Canadian Convolutions > Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson alarmed at Trudeau's anti-free speech act

 

Two of the most intelligent men in the world are very concerned about the direction Trudeau's Online Harms Act will take Canada.

The act is designed to address issues that were never issues before the 21st century. Islamism, Drag Queens,  and transgenderism. It seems to be in defence of the godless, and there appears to be no place for the truth as a defence for the accused. 

Elon Musk Calls Online Harms Act an

‘Attack on the Rights of Canadians’

By Jennifer Cowan

5/8/2024

Updated:

5/8/2024

Elon Musk is once again speaking out against the proposed Online Harms Act, calling it an “attack” on free speech rights in Canada.

The billionaire owner of social media platform X called the proposed legislation “a terrible attack on the rights of Canadians to speak freely” in a May 7 post on X.

Mr. Musk waded into the issue in response to an article about the new changes being brought in with the proposed legislation, and in response to psychologist and author Jordan Peterson who also commented on the new bill.

Mr. Peterson, an outspoken free speech advocate, called the legislation “the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West.”

“Mr. Musk, it’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed,” Dr. Peterson said in a May 7 post.

Mr. Peterson has been outspoken on issues of free speech, including his opposition to the Liberal government’s Bill C-16, which added the protection of gender identity and expression to the Human Rights Code and Criminal Code.

Dr. Peterson’s Twitter account was temporarily suspended for his comments about transgender actor Elliot Page, but it was reinstated by Elon Musk after he purchased the social media platform in 2022.

Mr. Musk, who has said his purchase of Twitter was a $44 billion investment in free speech, has criticized the Online Harms Act on the platform in the past. He called certain measures of the legislation “insane” in a March 12 post in response to an article posted on X.

Entitled “Canadian law would allow judges to hand down life sentences for ’speech crimes’ (no, this isn’t a joke),” the article was posted by Not The Bee, a self-described news and entertainment website with actual news “that seems like it should definitely be satire.”

Justice Minister Arif Virani responded to Mr. Musks comment about the bill’s proposed  life imprisonment sentence for hate propaganda posts.

“The article you shared is misleading. I’d be happy to discuss our legislation and how X can work with us to help keep kids safe and stop hatred,” Mr. Virani said in a March 12 post.

In what way is it misleading, Minister? Share it with all of us.

“It looks like you agree that we all have a responsibility to protect free expression by stopping the worst kinds of hate speech,” he added.

The post included text from the platform’s Help Center, with a section highlighted that said, “We recognize that if people experience abuse on X, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves.”

Online Harms Act

Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, was introduced by the Liberal government in February in a bid to reduce Canadians’ exposure to “harmful content” on the internet. The legislation is currently at second reading in the House of Commons.

Attorney General Arif Virani has said the Online Harms Act would bring a new level of security to online communities and increase protection against the often inappropriate content appearing on children’s screens.

Does that mean protection against Drag Queens, transgender enthusiasts, etc.?

Bill C-63 seeks to establish special protections for children and make online services like Facebook and YouTube “accountable for and transparent about how they are reducing exposure to harmful content.” Compliance is to be monitored by a five-member Digital Safety Commission.

All of whom will be members of the LGBTQ lobby, I am sure.

But besides protection for children, the bill also proposes a number of other changes on online regulation and criminal prosecution.

The bill paves the way for what some critics have called “future crime” provisions, where a judge could place certain restrictions on a defendant for up to a year if the court is satisfied that the individual may commit a future hate crime. Some of the restrictions include wearing an electronic bracelet and curfews. Defendants who refuse could be sentenced for up to one year in jail.

If the bill is passed, a new definition of “hatred” would be added to section 319 of the Criminal Code, which refers to the public incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred and anti-Semitism. Bill C-63 would also add a new standalone hate crime offence to the Criminal Code that would apply to existing offences.

The new bill would also amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifying that posting “hate speech” online counts as discrimination. The government has said this would apply to speech based on detestation or vilification centred on race, religion, sexual orientation, and other grounds.

Maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences in Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code would also be raised to life imprisonment from the current five years. The government has said the maximum penalty would reflect the seriousness of the offence, and emphasized that in all cases courts would have the flexibility to give proportional sentences.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been critical of the proposed legislation and has urged the government to make several “substantial” amendments. The agency said it has concerns about loss of free speech as well as the vague wording the bill uses to define offences, such as “incitement to genocide” and “offence motivated by hatred.”

