Category Archives: freedom of speech

Another brick in the wall restricting truth as hate speech

Posted on by — 5 Comments ↓

yesterday we reposted the video of Stephen Coughlin at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe here.

If you haven’t seen the video please do watch it.

Here is a rather worthwhile dot to connect to it.

From May 28, 2026

Belgian Court Rules ‘Factually Correct’ Remarks Can Be Hate Speech

Truth is now criminal hate speech if used to “incite hatred,” according to a Belgian court. 

The ruling came in the case of anti-migration activist Dries Van Langenhove, who said in a post on X that, “it is only due to a technicality that I could not immediately be sent to jail —to the judge’s frustration.”

Van Langenhove’s conviction was based on a lecture given in 2024 at Catholic University Leuven, in which he linked mass migration to “crime and a deterioration of our quality of life.”

He said, “Every single point I made was 100% the truth and based on scientific evidence.”

The judge, however, in his ruling, said, “Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.”

According to Van Langenhove, the judge and prosecutor did not dispute the facts in his speech but said he created a “hostile atmosphere of us versus them” regarding migrants. 

It is Van Langenhove’s second hate speech conviction, and he faces another court case in September. 

He claims there are a dozen active criminal investigations against him for hate speech and has already paid more than 420 thousand euros ($489,000) in legal fees.

 

2015: OSCE meeting where the future was foretold – Truth becomes hate speech

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

Please take your time and watch this one with focus. This is not a very long video. But like a lot of the old material we repost here from time to time, it has layers of extra meaning and value in hindsight.

First, the blunt question is asked by Henrik Clausen: “Can truth ever constitute hate speech?”

There is a lot of analysis in here by Stephen Coughlin. The whole video is only 19 minutes. But it is a major foreshadowing of the state of freedom of speech in the West today, and identifies some of the actors who crushed it, not the least of which appears to be certain Russian agencies.

A few of other people’s thoughts on the spate of related bills flowing through Parliament to create a surveillance state

Posted on by

A few days ago we posted an interview for RAIR Foundation with one of the lawyers of the JCCF, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in Western Canada. We discussed bill C-34, yet another bill to protect children by taking away all the privacy and liberty of adults, while simultaneously creating mechanisms which would allow powers of arrest for “hate speech” where hate speech will of course, be dialectically determined. In other words, to the benefit of state power, and to the ultimate detriment of all of us.

In case you haven’t seen that interview yet, here it is again below.

Here are a few thoughts from the Twitterati on the matter.

I might be able to save you time on the above video. The answer to the question was long, monotonous, and contained no information whatsoever.

What we can say though. is that Canadian federal and other government data bases are hacked constantly, in fact so much so, one wonders if it isn’t part of a previous more informal “strategic partnership” with China, and going forward, they won’t need to ‘hack’ it because part of our “strategic partnership”, which actually means the integration of systems, means the systems are integrated and no ‘hacking is needed’. Speculative, but consistent with reality. Those of you that have faced the Long Form Census maybe should wonder if the fine and jail is worth not giving up all that information. It feels a little like rape answering those questions to a state that hates you.

This guy is interesting though:

For those of you over 60, you may remember these:

spirit duplicator

Screenshot

After maybe looking up what those things are, for those that don’t remember, also look up the word, Samizdat.

Interview with Luke Neilson of the JCCF on some of the legislation threatening Canadian liberties

Posted on by

Short discussion with lawyer from the JCCF on some of the more outrageous, (even though voted down ultimately) aspects of some of Canada’s most totalitarian legislation.

Article at RAIR Foundation

Interview with Luke Neilson

Communism as the Canadian modus is no longer an academic issue: All secure comms may pull out of Canada if C-22 passes

Posted on by

Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook

Secure messaging service Signal yesterday became the latest company to warn that Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, could force it to leave the Canadian market rather than comply with provisions it says would compromise its end-to-end encryption and create new cybersecurity risks. Signal vice-president Udbhav Tiwari told the Globe and Mail that the company “would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users.” The comments are part of a steady stream of similar warnings from Apple, Meta, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Cybersecurity Advisors Network, and the chairs of the U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees. Despite growing concern, the government’s response has been to launch a misleading social media campaign and repeatedly insist that the experts and companies are mistaken.

