Harvard’s Claudine Gay uses ‘free speech’ as a defense after a history of squelching it

She has no principles at all

During last week’s House Education Committee hearing on campus antisemitism, college presidents like Harvard’s Claudine Gay used free speech grounds to defend anti-Israel protests on campus.

The problem is, Gay’s defense rings hollow when stacked against the university’s reputation. When it comes to free speech, Harvard is abysmal.

It finished dead last in the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings from our organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

FIRE’s results come from survey data of more than 55,000 students at 248 schools, assessing openness, tolerance, self-expression, administrative support for free speech and campus speech policies.

Harvard’s final score? Zero.  Worse than zero, actually, because FIRE rounded up from -10.69.

Harvard pays lip service to free expression, but its record says otherwise. There have been nine reported attempts in the last five years to punish students, student groups, scholars and speakers for speech protected under First Amendment standards. Seven resulted in sanctions.

While this may seem small, it’s not. One sanction can potentially cause hundreds to self-censor out of fear — and the numbers show they have. Students who report self-censoring “fairly often” or “very often” have increased from 16% in 2021 to 24% in 2023.

That — along with 10 ambiguous or easily abused speech codes, such as vaguely defined requirements that students be “civil” when using computers or networks — is why Harvard consistently lands at the bottom of FIRE’s rankings.

As for whether Claudine Gay can turn things around: We’re hopeful, but her record leaves room for doubt.

In 2019, while still Faculty of Arts and Sciences dean, Gay was instrumental in Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. losing his position as residential dean for representing disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein.

Rather than respect Sullivan’s constitutional role as a defense attorney, Gay cited student outrage as evidence that “more work must be done to uphold our commitment to the well-being of our students.”

The implication being that for Gay, the constitutionality of a given action or argument may not overcome current student sentiment.

Then there’s Gay’s insistence on institutional activism in response to George Floyd’s death. In an August 2020 memorandum, she noted, “The calls for racial justice heard on our streets also echo on our campus,” and affirmed her “personal commitment” to “institutional change” regarding “the pernicious effects of structural inequality” at Harvard.

By attempting to signal Harvard’s position in this national debate, Gay immediately alienated differing opinions.

This is a far cry from Gay’s sudden recognition that “the pursuit of truth is possible only when freedom of expression is protected and exercised” and that Harvard “will not allow discomfort or disagreement with opinions fairly expressed to impede this pursuit.”

Given this, accusations of double standards on Gay’s part are understandable.

Still, it’s possible Gay sincerely intends to correct course. Her inaugural commitment to “open inquiry and freedom of expression as foundational values” and her defense of “robust debate” at the hearing may signal a welcome change at Harvard. Skepticism is warranted, but cynicism shouldn’t get in the way of progress.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/11/opinion/harvards-claudine-gay-uses-free-speech-as-a-defense-after-a-history-of-squelching-it/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Woman prevented from documenting antisemitism

After issuing an apology on Friday after video surfaced showing employees at an Oakland coffee shop blocking a Jewish woman from a bathroom while making anti-Israel comments, the owners have now fired the employees allegedly involved in the altercation.

The owners continued by saying that acts of hate would not be tolerated in their business. “We do not tolerate any behavior at Farley’s that makes people feel unwelcome or unsafe. Because this act was not aligned with our values, the employees involved in the incident are no longer employed by Farley’s,” the Hillyard’s posted.

The video, which was recorded by the customer, showed three employees standing between the customer and the door of the bathroom.

According to the video, the customer had previously gone into the bathroom and wanted to re-enter to document the antisemitic graffiti.

The employees allegedly wanted to prevent the woman from recording graffiti in the bathroom, which showed “Zionism = fascism” written on the mirror above the sink and “Your neutrality/apathy is enabling genocide” written on a diaper-changing station.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/10/news/california-coffee-shop-fires-employees-involved-in-antisemitic-behavior-towards-jewish-customer/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

California Climate Agency Bars Staff From Contact With Former Agency Scientist

California’s air quality regulatory agency barred staff from communicating with a former top scientist after he criticized gas lobbyists and a director there in an email to California Air Resources Board members and staff. Jim Duffy, who retired from CARB in 2022, had written that the agency and industry representatives made misleading statements about subsidies for clean fuels.

In response to Duffy’s email, CARB climate director Rajinder Sahota emailed fuel policy specialists and scientists at the agency on Oct. 23, prohibiting them from “engaging” with Duffy, who was a CARB fuel chief from 2019 to 2020.

