Tag Archives: hate speech

Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

Posted on by

      Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

 Leap Day this year is the fortieth anniversary of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s announcement that during a “walk in the snow” he had decided that he would step down and not lead the Liberal Party into the next Dominion election.  He had been leader of the Grits for sixteen years since Lester Pearson stepped down in April of 1968.   With the exception of the six month premiership of Joe Clark he had been Prime Minister all that time.   His was the third longest premiership in Canadian history.   The longest was that of William Lyon Mackenzie King who had been a different kind of Liberal leader.   King, like Trudeau, had been a traitor to Canada, her history, heritage, and traditions, but in his case it was American-style capitalist liberalism to which he had sold us out.   In the case of Pierre Trudeau it was Soviet and Chinese Communism that was his true master.   Canada’s second longest premiership was also her first that of Sir John A. Macdonald.   Sir John had been the leader of the Fathers of Confederation and never betrayed us.   Nor did Canadians ever grow tired of Old Tomorrow.   Shortly before his death in 1891 he won his sixth majority in that year’s Dominion Election by campaigning for “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader” against a Liberal Party that sought to move us closer economically and culturally into the orbit of the United States.   By contrast by the time Trudeau took his famous walk Canadians had grown absolutely sick and tired of him.   The Liberals were heading to defeat, Trudeau knew it, and in the interest of preserving his legacy and what was left of his reputation jumped off the ship before it sank.

The electorate’s having grown sick of Trudeau and his party should be regarded as the expected outcome when a Prime Minister remains in office for a long period of time.   Sir John’s enduring popularity can be taken as the exception explainable by the fact that he was an exceptional statesman, identified with the country he led as no other Prime Minister could ever hope to be due to his central role in her founding, and a personable leader to whom people could relate.   When a Sovereign, like Queen Victoria during whose reign Confederation took place or like our late Queen Elizabeth II of Blessed Memory, has an exceptionally long reign this is cause for celebration and rejoicing.   It is the role of the Sovereign, after all, to embody the principle of continuity and everything that is enduring, lasting, and permanent in the realm.   The man who fills the Prime Minister’s office, by contrast, is very much the man of the moment.   Premierships, therefore, are usually best kept short.

Pierre Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, has been Prime Minister since 2015 and Canadians are now far sicker of him than they ever were of his father.   Personally, I had had more than enough of him while he was still the third party leader prior to the 2015 Dominion Election.   Why it took this long for the rest of the country to catch up with me I have no idea but here we are.   It is 2024 and Canadians are divided on whether they would like Captain Airhead to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow, whether they would like to see him suffer the humiliation of going down in defeat in the next Dominion Election or whether they would like to see him brought down in an act of direct divine intervention involving a lightning bolt that strikes the ground beneath him causing it to open up, swallow him whole, and belch out fire and brimstone.  What unites Canadians is that we all wish that he would make like Dr. Seuss’ Marvin K. Mooney and “please go now.”   Thermidor is rapidly approaching for Captain Airhead and his version of the Liberal Party as it eventually comes for all Jacobins.

The Canadian Robespierre seems determined, however, not to go to his inevitable guillotine without one last stab at imposing his ghoulish and clownish version of the Reign of Terror.   On Monday the Liberals tabled, as they have been threatening to do since the last Dominion Election, Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that would enhance government power in the name of combatting “online harms.”   A note to American readers, in the Commonwealth to “table” a bill does not mean to take it off the table, i.e., to suspend or postpone it as in the United States, but rather to put it on the table, i.e., to introduce it.   Defenders of omnibus bills regard them as efficient time-savers.   They are also convenient ways to smuggle in something objectionable that is unlikely to pass if forced to stand on its own merits by rolling it up with something that is desirable and difficult or impossible to oppose without making yourself look bad.   In this case, the Liberals are trying to smuggle in legislation that would allow Canadians to sue other Canadians for up to $20 000, with the possibility of being fined another $50 000 payable to the government thrown in on top of it, over online speech they consider to be hateful and legislation that would make it possible for someone to receive life imprisonment for certain “hate crimes”, by rolling it up in a bill ostensibly about protecting children from online bullying and pornographic exploitation.  As is always the case when the Liberals introduce legislation that has something to do with combatting hate it reads like they interpreted George Orwell’s depiction of Big Brother in 1984 as a “how-to” manual.  

