In my latest Spectator column I’ve written about Justin Trudeau’s dystopian Online Harms Bill. Here’s how it begins:
You’d assume the reaction to the SNP’s new hate crime laws would make other authoritarian governments hesitate before introducing similar legislation. Humza Yousaf has become a laughing stock and his approval ratings have fallen by 15 points. But apparently not. The new Irish Taoiseach, Simon Harris, is determined to railroad through the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, Donald Tusk’s government in Poland wants to introduce a new law that would make it a criminal offence to ‘defame’ a member of the LGBT community and Justin Trudeau is pressing ahead with an Online Harms Bill that makes our own Online Safety Act seem like the First Amendment. It’s as if all these ‘liberal’ leaders are saying: “You think Humza Yousaf is the West’s foremost opponent of free speech? Hold my beer.”
The Canadian proposal is, by some distance, the worst. It’s so dystopian, even George Orwell and Philip K. Dick failed to anticipate it. Discrimination is already banned under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but the new law will expand the definition of ‘discrimination’ to include online speech “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group”. To those worrywarts who are anxious about the risk that this new law might be weaponised by woke activists, the government has said that ‘detestation’ and ‘vilification’ are not the same as ‘disdain’ or ’dislike’, which will still be permitted (thank you, Mr Trudeau), or speech that ‘discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends’.
Which raises the question: who gets to decide what speech falls foul of this new standard? And what qualifies them to make these Solomon-like judgments, parsing the difference between ‘dislike’ (acceptable) and ‘detest’ (verboten)? That job will fall to a new national agency called the Digital Safety Commission, comprised of five commissioners and an army of bureaucratic busybodies, which will have the same powers as a federal court, save for the fact that it won’t be bound by ‘any technical or legal rules of evidence’. (Points to Kafka for anticipating that.)
Worth reading in full.
I end by inviting anyone interested in helping me set up a Free Speech Union of Canada to contact me on tobyyoung@freespeechunion.org.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And they call us ”conspiracy theorists”.
”KAMALA HARRIS: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and REDUCE POPULATION, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water.”
https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1679988804168347648
She is the perfect advert to reduce the population by one..
And she can’t even blame dementia!
I’m already onboard with the fact ( in my opinion ) that there’s a depopulation agenda going on and has been for years prior to the scamdemic and subsequent deployment of the death jabs. Just take a look at these quotes as an example of just how sick, twisted, but intent on lowering the population numbers some outspoken psychopaths are. Yet we’re meant to take public health advice from these dangerous scum? And note the obvious injection of misogyny in the second one;
”Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.
“Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
”Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
So don’t call me and others ”conspiracy theorists” when the facts are out there in plain sight but you’re too naive/willfully blind to see!
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/dont-believe-in-the-globalist-depopulation
Something important, which is rarely addressed, to throw at the Covid Inquiry. If lockdowns were so effective at saving lives and stopping the spread then why did low-income countries fare much better than rich countries? They don’t have a ‘lap-top class’ and people have to leave the house to earn a living because most live in poverty. Shouldn’t they have been dropping like flies, especially due to their living standards and poor health care? An interesting study focusing on Haiti. Just a bit more confirmation that the ”pandemic” was a hoax;
”Lockdowns were implemented and experienced differently by different countries and social groups. Low-income countries (LICs) present a unique set of empirical and ethical concerns when evaluating lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Debates about protecting “health” and/or “the economy” operate with a categorically different set of balances when the majority of a population lives below the poverty line and are dependent on subsistence agriculture; or live in an urban slum with no running water or an area prone to natural disasters and civil conflict.
A growing body of research has validated initial concerns that lockdowns and NPIs would have substantial and negative livelihood and health consequences for people in LICs (Bardosh, 2023). According to the 2021 United Nations (UN) Sustainability Development Goals report, “Years, or even decades, of progress have been halted or reversed. In 2020, the global extreme poverty rate rose for the first time in over 20 years. Hundreds of millions of people were pushed back into extreme poverty and chronic hunger”
Haiti has one of the world’s lowest reported mortality rates from COVID-19. Officially, there have been only 33,756 confirmed cases (through October 2022), with 857 deaths among a population of 11 million; in contrast, neighboring Dominican Republic (population 10.7 million) reported 646,000 cases and 4384 deaths.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623004331?via%3Dihub
Remember that the validity of official records of causes of death is open to doubt, especially when comparing between states/nations in this case. I guess it’s possible that the residents in Haiti and similar places tend to have more robust immune systems than others. Not that some would use an idea like that to promote their political views – or would they?
