* That voyage to India
* radical Sikhs infiltrate the government
* plans to bring back Sec. 13 (Internet censorship)
* Canadian video journalist, Lauren Southern, banned from Britain
Political Censorship: Facebook Bans NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Cover for `Nudity“
Was it the tame, though morally disgusting picture of National Geographics cover or the political message that occasioned a Facebook ban on the post below saying it violated their `community standards`?
Facebook is notorious for censorship of White nationalist or conservative posts.
Paul Fromm
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression
The planned genocide of Europeans through mass alien immigration and race mixing
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W
PH: 416-428-5308 ; FAX: 905-566-4820
Frederick Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
Presentation to the Toronto Library Board by Frederick Paul Fromm – December 11, 2017
1. The Toronto Library Board is considering revisions to its Community and Event Space Rental Policy What concerns us are changes to the Denial of Use Section of the Policy.
“The Purpose section has been revised to add language about the Library’s objectives of providing equitable access to services and maintaining a welcoming supportive environment free from discrimination and harassment.
· The Denial of Use sections 4.4 (a) and 5.4(a) both state much more strongly that room bookings will be denied or cancelled when the Library reasonably believes the purpose of the booking is likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.
· Under the same Denial of Use sections 4.4(b) and 5.4(b), violations of the Criminal Code of Canada (including hate propaganda laws) and the Ontario Human Rights Code are specifically referenced as unacceptable.”
2. First, the Toronto Public Library is not a private club. It belongs to all citizens and should be open to use, including rental of rooms for meetings, to all citizens, without discrimination, if for no other reason than all taxpayers pay for it.
3. It is fair to ask persons renting facilities to be aware that they must obey the law, including the Criminal Code and various bylaws. Thus, for instance, a smokers’ rights group should be able to rent a room for a meeting, but, if they announced, they would stage a smoke-in to dramatize their views, it would make sense to deny the booking.
4. People renting Library facilities must be responsible to their own words and actions. Staff should not have to try to guess what their words or actions might be.
5. In renting meeting space, the Library is not condoning or supporting any point of view, any more than having a book on the shelves means the library endorses the book’s conclusions. Clearly, the library contains many books with wildly different views on a given subject.
6. The revised policy is saddling staff with an impossible task — to decide, in advance, of an event, what will be said at that event and whether words that haven’t yet been uttered are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”
* “Promotion of hatred” is a bogeyman. No person or group who has rented Toronto Public Library facilities has, to our knowledge, ever been charged or convicted of “hate”; that is, Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This is a restrictive policy seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.
* But, it’s not just “hatred” but contempt that is being prohibited. “Contempt” is a very broad term, meaning dislike of a negative opinion of. It is hard to see how any criticism based on “race, religion, gender orientation or political affiliation or any of the other mentioned grounds” could pass muster. Suppose someone wrote a book entitled Mike Harris 20 Years Later. If the book repeated some of the common criticisms of the time — that Mike Harris balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and squeezed the education system — and if the author were to speak about his book at a meeting, might is not be likely that the meeting would promote contempt of Mr. Harris because of his political affiliation and, therefore, should be cancelled?
* “Contempt” was included in the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act but was repealed by Parliament in 2013. It is overly broad and basically chills any criticism on a whole range of topics.
* One wonders what “any other similar factor” might be.
7. This policy could lead to the banning of all sorts of meetings dealing with contentious topics. It is an affront to free speech, especially as it involves subjective “prior restraint” which is a violation of Canadians’ basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
7. This policy is a reaction to an organized campaign by censorship minded groups and individuals who protested a memorial to a lawyer who represented controversial clients. these groups took the view that, because they disagreed with Barbara Kulazska’s clients, her friends and admirers should not be allowed to meet to remember her. The Library did the right thing in permitting that memorial to proceed.
8. In October, C-FAR Books sought to book a meeting for a talk by Victor Fletcher, editor and publisher of Toronto Street News. We were turned down on October 3 and informed: “ Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation.” This decision was unreasonable and outrageous. Neither the individual or group involved in the booking or Mr. Fletcher or Toronto Street News has ever been charged, let alone convicted under Sec. 319. We fear that this censorship is a harbinger of what will happen should the Board adopt this new policy.
9. We fear the hecklers’ veto. If an organized lobby makes enough noise in trying to shut down a meeting of people they don’t like, the new policy is so broad that it gives staff the power to shut down any gathering more controversial than the Rosedale Orchid Society.
10. The policy contains no independent appeals process against the denial of a room booking. This is especially important as staff decisions may be made only on the basis of accusations or allegations made by groups or individuals seeking to get a meeting cancelled.
