CAFE

Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity

CAFE

Tag Archives: free speech

Tell me again about the right to freedom of opinion and critical enquiry that ‘authoritarian’ societies don’t have — Australian Court Upholds Sacking of Academic for Criticizing US and Israeli Militarism

Posted on by

Centre for Research on Globalization

Australian Court Upholds Sacking of Academic for Criticizing US and Israeli Militarism

By Mike Head Asia-Pacific Research, December 04, 2020 World Socialist Web Site 3 December 2020 Region: Oceania Theme: Justice

 3  4  

 23

A Federal Court judge last week set a chilling and far-reaching precedent for the further overturning of basic democratic rights and academic freedom, especially to express political or other dissenting views.

The ruling backed the University of Sydney’s February 2019 dismissal of Dr. Tim Anderson, an economics department senior lecturer, primarily on the basis of allegations that his criticisms of US militarism and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people were “offensive.”

The court decision is another warning of the poisonous and repressive atmosphere being whipped up to silence opposition to the preparations for Australian involvement in potentially catastrophic US-led wars against China or other perceived threats to the global hegemony asserted by Washington since World War II.

Significantly, the University of Sydney hosts the US Studies Centre, which was established in 2006, with US and Australian government funding, for the express purpose of overcoming popular hostility to US militarism after the massive protests against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The court’s judgment also exposed the fraud of claims by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) that its enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) with universities protect the essential principle of academic freedom.

Justice Thomas Thawley ruled that the university’s EBA with the union, which is similar to those at most universities, “does not recognise the existence of, or give rise to, a legally enforceable right to intellectual freedom.”

In particular, Thawley declared that EBA “academic freedom” clauses do not protect university workers from being sacked for making comments—even on their private social media accounts—that managements deem in breach of their employee codes of conduct. Instead, EBA commitments to academic freedom were “purely aspirational.”

University of Sydney Institute Building, where United States Studies Centre is located (Photo source: Wikipedia)

This thoroughly anti-democratic decision comes on the back of a similar result in another case taken to the courts by the NTEU. In July, the Full Federal Court upheld the dismissal of James Cook University academic Dr. Peter Ridd, for expressing his views, as a climate-change sceptic, that cut across the university’s reputation.

Anderson’s case demonstrates how far university managements, working in league with governments and the corporate media, can victimise academics, especially those who oppose the wars of US imperialism and its allies, including the Zionist regime in Israel.

Among the charges the University of Sydney made against Anderson was that he tweeted, on his own Twitter account, criticism of the university hosting an address by US Senator John McCain. Anderson described McCain, a backer of every US military intervention for the past three decades, including the brutal neo-colonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as “a key US war criminal.”

Other allegations included Anderson posting on his personal Facebook account a photograph of a group of friends eating lunch, one of whom wore an anti-Israel badge. Anderson was accused of “promoting racial hatred and/or racism” and charged with violating the university’s Code of Conduct even though he was on leave from the university at the time.

Anderson was further charged with posting to his Facebook and Twitter accounts a denunciation of a video news report by Channel 7 reporter Bryan Seymour that insinuated that Anderson supported racism and the North Korean regime. Anderson’s comment that “Colonial media promotes ignorance, apartheid and war” was declared “derogatory” toward Seymour.

Anderson was also cited for giving a lecture that allegedly featured an Israeli flag with the Nazi swastika superimposed on it, examined media coverage of Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2014, and encouraged students to seek independent evidence of claims of “moral equivalence” between Israel’s deadly aerial bombardments and primitive Palestinian rocket attacks.

This was judged to be “derogatory and/or offensive” and as “reasonably seen as racist towards or seeking to target and/or offend Israelis and/or Jewish people and/or Jewish victims of the Nazi regime.” Yet, critics of the Israeli government, including anti-Zionist Jews, have often compared its persecution of the Palestinian people to the actions of the fascist German regime.