Nobody with an IQ that can be expressed with a positive number could possibly be stupid enough to think that this Prime Minister or any of his Cabinet cares about protecting children.   Consider their response to the actions taken over the last year or so by provincial premiers such as New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith to do just that, protect children  from perverts in the educational system hell-bent on robbing children of their innocence and filling their heads with sex and smut from the earliest grades.   Captain Airhead and his corrupt cohorts denounced and demonized these premiers’ common-sense, long overdue, efforts, treating them not as the measures taken in defense of children and their parents and families that they were, but as an attack on the alphabet soup gang, one of the many groups that the Liberals and the NDP court in the hopes that these in satisfaction over having their special interests pandered to will overlook the progressive left’s contemptuous disregard for the common good of the whole country and for the interests of those who don’t belong to one or another of their special groups.  

Nor could any Canadian capable of putting two and two together and who is even marginally informed about what has been going on in this country in this decade take seriously the Prime Minister’s posturing about hate.    The leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, when asked about what stance the Conservatives would take towards this bill made the observation that Captain Airhead given his own past is the last person who should be dictating to other Canadians about hate.   Poilievre was referring to the blackface scandal that astonishingly failed to end Captain Airhead’s career in 2019.  It would have been more to the point to have referenced the church burnings of 2021.  In the summer of that year, as Captain Airhead hosted conferences on the subjects of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia that consisted of a whole lot of crying and hand-wringing and thinking out ways to get around basic rights and freedoms so as to be able to throw in gaol anyone who looks at a Jew or Muslim cross-eyed, Canada was in the midst of the biggest spree of hate crimes in her history.   Christian church buildings all across Canada were targeted for arson and/or other acts of vandalism.  Not only did Captain Airhead fail to treat this violent and criminal display of Christophobia as a serious problem in the same way he was treating these other types of hatred directed towards specific religions he played a significant role in inciting these attacks on Canada’s Christian churches by promoting a narrative in which all allegations against Canada’s churches and her past governors with regards to the Indian Residential Schools are accepted without question or requirement of proof. (1)

Clearly Captain Airhead does not give a rat’s rump about hate qua hate.   If hatred is directed towards people he doesn’t like, like Christians, he shrugs it off even when it is expressed through violent, destructive, crime.   If it is directed against people he likes, or, more accurately, against groups to which he panders, he treats it as if it were the most heinous of crimes even if it is expressed merely in words.   While I am on principle opposed to all laws against hate since they are fundamentally unjust and by nature tyrannical (2) they are especially bad when drawn up by someone of Captain Airhead’s ilk.

Captain Airhead’s supposed concern about “online harms” is also a joke.   Consider how he handles real world harms.   His approach to the escalating problem of substance abuse is one that seeks to minimize the harm drug abusers do to themselves by providing them with a “safe” supply of their poison paid for by the government.   This approach is called “harms reduction” even though when it comes to the harms that others suffer from drug abuse such as being violently attacked by someone one doesn’t know from Adam because in his drug-induced mania he thinks his victim is a zombie space alien seeking to eat his brain and lay an egg in the cavity, this approach should be called “harms facilitation and enablement.”   Mercifully, there is only so much Captain Airhead can do to promote this folly at the Dominion level and so it is only provinces with NDP governments, like the one my province was foolish enough to elect last year, that bear the full brunt of it.   Then there was his idea that the solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons and criminal recidivism was to release those detained for criminal offenses back into the general public as soon after their arrest as possible.   Does this sound like someone who can be trusted to pass legislation protecting people from “online harms”?

