Connect with us

Opinion

Female UN expert calls for ban on men in women’s sports, gets accused of ‘demeaning language’

Published

5 hours ago

6 minute read

Reem Alsalem

From LifeSiteNews

By Ordo Iuris

“Giving men so-called hormone blockers so they can compete with women – as some sports leagues do – doesn’t work”

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem, in a recent report, called on countries and sporting organization authorities not to allow “men who identify as women” to compete in female sports competitions.

  • The U.S. representative to the UN accused Alsalem of using “degrading language” and of “bullying and gender misinformation.”
  • Delegates from Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Mexico, Colombia, and other Western countries raised similar objections.
  • “Gender should be understood in its ordinary sense as biological sex,” Alsalem said during the report’s presentation, citing the agreement from the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing.
  • Alsalem’s approach challenges the assumptions of Western and UN-backed gender policies, which are based on gender as a social construct unrelated to biological sex.

In her latest report to the General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Reem Alsalem, called on countries to stop allowing “men who identify as women” to compete against women and girls in sports. The U.S. representative to the UN, wearing a badge on his jacket with the colors of the LBGT and trans lobbies, accused her of using “degrading language” against trans athletes, as well as spreading “gender misinformation” and “bullying.” Delegates from Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Mexico, Colombia, and other Western countries made similar accusations.

READ: Women’s sports are under siege by male participants, and no one seems to be stopping it

According to the report, allowing men declaring female gender into women’s competitions also leads to women and girls experiencing “extreme psychological distress,” due to physical imbalance with rivals, loss of fair competition and educational and economic opportunities, and violations of privacy (e.g., in locker rooms). Alsalem says that, in recent years, more than 600 female athletes have lost some 890 medals in more than 400 competitions, in 29 different sports, due to policies allowing men to compete against women.

“Giving men so-called hormone blockers so they can compete with women – as some sports leagues do – doesn’t work,” Alsalem said. It does not reduce men’s natural advantage, and strong hormone drugs can even harm an athlete’s health.

“Human rights language and principles must continue to be consistent with science and facts, including biological ones,” the expert argued. “Multiple studies have given evidence that athletes born males have a performance advantage in sports throughout their lives although this is most apparent after puberty.” Alsalem also mentioned the risk of injury to female athletes, which is knowingly increased when competing with biological men, whether they identify as men or women, the physical harm suffered by women against male athletes can be characterized as violence, according to the special rapporteur.

“Sex must be understood in its ordinary meaning to mean biological sex,” Alsalem said, citing a declaration from the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. She continued by stating that “sex based on biology” has been established in the international human-rights catalog, as opposed to the concept of “gender.” According to Alsalem, the two categories should not be confused.

Julia Książek, of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law, stated:

Reem Alsalem identified a major problem that became fully apparent at the Paris Olympics this year, when it became evident that women were no longer competing against women, but also men who ‘identify’ as women. The UN expert rightly noted in her report that athletes’ mental identification does not in any way affect their biological predisposition, which they have by being men. This type of situation is the result of lobbying in international law for the concept of ‘sex with social context’ – gender. The first event raising questions about the use of the ‘gender’ construct was the 1995 World Conference on the Rights of Women in Beijing. The debate around its final declaration stirred controversy precisely because of the definition of gender, listed in the text as ‘gender’ rather than ‘sex.’ Under pressure from a large group of UN member states, the conference chairman clearly stated that the word gender was used in the ordinary, generally accepted sense in which it appears in UN documents, recalling the non-binding declarations attached to the final declarations of UN conferences in the early 1990s. He also stressed that there was no intention to give a new meaning to the term that would differ from the generally accepted one. Reem Alsalem also noted this in her report.

The Ordo Iuris Institute has long opposed the gender lobby in sports. In 2020, the Institute’s experts prepared an analysis of a draft UN resolution, which maintained that athletes should be allowed to participate in competitions according to their subjective feelings about gender.

