The Contrast Between A Free State (Florida) & A Cringing, Cramped Control-Freak Dominated Country (Canada)
‘While our COVID mandates made it a serious offence to be in any Canadian workplace unmasked, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida made it an offence for any Florida employer to require employees to even wear a mask.” — Howard Levitt (National Post, November 16, 2024)
Incidentally, despite the lockdowns, forced masking, forced vaxxing, Ontario had a slightly HIGHER deathrate from COVID than free Florida.
Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris worried in 2019 that social media sites are “directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.” Presidential rival Donald Trump, on the other hand, thinks that people who criticize judges should be jailed, along with anyone who burns an American flag. Photo by The Associated Press
Article content
The U.S. political system is peculiar. While it’s wandered far from its origins, it’s a government based on the principle that people who seek power can’t be trusted, and it’s a democracy rooted in the belief that majorities can be as tyrannical as dictators. Not everybody agrees, of course, including members of the political class who propose to “save the republic” from rivals while rejecting restraints on power.
Last month, former Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complained that the competing voices of social media make it difficult “in terms of building consensus around any issue” because “people self-select where they go for their news or for their information.”
He fretted that if people prefer a news source that “is sick and has an agenda … our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer it out of existence.” His hope was to overcome this impediment by “winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”
The same month, 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Americans are spreading what she calls “Kremlin propaganda” and should be “civilly or even in some cases criminally charged” for their speech. Last week she complained “we lose total control” if online discussions aren’t heavily regulated.
Current presidential hopeful Kamala Harris worried in 2019 that social media sites are “directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.” Harris is vice-president in an administration that tried just that through back channels, leading Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to tell Congress “senior officials from the Biden administration … repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor” discussions about COVID-19 and Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, wrongly claims ”there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” Robert Reich, the Clinton-era secretary of labour, wants Elon Musk arrested “if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) threatened “to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets” after Amazon slapped back at her over tax policy.
This flurry of threats to speech protected by the First Amendment comes from a rogues’ gallery of Democrats who will respond that Donald Trump did it first and that they need to save democracy from his threat. They’re right the GOP presidential hopeful also has a taste for abusing power, though who started it is a judgment call, as is the question of who poses the greatest threat to the republic.
“Burning the American flag, I want to get a law passed … you burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year,” Trump harrumphed in August. It wasn’t the first time he’s called for jailing protesters who use flags as fiery props. He made the same call in July and floated the idea when he was in the White House, even though flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment.
Trump also thinks people who criticize judges and Supreme Court justices “should be put in jail,” as he commented last month (he might want to be careful about that, given his own criticism of the bench).
Also worthy of legal attention, says the former and potential future president, are “lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, & corrupt election officials” involved in what Trump, who claims the 2020 presidential contest was stolen, considers unscrupulous election-related behaviour. They “will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our country.”
Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, wants to ban pornography, though it generally enjoys constitutional protection. Vance’s instincts extend to political opponents. In 2021, Vance asked interviewer Tucker Carlson, “why don’t we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation” and other non-profits that pursue left-wing policies on hot-button issues. The veep nominee also wants to “seize the administrative state for our purposes,” replace existing bureaucrats with “our people” and defy the courts if they object.
Florida’s Republican Governor and recent presidential contender, Ron DeSantis, and his party’s lawmakers pushed the Stop WOKE Act to ban controversial racial training adopted by private companies. It was blocked on First Amendment grounds.
If you seek evidence that candidates for public office and political partisans disdain restraints on power when that power is in their hands, and want to punish opponents, there’s plenty of evidence on both sides of the aisle. This would come as no surprise to the founders. During debates over adopting the constitution, James Madison wrote about the balance necessary in designing a government. “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
Madison feared letting majorities run roughshod. “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger,” he warned.
The imperfect result was a constitution that limited government with checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights that forbade officials from interfering with many freedoms. The intent was to let people do and say a good many things that officials don’t like but are powerless to prevent or punish. It goes without saying that the U.S. government is now much larger than intended, and exercises far more authority than was contemplated by the founders. But that’s still not enough for some critics.
Advertisement 6
Story continues below
Article content
Writing last month in The New Yorker, Louis Menand noted a new crop of scholars who are dissatisfied with the constitution. In their ranks is Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California–Berkeley, who hopes to strip anti-majoritarian elements from the system. Others want to completely scrap the document and start over with something that would deliver their preferred results.
But these scholars are playing catch-up with a political class intent on simply ignoring First Amendment protections for speech and constitutional restraints on their power. Ironically, efforts to abuse the power of office to hurt opponents is precisely what the founders intended to prevent with the constitution.
That authoritarian politicians justify their actions as responses to opponents who they allege are the real danger to the republic is also no surprise. Those who think coercive government is a solution to problems will inevitably try to apply it to opponents they see as problems.
The American Constitution was intended to thwart the kind of people who now make up pretty much the entire political class. We’ll see if it’s up to the challenge.