Chandra Philip contributed to this report.

========================================================================================

Freedom of Speech > Lives in Quebec, as long as you agree with the acceptable narrative

..

How Quebec is getting a freedom-of-speech lesson from

a controversial Christian group

Experts say province cancelling religious event points to fragility of fundamental right

Holly Cabrera · CBC News · 

Posted: Jun 13, 2023 1:00 AM PDT |

Quebec Tourism Minister Caroline Proulx said events that run counter to the government's 'fundamental principles'

can't be held at government-run convention centres. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press)

An evangelical group is preparing to take the Quebec government to court for allegedly breaching its fundamental rights, after the province abruptly terminated a contract to host an event in a public space.

While some initially applauded the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government's show of support for women's right to choose at a time when abortion rights in the U.S. have been jeopardized, constitutional experts are saying the move casts doubt on the health of freedom of expression in Quebec.

Quebec Tourism Minister Caroline Proulx cancelled the gathering by Kelowna, B.C.,-based Harvest Ministries International (HMI) — less than a month before it was to take place — because she said the event was anti-abortion, which goes against "the fundamental principles" of the province. The contract dated back to February.

But HMI maintains that no anti-abortion content was part of the rally's program.

The rally was supposed to take place at the Quebec City Convention Centre from June 23 to July 2.

(Olivia Laperrière-Roy/Radio-Canada)

Samuel Bachand, a lawyer representing HMI, said, to his knowledge, the group has been unable to find another venue in the city to host the "Faith Fire Freedom" rally scheduled for June 23.

The gathering was advertised as part of the group's "Battle for Canada" prayer-and-revival movement, which seeks to have conservative Christians take over the Canadian political system and provides a platform for transphobic messaging. 

HMI has had its fair share of controversies.

Quebec government won't reinstate event by controversial Christian group

The group openly holds anti-abortion views, with its leader, Art Lucier, in online videos repeatedly condemning Bill C-150 — a law passed in 1969 that decriminalized homosexuality and abortion in Canada.

In the past couple of years, the HMI church has been fined thousands of dollars for disregarding public health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bachand said the group will be filing a civil lawsuit by the end of June, claiming compensatory and punitive damages, constitutional declarations and other remedies.

He says the government is breaching Sections 3, 10 and 15 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which relate to freedom of expression, discrimination and access to public space.

Art Lucier, right, pictured here with his wife, Heather, is the leader of Harvest Ministries International, based in Kelowna, B.C. (Submitted by Harvest Ministries International)

HMI issued a formal notice on June 5 to Proulx and the director of the Quebec City convention centre, saying it estimates the cancellation cost it $450,000 in material losses.

All three opposition parties initially backed the government's call, but within a week, the Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire had reconsidered their position.

And in no shortage of irony, the Liberal Party of Quebec — a party whose name bears the word "liberal" — doubled down against exercising freedom of expression. Interim leader Marc Tanguay said the government used an "exceptional measure" to keep out a group that describes abortion as "murder."

But the CAQ and the Liberals' reasoning poses a risk to fundamental rights, which the public should pay more attention to, says Université de Montréal constitutional law professor Stéphane Beaulac.

As HMI points out in its formal notice, even if organizers had intended for the gathering to be an anti-abortion event, the government pulling the plug on the meeting is questionable at best and a Charter violation at worst.

State 'censorship' doesn't end here, experts warn

Robert Leckey, the dean of McGill University's faculty of law and a fervent advocate for LGBTQ rights, called the government's decision to cancel the gathering "very problematic."

"Nobody bats an eyelid about freedom of expression when it's used by people expressing congenial views," Leckey said. "It only matters when it's views that are controversial."

Robert Leckey, the dean of the McGill Faculty of Law, says Quebec opposition parties' initial support of the government's move isn't surprising given the concern for women's rights after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade just a year ago.

(Submitted by Robert Leckey)

Drawing a parallel between the event cancellation and Education Minister Bernard Drainville banning prayer spaces in public schools in April in the name of religious neutrality of the State, Leckey said the ministers "seem to think that they have a very immediate role to play when they see something they don't like going on."

He added "there's no reason to think" governmental interference would be limited to this one case involving an evangelical church group.

Not mincing words, Beaulac called the broken contract an example of censorship.

The CAQ government "punishing a group" because it disagrees with it on issues like abortion is essentially a "blatant case of abuse of public power that is intertwined with fundamental freedoms," he added.