This article was originally published on Ordo Iuris’ English-language page.  Edited and reprinted with permission. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 8 mins ago

Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

Energy / 2 hours ago

Jagmeet Singh’s mythematical numbers

Opinion / 5 hours ago

Female UN expert calls for ban on men in women’s sports, gets accused of ‘demeaning language’

Business

Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

Published on October 22, 2024

By

From Reclaim The Net

By Christina Maas

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Amid the chaos of pre-election America, major information has surfaced, revealing internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This UK-based group, which was founded by British political strategist Morgan McSweeney under the name Brixton Endeavours Limited before being renamed to the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2019, outlined a clear goal in their agenda: “Kill Musk’s Twitter.” The documents make it clear that the CCDH is targeting Elon Musk’s social media platform with full force. McSweeney, who helped guide Keir Starmer to victory in the UK, is now involved in US politics, advising Kamala Harris as she navigates the upcoming election, raising serious questions about the CCDH’s reach and motives.

CCDH May 31st agenda, above a note about meeting “with [Senator Amy] Klobuchar’s team.”

Now, if you’re wondering why a think tank founded by a man who helped turn Keir Starmer into the British Prime Minister is so dead set on smashing up a social media platform thousands of miles across the pond, you’re not alone. But the CCDH isn’t just any ragtag team of keyboard warriors. These guys are plugged into Washington power circles like an iPhone into a dodgy charger, with ties so tight to the Biden-Harris campaign, that they might as well be writing the tweets. And with McSweeney now advising Kamala Harris, well, let’s just say the plot thickens. 

Related: Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown

Kamala’s British Wingman

Meet Morgan McSweeney, a political operative you’ve never heard of—unless you’ve been glued to British politics or, for some inexplicable reason, a hardcore Labour Party fan in America. According to a new report from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket News (which is worth reading in full), McSweeney, the brains behind Starmer’s rise to the UK premiership, is now advising Kamala Harris on how to go from “Where’s she been?” to “First female President.”

According to the report, McSweeney is credited with piloting Starmer’s victory against the Conservatives, beating Rishi Sunak. And McSweeney recently became UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff.

But McSweeney isn’t stopping at Downing Street. No, he’s set his sights on America. And what’s more American than advising Kamala Harris after founding an organization that’s trying to vaporize Elon Musk’s $44 billion free speech project? After all, nothing screams “Democracy!” like a transatlantic political hit squad targeting Musk’s favorite free speech toy.

Musk, Misinformation, and Tax Breaks

Let’s not forget that the CCDH is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit—a status they might want to cling to tighter than a senator to their PAC funding. According to the IRS, CCDH could lose its golden goose tax exemption if “a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation.” And yet, somehow, according to the report, “Trigger EU and UK regulatory action” is the third item on their annual to-do list.

And to make things even murkier, CCDH has hired Lot Sixteen, a firm known for lobbying congressional offices on—you guessed it—“misinformation.” Nothing screams integrity like a supposedly neutral non-profit hiring a lobbying firm to bend the ears of politicians in the world’s most corrupt zip code. It’s almost poetic, if by poetry you mean a collection of contradictory nonsense wrapped in a PR-friendly bow.

A tweet by Elon Musk stating "This is war" above another tweet by Paul D. Thacker about exclusive documents allegedly showing British advisors plotting against Musk's Twitter, with an image of two people speaking.Elon Musk reacts to the new report.

So, what does the CCDH’s fearless leader, Imran Ahmed, have to say about all this? Well, nothing, actually. Despite repeated requests from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket, Ahmed—another British political operative welded to McSweeney’s Labour Together cabal—has clammed up. You can almost hear the sounds of frantic shredding from CCDH’s London offices.

Meanwhile, Senator Amy Klobuchar, who’s been pushing bills to regulate online “misinformation,” isn’t exactly rushing to answer questions either. And why would she? The CCDH’s plans dovetail nicely with her efforts to wrangle Big Tech under the guise of safeguarding democracy. Who cares if a few pesky details—like the potential illegalities of foreign interference or questionable nonprofit activities—get in the way? We’ve got elections to win here!

