’s videos threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups within the department and serve to undermine Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives,” the letter stated.

University President Robert Zimmer would not bow to their demands, however.

“We believe universities have an important role as places where novel and even controversial ideas can be proposed, tested and debated. For this reason, the University does not limit the comments of faculty members, mandate apologies, or impose other disciplinary consequences for such comments,” he wrote in a Nov. 29 statement to the community.

Abbot praised the decision in his email to The Fix.

“President Zimmer has a long-standing commitment to academic freedom and this is a central part of the UChicago brand. Critically, our commitment to academic freedom has been codified many times, most recently in the ‘Chicago Principles,’” he wrote.

The “Chicago Principles” he references were also mentioned by Zimmer in his statement. Defined in 2014, they constitute the university’s “fundamental commitment … to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.”

“The current ‘cancel culture,’” Abbot told The College Fix, “has a powerful chilling effect on faculty, who fear for their jobs if they speak their minds on critically important issues affecting the future of our universities and our society.”

As such, “I feel that it is my duty to express my opinion on important matters,” he said.

“What concerns me is that recently we have been trying to fix bias problems by building new biases into selection processes,” Abbot writes in his first video.

According to a personal account from Abbot, the university’s Title IX office wanted to investigate some of his claims, and the comment sections of the videos became a battleground where “a productive conversation was not occurring.” As a result, he took them down.

While the videos have since been deleted from YouTube, the petition in support of Abbot managed to save the slides from them.

He recounts experiences he had on selection committees for applicants. In many cases, although fewer women applied to the programs than men, the committee would select more women, implying preferential treatment, according to Abbot.

At one point, he claims that a dean once told members of a hiring committee on which he served that the only applicant that would be considered for the position would be “a woman or underrepresented minority.”

The second video sees Abbot claim that there have been instances of discrimination against Chinese students in his department. Other top universities, such as Harvard and Yale, have been accused of doing the same in their admissions processes.

Abbot also mentions a conservative Christian student of his.

“He is always being excluded,” Abbot says, “and his opinions and cherished beliefs are mocked and dismissed regularly.”

In the third video, Abbot discusses the Shills Report. Produced by a committee of UChicago scholars (including a Nobel Prize winner), the report catalogs the three main functions of modern universities: discovering new knowledge, teaching students that knowledge, and training students for future careers.

Abbot adds his own corollary to the Shills report, detailing what universities are not supposed to be doing:

(1) advocating particular political ideologies,
(2) religious instruction of the population,
(3) attempting to adjudicate and effect social justice, and
(4) providing for the national defense.

In the fourth and final video, Abbot paints the big-picture implications of the current “cancel culture” debate, naming “consequences of treating human beings primarily as members of
groups rather than as individuals worthy of dignity and respect.”

He specifically references the Holodomor, a famine in modern-day Ukraine. In its rush toward collectivization, the USSR forced peasant farmers they called “Kulaks” onto farming collectives. When the inefficiencies of the collectives brought about the famine, the government increased the peasants’ grain quotas, leading millions to starve to death.

Many scholars, along with the Ukrainian government, have classified the Holodomor as an act of genocide.

“The only way ‘cancel culture’ ends is for all of us to stand strong and when an attack comes, hold the line,” Abbot told The Fix.

“That said, try to understand the other side’s perspective and speak in a way that is as generous and loving as possible,” he advised. “Sometimes they will be unwilling to reason, and you will just have to say your piece and move on. If we all try our best to do that, then I am optimistic that we will get through this unfortunate phase in our society.”

“To anyone who is reading this, I would say: don’t be afraid. If you see something wrong, speak out about it.”

Abbot said he hopes that his good reputation on campus will be maintained. If not, he is prepared for what’s to come.

“To quote the old Kris Kristofferson song: ‘Don’t let the bastards get you down.’”

Source: https://www.thecollegefix.com/uchicago-refuses-to-punish-professor-protested-for-criticizing-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-efforts/