What is especially troubling, Beaulac says, is the government citing a conflict with its own "fundamental principles" to explain why the convention centre would no longer host the event.

Fundamental rights are protections for people — not abstractions like the State, he said.

Stéphane Beaulac, a constitutional law professor at Université de Montréal, says the government cancelling the event reflects a 'blatant case of abuse of public power.' (Submitted by Stéphane Beaulac)

"The issue is not about abortion," he said. "It's about the expression of those opinions, and it's about the possibility of holding an assembly."

"It's not for the government to decide what you think."

Burden of proof is on government

The notice goes as far as saying the cancellation echoes the infamous Roncarelli v. Duplessis Supreme Court case.

The 1959 landmark case saw Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis illegally revoke the liquor licence of a Montreal restaurant owner who was a Jehovah's Witness at a time when Quebec was resolutely Roman Catholic.

Meet the man who took on Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis and won in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Aired May 25, 1965 on CBC's Front Page Challenge.

Quebec's Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission said last Friday the government's actions raised "fundamental questions relative to the protection of rights guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Since no right is absolute, rights must always be reconciled with others, which sets the bar to prevent freedom of expression in a liberal democracy pretty high, Beaulac says.

For instance, hate speech is not protected by freedom of expression rights.

A clear threat of imminent violence or an attempt to overthrow a democratic government are two other obvious limits to freedoms that come to mind, he says.

But the tourism minister didn't cite those reasons: the government ultimately cancelled the event because of a difference of opinion.

Quebec's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, partly inspired by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, became law in 1975.

Given the rights laid out in it — and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — HMI's lawyer says there is no need for the government to impose its own fundamental principles.

"If they are not happy with the Constitution, they can always try to have it amended... unless they come up with another one of those notwithstanding clauses which they seem to be very fond of," Bachand said in a statement, alluding to the CAQ government's pre-emptive use of Section 33 to pass Bill 21, the secularism law, and Bill 96, a more stringent language law.

Beaulac says the onus is on the Quebec government to prove there is a high enough risk of public unrest or the possibility of subverting the State to justify cancelling a gathering in a public space.

So far, the reason Quebec put forth is "no way near" the mark, he said.

A spokesperson for the tourism minister declined to comment on the case.

PC Madness - Washington State High School Ashamed of Stars and Stripes

..

‘Suspend that principal’: High school scraps 9/11 football tribute

‘for fear that red, white & blue colors might cause offense’

13 Sep, 2021 17:46 / Updated 2 hours ago

Eastlake High has caused outrage by reportedly canceling a 9/11 football memorial.

© Google Maps / Eastlake High School

A high school principal in Washington State has faced online fury after it was reported students were prohibited from wearing red, white and blue to honor the 9/11 attacks at a football match for fear of causing offense.

According to radio host Jason Rantz, football players weren't allowed to don the patriotic colors at Eastlake High School in Sammamish as they might "unintentionally cause offense to some who see it differently".

After the patriotic-themed tribute was reportedly canceled "at the last minute", one student explained on Rantz's show how the decision was made as "red, white and blue was going to be seen as racially insensitive and may affect people in a way that we will not understand, and for that reason we were [made] to change our theme."

I think I would like a list of such peoples who would be offended by the American flag? I am hard-pressed to think of whom it might be other than those who flattened the twin towers and killed nearly 3,000 people. 

Instead of preventing some people from being offended, he has offended most Americans. How did this guy get to be a principal with decisions like that?

KTTH 770/94.5FM also uploaded a screenshot of an email from one of Eastlake's associate principals which said she understood the "sacrifice and values our flag represents, but I think they [school leadership] just did not want to unintentionally cause offense to some who see it differently."

Furthermore, Rantz said that the principal Chris Bede, and the district’s communication director Shannon Parthemer, failed to go into specifics regarding who exactly would be offended by seeing the players dressed in such colors.

"Since it was not a home game, there was no opportunity to have an announcement about Patriots Day and to share why students were dressed in red, white and blue," said Parthemer, who told Rantz a decision was made by a still-unnamed member of staff to cancel the theme to Bede's surprise.

"I do want to clarify that schools do not have a right to ban students from wearing anything as long as it is not lewd, vulgar etc. And the theme of red, white and blue definitely would not fit into that category," is what Bede said to parents.

On the internet, though, as news spread of the incident, some users have been calling for his head.

"That principle should be suspended," demanded one. 