Rep. Thomas Massie Says Congress Members Should Not Be Dual Citizens, Gets Accused of Anti-Semitism
Chris Menahan – August 20, 2024 Tuesday
https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64605EXTRACTCongressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) is being accused of anti-Semitism for stating that members of the US Congress should not be allowed to hold dual citizenship with other countries.
“Dual citizens elected to United States Congress should renounce citizenship in all other countries,” Massie said Monday on X. “At a minimum, they should disclose their citizenship in other countries and abstain from votes specifically benefitting those countries.”Though Massie didn’t call out any country by name, he was immediately accused of anti-Semitism by Jewish Florida State Rep. Randy Fine (R).
“This guy is just gross,” Rep. Fine said. “Who in Congress is a dual citizen? I think we all know the slur he is tossing around. The real question is why certain Florida politicians choose this bigot to hang around with.”
made anti-Semitic “littering” (aka leafleting) a felony punishable by five years in prison. Stew Peters: Hate speech laws about to be passed in Florida under FAUX conservative governor Ron Desantis. Penalty for having the “wrong” opinion? 3rd degree felony and 5 years in jail! Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis held a signing ceremony for the bill together with Fine while on foreign soil in Israel after dining with pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson. Randy Fine: Made a secret trip to JERUSALEM (!!!) with @RepMikeCaruso to deliver @GovRonDeSantis HB 269, the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States. To Florida’s Nazi thugs, I have news: attack Jews on their property and you’re going to prison. Never again means never again. Mike Caruso: Hate crimes based on religious and ethnic animus is now punishable up to a third degree felony. Florida is saying no to hate. Massie struck a nerve with Israel Firsters earlier this year after he told Tucker Carlson that every GOP member of Congress has an “AIPAC babysitter” who guides them on how to vote in the interests of Israel.
“It’s the only country that does this,” Massie said. AF Post: Congressman Thomas Massie reveals to Tucker Carlson that his Republican colleagues have an “AIPAC babysitter” to ensure they vote in the interests of Israel at all times. “It’s the only country that does this,” Massie adds.
Ron DeSantis Flies To Israel To Destroy Free Speech In Florida
This week Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida made a trip to Israel to sign HB 269, a bill that makes it a felony with up to five years in jail for passing out “offensive” flyers or pamphlets. This move has been widely criticized by free speech advocates and legal experts as a gross violation of the First Amendment. The bill states that anyone distributing “any material for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the owner” could be convicted of a felony “hate crime.” While we often write about the “hate speech” rules on Big Tech platforms, this is far worse. This is the state of Florida violating the First Amendment of the United States.
The legislation came about after activists from a group called the Goyim Defense League made headlines for several years for their activism efforts. The Goyim Defense League’s activism takes the form of distributing flyers that contain “uncomfortable truths” about the individuals who control the mainstream media in the United States. These flyers have been handed out across multiple states, including Florida, and have been met with mixed reactions from the public.
Despite the controversy surrounding the flyers, it is worth noting that they contain no threats of violence or threatening language. Rather, they present what the Goyim Defense League sees as a reality about the individuals who control the mainstream media, and invite readers to consider a different perspective. While some might consider this information to be “offensive,” there is nothing inherently threatening or “intimidating” about the distribution of flyers with factual information on them. The flyers even have a statement on them noting that they are “distributed randomly without malicious intent.”
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. This means that individuals have the right to express their opinions, even if those opinions are controversial or unpopular. The government cannot censor or punish individuals for their speech, unless it poses an imminent danger or threat to others.
HB 269, however, seeks to criminalize speech that is deemed “intimidating” by the state. This is an extremely vague and subjective standard, and it could be used to silence a wide range of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that speech that some may find offensive is still protected under the First Amendment.
This isn’t the first time Ron DeSantis has signed anti-First Amendment legislation while in Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 741, also known as the “Combating Public Disorder” bill, into law on May 14, 2019, in Jerusalem, Israel. The signing ceremony took place at the David Citadel Hotel, where DeSantis was joined by several prominent Jewish leaders and members of the Israeli government.
The bill aims to protect religious institutions and their members from discrimination and harassment. However, many have argued that it does much more than that, and that it represents a serious threat to free speech and civil liberties.
One of the main provisions of HB 741 is a requirement that all Florida public schools, colleges, and universities adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that includes certain forms of criticism of Israel. The definition in question is the one adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and includes examples such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”
Critics of HB 741 argue that this definition is overly broad and could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies. They point out that the definition includes language that could be interpreted as equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, even though the two are not the same thing. They also argue that the definition is not necessary, as schools and universities already have policies in place to address discrimination and harassment.
Another provision of HB 741 requires law enforcement agencies to conduct training on identifying and responding to anti-Semitic incidents. Many have raised concerns that this provision could be used to target legitimate forms of protest and dissent. For example, if a group of pro-Palestinian activists were to stage a peaceful demonstration outside an Israeli consulate or embassy, could they be accused of engaging in an anti-Semitic incident?