Finally, Anderson was accused of breaching confidentiality orders barring him from even telling anyone that he was facing dismissal, and of failing to comply with “a lawful and reasonable direction” to delete his social media posts.

The judge agreed with the university management’s determination that Anderson’s posts and efforts to fight his dismissal amounted to “serious misconduct” under both the NTEU’s EBA and the university’s Code of Conduct, thus justifying his sacking.

Anderson’s dismissal followed a protracted campaign by senior figures in the federal Liberal-National Coalition government, the corporate media and university management, to demonise Anderson because of his denunciations of wars and military interventions by the US, Israel and other major powers.

In April 2018, Education Minister Simon Birmingham, who was in charge of university funding, demanded an investigation into Anderson for comments he made questioning US claims that the Syrian government was responsible for a sarin gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun.

The Murdoch-owned Sydney Daily Telegraph hysterically denounced Anderson as a “sarin gasbag” and the Sydney Morning Herald later reported that the university was taking disciplinary action against Anderson—a media disclosure that violated its own confidentiality regime.

Justice Thawley found Anderson’s dismissal as justified by the university’s Code of Conduct, which imposes requirements such as “the exercise of the best professional and ethical judgment,” “integrity and objectivity,” being “fair and reasonable” and treating “members of the public with respect, impartiality, courtesy and sensitivity.” The university’s employees must also “uphold the outstanding reputation of the University in the community.”

These formulations are so vague and value-laden that they could provide a pretext for sacking academics or other university workers for condemning government policies, denouncing corporate greed or accusing the US and Australian governments of military aggression or war crimes. Employees could be dismissed for criticising university policies, such as hosting pro-military think tanks.

Virtually every university campus across the country now participates in government-funded programs to tie academic research to the development of new military technologies. Australian universities are being integrated into a vast US-led military build-up, aimed at preparing for war with China and other powers.

The NTEU’s response to the court ruling, as it was to Anderson’s sacking itself, and the massive job cuts ravaging universities, is to oppose any mobilisation of university workers and instead appeal to the employers for a deal.

In a union media statement, NTEU New South Wales division secretary Michael Thomson said: “We call on all Vice Chancellors to come to the table to talk about how we can formulate a legally enforceable right, to provide the appropriate protections for university staff and to avoid these circumstances occurring in the future.”

The Federal Court’s support for Anderson’s victimisation is part of a deeper attack on fundamental democratic rights. It widens the impact of a High Court 2019 ruling that essentially abolished freedom of speech for workers, whether in government or corporate employment. With no dissent, the judges endorsed the sacking of a federal public servant for criticising—even anonymously—the country’s brutal refugee detention regime.

A warning must be sounded. The ruling class and its agencies, including university managements, are seeking to suppress dissent amid mounting social inequality, war preparations and deepening political discontent.

Hence the federal police raids on journalists for publishing leaks exposing government and military crimes, the prosecution of the whistleblowers involved and the bipartisan backing for the persecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Dr. Tim Anderson (Photo source: Facebook)

Trudeau defends the right to protest in India as Canadians are arrested and fined for doing the same

Posted on by

Trudeau defends the right to protest in India as Canadians are arrested and fined for doing the same

He’s sucking up to another privileged minority — the Sikhs. In his first Cabinet, there were 4 Sikhs or 16%, but the constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population. These farmers are mostly Sikhs.


https://thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-defends-right-to-protest-in-india-while-ignoring-it-at-home

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released a statement Tuesday morning expressing support for striking farmers in India.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers in India have taken to the streets to protest proposed agricultural laws which they argue will destroy their livelihoods. The laws seek to deregulate crop pricing, which the government says will break up monopolies, but opponents suggest will leave farmers at the mercy of large corporations.

“Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest,” Trudeau said in his statement. He described the situation as “very concerning,” further noting that he has “reached out to Indian authorities to highlight” Canada’s concerns.

