Censorship Industrial Complex
Conservatives to introduce bill that aims to ‘expressly prohibit’ digital IDs in Canada
From LifeSiteNews
MP Michelle Rempel Garner said the goal is to ‘protect the most vulnerable Canadians without creating a government-managed surveillance state or restricting Charter-protected speech.’
Canada’s Conservative Party promised to introduce a new online harms bill that will counter legislation from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals that aims to further clamp down on online speech.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, speaking to reporters on September 12, said the new Conservative bill will “protect Canadians online” and preserve “civil liberties.”
“After nine years of Justin Trudeau, the NDP-Liberal coalition has failed to put forward any legislation that will protect Canadians online without infringing upon their civil liberties,” she said, adding that “Canadians are paying the price for this failure.”
Rempel Garner added that online criminal behaviour is “still rampant” in Canada, “yet the Liberals’ only response has been to table two censorship bills, forcing Canadians to choose between their safety and free expression.”
In a blog post about the forthcoming legislation, Rempel Garner observed that “for nearly a decade, the Liberals have presented Canadians with a false dichotomy; that they should have to water down their civil liberties to be protected online.”
She made a direct reference to the Liberal’s Bill C-63, or the “An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome. Put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online, the bill also seeks to expand the scope of “hate speech” prosecutions, and even desires to target such speech retroactively.
Trudeau’s law, which is in the second reading, also calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.
Rempel Garner promised the Conservative’s online harms bill will “introduce protections in three areas of focus,” and will “protect the most vulnerable Canadians without creating a government-managed surveillance state or restricting Charter-protected speech.”
“To be clear, this update won’t criminalize something like two people disagreeing about policy online, or other types of expression of opinion that is protected under the Charter, which Liberal Bill C-63 will undermine,” Rempel Garner noted.
“Specifically, the provision in our new Conservative legislation will be based on the existing definition of criminal harassment, applying specifically to those who repeatedly send unwanted, harassing content that causes someone to reasonably fear for their safety or well-being.”
Conservative bill will not mandate Digital IDs for internet use
Rempel Garner observed that the new bill will have provisions to protect minors and will criminalize the sharing of “intimate” photos without a person’s consent, as well as “deep nudes” (AI images that look real), as well as the sharing of pictures or video of sexual assault.
“The legislation will outline in detail how operators must comply with and operate under this duty of care, including reporting requirements, marketing prohibitions, and other items. Operators who don’t comply with these provisions will face steep fines and a private right of action,” she said.
Rempel Garner said the Conservative’s new bill will look to implement privacy-preserving and “trustworthy age verification methods (for example, computer algorithms that ensure reliable age verification) to detect when a user is a minor,” to be able to restrict access to any “content that is inappropriate for minors to such users while expressly prohibiting the use of a Digital ID for these purposes.”
In June, Rempel Garner said Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or come to light before the next election.
C-63’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying preemptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.
Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.
Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, accused Trudeau’s Bill C-63 of trying to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation
Censorship Industrial Complex
Australian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.
Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.
The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”
The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.
A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.
The problem here is that, if you cannot define a word, then how can you use it properly in a court of law? For example, if you do not know what a “woman” is, then how can you be said to have transitioned from a man to a woman, as Buckley is claiming?
This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.
That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.
In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.
Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.
In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.
On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Elon Musk slams woke Los Angeles Times for questioning ‘morality’ of having children
From LifeSiteNews
‘Extinctionists want a holocaust for all of humanity,’ Elon Musk warned after the far-left Los Angeles Times questioned whether it is ‘right’ to have children.
Pro-free speech tech mogul Elon Musk slammed a woke news outlet for shaming parents for having children.
In a September 14 post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Elon Musk condemned the Los Angeles Times for degrading those who wish to bring children into the world over the claim that doing so may increase “climate change.”
“Extinctionists want a holocaust for all of humanity,” Musk declared.
Extinctionists want a holocaust for all of humanity https://t.co/RGFuVWJdTx
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 14, 2024
The post was in response to a September 11 article by the Los Angeles Times titled “It’s almost shameful to want to have children.”
The article, written by a professor of “gender and sexuality studies,” questions the morality of having children, considering the current political and “climate” situation.
“American society feels more socially and politically polarized than ever. Is it right to bring another person into that?” it questioned, suggesting that it would be better not to exist than to live in a society with social tension.
The author interviewed seven young people, who the author claimed, “have more climate change knowledge than most people do.” Out of the seven, five did not want to have biological children, while the two who were unsure struggled “with whether it’s morally OK to have children.”
“With climate change, we’re the driving force of things breaking down, but then also, the planet’s going to do what the planet’s going to do. … So … it almost feels, like, kind of shameful to want to have children,” one said.
The article’s anti-life message is becoming increasingly commonplace among leftists and reflects the plans lain out by the World Economic Forum to radically reduce the world’s population.
While some climate activists have promoted the idea that the world’s population must be restrained in order to sustain its existing people, numerous studies debunk that claim as well as claims that the earth can only hold 8 billion people or fewer.
Musk has been a longtime advocate for higher birth rates, warning that a “collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces, by far.”
In 2022, Elon Musk, pointed out that America’s total fertility rate has been below replacement for approximately a half-century.
An August report found that the U.S. fertility rate reached a historic low in 2023, with fewer Americans are having children than ever before, a trend that experts have warned could lead to societal collapse.
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
iPhone Now Collects Your Mental Health Data
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Shoplifting And Vehicle Thefts Soared As Haitian Migrants Poured Into Ohio Town, Police Data Shows
-
Christopher Rufo2 days ago
Independent reporter takes on CBS News for contradicting his report “Cat Eaters of Ohio”
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden Admin Touts Reduction In Border Crossings While Flying In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Migrants
-
Economy2 days ago
If Canadian families spent and borrowed like the federal government, they would be $427,759 in debt
-
COVID-192 days ago
US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public
-
Alberta2 days ago
Premier Smith to Ottawa: Alberta can’t afford thousands of asylum seekers right now
-
National2 days ago
Liberals lose another ‘safe’ seat, Trudeau pleads with Canadians to get more ‘engaged’