It’s almost endearing to see the British influence clawing its way back into American politics. Once upon a time, they tried to impose taxes on tea; now they’re sending think tanks to tackle free speech. If you’re wondering why a bunch of Brits are interested in who gets to say what on American soil, well, let’s just say the empire never really dies—it just switches to online servers.

The CCDH, that shiny bastion of truth-squelching, made headlines when they tried to silence Substack writers like Alex Berenson and Dr. Joseph Mercola, daring to spout the unthinkable—vaccine “misinformation.” In a world where dissent is dangerous, what’s a good digital inquisition without a few heretics to burn at the stake? But Substack threw a wrench into CCDH’s plans with the audacity to say, “No, thanks. We’re not here to take orders from the mob.” Their exact words? “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure.”

But the battle’s far from over. If at first, you don’t succeed in turning the internet into a digital police state, try again across the pond. CCDH’s new plan for American soil? Start by dismantling the platforms of opponents like Elon Musk—because if there’s one thing that irks the establishment more than free speech, it’s a billionaire who buys the bird app and starts letting people talk again. To do that, CCDH is deploying the tried-and-true tactic of hitting where it hurts: ad revenues. It’s like the financial version of waterboarding—slow, steady, and guaranteed to make you reconsider your life choices.

But they’re not stopping with the world’s richest troll. CCDH is also pushing for new regulations that would make Europe’s draconian Digital Services Act and the UK’s paternalistic Online Safety Act look like child’s play. Under these laws, an “independent digital regulator” (read: Orwellian overlord) would have the power to decide what counts as “harmful content” and hand out penalties to any platform that steps out of line. Nothing says “freedom” like letting bureaucrats decide what’s dangerous for you to read.

The Lobbying Blitz: CCDH’s Capitol Hill Campaign

Naturally, CCDH hasn’t come to the US to play nice. With Labour Together and McSweeney’s as their comrades in censorship, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Their shiny new toy? The STAR framework is a friendly-sounding acronym that would essentially give them the ability to enforce platform censorship through government regulation. Because if you can’t silence your enemies with social media bans, why not use Congress as your personal speech police?

And don’t think for a second they’re not riding the wave of the latest moral panic. Following the riots that were oh-so-conveniently blamed on disinformation (because personal responsibility is so last century), CCDH and its allies are positioning themselves as the solution to America’s pesky free speech problem. In fact, across the Atlantic, under the would-be Prime Minister Keir Starmer, UK regulators are already sharpening their knives, threatening severe actions against any platform that refuses to fall in line with their censorship demands. You can almost hear them sharpening the guillotine from here.

Of course, all of this is framed under the noble guise of “safety.” We’ve heard it before: “We’re just trying to protect people from harm.” But when you peel back the layers of sanctimonious rhetoric, what you’re left with is a cold, calculated effort to control the narrative. If it’s not coming from the approved sources, it’s dangerous. If it challenges the establishment, it’s misinformation. And if you don’t fall in line? Well, they’ve got a regulation for that.

The Real Endgame: Speech Control

Let’s not pretend this is about safety, though. This is about power. CCDH’s push for stricter regulations, under the guise of protecting the public from harmful content, is nothing more than a naked attempt to control the flow of information. They’ve already tried it in the UK, and now they’re bringing their act to the US, hoping to use government muscle to do what public pressure alone couldn’t.

And the implications are staggering. If groups like CCDH succeed in shaping US regulations to mirror the Digital Services Act or the Online Safety Act, we’re looking at a future where platforms are forced to police speech in real-time, handing over the power to determine what’s “acceptable” to an unelected body of bureaucrats and activists. It’s not about misinformation—it’s about control. And once they’ve got that control, you can bet they won’t give it up easily.

At the end of the day, the CCDH and its allies are playing a long game. They don’t just want to silence a few Substack writers or take away Elon Musk’s ad revenue—they want to reshape the entire landscape of online discourse.