Meanwhile, Canadians who protest against the government have frequently been subject to fines for breaking coronavirus-related lockdown restrictions. An Independent MPP in Ontario was recently handed a fine for organizing a protest at Queen’s Park, the province’s legislature, while the organizer of an anti-lockdown protest in Chatham-Kent, Ontario was fined for organizing to oppose government lockdown restrictions.

A man in Etobicoke, Ontario who attempted to open his barbeque business was handed criminal charges for refusing to comply with lockdown orders, an event which gained significant media traction.

Measures have been taken outside of Ontario to restrict freedom of assembly as well. A man was fined in Saskatoon earlier this month for protesting against mask mandates, while the Manitoba government has promised to do the same to protesters in their province.

Also in Manitoba, RCMP were sent to physically block the highway entrance to a church which was attempting to host a Sunday prayer service. Churchgoers were even prevented from listening to the service from their own cars in the parking lot due to the possibility of spreading coronavirus. According to Manitoba’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Brent Roussin, gatherings of cars are dangerous for the spread of coronavirus because some people might need to use the bathroom, and more than one household may be present in a single vehicle.

The lockdown measures restricting the freedom of assembly guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are meant to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Yet despite having more than 9.4 million confirmed cases of the virus, Trudeau has encouraged protests in India while remaining silent as protesters are fined and arrested in Canada.

A spokesman from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned Trudeau’s comments, describing them as “ill-informed” and “unwarranted.”

Can I be fired for my opinions: cancel culture and free speech in the workplace? — A very gloomy assessment of the state of free speech in soft tyranny Canada

Posted on by

Can I be fired for my opinions: cancel culture and free speech in the workplace 

July 8, 2020 By: Andrew Montague-Reinholdt Read Time: 4 minutes Print

Yesterday, a group of public figures, including authors, signed a letter in Harpers, effectively denouncing cancel culture.

They suggest that we are living in a society where individuals cannot speak out or voice dissenting opinions because they will face backlash, including being fired from their job, for voicing or giving a platform to controversial views. This is similar to a question employees raise with respect to their employer: can I be fired for what I post on my social media or opinions I express in my workplace?  

In Ontario, the short answer is yes.  

This answer may be surprising to many because the response I often receive from clients is, “what about my right to free speech?”. While free expression (which is broader than speech) is a Charter protected right, it does not provide the type of protection most people expect it to and is generally misunderstood. This blog attempts to clear up a few of the frequent misconceptions I hear about free expression in Canada and explain why an employer can discipline you for offensive comments. 

Free expression (and all Charter rights) only applies to government actions that limit those rights.

Misconceptions about free expression

Free expression (and all Charter rights) only applies to government actions that limit those rights. In other words, if you work for a private corporation the Charter does not apply to your employer’s actions. If you work for the government, then you may have a right to express yourself; however even that has limits. So, unless you work for the government, you are not being denied a Charter right if you are fired for voicing an opinion.  

Similarly, and contrary to the views of the authors of the Harper’s piece, even if free expression applies, dissent to your opinions or even telling you to stop voicing those opinions is not contrary to the principle of free expression. The concept of free expression comes from the idea of a marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of ideas is a capitalist concept that in a free society we allow all ideas to come to a market, where they can be debated and discussed. The superior ideas thrive and become accepted by society, while the inferior or offensive ideas are rejected. 

To use pharmaceuticals as an analogy: when drug companies come to market with new products that help people, those products become widely used. When companies come to market with products that do not work or hurt people, the market rejects those products. If the drug company keeps coming back to the market with the same product that hurt people, or releases one product that seriously harms people, Shoppers Drug Mart will stop carrying that brand.  

Free expression is meant to operate in the same way. To take Jordan Peterson as an example, he has had numerous opportunities to express his opinions, including as an author and university professor. Most people rightfully called out his comments as offensive and hurtful, stopped reading him, and when he continued to voice those same opinions, eventually insisted that institutions refuse to provide him a platform. While numerous people said this was inconsistent with free expression, it was in fact the point of free expression: the marketplace has rejected his ideas.  