Others who had held positions like Duffy’s at CARB now work for oil and gas business associations. Those former CARB managers have continued to communicate with staff at the agency. A current CARB employee, who spoke anonymously because they feared being fired or other retaliation, said the email regarding Duffy is something Sahota “has never issued for people who are directly lobbying.” The employee said the directive showed “regulatory capture” of CARB by the gas industry.

Sahota’s email to five senior staff members said only, “No staff is to engage with Jim. Unbelievable.”

Neither Sahota, nor any of the staff or board members, responded to detailed questions from Capital & Main. Instead, CARB communications director Lys Mendez sent an excerpt of the Low Carbon Fuel Standards regulation, apparently supporting Sahota’s statement that Duffy had criticized.

Mendez wrote that Sahota’s email forbidding contact with Duffy was intended to “ensure coordination on official responses” and to prevent actions that could violate public meetings laws. (Sahota’s eight-word email did not cite either of those reasons for prohibiting contact with Duffy.)

Since June, Duffy has submitted written public comments to the agency critical of several policies he was once in charge of implementing, including one that rewards dairies and gas companies for collecting methane from cow manure to sell as a fuel for heavy trucks.

Critics claim that the policy does little besides enrich gas companies. Others, including advocates, Central Valley residents and state lawmakers, say the policy is also leading to more cows at dairies, harming rural communities with increased air and water pollution. CARB says there is no data showing its policy is leading to bigger herds.

Methane leaks during the refining process, sending climate pollution into the atmosphere. Opponents of methane subsidies, including Duffy, say the policy diverts money that could instead go to cleaner alternatives, such as electricity from solar energy.

Sahota’s prohibition on contact with Duffy could run afoul of free speech protections that cover government employees, said Leslie Jacobs, a professor of law at McGeorge School of Law specializing in constitutional protections of speech.

In general, an employer cannot stop employees from speaking to members of the public about their jobs, Jacobs said. Employers can block employee communication if it undermines the credibility of the organization, she added. CARB said it is “common protocol and a best practice” to coordinate its official responses, but did not explain why employees couldn’t talk to Duffy.

Since 2013, California has promoted fuels that emit fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases through its Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) program. It offers incentives for companies to produce fuel from non fossil sources, like manure and landfill methane, as well as diesel made from plants and animal fats. CARB sets annual limits on the amount of carbon a company can emit per gallon of fuel it produces, using a system of credits and deficits to cap emissions on California’s roads.

Gas producers receive subsidies to collect methane — a potent greenhouse gas — from cow manure. They often split the money they receive for collecting methane with the dairy farms where they gather the methane.

During Duffy’s time as a CARB fuel chief, the dairy methane setup remained mostly unchanged. After retiring, he moved to Montana.

https://capitalandmain.com/california-climate-agency-bars-staff-from-contact-with-former-agency-scientist

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Texas Sues Pfizer for ‘Conspiring to Censor’ COVID-19 Vaccine Critics

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, filed a lawsuit Thursday against Pfizer Inc., arguing that the pharmaceutival corporation misrepresented the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine and “conspired to censor” critics.

The lawsuit alleges Pfizer “deceived the public” by claiming its vaccine was 95% effective, as well as through suggestions it made about the vaccine’s duration of protection, protection against transmission, and protectiveness against variants.

Pfizer then “coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers,” including former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Brett Giroir and journalist Alex Berenson, engaging in a “censorship campaign” to suppress content that would negatively impact sales, according to the lawsuit.

“Pfizer intentionally misrepresented the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine and censored persons who threatened to disseminate the truth in order to facilitate fast adoption of the product and expand its commercial opportunity,” Paxton’s complaint alleges, adding:

In light of the multibillion dollar bet that Pfizer made on the vaccine and its need to quickly establish the product as the marketing leader, Pfizer was heavily incentivized to, and in fact did, make misrepresentations intended to confuse and mislead the public in order to achieve widespread adoption of its vaccine.

The complaint filed by Texas also states that government reports show that by 2021, in some places “a greater percentage of the vaccinated were dying from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated.”

“We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies,” Paxton said in a formal statement. “The facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/30/texas-sues-pfizer-for-conspiring-to-censor-covid-19-vaccine-critics

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

More nails in the coffin of Biden’s censorship regime

With each passing month, we are getting closer to the Custer’s Last Stand for federal censors.

But will free speech triumph in time to prevent the feds from secretly rigging the 2024 presidential election?

At a House Weaponization Subcommittee hearing Thursday, Twitter Files reporters Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger returned to reveal the latest censorious outrages.

When Taibbi first testified before the committee in March, congressional Democrats denounced him as a “so-called journalist,” a hypocrite, a profiteer and Twitter owner Elon Musk’s lackey.

Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett, the ranking Democrat, threatened Taibbi with perjury charges and a five-year prison sentence after she claimed he had made a minor misstatement in his testimony.

The Federal Trade Commission demanded, as The Post noted, “all internal communications by, from or about Musk — and telling him to name reporters he’s shared info with” — as if exposing White House misconduct were a federal crime.

But Team Biden was not so lucky in court.

On July 4, federal Judge Terry Doughty, ruling in Missouri v. Biden, condemned the Biden administration for potentially “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”

A federal appeals court ratified that verdict in September, slamming the White House and federal agencies for actions “suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens” — especially conservatives.

Federal agencies pirouetted as a “Ministry of Truth,” according to federal judges who have castigated Biden censorship abuses.

How far did the censorship go?

On Tuesday, the House subcommittee posted online a spreadsheet listing thousands of specific targets of federal contractors.

There was pervasive suppression of any complaints about election fraud before the 2020 election, thereby subverting Americans’ awareness of problems with mail-in ballots and polling booths.

Nothing was too petty to suppress.

One of the issues flagged for targeting was “TikTok trend to raise middle fingers to vaccine.”

So federal censors were obliged to counterpunch any obscene hand gesture in the world?

Shellenberger testified that the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its nonprofit partners had targeted political jokes, hyperbole and specific viewpoints for social-media companies to suppress.

He also stressed that “cognitive security” is a key goal for disinformation researchers. This parallels federal agencies’ interventions to protect “cognitive infrastructure.”

And the most important cognitive fix is to train Americans to never doubt Uncle Sam.

Shellenberger urged Congress to abolish CISA.

But congressional Democrats Thursday had a two-word refutation of all the censorship abuses: DONALD TRUMP!

The specter of Trump’s re-election miraculously expunges all Biden sins.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/more-nails-in-the-coffin-of-biden-s-censorship-regime/ar-AA1kOo6E

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Big Tech, Big Government Jackboots Trample Free Speech Rights

Our own government has waged “psychological operations” and other attacks on the free speech rights of the American people.

That’s according to witnesses at a Thursday hearing of the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

The hearing was part of a series following up on last year’s disturbing revelations of the so-called Twitter Files.

Among the notable revelations during the massive data release from X, formerly known as Twitter, was that the U.S. government worked with Big Tech companies to manipulate public opinion and silence critics.

Journalist Matt Taibbi was asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., what he thought was the most disturbing allegation against the government in his review of the Twitter Files.

“The regular stream, organized stream, of communication between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the largest tech companies in the country,” he replied.

Author Michael Shellenberger explained the techniques the federal government used to censor speech.

“My colleagues and I published the first batch of internal files from ‘The Cyber Threat Intelligence League,’ which show U.S. and U.K. military contractors working in 2019 and 2020 to both censor and turn sophisticated psychological operations and disinformation tactics, developed abroad, against the American people,” Shellenberger said, the Washington Examiner reported.

Shellenberger noted that while the First Amendment prohibits the government from impinging on the freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court has ruled against working with private parties toward the same ends, there is “now a large body of evidence proving that the government did precisely that.”

Federal courts have ruled against the Biden administration on this issue. In July, a federal appeals court ruled in Missouri v. Biden that what the administration did represented “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”

The court issued an injunction on the administration working with Big Tech companies. However, the Supreme Court paused the injunction in October, and the case will be reviewed by the justices.

In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said that stopping the injunction could be “giving the government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views” on social media.

So the problem persists.

“The abuses of power my colleagues and I have documented go well beyond censorship,” Shellenberger said. “They also include what appears to be an effort by government officials and contractors, including the FBI, to frame certain individuals as posing a threat of domestic terrorism for their political beliefs.”

In a follow-up interview with Fox News on Friday, Shellenberger said that what the U.S. government did was similar to tactics it uses to go after foreign opponents. In this case, the state was turned on supporters of former President Donald Trump.

It’s funny how President Joe Biden and the Left always say that Trump is destroying democracy. They would know something about that, I suppose. They’ve turned attacks on democracy into a science.

That’s certainly one of the most disturbing and telling chapters in American history. That the federal government has been actively coordinating with private companies to crush domestic foes is in some ways worse than if the government just did it alone.

It means that many big companies, especially in Big Tech, are willing to make themselves an appendage of the federal government. The distinction between the government and the private sector has effectively been blurred.

Not only does it appear that Democrats and the Left want to put Biden’s 2020 and possibly 2024 presidential opponent in jail, it looks like they want to target Trump’s supporters, too.

What does that mean for elections in this country? Is even the idea of self-government becoming a farce as unelected federal bureaucrats manipulate public opinion on a whim and get whatever president they choose?