The pattern will be familiar for anyone who lived through the Online News Act. Supporters of then-Bill C-18 dismissed warnings from Meta and Google that the bill’s mandated payments for news links were unworkable and that they would comply by blocking the links in Canada. Witnesses confidently told Senate committees that the companies were bluffing and that, “when legislated to do so, they will come to the table.” But by the end of summer 2023, Meta had stripped news links from Facebook and Instagram, an approach that continues to this day.

The government’s defence of Bill C-22 follows much the same script. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has accused the U.S. tech giants of “misinterpreting” his bill and his department insists the legislation is “encryption-neutral.” When Apple released a statement warning that the bill “could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products, something Apple will never do,” officials replied that it “categorically rejected” the claims. When the U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs chairs wrote that providers of end-to-end encryption “will inevitably face directives to create backdoors and architectural changes that bypass or weaken encryption,” the minister’s spokesperson said the letter reflected “a misunderstanding of how Bill C-22 would function in practice.” When Signal said it would leave, it responded that the concerns regarding installing capabilities to enable surveillance are false. In other words, the government thinks everyone is wrong and the risk of market exits are overblown.

Read the rest at the link above please.

 

Protest on Parliament Hill over bill C-9: The end of all free speech and therefore end of all democratic process

Posted on by

The following videos are the speeches given on Parliament Hill on March 12th by Constitutional lawyers, pastors, Members of Federal Parliament, activists and the head of the Christian Heritage Party concerning Bill C9. One of a tranche of totalitarian bills aimed at eviscerating all the most basic rights of anything like a republic in Canada. Speech which counters any state narrative will be actually criminal, instead of the extra judicial punishments the state has used so far such as doxxing and use of Jacobins like ANTIFA to punish those dare oppose each or any narrative attack.

Please watch them all. Each of these speakers covers a component of the issue. Spread them around to those you know that are unaware of the problem, or are on the fence on the issue.

Write up on each speaker at RAIR Foundation.

1. Christine Van Guyn. Canadian Constitutional Lawyer, interim Director.

2. Rod Taylor: Christian Democrat Party leader

3. Rev. Joel Dykstra: United Reformed Church

4. Colin Postma

5. Paul Lawton: Dir. Grass Roots Action for Upper canada

6. MP Jacob Mantle plus 8 other MPs (Cons,)

7. MP Andrew Lawton:

Canada’s premiere Human Rights law firm head, John Carpay on ceding Vancouver to a small group of Amer-Indians

Posted on by

Article at RAIR Foundation.

This interview covers the secret deal to give Vancouver to an Indian band, and more importantly, what this likely is really for, as well as a quick update on Canada’s rapidly closing window on any kind of liberty with the impending passage of bill C9.

Additional:

BC Trailer Park Residents Face Eviction by K’omoks First Nation

On Bill C-9

Posted on by

The following is a replay of an ’emergency discussion’ on the legislation in Canada called bill C-9.

There is a great deal of information out there on this. We ourselves have done interviews with John Carpay on this, the head of the JCCF which is one of the last remaining effective individual rights law firms in Canada. And in this meeting video below, the concerns are addressed which one would expect. Also a new issue has appeared. The state appears to be limiting debate on it. Clearly the state wants this legislation to pass quickly and with as little discussion as possible. Knowing the dialectically named, ‘Conservative’ Party they will probably get their way.

We have our own analysis on this. But first, the meeting video:

John Carpay on this and other authoritarian bills from October 3rd, 2025

The following is essentially stream of consciousness and going from memory. There will be errors in the details. But the thesis is not dependant on the accuracy of each detail.

Some years ago, hate-speech legislation was passed in Canada.

Here are the specifics and sequence of events that I think add a proper perspective to this issue:

  • 2004–2005: The Liberal government of Paul Martin introduced Bill C250, adding sexual orientation to the hate-propaganda sections of the Criminal Code.

  • 2004: Stephen Harper (then opposition leader) supported an amendment clarifying that expressing opinions based on religious texts would not by itself constitute hate propaganda.

  • June 2004: Bill C-250 passed Parliament, extending existing hate-propaganda law protections to sexual orientation.

““For greater certainty, no person shall be convicted of an offence under this section solely for expressing or attempting to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.””

Was the exception clause.

Frankly I am not 100% sure how this fits in. The real issue is that Muslims in Canada break existing hate speech laws EVERY DAY and no charges ever happen. In the exceptionally important movie, made by a Danish American film maker, Michael Hanson, he interviews a Montreal Islam watcher, Marc Lebuis, who attempted to take an Imam who was blatantly inciting hatred against Jews, women, non-Muslims in written and published, spoken in public sermons and broadcast on the internet forms to the Quebec Human Rights Commission. Not even a real court! Just the HRC and they refused to take the case.