Captain Airhead inadvertently let slip, last week, the real reason behind this bill.   In an interview he pined for the days when Canadians were all on the same page, got all their information from CBC, CTV, and Global, before “conspiracy theorists” on the internet ruined everything.   He was lamenting the passing of something that never existed, of course.   People were already getting plenty of information through alternative sources on the internet long before his premiership and the mainstream legacy media became far more monolithic in the viewpoints it presented during and because of his premiership.   What he was pining for, therefore, was not really something that existed in the past, but what he has always hoped to establish in the future – a Canada where everyone is of one opinion, namely his.    This is, after all, the same homunculus who, back when a large segment of the country objected to him saying that they would be required to take a foreign substance that had been inadequately tested and whose manufacturers were protected against liability into their bodies if they ever wanted to be integrated back into ordinary society, called them every name in the book and questioned whether they should be tolerated in our midst.

Some have suggested that Bill C-63 is not that bad compared with what the Liberals had originally proposed three years ago.   It still, however, is a thinly-veiled attempt at thought control from a man who is at heart a narcissistic totalitarian and whose every act as Prime Minister, from trying to reduce the cost of health care and government benefits by offering people assistance in killing themselves (MAID) to denying people who having embraced one or more of the letters of the alphabet soup, had a bad trip, the help they are seeking in getting free, deserves to be classified with the peccata clamantia.   It took a lot of pain and effort for this country to finally rid herself of the evil Section 13 hate speech provision that Captain Airhead’s father had saddled us with in the Canadian Human Rights Act.   Captain Airhead must not be allowed to get away with reversing that.

It is about time that he took a walk in the snow.   Or got badly trounced in a Dominion election.   Or fell screaming into a portal to the netherworld that opened up beneath his feet.   Any of these ways works.  

The time is come.  The time is now.  Just go. Go. GO!   I don’t care how.  Captain Airhead, would you please go now?! (3)

(1)   Anyone who thinks the allegations were proven needs to learn the difference between evidence and proof.   Evidence is what is brought forward to back up a claim.   Proof is what establishes the truth of a claim.   That the evidence advanced for the allegations in question simply does not add up to proof and moreover was flimsy from the onset and has subsequently been largely debunked is an entirely valid viewpoint the expression of which is in danger of being outlawed by the bill under discussion.   In a court of criminal law the burden is upon the prosecutor to prove the charge(s) against the defendant.   Not merely to present evidence but to prove the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The same standard must be applied to allegations made against historical figures and past generations.   They, after all, are not present to defend themselves against their accusers.   To fail to do so is to fail in our just duty towards those who have gone before us.   The ancients had a term for this failure.   It is the vice of impiety.

(2)   The folly of legislation against hate was best expressed by Auberon Waugh in an article entitled “Che Guevara in the West Midlands” that was first published in the 6 July, 1976 issue of The Spectator, and later included in the collection Brideshead Benighted (Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1986).    Michael Wharton, however, writing as “Peter Simple” was second to none, not even Waugh, in ridiculing this sort of thing.– Gerry T, Neal

Lawyer John Rosen Convinces Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Posted on by

Lawyer John Rosen Convinces Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

undefined
The old Supreme Court of Hungary located dowtown Budapest, close to the Danube River

Dear Friends,

After a discussion with my lawyer John Rosen, I have reluctantly decided to return to Canada to appeal my latest Ontario Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Prime Minister Blackface (Left) and Justice Lorne Sossin he/him (Right) believe in gender ideology and despise freedom of speech.

To see Lorne Sossin’s he/his corrupt decision that will likely get him an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada by Prime Minister Blackface himself go here: https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/21658/index.do Advertisement

I was adament that appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada was a waste of time and that appealing to the Hungarian government for asylum as a persecuted Christian made sense, given my personal circumstances. (Prosecutor wants 18 months incarceration for a flyer that doesn’t likely violate any law in Hungary and definitely didn’t violate any law in Canada a few years ago.)

To see the flyer Justice Sossin he/him and his two fellow Trudeau appointees think might be hate speech of a sort that harms vulnerable homosexuals marching in the Toronto shame parade with silhouettes of Christ on their crotches by causing “emotional distress,” or that might have caused some Joe Sixpack to have feelings of “detestation, and villification” towards the pink speedo brigade after reading it go here:

https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/21658/index.do

Anyways, Mr. Rosen and his assistant lawyer, a young lady by the name of Mindy I think, countered that they can see “significant errors” in the judgment and that I really should appeal it. Looking at the flyer from the the point of view of common sense, according to how I see the world, I agree there are “significant errors” in the ruling. I actually see how a homosexual activist like Nick Mule’ could prejudice a judge or jury to find me guilty of so-called “hate speech,” but I don’t see how Mr. Mule’ can help a judge or jury come to an honest decision regarding my flyer’s legality.