Free expression is not whack-a-mole, where JK Rowling and Jordan Peterson get to keep voicing the same transphobic comments without consequence and society has to keep bashing them with a hammer, despite what the authors of the Harpers letter said. Society can reject, shame and cancel that person for continuing to come to the market to insist that their harmful views be expressed.  

In summary, free expression does not apply to your employer (unless you work for the government) and does not provide you with a platform to repeatedly voice harmful opinions.  

Back to the main question: can I be fired?

In Ontario, you can be fired for almost anything, so the better question that you should ask is: can I be fired for just cause for voicing my opinion. The answer to that is maybe.  Just cause is where your employer terminates you without notice or compensation. Courts apply a highly contextual approach, particularly for off-duty comments, to determine whether you can be fired without compensation for what you say. It will depend on the comments themselves, how often you commented, who you said it to, whether the employer previously condemned the comments, the impact the comments had on your employer, and a variety of other factors.  

It is difficult for an employer to convince a judge that it had just cause to terminate someone, so most just fire people without cause, by providing them with notice of termination with no reasons (see our other blogs about the amount of severance you might be entitled to here). In other words, if your employer is concerned about opinions you have voiced, and doesn’t want to fight about just cause, it can fire you by paying you out and you would have no way to fight it. While there are some exceptions to this (for example if you were voicing concerns related to health and safety, human rights, or Employment Standards), you generally have no way of challenging this. 

This is particularly true because employers are beginning to recognize that they must do more to address racism and discrimination in the workforce. One of the ways they must do this is by immediately addressing harmful expression made both in and outside the workplace that hurts other staff or customers.  

As such, if your employer fires you for voicing an opinion, there is very little you can do the challenge that decision, unless they allege cause. 

Biden’s Media Transition Chief Wants to Gut the First Amendment to Prohibit “Hate Speech” — That Is, Speech Some Censor Hates

Posted on by

Biden transition team’s head of state-owned media sees ‘DESIGN FLAW’ in First Amendment, advocates law against ‘hate speech’

14 Nov, 2020 22:43 / Updated 20 hours agoGet short URL

Biden transition team's head of state-owned media sees ‘DESIGN FLAW’ in First Amendment, advocates law against ‘hate speech’

©  Reuters / Jim Urquhart

  • 272

Follow RT on

RT

Richard Stengel, the point man on state-owned media for Joe Biden’s transition team, has said protection of hateful speech that can provoke violence is a “design flaw” in the Constitution and should be fixed with “new guardrails.”

Stengel, a former MSNBC contributor, is transition team leader for the US Agency for Global Media, which includes broadcasters Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He’s likely to head the agency if Biden becomes president in January. Ironically, that means Washington’s foreign propaganda outlets, which traditionally have promoted America’s founding principles, would be overseen by a man with restrictive views on the most fundamental of those tenets – freedom of speech. Also on rt.com Under Biden, Big Tech’s censorship goons will make conservatives nostalgic for the days of relatively free speech in Obama era

“All speech is not equal,” Stengel wrote last year in an op-ed published by the Washington Post. “And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting thought that we hate, but not speech that incites hate.”

Stengel gave the example of “sophisticated Arab diplomats” who had questioned why constitutional rights would allow a US citizen to burn a copy of the Koran. “It’s a fair question,” he said. “Yes, the First Amendment protects the thought that we hate, but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.” Read more ‘Censorship Rubicon’? Big Tech burying Biden-Ukraine story either wakes up Republicans or drives nail in their political coffin

Another example that Stengel cited was alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. “Our foremost liberty protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society,” he wrote. “Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook – all protected by the First Amendment.”