Whatever form of government that is, it’s a far cry from the limited constitutional republic this country was created to be.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/01/our-government-colludes-with-big-tech-making-farce-of-free-speech-rights

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Left Learns the Dangers of Cancel Culture

Leftists spent years using cancel culture as a sword to cut down anyone who disagreed with their increasingly radical beliefs. Since October 7, however, many of those same leftists have learned the hard way that cancel culture is a double-edged sword.

The phrase “cancel culture” has become ubiquitous and yet remains relatively undefined. In general, cancel culture is a harsh, unforgiving response to any behavior deemed offensive—even if the same conduct would not have been considered offensive just a few years ago.  

A key component of cancel culture is character assassination. The labeling of one’s political enemies quickly became an effective tool of progressives. If anyone disagreed with a policy that supported diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or LGBTQ rights, those people were silenced by being called racist, transphobic or anti-gay.

Businesses became especially susceptible to cancel culture, and many chose to appease the mob rather than risk a cancellation of their own. After all, customers don’t want to be associated with a canceled business out of fear that they will be canceled by proximity, too. Leftists don’t believe anyone is entitled to sit out a political debate. After all, they believe “silence is violence.”

To date, the right has suffered the brunt of cancel culture. Conservatives are regularly smeared as racist or homophobic, criticized on social media for old and benign activities that became offensive overnight, and targeted by aggressive mobs that wish to destroy their personal and professional lives in any way they can.  

Because the left’s causes were deemed so righteous, all forms of harassment, doxxing, and threatening became fair game. To them, “progress” warranted breaking every norm of considerate or civilized behavior.

Yet now leftists who are supporting Hamas are complaining about each of these tactics. Palestinian supporters are learning how damning such name-calling can be. For example, a New York Times piece detailed how many Congressional staffers were frustrated by the fact that they’ve been “almost reflexively brand as antisemitic” because of their criticisms of Israel following the October 7 massacre by Hamas terrorists.

Progressives have claimed the right to tell us what words and phrases mean–no matter a person’s intent when using those words. It was considered fair game to look back at activities that were decades old and retrospectively condemn someone. They’re the ones who deemed the phrase “master bedroom” racist and the word “mother” transphobic.

Yet when Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) was confronted for a post crying “from the river to the sea,” she said she thought it meant “freedom.” Okay, maybe she did. But given today's standards, she does not get to decide what she meant. Those opposing her decide what she meant.

Until recently, many of the left – including the United Nations – claimed that calls for free speech really meant allowing “hate” speech. Meta, for example, justifies banning free speech on Facebook and Instagram because hate speech is harmful. Yet Pro-Palestinian protestors are demanding their right to free speech even if Jews know it is hate speech. The Left has long believed that anonymity leads to hate speech, and therefore it needs to be regulated. Leftists often take pride in exposing the identity of right-of-center donors.  

After facing criticism of their own, however, the pro-Palestinian protestors have learned the importance of anonymous speech when speaking to the media. Various pro-Palestinian groups have made a habit of wearing masks and requesting anonymity from reporters. The New York Times included this line in one recent report: “The committee members, all current or recently graduated students who were interviewed in Washington, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they said they worried for their safety.”

At least now some in the media seem concerned about the safety concerns of cancel culture.

The Israel-Hamas conflict has also upended the leftist trend of calling for businesses to speak out on political matters. Typically, the left urges businesses to make political statements showing the company’s support for the progressive cause of the day.  When it comes to freeing the hostages in Gaza or mourning the hundreds who were murdered by Hamas, however, the left does not support companies making statements. They’ve even set up a Reddit page to try to silence businesses for speaking out–or even investing–in Israel.

The left loves to change the rules of what is acceptable. Words are offensive only when they decide they’re offensive. Businesses should speak out on political issues only when they want them to speak out. Silence is violence until Hamas murders hundreds.

Cancel culture has been full of hypocrites for years, and the aftermath of the October 7 attacks put that hypocrisy on center stage. Hopefully, the world is watching, and we can all agree to stop playing the left’s stupid games.

https://townhall.com/columnists/frayda-levy/2023/12/01/the-left-learns-the-dangers-of-cancel-culture-n2631864

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Pope Francis’s eviction of Cardinal Burke a ‘denial of free speech’: Vatican source

Francis would be clearly aware that the men he has penalized are much more loyal to the deposit of faith (received Catholic doctrine) than he is, so this smacks of personal pique on the part  of Francis.  There is no obvious theological grounding for the demotions


Pope Francis’ move to evict US Cardinal Burke, 75, one of the Church’s top canon lawyers, from his Roman flat and stop his salary was a tyrannical denial of free speech, a Cardinal close to Burke has told The Australian.