Mr. Mule when under cross examination demonstrated that he could pick apart my sentences and photographs, deny what they actually communicate, and read all kinds of nasty motives into my literary work. The problem with this is Nick Mule’ is not me, and he cannot get into my head to read my motives. His idea that my flyer contains “tropes” to spread “hatred” is not true.

Even under intense scrutiny from the LGBT activist infectious disease specialist Mona Loutfy who discredited herself by being less than honest under cross examination, and who tried to mislead the court in her personal crusade to have me convicted of a “hate crime; it was found most of my flyer was substantially true (prevalence of hepatitis amongst homosexuals, prevalence of HPV of the rectum, etc….) and the parts that came up less than 100% accurate were only dated, (more homosexuals died of AIDS at an earlier age when I was a nurse than today thanks to modern anti-retrovirals that were not available when I was practicing); no evidence came out that I was lying (unlike the Crown’s infectious disease specialist).

Sadly, Mr. Mule’ and it seems the Ontario Appeal Court that ruled we need to hear from him, has no interest in the truth of my flyer. The truth won’t likely matter so much as the impugned motivations of alleged hatred and ill will that I am alleged to have, this will be discussed as the driver of my flyer. Advertisements https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html Report this ad

To see the flyer that is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada go here: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen3/18b/Bill-Whatcott-arrest-warrant/images/Gay-Zombies-flier.pdf

However, Mr Rosen and Mindy weren’t looking at the appeal from the angle of Bill Whatcott’s common sense. They see significant legal and technical errors in the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment and they believe there is a good chance the Supreme Court will feel compelled to address these errors.

My initial thoughts, while listening to Mr. Rosen was, I didn’t actually care if there are appealable errors. The Supreme Court is very expensive and 100% of pro-family lawyers thought I was winning the 2013 Whatcott decision and they were wrong. Being out of Canada has it’s down moments. I don’t know Hungarian and I don’t quite know what to do here. If I elected to stay in Hungary and ask for asylum, there is no guarantee the Hungarian government will accept my claim and for months I would be compelled to reside in a somewhat spartan, semi secure, refugee centre. But the streets of Hungary are clean, you see no drug addicts, garbage, needles, etc… littering the capital city’s streets.

The streets of Hungary are safe everywhere, people seem more honest, and crime is much lower than in Canada. No Hungarian kids and almost no adults are identifying as homosexual, gender confused, bisexual or furry. Cancel culture doesn’t appear to be a thing here. You won’t lose your job for saying Bruce Jenner is a man. People here are normal and the past three weeks has convinced me the Canadian government, academia, justice system and media are actually really spiritually sick and corrupt.

Our media and government has a religious devotion to so-called harm reduction, critical race theory, gender ideology, climate alarmism, etc…. Our broken justice system likes to pontificate a false and harmful narrative that non-white criminals are chronic victims of systemic racism and therefore somehow merit ridiculously light sentences that fail victims and law abiding taxpayers. The false “harm reduction” narrative is an absolute disaster for Canadians. Overdoses have never been been more common, whole cities are being turned to garbage as junkies and discarded needles litter the streets, emergency wards are swamped with opiate and meth overdoses and normal patients suffer. Hungary and Singapore are testimonies that safe, clean streets, and normal people is possible. I have not seen a single drug addict shooting up on a sidewalk or dude in a dress demanding that I should call him a woman in either Budapest or Szeged.

Anyways, I thought God wanted me in Hungary and I prayed for His guidance in regards to this matter and when the negative decision came down from the Ontario Court of Appeal, I really thought God arranged for me to be in Hungary and that I am meant to live out the rest of my life here. But now I am confronted with new information. So, I prayed again, maybe God does want me to fight another round in our courts, though I have no confidence in their neutrality or sense of fairness when it comes to socially conservative Christians. Advertisements https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.7/html/safeframe.html Report this ad

I talked to one of my long time friends and supporters in Vancouver. She appreciates John Rosen’s work on my case and offered to donate some money to the Supreme Court appeal, if I decided to come back and appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Mr. Rosen agreed to launch the appeal for $10,000 with an understanding there is no guarantee I can raise anything close to what an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada costs in the future. There really is no church, lobby group, legal group, etc… backing my court battle.