Stengel added that it’s time to consider hate-speech laws, like those enacted by other countries to discourage incitement of racial and religious tensions after World War II. He argued that mass shooters Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen were consumers of hate speech, which created a climate that made their heinous crimes more likely.

Stengel, formerly editor of Time magazine, was a US State Department undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs in the Obama-Biden administration. He referred to his former State Department role as “chief propagandist.”

“I’m not against propaganda,” Stengel reportedly told the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018. “Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population. And I don’t necessarily think that’s awful.”

That Biden would choose a media chief who calls for restrictions on free speech came as little surprise to Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe, who tweeted: “Of course he does.” Another Twitter commenter took issue with Stengel’s free-speech curtailments being based on the offended party’s propensity for violence: “They are 100 percent advocating differential speech protections based on decibel level of complaints.”

=550px”>
RT

Patriots counter-demonstrate outside French Consulate in Toronto, as National Council of Moslem Canadians protest Pres. Macron’s support for free speech & denunciation of Moslem extremists beheading Christians and free speech supporters.

Posted on by

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0BVQ_uS5Is

Patriots counter-demonstrate outside French Consulate in Toronto, as National Council of Moslem Canadians protest Pres. Macron’s support for free speech & denunciation of Moslem extremists beheading Christians and free speech supporters. Vive la France

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson — Incremental Shoving Back Against the ‘Trans’ Insanity

Posted on by

 

Free Speech Activist Gordon Watson — Incremental Shoving Back Against the ‘Trans’ Insanity

 

I had a mind to drive for Pearson College, which is just around the corner from me in Metchosin.  It would have been a good gig … but their policy on GENDER DIVERSITY is so bad it’s laughable … insanity writ large.

>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
September 10 2019

Pearson College UWCAttention :
Tyrone Pile ; Deana Cuthbert ;  Shelley Seysener ; Susan Duffel-Warthe ; Reese Harrison

from : Gordon Watson
This is my notice that I hereby withdraw my application to be an on-call driver for the College.Having read the documents delivered by surface mail,  it is clear that my own position within the so-called “trans” controversy is antithetical to your  GENDER DIVERSITY POLICY    to the extent that I am not able to co-operate with such insanity.
I am a long-time political activist, lately on the front line of court actions to do with the “transgender” nonsense being pretext for outlawing freedom of expression.   I could submit a few hundred pages explaining why the whole “trans”  thing is a textbook example of mass hysteria, but one quick overview will suffice :   following by regular surface mail will be the essay   “Transgender is a fad worth rejecting”

I recommend that the College make  “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by Charles Mackay,  required reading for all-concerned … it’s the classic work explaining how human beings go crazy in herds, then regain common sense one person at a time.

As King Solomon said “this too shall pass”.  Meanwhile,  the College better pay attention to the lawsuits now underway in which parents of children who suffered at the hands of quacks in the ‘transgender’ racket,  are suing those practitioners and also the institutions which enabled medical malpractice.    As I write this, a lawsuit is being prepared by parents of children who were in care of the BC Children’s Hospital with that cause of action.  Being in the place of a parent for its students,  Pearson College has the duty to inform thy-self as to ALL of the readily available information on this topic before presuming the science is settled ; it most certainly is not.  In light of expert opinion on the harms done to individuals who once did present as “transgender”, then regained their sanity,   the College ought to get professional legal advice re    counselling an indictable offence /  ‘criminal negligence’

Yours truly
Gordon Watson

The War Zone in Jasper by Monika Schaefer (former political prisoner)

Posted on by

The War Zone in Jasper

by Monika Schaefer (former political prisoner)

10 Saturday, Aug 2019

n 9/11, busking, Canada, Free Speech, Germany, Holohoax, Jasper, Letter, Psychological Warfare, Ritual Defamation, Schaefer – Monika, The Jasper Local newspaper, Uncategorized, WW II Revisionism

≈ Leave a comment

I have often said that we are in a war, not a war of our choosing, but a war that has been foisted onto us by the self-declared enemy of humanity. In the absence of bombs, most people do not realize that we are in a war. It is a war of infiltration, subversion, contamination, demoralization, destruction from within. They conduct Psychological Warfare, by way of deception, political correctness, criminalization of speech, and ritual defamation of truth-tellers.