“Islamophoboes” though…

So anyone who thinks more hate speech legislation will make ANYTHING better should go back to their Hopium pipes. These laws are to destroy what little liberty the rest of us have.

Marc appears 32 minutes into the film, presented in full below.

MUST WATCH: Tech reviewer video on North Korean Cell phones

Posted on by

For those of you who have been thinking on the tranche of bills Trudeau/Carney have drafted, passed or proposed which have the specific intention of forcing narratives to be the only legal concepts allowable in public discourse, (and more targeted ones by the NDP like criminalizing climate and residential schools denialism)

please watch this astonishing video on North Korean cell phones.

Here is a couple of videos of John Carpay discussing how the state in Canada has captured pretty much every professional college and regulatory body and used it to enforce marxist state narratives on its professional members. I was reminded today that the colleges for example, do not remove the licences of members who commit actual crimes against their own clients, but will disbar lawyers who opposed an official state diktat on how things must be viewed now. Although this is a different Line of Operation from legislated mandatory speech (pronouns) or what may not be said, this is part of the same Line of Effort to create official views by the state and make them enforceable by, as Trudeau said at least once and Carney may have also, “The whole of government”. In the case below, the military and the colleges.

The full interview:

Our own interview with the head of the JCCF, John Carpay:

The JCCF Report: Manufacturing Consent 

 

 

The increasingly unabashed destruction of any form of freedom of speech in the West which opposes state narratives

Posted on by

The West is systematically destroying freedom of speech in a startlingly rapid and blunt manner. Increasingly, the authorities are unashamed of their actions in doing so. The revolution, as Stephen Coughlin has predicted, is going from covert to Overt.

This first story is about a theatre in the UK cancelling a documentary about the destruction of freedom of speech in the UK. No irony seems to be felt by the theatre.

SPIKE: Our free-speech documentary has been cancelled

You would think that banning a documentary about free speech would be a bad look for a cultural institution. But that’s precisely what Rich Mix in east London has just done.

We were all set to hold the premiere of our documentary, Think Before You Post, about the rise of the British speech police, at Rich Mix on Tuesday 25 November. But last night, we received an email saying the venue would be ‘terminating [our] booking contract’.

‘Since confirming your booking, it has come to light that the content and speakers featured do not align with our values and mission here at Rich Mix’, reads the email. ‘Our founding objectives are to support marginalised communities (primarily communities facing racial inequity), promote intercultural understanding, eliminate racial discrimination, and foster equality of opportunity through arts and culture.’

Those of you who have watched the documentary might be wondering what this is getting at. After all, the film is about the people who have been arrested, prosecuted and even held on remand for alleged speechcrime – even though they hadn’t said anything the least bit hateful.

Here is the documentary that was cancelled in the UK.

For those of you who have been with this site for a number of years, you may remember how far leftist extremists in Ottawa managed to get a documentary called, Killing Europe cancelled the day before it was scheduled to be shown on Nov. 25, 2017 at the main branch of the Ottawa Public Library. It was in fact, booked a full month ahead of time.

It was such a pernicious plot to cancel this film and to negate the right of Canadians both to say what is happening in Europe, but at least equally important, to even know what Islamic immigration had done to Europe, that the film maker, Michael Hansen, made a film on Canada and the then current state of Canada that would cancel a film like his previous one, Killing Europe. It is a very worthy watch. It is called Killing Canada.

We present that film for you now below. Please remember, this was BEFORE Covid. If you haven’t seen either of these films, we do reccomend both. Please feel free to send the link to this post or to the documentary films to anyone you think would benefit.

So now we have the recent past in Canada, the present in the UK, and this week in Brazil we got a clear look at the future. I expect to have a chance to interview a climate expert on this matter in a week or so and have a much clearer picture of what took place in Brazil, but for the moment, what we can know, is that Canada and a number of other COMINTERN client states have signed on to a document which appears to be a statement of intention to criminalize anyone who speaks against the anthropogenic global warming narrative attack on prosperity. Although it is written almost entirely in the Woke dialect of NewSpeak, it is still fairly clear what the intention of this document is.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Below is the portion of the audiobook of 1984 which contains the essay on NewSpeak. I’ll leave it to you all to decide how much the Tweet above is Newspeak exactly as Orwell described it. But it is dialectical language. Words mean their opposites.