10. May we suggest a truly inclusive, open door policy. Any person or group, who is a taxpayer, should be able to rent a meeting room, if available. They are made aware that they are responsible for their own conduct and for obeying all relevant laws. The community should be informed that the library follows a free speech policy. Meetings will not be cancelled because the speakers or topics are controversial.
11. The proposed policy will not buy peace but will embolden those who have no tolerance for views critical of their own group or ideology to try to shut down groups or speakers to whom they object.
Cultural Marxist Britain’s Tories Trample Free Speech
Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet
By Jonathan Turley
October 06, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.
Prime Minister Theresa May has previously called for greater government control of the Internet. Now, the government not only would make reading material on the Internet a crime, but would not necessarily tell you what sites will be deemed the ultimate click bait. Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.” So sites deemed “far-right propaganda” (but not far-left propaganda) could lead to your arrest — leaving the government with a sweeping and ambiguous mandate.
The law would move from criminalizing the downloading of information to simply reading it. The move confirms the long criticism of civil libertarians that the earlier criminalization would just be the start of an ever-expanding government regulation of sites and speech. Rudd admits that she wants to arrest those who just read material but do not actually download the material.
In the past, the government assumed near total discretion in determining who had a “reasonable excuse” for downloading information.
| No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media
You can’t buy your way onto these pages |
Britain has long relied on the presumed benevolence of the government in giving its sweeping authority in the surveillance and regulation of speech, including the media. This move however is a quantum shift in government controls over speech and information. Indeed, this comes the closest to criminalization not just speech but thought. It is a dangerous concept and should be viewed as disqualifying for anyone who want to hold (or retain) high office.
What is particularly striking is that this new law seeks to create a new normal in a society already desensitized to government controls and speech crimes. Thee is no pretense left in this campaign — just a smiling face rallying people to the cause of thought control.
Sound familiar?
We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. … We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.George Orwell, 1984
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. https://jonathanturley.org/
“[A]fter matching user names to posts on social-media profiles, [AirBNB] canceled dozens of reservations made by self-identified Nazis who were using its app to find rooms in Charlottesville, where they were heading to protest the removal of a Confederate statue,” reports Bloomberg News.
Uber is now telling drivers “they don’t have to pick up racists;” PayPal is revoking payment services to “sites that promote racial intolerance,” reports Bloomberg; and “Discover Financial Services, the credit card company, said this week that it was ending its agreements with hate groups.”
These corporate thought police will be remembered. A New Order will find ways to punish them for corporate irresponsibility and wholesale violation of White People’s rights.
Tags: Airbnb, Apple, Facebook, intolerance, KKK, Ministry of Truth, neo-nazis, PayPal, progressivism, racism, social justice, thought police, Utopia
(Natural News) A new “cyber dark ages” has descended upon the internet as Apple, AirBNB, Facebook and other tech companies have decided that Neo-Nazis must be banned from everything. Tech companies are the new “thought police” of America.
“[A]fter matching user names to posts on social-media profiles, [AirBNB] canceled dozens of reservations made by self-identified Nazis who were using its app to find rooms in Charlottesville, where they were heading to protest the removal of a Confederate statue,” reports Bloomberg News.
Uber is now telling drivers “they don’t have to pick up racists;” PayPal is revoking payment services to “sites that promote racial intolerance,” reports Bloomberg; and “Discover Financial Services, the credit card company, said this week that it was ending its agreements with hate groups.”
Neo-Nazis are offensive to every reasonable person, of course, but these actions beg the question: Do “offensive” people no longer have the right to participate in the infrastructure of modern society? And who decides, exactly, which people qualify as the most offensive and deserving of being cut off from the very society in which they live?
That’s why today, I’m calling for all municipal water services to be cut off from all racists, Neo-Nazis and KKK members. Heck, why stop there? Why should electricity services be provided to Nazi sympathizers? Shouldn’t local power companies cut off their electricity, too?
In fact, come to think of it, why stop at just Neo-Nazis? I think that in the name of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance,” water and power services should be completely cut off from those who do not worship transgenderism, praise Black Lives Matter and donate 10% of their paychecks to the Southern Poverty Law Center. And Amazon should cut off Prime memberships to Neo-Nazis, too, just to make sure they can’t watch free movies and stuff. (Come to think of it, how many Nazi supporters are also Netflix members? Gosh, Netflix should really cut off those sh#theads and make sure they can’t watch movies.)
In fact, let’s just be honest here. All Republicans, conservatives, Trump supporters and gun owners should frankly be denied the right to oxygen. Breathing should be criminalized for those who do not wholeheartedly agree with toppling all “offensive” statues, defacing Mount Rushmore, worshiping Obama and nullifying the 2016 president election. In fact, if you aren’t gay, transgender, lesbian, queer or “gender fluid,” you really have no right to exist at all. I mean, that’s where this is going, right?