The Jews (and their minions) in Jasper seem to be ramping up their war against this truth-teller. Perhaps they cannot abide by the fact that I am having success, nor can they abide by the fact that I keep on talking. In fact, they are getting quite hysterical.

Two incidents happened just yesterday.

I posted an item for sale on the Jasper AB, Buy, Sell and Trade Facebook site. Immediately someone showed interest. Next came a comment by Jessica Gomes, “warning” people that this seller is the same person as…”convicted holocaust denier…” then she linked to an article all about me being jailed. Someone else commented back something to the effect of

hey, she may be fucked, but she is just selling a cheap bike. Let her sell the bike.

Jessica Gomes immediately responded with a pack of lies, about me stalking her, calling her the little Jewess, playing [the violin] in front of her shop for hours, harassing and threatening her. I responded with a comment asking her if she always just made up random stuff like that.

I had no idea what this woman even looked like! I do not know her – so all of that was simply fabricated out of her sick imagination. Once again, a Jew reveals herself to me – according to her own comment.

As an aside, I do recall that about two years ago she wrote a letter called Hate begins with Words to the editor of a newspaper called The Jasper Local. I wrote about it in an article called “Local Letters: an Inquisition”.

Wanting to take a screen shot I switched from the small pop-ups of these comments to the main screen, but just then the comment thread disappeared. The site’s admin must have noticed the inappropriate conversation.

Tired of being the punching bag, I decided to take action and went to the RCMP to make a complaint. The officer took my statement and listened to my story. Later that day I received a phone call from him telling me that “she won’t be doing THAT again!” She had been venting her anger, she told him. Well I was just selling a bicycle and she can take her anger and park it elsewhere. The officer agreed. The file was now put to rest, but she had been warned.

As if one daily adventure isn’t enough, my busking hour provided yet more entertainment – more than just music. The busking spot is in a small open square surrounded by shops on three sides and a passenger-pick-up zone in front. It has generally been an excellent spot for busking. On this day, I felt something was different. It felt strange. It felt as though there was an invisible hand at work, causing a state of unease. People walked by in zombie state, or veered away, evaded looking at me, as though I was not there. Except for children. They turned towards me, tugging at their parents hands. A few tourists crossed over from the other side of the street to greet me and chat, and those were absolutely normal and natural in their responses, just like any other day.

At the end of my hour, as I was packing up getting ready to leave, I spotted “the problem”. A very animated guy was talking to the tourists on the park bench near me, pointing at me, telling them

she is a convicted Nazi, she went to jail… bla bla bla

WHAT THE ?!?!

So this is how it is now! These Locals simply cannot stand it that I might be earning a penny or two – I have observed many a local leering at my open violin case full of money that the appreciative tourists have happily thrown in.

Mr. busy-body-animated-guy from yesterday unfortunately has no name – in my astonishment I forgot to ask him his name. A loud confrontation ensued. Many people stood transfixed; even the shop-keepers stepped out to see what the commotion was all about. The guy probably thought I would be embarrassed by what he was telling the tourists and that I would try to deny it and slink away. No such luck! I loudly questioned him,

is this the kind of world you want to live in, where people go to jail simply for speaking? Is this the kind of world you want to live in where we cannot talk about history, we cannot have discussion and debate, we cannot examine evidence, without risking incarceration? If so, we are all enslaved!

Then I marched right over to where he had sat down, and loudly challenged him to a debate. I asked him if he still believed the official story about 9/11 and the 19 Arabs with box-cutters. He blew up at that!