"You should be outraged. I hope something positive comes out of it on your side, like the firing of the principal," said another, after a parent took to Twitter to explain she would "be heard".

"Oh my Lord, we simply must get over the worry over the micro-aggressions. Let the sensitive go see a therapist and let the rest of society just live their lives," said a calmer head.

"Wearing the colors of our nation might offend some as we commemorate a tragedy that happened here?" a separate party asked.

"Even if you have issues with policies, beliefs, and attitudes, which I do, it was still a national tragedy that occurred and those who died should be remembered and honored."

Putin on Religion - An Interesting Look at the President's Outlook on Religion and Society

..

Love thy neighbor? Putin says religious values of ‘mercy’ & support for vulnerable underpin Russian civilization through history

8 Jun, 2021 15:07

Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a meeting with representatives of social organizations on Social Worker's Day

via video conference at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow, Russia. © Sputnik / Sergei Ilyin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that brotherly love and care for those in need are the values shared by citizens in his country, and are essential to maintaining the essence of its traditional culture and society.

In a speech to social workers on Tuesday, marking the profession's national day of recognition, Putin emphasized the importance of helping the vulnerable. “The very values of mercy, love for one's neighbor, and support for those in need bind and consolidate the entire centuries-old history of our people. They constitute the spiritual basis of the traditional religions of Russia,” he said.

Except, of course, the 70 years of communism.

Insisting that “people of various classes” understand the fundamental aim of life should be to do good, the president said that charity and being a good neighbor were of paramount importance.

Last December, as Europe grappled with a brutal attack that saw a Parisian schoolteacher beheaded over claims he had showed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad to his class, Putin launched a spirited defense of traditional values and the rights of believers. “It is well known that where one man’s freedom begins, another’s must end,” he said. As a result, those who “act thoughtlessly, insulting the rights and feelings of religious people, should always remember there will be an inevitable backlash. But, on the other hand, this shouldn’t be an aggressive one,” he added.

He cited the case of Samuel Paty as evidence that “multiculturalism has failed,” and also instructed the country's Foreign Ministry to prepare a report on “issues relating to those insulting the beliefs of religious people, and inciting inter-religious hatreds and conflict."

Despite frequently associating himself with Orthodox Christian rituals and emphasizing the role that religious values play in Russia, Putin has been reticent on questions of his personal faith. Asked in 2018 about when he started to believe in God, the politician said that it was “a very personal question, and it is hard to talk about it in public.”

At the same time though, he added that even “confirmed atheists going over the trenches during World War II thought about God,” and that “extreme situations bring out the faith in everyone.”

Russia is consistently ranked as one of the most religious nations on the continent. In 2018, a Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of Russians say it is important to be a Christian in order to truly belong in the country, and 42% believe that the government should actively promote religion.

However, in practice, Russian society diverges from many positions traditionally held by Christians abroad. According to data from 2016, the country's divorce rate far outstrips the rate at which new marriages are being registered. At the same time, the nation has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, despite opposition to the medical intervention from the Orthodox Church. Research and anecdotal accounts have also consistently found that while the bulk of Russians consider themselves to be Christians, a far smaller percentage regularly attend church services.

That, unfortunately, is true of almost every country when it comes to Christianity. Most Christians are Christian in name but not in Spirit.

Subjects avoided by the writer here are homosexuality and transgenderism. Russia has unashamedly pushed back against the hard lobbying of the LGBTQ etc. They are protective of children being exposed to either whereas western countries put such people in charge of children's education. The consequence being great confusion in children and a much higher rate of attempted suicide.

Approaching Sodom - #PCMadness - Biden's Equality Act an Attack on Women, Children, and Christians

..

Biden’s ‘War on Women’: Equality Act to End Legal

Recognition of Biological Sex

BOSTON, MA - FEBRUARY 14: Runners cheer on their teammates during the High School Girls' Sprint Medley Relay

during the New Balance Indoor Grand Prix at Reggie Lewis Center on February 14, 2016 in Boston, Massachusetts.

(Photo by Maddie Meyer/Getty Images)Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

DR. SUSAN BERRY

19 Feb 202117,253

President Joe Biden released a statement Friday urging Congress to “swiftly pass” the Equality Act, a bill that would eliminate the legal recognition of male and female sex, cater to gender ideology, and designate protection for the unborn as “pregnancy” discrimination.

Biden said:

I applaud Congressman David Cicilline [D-RI] and the entire Congressional Equality Caucus for introducing the Equality Act in the House of Representatives yesterday, and I urge Congress to swiftly pass this historic legislation. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, and this bill represents a critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all.