Sewer services should also be cut off from all Trump supporters so they have to live in their own sh#t. And all gas stations should deny gasoline to anyone whose vehicle doesn’t carry a rainbow pride bumper sticker. In fact, let’s just ban use of all highways to anyone who isn’t a Leftist. Why should conservatives have the right to use public roads paid by “progressive” taxpayers, anyway?
F#ck it, let’s go all out here. All counties across America should deny “racists” the right to own private property. Why should “intolerant” people be allowed the right to own a home, anyway? After all, they might use private homes to hold “KKK” meetings or Bible study or something. This has got to stop! I say all county clerks should go through all the photographs of people who participated in Neo-Nazi rallies of any kind, and then seize their property. Hell yeah. That should finally achieve “peace” for our nation, right?
But then, why stop there? Let’s just burn down all the white neighborhoods just to be sure we get all the “racists.” Ban all credit cards for conservatives, then ban their cash, too, just to make sure they can’t actually buy anything. While we’re at it, let’s all just deny white people any right to work at any job whatsoever, making sure they can’t earn the cash to buy cars that they might use as ramming vehicles. And then deny food stamps for all White people, too, because why should obvious racists have the right to eat?
Oh, come to think of it, we should also ban white people from owning all cars, because those are weapons, too. From now on, all cars can only be driven by people of color. That’s how we finally achieve fairness, justice and equality, you see.
Once we ban all the water, electricity, oxygen, food, private property, internet access, money and jobs of all White people — and burn down their homes, post-birth abort their babies and silence their voices — we can all finally live in peace and tranquility in our new society rooted in “justice” and “equality.” Right? …Right?
Yep, all this will finally make America “tolerant” again, complete with all the imagined diversity that comes from totalitarianism and stupidity pretending to be “progressivism.” Thank God AirBNB, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and PayPal are leading the way to the new society of tolerance and peace, because for a minute there, I was afraid things were getting out of hand.
YOU TUBE THOUGHT POLICE BLOCK AN ALISON CHABLOZ VIDEO
Apologies for the mass email once again, and apologies to those of you who took the time to respond to my previous updates and have yet to receive any personal reply. My bail terms and accompanying inconveniences limit my Internet usage to mobile-only, but I promise to try and sort through my messages and respond as time and data allowance permit.
Today and yesterday I received yet more email notifications from YouTube regards ‘action taken’ on my videos following ‘legal complaints’. Please see below YouTube’s updated list of countries where my videos are now blocked :
Like Amazon, YouTube is ignoring UK law, no doubt following pressure from the Israel Lobby. This now brings the total of potential viewers blocked from viewing my songs and other videos to well over 300 million.
If Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism had not brought a private criminal prosecution against me for (((Survivors))) at the end of 2016, it’s reasonable to think that my video would still be floundering around the 6,000 view mark. Instead, the grand total is now over 30k. As plenty of other users have noticed, YouTube also regularly culls the number of views. For this particular video – the total is now frozen at 30,666 !
To celebrate, I have uploaded two songs to Vimeo which are available with a password. One is an old number of mine ‘Social Media Queen’ updated for 2017 – I’m now banned from so many online platforms, would the enemy be trying to force an early abdication? 😉
The second is one of my most recent rants ‘Too extreme for the BNP’. Clearly, I AM too extreme for Twitter and YouTube, but for the BNP as well ? (*rolls eyes).
Mark my words, they’ll be going after my PayPal account next..
Password: jesuischabloz
Patriotic wishes to all,
Alison Chabloz.
Free speech is the cardinal right – the right that underpins all others. Yet how casually we brush it aside.
This week in Toronto, a small group held a memorial service at a public library branch for a lawyer who had defended Holocaust deniers and other figures on Canada’s far-right fringe. Spokesmen for Jewish groups said they were outraged that the Toronto Public Library would provide a platform for such a gathering. Mayor John Tory was “deeply concerned.” Members of city council said they were shocked. “Those tied to hate and bigotry have no place in our libraries,” Councillor James Pasternak said.
They seemed entirely oblivious to the threat to freedom of expression. If the library takes it upon itself to decide who has the right to speak, where does it end? If it denies space to a far-right group, what happens when a far-left group comes along? What would it say to the many Canadians who suffered under communism if someone who denies the crimes of Stalin or Mao wanted to hold an event and was denied? What would it say to Toronto’s large Tamil community if extreme Sinhalese nationalists were not permitted to hold a study meeting at the library about the crushing of the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka?
Opinion: We need to protect free speech on campus
It is precisely to avoid making these judgments that the library takes a neutral approach to those who book its spaces. It doesn’t demand to vet their opinions in advance. As long as they follow basic rules of conduct, they get the space. So it is absurd to suggest that the library is somehow endorsing or countenancing the views of those who held this week’s memorial.