So next time you see CCDH and their cohorts talking about the dangers of misinformation and harmful content, remember: It’s not about safety. It’s about control. Because in the digital age, whoever controls the narrative controls everything.

Read the full report here.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Energy

Jagmeet Singh’s mythematical numbers

Published on October 22, 2024

By

From Resource Works

Singh… somehow has failed to correct his original post.

National NDP leader Jagmeet Singh earns a new mark for his business mathematics — though his subject is better called “mythematics.” He gets an F for his declaration that Cenovus Energy had record profits of $37 billion in 2023.

He began with this post on X (Twitter): “Last year, Cenovus raked in $37 billion in profits. And a whopping $64 billion in 2022. Big Oil is making record profits, burning the planet AND asking for massive public handouts. It’s time to end the free ride for oil and gas.”

Readers quickly hit back: “Per Cenovus’ own 2023 Financial Year report, profits were $4.11 billion CAD, down 36% from 2022. Mr. Singh conflates revenue (which includes no expenses, government fees, or taxes) with profit.”

Some pointed to Cenovus’s own figures:
Revenue: CA$52.2b (down 22% from FY 2022)
Net income: CA$4.11b (down 36% from FY 2022)
Profit margin: 7.9% (down from 9.6% in FY 2022)

Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and special adviser to the Business Council of Canada, added: “Not sure why Singh would just make up numbers? Anyone can look up their annual financial results. There was no $37 billion in profits. Although if they did have that kind of year, it would be great for Albertan royalties and Canadian business taxes.”

She included a link to Cenovus’s 2023 annual report. Singh, though, somehow has failed to correct his original post.

The NDP leader’s earnings from Parliament now run at $271,700 a year. But under his strange “mythematics,” as applied to Cenovus, he presumably has no expenses and pays no taxes, so that $271,700 is all “profit.” Nice…

Pity that the average Canadian, whose gross income in 2023 was $64,850, has to pay out living expenses such as accommodation, food, and taxes to assorted governments. That’s realistic mathematics, not mythematics.

And that average Canadian does not have Parliament to pick up such expenses as Singh racked up from April 1 to June 30: travel, $28,304; hospitality, $3,319; and contract, $38,053.

In his support for the Trudeau Liberal government, we see Singh’s “mythematics” at work again. As the small-c conservative Fraser Institute points out: the Trudeau government’s recent fiscal record includes unprecedented levels of spending and debt.

“The Trudeau government has consistently spent at record-high levels before, during, and after COVID. In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau is on track to record the seven-highest years of per-person spending in Canadian history between 2018 and 2024. Inflation-adjusted spending (excluding debt interest costs) is expected to reach $11,856 per person this year—10.2% higher than during the 2008-09 financial crisis and 28.7% higher than during the peak of the Second World War.

“Consequently, the Trudeau government has posted 10 consecutive deficits since taking office. The projected deficit in 2024/25 is a whopping $39.8 billion. This string of deficits has spurred a dramatic increase in federal debt. From 2014/15 (Prime Minister Harper’s last full year), total federal debt is expected to have nearly doubled to $2.1 trillion. To make matters worse, the government plans to run more deficits until at least 2028/29, and total debt could rise by an additional $400.1 billion by March 2029.

“Indeed, due to reckless decisions, the Trudeau government is on track to record the five-highest years of per-person debt (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history between 2020 and 2024. As of 2024, Ottawa’s debt equals $51,467 per Canadian—12.3% more than in 1995 when Canada reached a near-debt crisis.”

The New Democrats back the Liberals on confidence and budgetary votes in Parliament, in exchange for concessions on key political priorities. When it came to the current budget, the government included things Singh’s NDP supports, such as funding for pharmacare and a national school lunch program.

But Singh withheld support for the budget for two weeks, saying it didn’t provide adequate funding for a new disability benefit or for Indigenous communities. In the end, he did vote for the budget, and thus those fiscal issues raised by the Fraser Institute. Singh did not disclose if he has been offered Liberal solutions down the road to his concerns.

All a question of “mythematics,” we assume.

Continue Reading

Trending

X