Perhaps most controversially HB 741 creates a private right of action for people who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion. This means that individuals who feel that they have been the victim of anti-Semitic discrimination can sue the alleged perpetrator for damages. This is highly likely to be used to stifle free speech and dissent. For example, a professor who expresses a controversial opinion about Israel could potentially be sued by a student who disagrees with them and feels that their religious beliefs have been discriminated against.
The fact that Governor DeSantis flew to a foreign country to sign both of these bills is absurd. Florida is a state in the United States, and its laws should be signed within the state’s borders. The reality that Gov. DeSantis chose to sign these bills in Israel, a foreign country, raises serious questions about his priorities and commitment to upholding the Constitution for the citizens of the United States and his state of Florida.
The implications of HB 269 and HB 741 are deeply troubling. They could be used to silence political dissent, punish those who criticize government officials, or suppress speech that challenges the status quo. In short, it is a direct attack on the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are so essential to a healthy society.
We must be willing to engage in open dialogue with those who hold different views, and to stand up for our rights even when it is uncomfortable or unpopular to do so.
This means supporting organizations and individuals who are working to protect free speech, like Gab, and advocating for policies that promote openness and transparency in government. It also means being willing to speak out against efforts to silence dissent or suppress speech even when they come from our own political allies.
The defense of our fundamental rights is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic human dignity and freedom and it requires all of us to stand up and be counted. We must remain vigilant in the face of attempts to suppress speech and dissent, and be willing to push back against these efforts wherever they arise. Only by doing so can we ensure that America remains free for generations to come.
Andrew Torba CEO, Gab.com Jesus Christ is King of kings
Dear Mr. Cooper: Let me get this straight: You want me to “Stand With Doug” and send some money? No way. Doug Ford has presided over the greatest destruction of citizens rights this province has ever seen. Since March, 2020, Doug Ford has vacuumed away the Charter rights of Ontarians to freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of movement. We have gone through long periods of stay at home orders, a form of house arrest. But the victims have committed no crime, faced no charge, had no trial or an opportunity to defend themselves. They have just been punished.The Ford government has acted as if there were no Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The right to gather and worship, gone or severely restricted. The right to gather with family for meals or worship at Christmas and Easter, gone. Doug Ford closed schools, ruled one business essential and it could stay open with shifting restrictions, but another business must close. Thousands of businesses closed and ruined; tens of thousands of Ontario workers made jobless. Mobility rights, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest stomped on. I believed in the populism of Ford Nation. My belief began to fade when Doug Ford dismissed END THE LOCKDOWN protesters rallying at Queen’s Park, many of them ardent Ford Nation supporters, as “a bunch of yahoos”. I watched as Ontario turned into a police state. A Christian church in Aylmer had been fined over $100,000 for the “crime” of gathering together to worship the Lord. Its Pastor Henry Hildebrandt was conducting a service. His congregation were singing hymns. In strode a sheriff backed up by local police. The congregation was ordered out. The church locks changed by court order. No, this was not North Korea; it was Ford’s Ontario. Oh, and the police had blocked all roads to the church, as if engaged in some drug takedown. Then there was Adamson’s Barbecue in Etobicoke. Owner Adam Skelly made the mistake of thinking he could serve up barbecue to willing customers. Over 100 Metro police and the cavalry descended on the restaurant to drag Mr. Skelly off to jail. The police state goon squad might have suggested a biker’s convention.
On May 23, Hamilton was the scene of something that might have been out of a Monty Python skit. Local police stormed out of a building to slap tickets with hefty fine on peaceful protesters who opposed the lockdown. The insane piece de resistance was the double fining of a rebel reporter. He received a fine under the lying and misnamed “Re-opening Ontario Act” for being in a public gathering of more than five persons. He received a further municipal fine for shaking hands with another consenting adult. Yes, shaking hands in Doug Ford’sOntario is now illegal.
One of the darkest days for civil rights in Ontario was April 16. The government authorized police to pull over pedestrians and motorists and demand that they jusify being away from their home. It sounded like some grade B movie from the 1940s with some surly police agent demanding: “Where are your papers?” What is sandalous is that this was a cabinet decision. Doug Ford and his cabinet had met and discussed this police state measure. Sylvia Jones, a lawyer, had seen no problem with trampling the rights of taxpaying Ontarians and their right to be free from intrusive police checks? True, most police forces announced they would not be making such stops. Good, but it was Doug Ford and his band of freedom thieves who had sought to tighten police state rules on Ontarians. The announcement was walked back a little, but not entirely: Police can stop motorists or pedestrians if they think they’re participating in a public gathering of over five persons.
Ontarians can look with envy at states such as Florida or Texas. There businesses are open, restaurants are open, bars are open. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has FORBIDDEN local governments and school boards from imposing the hated masks on people. Oh, yes, these free states are not cesspools of disease; They have lower infection rates than Ontario, which has groaned under eight months of lockdown tyranny!
And you expect my donation to further enable this tyrant! No way.
Paul FrommDirectorCANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
