Opinion
‘Transgender’ inmates are continuing to sexually assault female prisoners
From LifeSiteNews
By Jonathon Van Maren
The Mail reported that the California prison system has 1,997 detainees who currently identify as transgender and non-binary, and 345 male prisoners have requested transfers to women’s prisons.
Sixty-six-year-old Dana Sue Gray does not cut a sympathetic figure. She is currently serving a life sentence in Central California’s Women’s Facility (CCWF) – a women’s prison – for murdering and then robbing three of her elderly neighbours in the 1990s and going on a shopping spree. Recently, however, she has reportedly been sexually assaulted in jail – by a trans-identifying man serving his sentence with the women.
According to a report by the Daily Mail, Gray reports that she began sharing a dormitory with the trans-identifying male convict early in 2023, and that initially relations were “real friendly.” That soon changed as he became first verbally abusive, and then sexually abusive. One night, the man launched an all-out assault. “He came into my bed area and pulled his pants down and shoved his d***k in my face,” Gray told the Independent Women’s Forum.
Gray described the experience as “terrifying and disgusting” and told the man to back off. The first assault, she says, was merely a “show of male dominance.” He reappeared the following night, and this time he “put that big man hand on my back, on my shoulder blade” while she was sleeping. She woke up panicking and told him: “Stay the F out of my area. Don’t ever come to my area. Don’t ever touch me.” She told a guard, and the man was moved to a different yard – but still in the women’s prison. She did not file a formal complaint alleging assault for fear that she would have been isolated.
Gray is not the only female inmate to be assaulted of late. California has sent trans-identifying men to female prisons since 2020, when Senate Bill 123 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. Men can be sent to female prisons merely by claiming to be a woman – so-called “self-identification” – and do not have to have any sex change procedures or hormone treatments prior to being transferred. According to both Gray and other prisoners, the arrival of males in female prisons has transformed them.
“It’s disgusting and I have to be polite and deal with it for my own safety, and so that I have a less stressful day, but I don’t like it,” she said. “I don’t want any of them here. I want them to go away. It degrades women so bad.” Many of the women, she added, are poorly educated and particularly vulnerable. The Mail reported that the California prison system has 1,997 detainees who currently identify as transgender and non-binary, and 345 male prisoners have requested transfers to women’s prisons. Thus far, “46 were approved, 64 were denied, and 87 inmates have changed their minds.”
The California Department of Corrections insists that all requests are carefully reviewed, and that transfers are only approved when it is “safe to do so.” This is obviously not the case. Stories of women being sexually assaulted by trans-identifying men behind bars have come out everywhere the practice has been implemented, including Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. Fifty-one-year-old Tremaine Carroll, a trans-identifying man, has been charged with raping two women after being moved to the Central California’s Women’s Facility. He is six foot two, and one of his victims was a slight female in her thirties. He raped her in the shower of their shared dormitory. She is still suffering enormous trauma as a result.
There are plenty of other recent examples, as well. A murderer in Spain serving a 30-year prison sentence for murdering his female neighbor is now identifying as female – and getting transferred to a women’s prison. Other criminals are getting in on the grift, too, hoping it might result in cushier sentences: a violent serial rapist in Scotland has just announced his in-prison transition and demanded “gender affirming” care; an American pedophile convicted of raping his 7-year-old stepdaughter is appealing his life sentence after announcing he is now transgender; last month, a U.K. pedophile was sentenced to a mere 16 months prison, and claims to identify as a 5-year-old girl.
The sexual assault of Dana Sue Gray is just one example of a phenomenon unfolding everywhere the transgender movement has implemented its agenda. She richly deserves the life sentence she received, and she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. But to be locked up with a violent man who wishes to rape her is something different. I believe the best way to describe it would be “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Business
EU Tightens Social Media Censorship Screw With Upcoming Mandatory “Disinformation” Rules
From Reclaim The Net
This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.
What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.
The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.
The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.
The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).
Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.
In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.
But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.
This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.
The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.
“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.
It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.
National
Canada’s Digital ID Drama Heats Up as Regulators Sidestep Parliament
From Reclaim The Net
These dangers range from data security, and cost of implementation, to various ways centralized databases containing people’s most sensitive personal information can be abused.
And those, again, range from security – to the risk of digital IDs getting turned into effective tools for government mass surveillance and control of the entire population’s behavior.
Canadian regulators plan to move ahead with introducing national digital ID without the parliament’s involvement.
Leaving the process out of the parliament in terms of approval and oversight is sure to add to the existing controversy around the issue of digital ID, which was in the past criticized and even rejected precisely by a number of Canadian MPs and parliamentary committees. On the other hand, this might explain why the regulators might rather take a route bypassing the lawmakers, despite the risky – in terms of proper democratic process – nature of such maneuvering. Critics are now calling this (another) example of Canada’s Liberal government’s overreach. Reports about these goings-on are based on Shared Services Canada (SSC), a government IT agency, recently announcing how the work on setting up a digital ID system for the whole country was progressing, while presenting this as essentially no different than current forms of obligatory ID (for instance, Canada’s equivalent to the social security number in the US). But opponents in the parliament, and beyond, have been consistently for years reiterating that the scheme is fraught with dangers that are not comparable to those affecting traditional ID systems, neither in depth nor breadth. These dangers range from data security, and cost of implementation, to various ways centralized databases containing people’s most sensitive personal information can be abused. And those, again, range from security – to the risk of digital IDs getting turned into effective tools for government mass surveillance and control of the entire population’s behavior. But SSC and other digital ID backers address these issues almost in passing while selling the benefits to the public as more convenience via unified access to government services, and even as something “empowering” citizens. However, what the most prominent individuals and organizations that push for global digital ID adoption (like Bill Gates, Tony Blair, the EU, and the WEF…) present as a way to usher in more equity and equality is seen as creating exactly the opposite effect. “Segregation and discrimination” is how one report out of Canada put it, the context being recent: Covid vaccine “passports” and the treatment received by citizens who decided against taking the jab. |
-
International2 days ago
IRS whistleblowers confirm agencies knew the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
-
Energy2 days ago
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
-
National2 days ago
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
National2 days ago
Trudeau government introduces bill that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers of charity status
-
Alberta2 days ago
Lesson for Ottawa—don’t bite the hand that feeds you
-
John Campbell2 days ago
Prominent COVID jab critic examines the amazing evidence for the Shroud of Turin
-
Crime2 days ago
Despite recent bail reform flip-flops, Canada is still more dangerous than we’d prefer