Trans-affirming care is the Newspeak term for spaying or neutering children. As just one example of many.

Misinformation and disinformation formally mean to spread falsehoods without knowing you are doing so, (misinformation) or deliberately spreading material you know will have a negative effect on your target. (disinformation). But subsequent to the communist revolution in Canada and across the Commonwealth and much of the West, those words merely mean opposing a state narrative, which themselves are disinformation. Again, dialectical language, and like the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Love and so on, mean the opposite of what the words had always been understood to mean.

Is published vulgar remarks directed at Charlie Kirk’s family post assassination protected freedom of speech? Yes, but…

Posted on by

Here is a video arguing against the case with which we mostly disagree until just before around 4 minutes. First, the video of Matt Walsh

So to be clear, yes, everything all these people say is protected speech under the 1st amendment in the US and should be protected speech everywhere.

But protected speech means something very specific. It means that the government does not have the power to apply the instruments of state against people who say such things. Nor should they. I would in fact fight for their rights to say these horrible horrible things if they were being arrested and jailed just for saying them, and not because they are suspected of planning or supporting in a material way, other similar attacks.

I would not ever want to be in the same room with them. But I would fight for their right to show the world how ugly they are inside.

Having made that clear:

In the entertainment industry, it is very common to have what is known as a “Flagrante Delicto” clause in a contract. This means that should say, a recording artist be caught in the public spotlight having done or said something that puts their contractual partners, say a record label or what have you, into disrepute, they have the right to terminate your contract instantly.

If a private company feels that statements publicly made by an employee can cause major loss of revenue, or otherwise bring that company under threat in some way, firing an employee is not a violation of 1st amendment rights. They are not being arrested. They are not facing jail. This is what totalitarian nations like Great Britain do to people who publish comments in contradiction to state narratives. Those kinds of arrests are violations of 1st amendment rights, if indeed Great Britain had any such legal protections left.

One might argue that firing someone for an opinion would be a small step farther than what our own family and friends who have disassociated themselves from those of us that rejected the mRNA Covid injections, and the tens of thousands of people who were fired for rejecting the mRNA vaxx narrative. Many just for stating they opposed it. Those ARE real violations of 1st amendment rights. Or, from the other side, those of you that abandoned friends and relatives because they were ‘anti-science’ or whatever reasoning you had, you are perfectly within your rights to do so. Who was right and wrong becomes a personal matter between all of us and the embalmers.

Having said all that:

We are clearly at the cusp of being at war. In fact even that description is so understated it’s risible. We are at war.

The sides are clearer than it might appear. Islam and leftists together against all members and supporters of classical civilization who hold individual rights, property ownership and independent thought.

When you are at war, the rules change. People have to collectivize for a while.

When I was learning to drive as a teen, one of my brothers taught me this rhyme which was in fact the critical distinction between defacto and de jure in terms of consequence.

“Here lies the body of William Grey, who died defending his right of way”.

You can be as right as you want but it means nothing if you get killed in the process.

When in a state of war, freedom of speech is usually replaced by slogans such as “loose lips sink ships”.

The current war for the most part is taking place on the information battle space. It is what is called, Political Warfare. A brilliant video on the subject was posted here several days ago, but here is the link again.

So the slogans may be different.

But let’s keep in mind, that counter-revolutionary speech, as Matt Walsh more or less points out, such as a man who says he is a woman is still not a woman in any real way whatsoever, is guilty of an actual crime in countries like Canada and the UK, That “Hate speech” laws are created to enforce narratives at the expense of reality. Matt argues that pointing out the real should be protected while insulting the family of Charlie Kirk is not. We disagree. The state has no business deciding truth for people other than in a court with very clear rules on the procedure for that. And the US is not Canada thank God. Canada, Great Britain, Germany and other former republics have degraded into democracies, and now criminalize speech which interferes with the revolutionary and destructive actions of the Potemkin governments overseeing the revolution.

At some point, it behooves us to examine how we define ourselves, and not what dialectical engineers and Marxists like Trudeau and Carney yell from the podium about “what Canadian Values” are. And once we have looked inside and come to understand who we are, we may find ourselves having to fortify our own beliefs.

And this may mean a period where people who celebrate the murder of a Socratic debater who wished to restore liberty and dignity to all, might find themselves without that right for a while.