Most “respectable” Conservatives prefer to fight safer battles, such as gun control, Blackface’s insane spending habits, vaccine mandates, etc….. Those fights are all worthwhile, but Romans 1 and Leviticus 20 is clear God is opposed to homosexual perversion. It really is not about two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom. The harm this sexual agenda has caused to children, our healthcare system, our education system and indeed to our civil liberties; not to mention truth its self, is tangible and severe. This Ontario Court of Appeal decision that I must go on trial again is clear evidence that speaking truthfully and in good faith about the LGBT agenda is fraught with serious and life altering risks. Truth is no longer a solid defense in Canada when it comes to so-called hate crime cases.

I am a controversial and less than perfect Prophet that has been given this calling. It really seems only God and a handful of loyal friends has walked with me through this long seven year trial. It also seems clear God has persevered me this far, but I have no answer how, and it often seems precarious, though He is faithful.

“O God, you know my folly;
    the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you. Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
    O Lord God of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
    O God of Israel.
For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
    that dishonor has covered my face.
I have become a stranger to my brothers,
    an alien to my mother’s sons. For zeal for your house has consumed me,
    and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
When I wept and humbled my soul with fasting,
    it became my reproach.
When I made sackcloth my clothing,
    I became a byword to them.
I am the talk of those who sit in the gate,
    and the drunkards make songs about me. But as for me, my prayer is to you, O Lord.
    At an acceptable time, O God,
    in the abundance of your steadfast love answer me in your saving faithfulness.” Psalm 69:5-13

I will be back in Canada soon and if God so desires and enables it, we will see what happens when this case reaches the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

“Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.” 2 Corinthians 7:1

The Hate Crime Purging Of “Antisemites” Is Underway!

Posted on by

The Hate Crime Purging Of “Antisemites” Is Underway! by Philip Giraldi

Saying anything about Israel’s misbehavior can send you to jail

June 20, 2023


Philip Giraldi Archive: https://earthnewspaper.com/category/philip-m-giraldi-phd

There have recently been a number of incidents that would be of interest if one has concerns about the sorry state of free speech in Europe and the United States, the so-called “democracies” who tend to boast about their freedoms and the rights of their citizens. The chosen weapon in the US and elsewhere in the Anglo-sphere has been the designation “hate speech” which also covers “hate writing,” “possessing hate literature or films,” and even “hate thinking.” In Europe, where “hate speech” is often referred to using the English words, the expression is often preceded by the word “illegal” to make sure that the point about consequences is made and the potential penalty is clearly understood. Some Europeans have in fact been convicted and sent to prison when they have falsely believed they were exercising free speech.

Though the “hate” designation was originally coined to discourage racist language and other forms of expression it has increasingly been exploited by Israel and its associated Jewish support groups to criminalize any criticism of Israel or of Jewish group behavior. It has extended its reach by moving into subsets, notably “holocaust denial” and “antisemitism” which are also regarded ipso facto as hate crimes in a context in which Jews are always regarded as victims, never as perpetrators of violence.

Much of what is going on might be described in fairly simple terms: Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its unprovoked lethal attacks on its neighbors might reasonably be described as “deplorable” or even genocidal in the case of the Palestinians. Beyond that, Israel, which pretends to be a democracy, operates a system of control over the Christian and Muslim minority within its own borders and also in the area it illegally occupies that is describable as “apartheid,” where the minority is compelled to accept limited resources and consistently harsh treatment from the dominant Jewish population. More to the point, the extremist government coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the situation even worse for those non-Jews that it controls, with talk of introducing mass expulsions and imprisonments. The death toll of Palestinians at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces has also been going up, with more than 150 Palestinians killed this year, including 26 children.