Full equality has been denied to LGBTQ+ Americans and their families for far too long. Despite the extraordinary progress the LGBTQ+ community has made to secure their basic civil rights, discrimination is still rampant in many areas of our society. The Equality Act provides long overdue federal civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, locking in critical safeguards in our housing, education, public services, and lending systems — and codifying the courage and resilience of the LGBTQ+ movement into enduring law.

The House is expected to vote on the Equality Act, H.R. 5, next week. The legislation, which would rewrite civil rights law to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes, would likely upend the national culture as Americans have known it.

“The so-called Equality Act is legislative malpractice that turns equality on its head,” said Ryan Anderson, president of Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC), in a statement. “It isn’t drafted as a shield to protect vulnerable minorities from unjust discrimination, but as a sword to persecute those who do not embrace new sexual and gender ideologies.”

Anderson underscored the tremendous impact the legislation will have on the privacy of women and girls, as well as the punitive consequences to which faith-based institutions and organizations will be exposed at its hands:

It sacrifices the equality, safety, and privacy of women, while privileging men who identify as women: If this bill becomes law, they’d have a civil right to spend the night in a battered women’s shelter, disrobe in a women’s locker room, and compete on a women’s sports team—even children at K-12 public schools.

Religious institutions fare no better. Religious schools, adoption agencies, and other charities would face federal sanction for operating according to basic biology and mainstream Biblical teaching on sex and marriage. Outrageously, this act exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pope Francis would be treated as the legal equivalent of a Jim Crow segregationist.

Anderson noted that any questioning of transgender medical treatments and surgeries would be labeled “discrimination” if the Equality Act becomes law.

“And any refusal to support or provide abortions would now be treated as ‘pregnancy’ discrimination,” he continued. “And no one—not even the act’s sponsors—can tell us what would be required under the act to avoid committing ‘discrimination’ in the case of ‘non-binary’ gender identities.”

Terry Schilling, executive director of American Principles Project (APP), explained further the Equality Act will make permanent in federal law Biden’s executive order on his first day as president regarding “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”

Schilling said in a statement:

Of course, this has been their goal for a long time, and we know by now the very terrible consequences which will occur if the ‘Equality’ Act passes. Female athletes will be forced to compete against biological males; women will be forced to share private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters with men; and religious charities will be coerced into violating their beliefs or else be shut down.

Schilling warned while the “Equality” Act sounds virtuous, “every member of Congress should recognize” that a vote in favor of it “is a vote against women, particularly women and girl athletes, as well as a vote against Americans of faith.”

There is much more on this on Breitbart.

#PCMadness - The Cancel Culture Outs Themselves as Neo-Nazi Idiots Against Mandalorian Star

..

The Lucasfilm star has been dropped from future Mandalorian films be a crush of nonsensical and cruel responses to a Tweet she made. Gina Carano, aside from being very attractive, is very intelligent, articulate, and honest. These are traits that none of her critics can claim. Their interpretations of her comments and the suggestions they make, make it obvious that none of them understood what she really said, or grossly misinterpreted it intentionally. 

Lucasfilm should be ashamed for surrendering to this motley crew of idiots who, in this scenario, represent the Nazis, and represent them very well. Their very response proves the accuracy of her statement.

Lucasfilm says ‘Mandalorian’ star Gina Carano will not return to show after Instagram post about intolerance spurs cancel campaign

11 Feb, 2021 02:45

FILE PHOTO: Actress Gina Carano poses for photos during an event in Berlin, Germany. ©  Reuters / Morris Mac Matzen

‘Mandalorian’ co-star Gina Carano will not be making another appearance on the hit show, Lucasfilm announced, after she was accused of comparing Republicans to Jews living in Nazi Germany in an Instagram post.

Carano took to her Instagram story on Wednesday with a shared post from another user, referencing the plight of Jews living under the Third Reich and drawing a broader point about the persecution of political opponents.

“Most people don’t realize today that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews,” the post said, adding: “How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

The message, initially posted from the account of the ‘Warrior Priest Podcast’, soon triggered an explosive reaction on social media, sending #FireGinaCarano into the Twitter trends as netizens piled on the actress and called to have her booted from the popular ‘Star Wars’ spin-off series.