Personally however, I would never remove that right from the enemy. It is far better to know who these people are then let them plot in the shadows. When people reveal themselves as tyrants, it makes deciding who to deal with much easier for the rest of us, And it also offers them a chance at redemption as they face opposition.

 

Germany is tightening the noose around the neck of liberty at both ends of the rope

Posted on by

The man to read on Germany is Eugyypius. Below, a couple of links to his articles on how the current clearly COMINTERN government of Germany is making the leading party in the polls, the AfD, not just unable to run, but a criminal, terrorist enterprise for being non-communist.

May 2: Domestic spy agency declares Alternative für Deutschland to be a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organisation, as authorities inch closer to banning the party

This morning, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) officially reclassified Alternative für Deutschland as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organisation. The BfV is Germany’s primary domestic intelligence agency; it is subject to the Ministry of the Interior and tasked, among other things, with policing the democratic respectability of ordinary Germans and their political parties. The upgraded AfD classification is supported by an extensive and totally secret 1,100-page assessment of AfD activities and beliefs, which BfV analysts have been preparing since last year.

May 5: German political class gleefully planning the wider persecution of Alternative für Deutschland and its supporters, because Hitler

Last Friday, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) declared Alternative für Deutschland to be a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organisation. I very much fear that “the right” is going to be the new panic apocalypse issue, now that climate has ceased to command apocalyptic fears, everyone abandoned the Covidpocalypse and nobody really believes that the Russians will invade Brandenburg and usher in the Putlerpocalypse.

The first thing that happened, after I wrote my Friday post, is that our American friends weighed in on this new round of political repression here in the best and most democratic Germany of all time. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio …

Please click through to read the articles at Eugyppius’ Substack.

Meanwhile, Germany is cancelling the only public oversight on government activity, the equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.

Christine Anderson: AfD Member of the European Parliament.

UK now so Orwellian even meta data about truth too dangerous for the British to mention

Posted on by

Meta data is information about information.

For example:

A guy commits a crime, and the police suspect it was him, but don’t have a warrant to tap his phone. So they check the available meta data on his phone such as who called, when did they call, and for how long. They can’t hear the conversation, but they can know that say, his mother called at the time of the crime and he didn’t answer, when he normally always answers and they talk for over 20 minutes. But this time he didn’t pick up at all or his phone was off.

With this and similar kinds of meta data, they can get a warrant to do whatever more intrusive searches they want.

When it comes to Muslims committing acts of terrorism or major crimes, we here in Dar al Harb have learned to use meta data to know the motives and nature of these events.

Back in the early days of the jihad on us all, we would hear that a man named Mohammad or a variation of same, would say, randomly stab a bunch of people in the neck while yelling the Arabic Phrase, “Allah hu ackbar”. We were not told this was an act of Islamic jihad, but eventually even the slowest picked up on it.

Then, they stopped telling is the name of the perp. If it was a Muslim name, we knew. That little bit of meta data as enough for us to have forbidden information. It was a Muslim killing random infidels as his religion commands him to do. So they stopped telling us the name, usually for several days or a week till any proper outrage had passed and there was no fear of anyone doing anything effective to stop the mass importation of Jihadis into Western nations.

They also stopped telling us that people yelled allah hu ackbar while committing these acts. Witnesses would be suppressed. Then they would start to not just lie by omission, but lie of fabrication. A dozen years or so ago, the media, facing ever more ludicrous rules from communist organizations like the National Union of Journalists, would create special rules for reporting on what they called “minorities”. Which seldom means minorities, but always means anyone but a white male had to be ‘protected’ such that people might not form a negative opinion about a hostile group before that group was too powerful to control us all. So they started claiming that the jihadi was mentally ill. They would report that the attacker, who usually followed koranic instructions for killing infidels to the letter was mentally ill before they even claimed to know his name. So somehow, they got his medical records unsealed within an hour and without even knowing who it was.

At that point they didn’t care that we knew they were lying to us. There was bugger all we could do about it.

Nonetheless, those of us who cared to know the truth carried on, interpreting meta data into reality as we could. When we heard a nameless person entered a church and cut the head off of a priest for instance, and wrote something in a foreign language, we knew it was a Muslim waging jihad against the infidel in the land of the infidels.