To be sure, Israel has become a home for Jews that can no longer tolerate anyone else. Some ministers in the new government are particularly vile in their views but it is to be assumed that Netanyahu and others in his administration are genuinely supportive of turning Israel into a truly and even exclusively Jewish state, which is in fact how it legally defines itself. The one minister most cited for his cruelty and racism is Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Jewish Power party. Ben-Gvir has been charged with crimes 50 times, and convicted on eight occasions, including once for support of a Jewish terrorist group. He is a former supporter of the now deceased right wing fanatic Meir Kahane, and, like Kahane, envisions an Israel that is as Palestinian free as possible and centered exclusively on Jewish interests. He has called for deporting Arabs who aren’t loyal to a Jewish Israel, annexing all of the West Bank and exercising full Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, where the Muslim venerated Al-Aqsa mosque is located. He supports legislation defying international agreements to “divide” the Al-Aqsa site to permit regular Jewish worshippers and there have even been suggestions that the Israeli government will seek to rebuild the so-called Biblical Second Temple, destroyed in the First Century by the Romans, in that location.

Ben-Gvir is notorious for his provocations directed against Palestinian Muslims and Christians. He has led marches of armed settlers flaunting Israeli flags through Arab quarters of cities and towns and has even brought settlers and other extremists to the al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan and to interrupt Friday prayers. To cap the irony, he has been since November 2022 the National Security Minister, which gives him authority over the police, to include the so-called Border Police as well as the police forces located on the illegally occupied West Bank. Indeed, as a practical matter, Ben-Gvir is seeking to have the Knesset pass legislation explicitly conferring legal immunity on all Israeli soldiers for any and all killings of Palestinians. He has also pressed the parliament to institute a formal, judicially administered death penalty for “terrorists”, which would mean any Palestinian who physically resists the Israeli occupation.

Another extremist who has obtained a major ministry in the Netanyahu government is Bezalel Yoel Smotrich who has served as the Minister of Finance since 2022. He has recently completed a controversial trip to the United States where he met with American Zionist leaders. Smotrich is the leader of the Religious Zionist Party, and lives in an illegal settlement in a house within the Israeli occupied West Bank that was also built doubly illegally outside the settlement proper. Smotrich supports expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, opposes any form of Palestinian statehood, and even denies the existence of the Palestinian people. He demands a state judiciary that relies only on Torah and Jewish traditional law. Accused of inciting hatred against Arab Israelis, he told Arab Israeli lawmakers in October 2021, that “it’s a mistake that David Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and didn’t throw all of you out in 1948.”

The increasing brutality of the Israeli government and its security forces have produced a reaction among many observers worldwide, so the supporters of Israel have engaged in their own first strike frequently using the “hate crime” weapon. They have basically turned the hate crime legislation to their advantage by convincing many nations to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of the “hate crime” antisemitism to automatically include criticism of Israel as being equivalent to hatred of Jews. When that doesn’t work the powerful Israel lobby can also resort to much more brutal threats. When Iceland sought to make illegal infant circumcision five years ago, regarding it as genital mutilation performed on an unconsenting child, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) threatened to unleash Jewish power to destroy their economy and international reputation as punishment for making their country “inhospitable to Jews.”

Now that the “hate crime” genie together with the associated links to holocaust denial and antisemitism have been released from the bottle, they are being used regularly to silence anyone who even indirectly criticizes prominent Jews like George Soros. Conservatives including Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have recently been on the receiving end of the antisemitism label after referring to Soros and his “Globalist” agenda. It is my belief that Tucker was fired at least in part due to Jewish pressure on FOX as he had been very critical of groups like the hysterical ADL and its hideous director Jonathan Greenblatt.

Roger Waters, the former lead singer of Pink Floyd, has emerged as a powerful critic of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. As a consequence, he has been hounded by authorities in Europe, has had his concerts canceled, and has been threatened with legal action to make him shut up. The Biden Administration’s antisemitism Czar Deborah Lipstadt has also attacked him, saying “I wholeheartedly concur with [an online] condemnation of Roger Waters and his despicable Holocaust distortion.” She was referring to a tweet stating that “I am sick & disgusted by Roger Waters’ obsession to belittle and trivialize the Shoah & the sarcastic way in which he delights in trampling on the victims, systematically murdered by the Nazis. In Germany. Enough is enough. Holocaust trivialization is criminalized across the EU.” The State Department, speaking for the White House, then piled on adding that Waters has “a long track record of using antisemitic tropes” and a concert he gave late last month in Germany “contained imagery that is deeply offensive to Jewish people and minimized the Holocaust… The artist in question has a long track record of using antisemitic tropes to denigrate Jewish people.”