A common charge from Carano’s Twitter critics – as well as some entertainment media – suggested that she compared “the holocaust to being a Republican,” although the post made no mention of Republicans, Democrats, or indeed anything specific to American politics. Some detractors took even more creative license, accusing Carano of “defending Nazis” – on what grounds remains a mystery.

Hey @Jon_Favreau defending nazis is super gross, maybe do something about it? #FireGinaCaranopic.twitter.com/IXLSVLdNg4

— Someone’s failed-clone’s daughter/granddaughter (@MarienneMaid) February 10, 2021

Others launched a barrage of buzzwords at the actress, arguing the latest controversy merely showed what a “transphobic,”“anti-mask,”“alt-right,” QAnon-believing “Trump supporter” Carano is, urging ‘Mandalorian’ director Jon Favreau to fire her for any of the above transgressions. Sharing “anti-Semitic images,” apparently, is now at the top of the list.

Hours after the controversy kicked off, Lucasfilm, the studio behind ‘The Mandalorian’, announced that the actress would not be returning for the show’s third season, declining to say whether she was actually fired but still referencing her “abhorrent” social media posts.

Astonishing!

“Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable,” the studio said, apparently referring to her Instagram share earlier in the day.

Some observers pushed back on the righteous indignation, however, with comedian and pundit Tim Young arguing that those demanding Carano’s cancellation only proved her point about the dangers of political prejudice.

“They hate her for her opinion and believe she doesn't deserve a job or to even exist in their society,” he said.

Andy Signore

@andysignore Feb 10

Replying to @MarienneMaid and @Jon_Favreau

How is this "Supporting Nazis" - Please elaborate... because your tweet - Which doesn't actually show her defending Nazis, will still go out as evidence that she did... So yeah, please explain... I'll wait.

An outspoken conservative, Carano is no stranger to online rage mobs, previously triggering calls for her firing after posting memes that mocked the use of face masks as a precaution during the Covid-19 pandemic. Her support for former president Donald Trump, as well as her apparent endorsement of his repeated claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 race, have also earned the actress scorn from opponents. 

=============================================================================================

#PCMadness - Hungary and Poland Stand Against Soros; Soros-Funded DA Wreaks Havoc in San Fran; SS Marriage in Switzerland?; NHS Wants Diversity, Not Doctors

..

‘Merkel’s surrender & worst of all possible worlds’: Soros pens angry op-ed over Polish-Hungarian victory in EU budget talks

12 Dec 2020 00:26

The headline is, of course, the very opposite of the truth, in my humble opinion. Merkel may have surrendered to Hungary and Poland, but she stood up to Soros, and by doing so, the 'worst of all possible worlds' was avoided, for now. 

FILE PHOTO: Billionaire investor George Soros attends the 2019 Schumpeter Award in Vienna, Austria.

©  Reuters / Lisi Niesner

Hungary and Poland getting the EU to abandon its conditioning of Covid-19 relief on ‘rule of law’ standards aimed to control their policies has incensed international financier George Soros, who called it a German surrender.

The European Commission originally imposed “rule-of-law requirements” on member states for disbursing the pandemic recovery funds. The measure was seen as a method of pressure on Budapest and Warsaw, which have been at odds with Brussels over their laws on the media, the judiciary and LGBTQI+ rights, among other things. Hungary and Poland responded by threatening to veto the entire seven-year EU budget, prompting Brussels to back down.

To Soros, the Hungarian-born US citizen who funds ‘open society’ causes around the world, this was “the worst of all possible worlds,” and amounted to a “surrender” by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to an op-ed Project Syndicate published on Thursday.

Merkel “caved in to Hungarian and Polish extortion,” Soros wrote, blaming the German chancellor personally for the outcome of the talks. She is “something of the sole main decision-maker for the EU,” he argued, what with President Emmanuel Macron of France “temporarily distracted by the laïcité issue,” as Soros euphemistically described the country’s woes with Islamist terrorism.

Poland and Hungary are “brazenly challenging the values on which the European Union has been built,” Soros argued.

The EU was not built on the destruction of Christian values, as far as I know.

While labeling Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) government “illiberal,” much of Soros’s vitriol was reserved for Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, whose “kleptocratic regime” he alleged “has stolen and misappropriated vast sums during his decade in power.”

Orban’s government has cracked down on Soros’s NGOs, universities and other projects in Hungary over the past decade. The financier turned to Brussels for help, and in October the European Court of Justice sought to strike down the Hungarian education reform that compelled Soros to relocate his Central European University to Austria.