Critics of the event seem especially upset that it took place in a “public space,” under the roof of a publicly funded institution. It is not hard to see where that dangerous argument could lead. If people whose opinions are deemed beyond the pale are to be kept out of the public libraries, why not the public parks, the public squares, the public streets? Who gives them the right, some might say, to wave their nasty placards where all can see, or publish their rank opinions where all can read? Surely public spaces are where free speech, however outrageous or obnoxious, should be allowed to flourish. That is the principle behind the famous Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park, where people of every opinion and background get the chance to sound off in public. No one says that because the authorities allow it they are giving their stamp of approval to what is said.
Libraries, in particular, should be havens for free expression. They are the places citizens go to learn about the world in all its complexity. Librarians are always facing pressure from one group or another to ban books that they say might corrupt morals or spread hate. They are right to fend off such attempts. Librarians are guides to the world of knowledge, not arbiters of it. They should be equally impartial about who meets in library spaces.
Banning objectionable speech short of direct incitement to violence is always a mistake. Those who object to this week’s event and gatherings like it have other ways to respond. One is to protest. If a hate group holds a rally, hold a rally condemning hate and praising tolerance. Another is to correct. When deniers spout nonsense about how many died or didn’t die in the Holocaust, fight back with the undeniable facts.
The last option – perhaps the best when it comes to the tiny, miserable group of cranks who are Canada’s white nationalists and Holocaust deniers – is simply to turn away. They feed on publicity like this week’s fuss. Instead of fulminating against them or attacking the library for giving them space, ignore them. They don’t deserve even a minute of our time, much less all the air time and headline space they got this week.
No matter how we choose to respond to offensive opinions, it is important to remember the danger of suppressing them. Even in a blessed place such as Canada – a strong, stable democracy with a respected Charter of Rights and Freedoms – freedom of speech can be a fragile thing. We saw that just recently, when three editors left their jobs after an angry pile-on over the complicated issue of cultural appropriation.
In a 1945 essay on free speech and the profusion of it in Hyde Park, George Orwell wrote: “The relative freedom which we enjoy depends on public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper of the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
On the evidence of the library affair and other events lately, public opinion in the Canada of 2017 is sluggish indeed.
BERLIN — Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.
The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.
But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.
Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.
“With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.”
“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.
The law will take effect in October, less than a month after nationwide elections, and will apply to social media sites with more than two million users in Germany.
It will require companies including Facebook, Twitter and Google, which owns YouTube, to remove any content that is illegal in Germany — such as Nazi symbols or Holocaust denial — within 24 hours of it being brought to their attention.
The law allows for up to seven days for the companies to decide on content that has been flagged as offensive, but that may not be clearly defamatory or inciting violence. Companies that persistently fail to address complaints by taking too long to delete illegal content face fines that start at 5 million euros, or $5.7 million, and could rise to as much as €50 million.
Every six months, companies will have to publicly report the number of complaints they have received and how they have handled them.
In Germany, which has some of the most stringent anti-hate speech laws in the Western world, a study published this year found that Facebook and Twitter had failed to meet a national target of removing 70 percent of online hate speech within 24 hours of being alerted to its presence.
The report noted that while the two companies eventually erased almost all of the illegal hate speech, Facebook managed to remove only 39 percent within 24 hours, as demanded by the German authorities. Twitter met that deadline in 1 percent of instances. YouTube fared significantly better, removing 90 percent of flagged content within a day of being notified.
Facebook said on Friday that the company shared the German government’s goal of fighting hate speech and had “been working hard” to resolve the issue of illegal content. The company announced in May that it would nearly double, to 7,500, the number of employees worldwide devoted to clearing its site of flagged postings. It was also trying to improve the processes by which users could report problems, a spokesman said.
Twitter declined to comment, while Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The standoff between tech companies and politicians is most acute in Europe, where freedom of expression rights are less comprehensive than in the United States, and where policy makers have often bristled at Silicon Valley’s dominance of people’s digital lives.
But advocacy groups in Europe have raised concerns over the new German law.
Mirko Hohmann and Alexander Pirant of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin criticized the legislation as “misguided” for placing too much responsibility for deciding what constitutes unlawful content in the hands of social media providers.
“Setting the rules of the digital public square, including the identification of what is lawful and what is not, should not be left to private companies,” they wrote.
Even in the United States, Facebook and Google also have taken steps to limit the spread of extremist messaging online, and to prevent “fake news” from circulating. That includes using artificial intelligence to remove potentially extremist material automatically and banning news sites believed to spread fake or misleading reports from making money through the companies’ digital advertising platforms.