The next big squeeze on what we could know and say came when a Muslim waging jihad on the infidel stabbed something like 11 little girls at a Taylor Swift dance party killing three of them in Southport England. The lies of omissions started. He was a good boy from somewhere in Wales.People who correctly said it was an act of Islamic jihad found themselves sentenced to a year and a half in prison. The public got the message. We cannot interpret the meta data of Islamic jihad as such, or we will be destroyed.

Please watch the whole video below, produced by a regular fellow in the UK trying to describe what is obviously an act of jihad where a nurse was stabbed so badly she is described as having life changing injuries.

This the scariest video out of the UK in many ways. The fact that the public is now so Orwelled, for lack of a better term, that they know they may not speak aloud the truth if it contradicts state narratives, and narratives who’s intent is to destroy every aspect of them, is horrifying.

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” -George Orwell. 1984

 

Labour MP in UK assist in total destruction of central freedoms with fake challenge

Posted on by

First, those who don’t agree that the entire purpose of freedom of speech is to criticize, mock, ridicule and otherwise challenge religious and political authority should ask themselves what is its purpose then? Because the second you cannot challenge or speak your mind about political and religious authority in any way you want, then everything else gets placed under the rubric of either politics, or religion. Including women’s fashion. Don’t believe me? Try and criticize what women have to wear in Islamic countries and suggest something more fashionable and see how that goes for you.

And now, the dialectic in action with another Labour MP in on the assist for the total destruction of freedom of speech in the UK:

We have often described how in Canada and elsewhere, the media would pretend to speak truth to power by bringing on government officials at one level or another and appear to be asking tough questions, but in reality were demanding that the governing leftists do more to crush freedoms and questioned why so much liberty was still permitted.

For example why more harsh vaxx mandates were not imposed, or why no curfews like Quebec had in a challenging tone. This allowed the government to appear benevolent by saying those measures were not needed at the time, but also opening the doors for these measures when they thought they would be. At no time did the MSM ask them if any of these measures where ever necessary or even legal or constitutional.

Here we see the exact same play in the UK Parliament. A Muslim Labour MP named Tahir Ali wants desecration of all religious texts and … well read it from his own Tweet:

Full text:

During PMQs today, I asked the Prime Minister to introduce measures to prohibit desecration of religious texts and targeted vilification of all the prophets of the Abrahamic faiths.

As November marks Islamophobia Awareness Month, it is vital the Government takes clear and measurable steps to prevent acts that fuel hatred in society.

Nice play. It makes Muslims look like they care about other “Abrahamic faiths” to get what they want, which is Islamic blasphemy laws, while the communists get total control of freedom of speech, which is what they want. An accelerant is guaranteed to follow if this proceeds at all:

Buddhists, Hindus and all observers or just people who identify with faiths other than the “Abrahamic” ones, will demand the same protection for their own symbols, deities and so on. And of course, they will get it. Karl Marx will be protected no doubt, and along with him, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and yes, probably even Hitler, unless they continue to use him as the God of Evil instead of the socialist tyrant he was, in competition with Stalin. And with each new restriction, the state grows more and more powerful.

Below, South Park explains this scam in the not-ironically now banned episodes called, Cartoon Wars. This is a short clip from Episode 1 of the 2 part series. Anyone who has not seen it owes it to themselves to find the (I think 5) banned episodes of South Park and watch them all. This was first broadcast on April 12, 2006. That would be going on 19 years ago.

Loss of freedoms is done by increments, where the first increment is sold to the public as a noble or good enough thing to justify an ‘exception’ to fundamental freedoms.

Making antisemitism illegal is far too good an example to ignore.

Chat GPT: “During The Weimar Republic (1919-1933): In the interwar period, following World War I, the Weimar Republic provided Jews with legal equality, enshrined in the constitution of the republic. Jews were full citizens and participated widely in the cultural, political, and economic life of the country. ”

That made no difference once Hitler worked his way into power, just as all the hate speech laws make no difference today whatsoever, other than protecting antisemitic speech, and ignoring its targets. Examples of that are too numerous to even link to, although recent clips with Ezra Levant are exemplars.

We all have to stand up for all freedom of speech, at least in the legal space. This doesn’t mean private domains like this have to tolerate speech which is insulting or anathema. But neither would we consider it a legal matter, or one deserving of reporting to any kind of authority unless it contained a criminal threat with immediacy. In other words, a threat with a time and place attached to it.

More importantly, we have to know what we see, when someone appears to be defending our rights when in fact they are targeting them for obliteration.