Budapest struck back by accusing the EU of “executing the Soros Plan” with its budget conditions, and attempting to “blackmail and pressure dissenting member states to fall in line,” government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs wrote last month.

Soros concluded his December 10 editorial declaring that all he can do is “express the moral outrage that people who believed in the EU as the protector of European and universal values must feel.” 

That’s somewhat facetious, given the billions of dollars at his disposal

to influence lawmakers and fund media and pressure groups.

When the Hungarian culture commissioner Szilard Demeter wrote an op-ed last month described Europe as “George Soros’ gas chamber,” and called the financier “the liberal Fuehrer,” opposition politicians called for his firing while the American Jewish Committee in Central Europe and the International Auschwitz Committee demanded an apology. 

“Poison gas flows from the capsule of a multicultural open society, which is deadly to the European way of life,” Demeter had written in the piece, which he was forced to retract, as well as delete his social media.

There is no place on social media for the truth. Cudos to Poland and Hungary for not selling their souls to Soros.

San Francisco man arrested for vehicle theft for 14th time in 18 months

as Soros-funded DA claims too many people are in jail

12 Dec 2020 03:50

FILE PHOTO ©  Reuters / Lucy Nicholson

San Francisco police apparently tried to make a point last week when they publicized the arrest of a man who had been busted for vehicle theft 13 times in 18 months – and repeatedly let out of jail to repeat his crimes.

The point must have been lost on Chesa Boudin, the district attorney who was elected last year with funding help from an associate of billionaire George Soros. The suspect was let out again. And now? He has tallied his 14th arrest for vehicle theft in 18 months after police in San Francisco's Tenderloin district again spotted him riding an allegedly stolen motorcycle.

“The same suspect continues to steal vehicles,” the police department tweeted early Friday morning. “Tonight, he is back in custody for his 14th motor vehicle theft arrest.” The motorcycle had a stolen license plate, and its vehicle identification numbers had been removed, police added.

Presumably, the suspect doesn't get caught every time he steals, so there's no telling how many vehicles he might have taken. Property crime is rampant in San Francisco, with more than 5,300 motor vehicle thefts reported in this year's first 11 months, up 33 percent from 2019's pace, according to police data. Car burglaries are even more common. In 2017-2019, a vehicle was broken into about every 20 minutes, on average.

Boudin is part of a wave of Soros-backed prosecutors across the US who are reducing enforcement of crime. After being elected, he almost immediately fired veteran prosecutors in the DA's office. The son of Weather Underground radical left extremists who were imprisoned for murder when he was 14 months old, Boudin has spoken out against mass incarceration and racial disparities in criminal justice. His plan for “rapid decarceration” was accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. San Francisco's jail population is being cut to 600 from 1,100. He also banned prosecutions of so-called quality-of-life crimes, such as prostitution, public urination and blocking sidewalks.

The result, according to some observers, is increasing lawlessness. “The city used to be a treasure,” one Twitter commenter said. “Now it's overwhelmed with aggressive, dangerous druggies and filthy streets where it's genuinely scary to walk the sidewalks in the daytime.”

News of the serial vehicle thief's 14th arrest only exacerbated such frustrations. “You can't even make this s**t up,” MMA fighter Jake Shields tweeted. Another observer said, “This is like a skit on some comedy show, back when those were funny. Soon enough, all they'll be left with is criminals and rich elitists in gated communities wondering where the taxable income went.”

Twitter users speculated that the vehicle thief would be back on the street by the weekend and would soon reach arrest No. 15. One observer suggested sarcastically that the suspect must be a master escape artist who keeps getting out of jail.

“I can't wait for the movie,” he said. “I mean, the only alternative is some morons keep deliberately letting him out of jail. But that'd be stupid.”

Swiss parliament votes to allow same-sex marriage

– but public may have final say in a referendum

18 Dec 2020 15:06

Gay couple exchange rings after being married. © Reuters / Tobias Schwarz

Legislators in Switzerland have approved a bill to allow same sex-couples to marry. But it's too early to call victory for the LGBTQ community – opponents of the legislation have promised to put it to a referendum.

The vote, which took place in both chambers of the parliament on Friday, was far from unanimous. The bill was backed by 136 MPs in the National Council, with 48 against it and nine abstaining. In the Council of States, 24 deputies were in favor of gay marriage, 11 of their colleagues rejected the idea and seven abstained. 

The bill, allowing gay couples to get married, while also granting lesbian couples access to sperm donations, faces yet another hurdle before becoming a law.