One might observe that the depiction of Waters is basically untrue – he is a critic of Israeli crimes against humanity but does not hate Jews. One might also add how the fact that the United States State Department actually has a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism speaks for itself and tells you exactly who is in charge in Washington. I wonder how much it costs to run Lipstadt’s mouth from a no doubt well-appointed office in Foggy Bottom each year? Maybe someone should do a cost/benefit analysis and give Debbie her walking papers.

Beyond that, several other recent stories show how it all often works in practice to confront and silence critics. Swedish pop star Zara Larsson is facing what is obviously a coordinated backlash on social media after criticizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In an Instagram message to her 6.3 million followers, the 23-year-old declared the ongoing cross-border violence, which is killing mostly Arabs, was a “crime” against Palestinians. Her effort to be somewhat even handed was ignored, in the message, which she later deleted, where she wrote “We have to stand up for Jewish people all over the world facing anti-Semitic violence and threats, but we must also call out a state upholding apartheid and KILLING civilians, funded by American dollars.” She ended the message with the hashtag “#freepalestine.”

Larsson was hardly calling for targeting Jews or anything like that, but the reaction to her comment was symptomatic of the typical overkill response engaged in by Israel and its friends whenever anyone challenges the standard narrative of Israeli perpetual victimhood. Two other instances of comments about Israel leading to an overwhelming response to punish the perpetrators took place during the past month in the United States at college commencement ceremonies. The first was on May 12th, at a graduation ceremony for the law school of the City University of New York (CUNY), where Fatima Mousa Mohammed, a Queens native who was selected by the graduating 2023 class to speak during the May 12 ceremony, praised CUNY for supporting student activism, citing in particular the acceptance of student groups protesting against Israel’s brutality towards the Palestinians. She said “Israel continues to indiscriminately rain bullets and bombs on worshippers, murdering the old, the young and even attacking funerals and graveyards, as it encourages lynch mobs to target Palestinians homes and businesses. As it imprisons its children, as it continues its project of settler colonialism, expelling Palestinians from their homes. Silence is no longer acceptable.”

The response to Mohammed was immediate, including a scathing news report in the New York Post, a call by several Jewish groups to cut funding to CUNY and demands that the law school dean be fired. And the controversy again made news when a second student spoke out at a commencement at El Camino community college in Torrance California. Jana Abulaban, 18, strongly criticized Israeli government policies during her speech on June 9th.

Abulaban, who was born in Jordan in a family of Palestinian refugees, reportedly felt “inspired” by the speech of Fatima Mousa Mohammed and she told the audience “I gift my graduation to all Palestinians who have lost their life and those who continue to lose their lives every day due to the oppressive apartheid state of Israel killing and torturing Palestinians as we speak.’’

There was, of course an immediate reaction to the Abulaban speech coming from a variety of West Coast and New York pro-Israel sources. Brooke Goldstein, a claimed human-rights lawyer founder of The Lawfare Project, said, “This is yet one more example of the systemic Jew-hatred we’re seeing on our college campuses. When a student gives a commencement speech targeting Jews, trafficking in modern tropes of antisemitism, it’s clear that there has been a complete failure in that school to promote social justice for the Jewish people. If any other minority group were targeted like this, there would be consequences for the bigot. The Jewish community deserves no less.”

Of course, both women only spoke the truth about what is happening in the Middle East. Neither attacked the Jewish religion or Jews per se and only criticized Israel’s appalling behavior. When I last checked, Israel was a foreign country with both foreign and domestic policies that are considered very questionable by most of the world, so why should it be protected from being challenged in the United States? The two women were brave to speak up as they did, surely knowing that they would be targeted by the Jewish state’s many friends and supporters. Those of us who continue to speak out on Israel’s genocidal policies can likewise expect no less, particularly as both the federal as well as many state governments and also the media are now on a witch hunt directed against those who seek to speak the truth. But we must persevere. As Fatima Mousa Mohammed put it, “Silence is no longer acceptable.”