But did you clock in the abstract, ”Despite the lack of testing…”? Therein lies the crux, in my opinion. I know that countries in the West went mental for mass testing, with even school kids being given them to test themselves twice/week, as well as employees of course. It just became routine. Certainly in the NL, if you didn’t have the death jab you had to provide a negative test result so you could get your precious QR code in order to participate in society in general. So there was a massive surge of testing because young people still wanted to go out and have a social life. I myself had to do a test just so I could attend my daughter’s birthday party at a venue. It was Vaxpass Nation. I don’t have the figures to hand but how did this compare to the testing going on in poor countries?
So there was the fraudulence of defining a ”Covid death” and the resulting misattribution plus the mass testing, it’s going to inflate the Covid figures considerably isn’t it?
Yes, comparing ‘Covid deaths’ between countries is a fool’s errand. Even within a single country we get changes in diagnosis and registration rules. The UK made changes to Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) processes in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which make comparisons difficult (I stumbled across this on the National Association of Funeral Directors site in late March 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200926073015/https://nafdcovid19.org.uk/2020/03/coronavirus-act-changes-to-death-registration-in-england-and-wales/) . The only sensible comparison is all-cause mortality against a country’s own history.
For example: comparing Australia’s weekly all-cause mortality rates with UK’s as recorded in the Human Mortality Database (https://mortality.org) is confounded by the fact that Australia figures do not include deaths referred to a Coroner (apparently about 10% of deaths) – at all. UK includes them but lists them on the date of registration – ie late.
I asked Just Stop Oil what protests have taken place to disrupt military activities or calls for diplomacy to end conflicts given the military and weapons manufacturers are major consumers of fossil fuels even outside wartime. Reducing the need for military operations aligns with the goals of JSO. No answer.
Go on. Glue yourselves to the road in Moscow or Beijing – or even Aruba. Please.
Scott Perry in the Twitter clip was great. Just wish we had politicians like him in the UK who were willing to question the AGW hypothesis.
I’m not sure that AGW qualifies as an hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
“Britain’s China policy has been completely demolished”
Its been quite a while since I realised that China is selling us electric cars and wind turbines to reduce our CO2 output, but making them with electricity which comes from burning coal, and with the industry that we have gifted to them in order to reduce our CO2 output. And one of the key social media platforms for climate hysteria, is TikTok, owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
Plant the seeds and watch them grow. The long game, indeed…
Yet I can never understand how it is that Western countries blindly put themselves into allegedly disadvantageous relationships with countries they regard as enemies, and then blame those enemies for being cunning and devious.
It is Britain that voluntarily refuses to be self-sufficient in manufacturing, energy and the rest, and it is British climate scientists and governments that produce the climate alarm. It’s interesting that the only climate model that remotely models reality is the Russian one – they are telling us the true climate situation, yet we prefer our own self-deceptive lies.
It’s not so much that the Chinese are dashed cunning, but that the6y see we are damned stupid.
It is British governments, encouraged by small well financed middle class lobbyists. The rest of us abhor that policy.
I’m not so sure that “the rest of us” is that much of a majority. The campaign to paint Putin as a demon, Xi as a genocide, and both as unpopular tyrants seems to have many adherents amongst ordinary people here.
You might find this interesting..
https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-au/the-truth-about-tiktok#
Separating fact from fiction about Tick-Tok, which is NOT owned by the Chinese Government…
Why is Chinese Government interference naturally bad?..while US or EU interference on Twitter, Facebook and You Tube for instance is not as bad?
Is it China’s fault that the West, in its hypocrisy, let’s them manufacture goods that we buy….while we virtue signal?