The conservative Federal Democratic Union party, which stands for Christian values, has announced that it's going to put the issue to a referendum vote. This means that the Swiss public might have to decide if same-sex marriages are to become a thing in their country.

"If the opponents launch a referendum, we're ready," Matthias Erhardt from the Rainbow Families association, which protects the rights of gay parents in the country, told AFP. "We have 82 percent of the population behind us," he insisted.

Switzerland remains one of the few European nations where same-sex marriage is still illegal. Members of Parliament have been debating legislation on the issue since 2013.

At the moment, the Alpine nation allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into so-called "registered partnerships," which doesn't provide the right to obtain Swiss citizenship or to jointly adopt children.

UK ex-doctors volunteering to help with Covid-19 vaccination blocked by

mandatory DIVERSITY training & paperwork forest

1 Jan 2021 21:45

FILE PHOTO: A medical worker draws an injection of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine into a syringe at the Hurley Clinic in London, Britain. ©  Reuters / PA Wire / Aaron Chown

Thousands of retired doctors and nurses volunteering to rejoin the UK’s National Health Service during the pandemic are being forced to endure “diversity training” – but vaccination training is optional.

NHS veterans applying to return to the service are required to supply a whopping 21 pieces of evidence, the Daily Telegraph revealed on Wednesday, noting that the “red tape” had created a massive bottleneck in hiring with just 5,000 of over 40,000 doctors and nurses who applied for the positions starting in March had been hired by July.

A list of the requirements was posted to social media the same day, and the service’s bizarre requests raised eyebrows across the country. In addition to standard requests like identity documents, proof of education, certification in such urgent-care basics as resuscitation, the NHS demands applicants complete courses in baffling subjects like “preventing radicalization” and “equality, diversity and human rights.”

Even as hospitals complain of staffing shortages and job applicants tear their hair out at the number of hoops they’re forced to jump through, the NHS has refused to budge on its requirements that doctors need not only be medically competent, but mentally compliant. Indeed, the service defended its “stringent recruitment process,” arguing its goal was to “recruit a wide array of individuals from a variety of backgrounds – many of whom are not registered healthcare professionals.”

What happens when ministry leaders have no training in their ministries

This is what happens when you put people in charge of a ministry who have no training or experience in that ministry. Matt Hancock is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. He has no training or experience for either. He is a trained economist.

Sir Chris Wormald KCB, Permanent Secretary also seems to have no experience or training in health or social care. 

As such, I might suggest they have more interest in doing things in a politically correct manner than in a medically effective manner, hence the emphasis on the 'variety of backgrounds' and the deemphasis on healthcare backgrounds. Just my humble opinion!

If the NHS is deliberately attempting to fill empty positions with non-medical staff, one might question why it doesn’t require applicants to show proof of training in vaccine administration or vaccine storage – two requested documents that are not listed as “required.” Surely, it’s more important for someone who will be vaccinating a large number of individuals with shots that require deep refrigeration to know how to dispense and store those vaccines than it is that they prove competency in “data security awareness.”

More ominously, vaccinators are not required to complete a course titled “Introduction to Anaphylaxis” – even as a growing number of vaccine recipients have experienced life-threatening allergic reactions. While Pfizer, whose vaccine was the first to be approved in the UK, has emphasized the importance of having staff trained in recognizing the signs of anaphylaxis and equipping vaccination sites with the materials needed to save lives, it’s healthcare providers’ job to ensure their employees are competent.

Even the chair of the Royal College of GPs, Professor Martin Marshall, has denounced the NHS’ red-tape-laden policies, as well as the lack of instruction regarding how, when, and where the Covid-19 jabs are supposed to be administered. “The workforce isn’t big enough to allow” for getting “30 million people vaccinated twice in six months,” he told the Guardian, noting that numerous chronic and acute conditions that have nothing to do with coronavirus still require doctors to treat.

But the NHS has made clear for months that competence is not their chief concern during the pandemic. Aside from its 2020-2021 list of priorities, which includes a directive to “recruit people with learning disabilities,” the service even adopted a measure in February that would allow staff to refuse treatment to patients deemed ‘guilty’ of making sexist or racist comments. The mandates seem to make a mockery of the Hippocratic oath, which requires physicians “first do no harm,” though it supposedly can’t be invoked for patients who require critical care. However, such requirements have an unfortunate tendency to turn into slippery slopes.

===============================================================================================