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://CouncilForTheNationalInterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

Source: https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-hate-crime-purging-of-antisemites-is-underway

Subscribe To The EarthNewspaper.com Newsletter
https://EarthNewspaper.com/Subscribe

Support Honest, Independent, And Ad-Free News
https://EarthNewspaper.com/Donate

Support Finnish Politician Jailed for Posting a Bible Verse!

Posted on by

Support Finnish Politician Jailed for Posting a Bible Verse!

Sadly, in today’s culture, it is an ever growing trend for those not following the status quo to face persecution and in some cases, imprisonment.

The latest recipient of this kind of persecution is Finnish parlimentarian Päivi Räsänen who is facing jail for posting a Bible verse on her personal Twitter account.

Simply because Räsänen expressed her sincerely held beliefs publicly, the police launched an investigation and subjected her to a four-hour interview. Räsänen now faces a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for the crime of so-called “ethnic agitation.”

Sign our petition demanding the The Finnish Prosecutor General drop the charges against Päivi Räsänen immediately.

It all began in June 2019 when the church board of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland announced its official partnership with the LGBT event “Pride 2019”. Räsänen questioned her church’s leadership on this decision on social media, attaching an image of a Bible passage.

The prosecution has also dug up a secondary charge which finds fault with a pamphlet she wrote in 2004 “Male and female He created them – Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity”.

The third charge stems from Räsänen’s views on a Finnish Broadcasting Corporation radio station on the topic of “What would Jesus think about homosexuals?”.

Despite facing jail and ongoing persecution, Räsänen has shown indomitable strength:
“I cannot accept that voicing my religious beliefs could mean imprisonment. I do not consider myself guilty of threatening, slandering or insulting anyone. My statements were all based on the Bible’s teachings on marriage and sexuality,” she said.

“I will defend my right to confess my faith, so that no one else would be deprived of their right to freedom of religion and speech. I hold on to the view that my expressions are legal and they should not be censored. I will not back down from my views. I will not be intimidated into hiding my faith. The more Christians keep silent on controversial themes, the narrower the space for freedom of speech gets.“

Add your name: demand the three “hate speech” criminal charges against Finnish Member of Parliament, Päivi Räsänen be dropped immediately. Voicing one’s deeply held beliefs as found in the Bible should not lead to punishment including imprisonment.

This is critical. Not only is Mrs. Räsänen’s freedom at stake, but also yours and mine. The very definition of what it means to live in a free society is one in which the state should not be allowed to dictate what you can or cannot say and think.

And while you may not live in Finland and think you are safe in your homes in the Canada, the United States, or the United Kingdom, there are plenty of cases of Christians facing persecution right here in our own countries.

In Canada, we’ve seen provinces ban all pro-life expression around abortion clinics. We’ve seen school board trustees penalized for expressing biblical teachings about homosexuality. One might even remember that Jordan Peterson originally came to prominence due to his freedom of speech being suppressed. 

It is our duty to stop this persecution in its tracks.

Freedom of speech and Freedom of religion are a fundamental human right (as found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 18 and 19, and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union article 11) and part of that includes the ability to express one’s sincerely held beliefs and not only that, but also practice them. In this case Räsänen is simply following Biblical teachings. She is not being malevolent, violent or malicious to those with disagreeing views. Her only “crime” has been expressing publicly a view which is not popular in our modern society. When you look at the underlying issue even deeper, it’s nothing more than effort to silence those who speak the truth.

Punishing individuals such as Räsänen sets a very dangerous precedence apart from the fact that it shuts down honest, open public dialogue. It effectively makes following Jesus a criminal act and expressing Biblical teachings, “hate speech” – all based purely off the arbitrary definition of what one can take “offence” to.

Sign our petition today stating that Christians like Päivi Räsänen should not be prosecuted for expressing her beliefs by tweeting a Bible verse.

Thanks for all you do,

James Schadenberg and the entire CitizenGO Team