Tangential to that, did anyone else hear the BBC report a day or so ago on some billionaire and his attempts to reverse ageing? The interviewer noted uncritically that he had received plasma transfusions from his young son, and given them in turn to his ageing father. “How interesting that this man is using his wealth to research longevity” was the vibe.
But my immediate thought was the “conspiracy theories” that say children are being trafficked from poor countries so that rich people can harvest their blood in a rather Faustian quest for eternal life.
Such a bizarre and unlikely story, until you hear the BBC featuring a billionaire who’s actually doing it (at least the transfusions – maybe he can’t afford the child trafficking, or at least to admit to it).
And then we have the equally bizarre stories, but true, of the independent movie on child sex trafficking reaching the top of the movie charts, despite theatres across America being mysteriously evacuated during showings, or people having their tickets refunded in advance because of multiple air-conditioning problems (some people have attended anyway, and found AC working in the lobby and the loos, but not in the auditorium).
And of course Epstein killed himself.
How hard it is nowadays to avoid paranoia.
Sound of Freedom came to mind too when I saw the headline (although turns out this miracle drug is likely yet more pharma unicorn poo). But yes, given that there are some unusually healthy people in the global gerontocracy, I share your paranoia.
It is noticable how many of the globalist leaders are very old men. I mean, how is Henry Kissinger still alive, or George Soros for that matter. I try not to think about it, but I fear beneath all the weird stuff we know about, is another layer of really weird stuff we don’t.
I can well believe that evil people try to prolong their lives by such means – I can’t believe that it actually works. I’d rather believe that privileged people are spared many causes of early death, and that evil people are preserved for a little by the devil.
I used to hear it was tiger and panda penis that prolonged your life! Now it’s kiddy blood!
Ffs
I guess we don’t know the half of it. I read an article by James Delingpole yesterday where he gave his views in the most recent Huw Edwards case as being just another scratching around the surface of what must be an enormous boil of, quite frankly, demonic depravity. I’m inclined to agree with him. Epstein, Saville, Prince Andrew, Heath etc are all small titbits, offerings if you like, that the media feed on without getting down to the main meal and what’s happening in the kitchen. This should be – in any rational and sane world – a gift to any journalist wishing to earn their spurs on true investigative reporting. Instead, they stop dead in their tracks with one or two reveals as if there’s nothing more to see. Until there is and then the whole circus starts up again. The fact that investigations into child abduction and child abuse always seem to be stalled or documents go missing or, in the case of Epstein, people (apparently) die (he may have been suicided or maybe he’s living elsewhere after plastic surgery)suggests a potential vast cover-up going all the way to the top.
https://open.substack.com/pub/delingpole/p/no-one-gives-a-flying-about-huw-edwards
I like that man, well done, we need more like him
And I truly hate, that’s hate, grifting, lying, grasping, and yes entitled charlatans like John Kerry and his ilk. Alleged war criminal Tony Blair and his spinning sidekick come to mind.
“Trans guidance will urge schools to help parents protect children”
Urge???
If parents need to be urged to protect their own children then they are not real parents!
“Harvard claims it found elixir of youth – but experts call it ‘hype’”
Dr David Sinclair, who is 102, discovered the substance behind a waterfall in the Hymilayas!
“The West must get Ukraine into NATO as fast as we can”
Thanks for your wisdom Boris! Hope you have a bunker for your family because there is no other action that would guarantee WW3 faster than that!
I’m done ranting, off for a lovely brunch fry up!
So, on the last post (Twitter link to John Kerry vs. Congressman Scott Perry), as if to drive home the fallacy of AGW, resorts to the ~98% scientific consensus argument once all his other vague arguments have failed. This is commonly pulled out of the bag as a desperate attempt to prop up one’s floundering case, lacking any evidence, for human induced catastrophic climate change – by stating this easily falsified consensus.
Here’s why the ~97% / 98% consensus argument is a false conclusion of the 2013 John Cook study that produced this nonsense statistic:
https://co2coalition.org/2021/10/31/97-consensus-what-consensus/