I have noticed this phenomenon recently that when you ask a Jew about 9/11 (I am assuming he is a Jew, or at the very least a Jew-helper – to put it mildly), they get really mad! It was the second time in two days that I encountered that anger when I brought up 9/11. Is it because they all KNOW that we ALL have that one figured out? And that we know that they know that we know…? ha ha, they just get angry!

He then shouted in my face,

Do you believe that 6 million Jews were gassed in the holocaust?

Laughing, I replied that there were not even 6 million Jews living in all of Europe at the time! He turned, as though victorious, to the crowd and screeched at them,

London Forum - Alfred Schaefer - 1907 Did six million Really Die? montage

See?! She doesn’t believe that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis!!!!!

He thought he had a “gotcha” moment, the way he was grandstanding hysterically. He pretended to win a big victory. Wow. It would be hilarious if it was not so serious. They paint me as the hater and the nutcase. If ever there was a demonstration of both those lovely characteristics, he certainly outdid himself yesterday. I think the last laugh was on him.

Salim Mansur Introduces Maxime Bernier & Thunders “Free Speech is the Mother of Our Freedoms”

Posted on by

Salim Mansur Introduces Maxime Bernier & Thunders “Free Speech is the Mother of Our Freedoms”

 

MISSISSAUGA, July 24, 2019. Before an enthusiastic crowd that frequently leapt to its feet applauding, Salim Mansur delivered a ringing defence of free speech as he introduced People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier who unveiled his party’s immigration programme.

“Free speech in the mother of all freedoms,” the retired associate professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario thundered. “There is a crisis of courage in Ottawa,” the author of several books critical of radical Islam argued.

 

“Until a few weeks ago, I was the Conservative candidate for London North Centre. On June 10, I was informed that the party leadership had disallowed my candidacy. There were no reasons given. There was no hearing. Apparently, the party leadership viewed me as a liability because of my criticism if Islamism. My candidacy was disallowed due to political correctness.” The first person to call offering his support was Maxime Bernier, an old friend, who promptly asked him to be the People’s Party of Canada candidate in London North Centre.

 

“Our political system has turned into an  empty shell full of politically correct slogans,” he said. Today, the views of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Louis St. Laurent and John Diefenbaker are disallowed  as politically incorrect by our leaders. “We will not accept these measures by those who would censor us, Freedom of speech is the foundation of our liberal democratic society. Under Maxime Bernier’s leadership, freedom of speech will be the first order of business.”

 

A practising Moslem himself, Professor Mansur warned that, in efforts to appease the Muslim Brotherhood, Justin Trudeau seeks to censor any criticism of Islamism. Globalism and Islamism are like Siamese twins. Islamism is dedicated to imposing sharia law. Globalism is the ideology emanating from the UN and the European Union.” If globalism and Islamism prevail over our Canadian national identity, “we will be ruled by shadowy unelected ideologues in New York, Brussels and Geneva.”

Furthermore, he warned: “We cannot discuss immigration or national security, if we cannot discuss Islamism.” Concluding to wild applause, Professor Mansur said: “The People’s Party of Canada is the only party to resolutely oppose globalism and Islamism and the UN-driven globalist agenda.”

Radical trans activist hits Christian with $35K ‘human rights’ complaint for injured ‘dignity’

Posted on by
Bill Whatcott. David Cooke via YouTube
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

 

Radical trans activist hits Christian with $35K ‘human rights’ complaint for injured ‘dignity’

  bill whatcott, british columbia, british columbia human rights tribunal, free speech, jessica yaniv, jonathan ‘jessica’ yaniv, jonathan yaniv, langley, lgbt, transgenderism, vancouver

PETITION: Tell Rights Tribunal to THROW OUT cases of trans ‘woman’ demanding females wax his genitals Sign the petition here.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 24, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian trans activist who has drawn global headlines for demanding female beauticians wax his male genitals and attempting to organize LGBT “swim parties” for children is now going after Christian activist Bill Whatcott for publicly referring to him as male.

Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv is a man who “identifies” as a woman. He recently rose to prominence for filing 16 complaints against local beauticians who offer bikini waxes to actual women but have refused to wax his male genitals, then for seeking permission from the Township of Langley, British Columbia, for “LGBTQ2S” groups to hold topless-optional swimming parties for “all people aged 12+,” with parents and guardians barred from attending.

Whatcott is a Christian social conservative activist whom the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined $55,000 in March for distributing a flyer identifying trans activist and former political candidate Ronan “Morgane” Oger as a “biological male,” which the court deemed an affront to Oger’s “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

In a post Tuesday at the Free North America forums, Whatcott revealed that Yaniv is seeking $35,000 for “gender identity or expression” discrimination for publicly referring to him in sidewalk preaching and a flyer as a “biological male” and a “transvestite deviant” looking to “prey on vulnerable biological women.”

The complaint alleges that by stating the facts of Yaniv’s gender and expressing a negative opinion about his public activities, Whatcott has caused him “immense injury to dignity and self respect,” “incited hatred towards myself,” and “clearly intended to injure and, regardless of his intent, did injure the my privacy, dignity, and economic interests by calling attention to my sex and gender identity in a hateful manner.”

“God has created two sexes, and your gender identity should align with reality,” Whatcott declares in the video the complaint highlights. “If you choose to believe something fake, if you choose to believe you’re a woman when in fact you were born a biological male, I feel sorry for you. But you have no right to impose that falsehood on me. You have no right to impose that falsehood on other Canadians.”

“Really, these so-called human rights complaints are all an offense to real democratic principles and when it comes to complaints involving so-called transgender complainants the process is an offense to reality itself,” Whatcott responded to the complaint. “What is clear to me is if these frivilous (sic) and vexatious complaints continue (and all indicators are the BCHRT is happy to spend taxpayer’s money entertaining them) the ability to use peaceful speech to challenge the mostly fraudulent claims of the LGBT agenda, especially as it pertains to so-called gender theory will be gutted.

“No doubt Yaniv and the BCHRT would be really happy if I incurred the cost of another lawyer and expended all sorts of energy to defend myself,” he continued. “I believe we Christians have to do something different and indeed we have to work to reform our country and remove the ability of cultural Marxists and malcontents to use the power of the state to silence our speech.

“Beyond pointing to Christ as our ultimate answer, I have no solution as to how to Canadians can regain our freedom,” Whatcott lamented. “I think the judgments I am facing and the ordeal these 16 female estheticians have faced at the hands of a sick predator and a corrupt human rights tribunal is clear evidence our courts and political system is corrupt and I see no mass uprising on the horizon of outraged Canadians demanding to have their freedom back.”

Apart from the transgender ideology issues at play, some speculate Yaniv may simply be a male heterosexual predator using “gender identity” as a pretext to prey upon women and girls (he identifies as a lesbian, indicating he remains sexually attracted to the people he wants to wax his genitals and share locker-room space with).

The Daily Caller reported that Yaniv has a record of disturbing texts about being in locker rooms with girls as young as age 10, asking questions like, “If there’s like 30 girls in the change room, how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their vaginas and tits out?” and, “What are some things that girls do like in the bathroom stall and in the change room that I should be doing to make myself more a girl,” specifying that he was asking about “the gross stuff.”

Moreover, Oger himself has accused Yaniv of “outrageously inappropriate acts, some towards children who are tweens and teens,” spanning 2013 to 2018.” Yaniv is alleged to have attempted to solicit phone numbers from teenage girls online, and to have taken photographs of underage girls at a beauty pageant without permission.

For his part, Whatcott says he may be willing to sit down with Yaniv for mediation, noting that while he doesn’t have the money for the damages Yaniv seeks, “I have Good News that I can share and a treasure more long lasting and beneficial to his well being than money.”


Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/public/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5373