The move is working against Francis, whose closest associates in the College of Cardinals and in the Vatican bureaucracy are distancing themselves from him ahead of any upcoming Synod. The Pope turns 87 later this month and has been in poor health.

Cardinal Burke was especially shocked, his friend said, that Francis chose to confirm the move through his biographer and friend, English journalist Austen Ivereigh, who visited the Pope last Monday. The interview has been the Pope’s only public announcement of his unprecedented measures against Cardinal Burke. The Pope has not spoken to the Cardinal directly.

Writing on a religious website, Where Peter is, on Thursday, Ivereigh said: “In the course of our conversation, Francis told me he had decided to remove Cardinal Burke’s cardinal privileges — his apartment and salary — because he had been using those privileges against the Church.’’

The statement published by Ivereigh contradicts Francis’ claims that he wants those who disagree with him to speak freely, according to the Cardinal’s circle.

“That claim about working against the church is a calumny, and now that Ivereigh has spread it the Pope or his spokesman need to justify it,’’ Cardinal Burke’s friend told The Australian.

The Church’s Code of Canon Law encourages free speech, even criticisms of Church authorities. Canon 212 says that “according to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess’’ Christians “have the right and even at times the duty’’ to make known their opinion on “matters which pertain to the good of the Church’’.

Cardinal Burke is the second US prelate to fall foul of Francis in a month. Three weeks ago, the Pope sacked one of his most prominent critics in the US, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas. Bishop Strickland, a conservative, was popular and respected in his diocese, where his seminary attracted more priestly vocations than most larger dioceses. As with Cardinal Burke, no explanation was given for Bishop Tyler’s removal.

In June, Francis forced the late Pope Benedict’s long-time secretary Archbishop George Ganswein back to Germany, without a position, despite the he had also run Francis’s household for 10 years, In contrast, the controversial priest-artist Fr Marko Rupnik, who was expelled by the Jesuits earlier this year over allegations of sexually abusing nuns and sacrilegious conduct and temporarily excommunicated in 2020 has been given a new start working in his native Slovenia, despite Francis’s “zero tolerance’’ of sexual abuse.

While the moves highlight increasing tensions between the church’s liberal and traditional wings, and Francis’s well-known hostility to “Anglos’’, his treatment of Cardinal Burke has drawn unexpected reactions across factional lines.

Opus Dei (regarded as one of the Church’s most conservative groups) Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, writing in the Jesuit-run America magazine, backed the Pope, arguing that any failure to act in communion with the Church and the Pope can be cause for dismissal.

On the other hand, Chris Altieri, the editor of the middle-of-the-road Vatican website Crux said stripping Cardinal Burke of his Roman digs and cutting off his stipend were “tough to justify as necessary, especially as punishment for promotion of ‘disunity’ in the Church. “This move against Burke is a tough sell, at least from a PR point view, while it is nigh on impossible to see the practical upside,’’ Altieri wrote.

Liberals who disagree with Cardinal Burke’s orthodoxy and respect for tradition admire his authenticity and consistent adherence to Church teaching.

Cardinal Burke, who was appointed to the Church’s most senior legal office by Pope Benedict in 2008, has been measured in his criticisms of Francis’s radical agenda.

Unlike Cardinal George Pell, for example, who, a week before he died in January this year, branded last month’s “Synod on Synodality’’ a “toxic nightmare’’, Cardinal Burke took a quieter approach. He was one of five Cardinals who issued Francis with a “Dubia” – a series of questions – before the event.

These covered whether the blessing of same-sex unions and women’s ordination were consistent with church doctrine. The synod agenda, Cardinal Burke told a gathering of 200 people in Rome held at the same time as the Synod, “appeared to be more political and human than ecclesial and divine’’.

Cardinal Burke has also been one of the few in the College to call out the Vatican’s secret deal with China, at a time when the Communist state is increasing religious persecutions and flexing its military and financial might, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.

In an interview with this newspaper when he visited Australia in 2018 Cardinal Burke said the agreement, which gives Chinese Communist Party officials a major say in choosing bishops, was “absolutely unconscionable’’ and “a betrayal of so many confessors and martyrs who suffered for years and years and were put to death” by the Communist Party.

Cardinal Burke has been urged by friends to consider moving into Domus Australia in Rome, even temporarily, until he finds a new home. The Australia guesthouse has large, comfortable rooms at reasonable prices and a striking chapel.

Cardinal Burke is currently in the US, but he intends to remain based in Rome.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/pope-franciss-eviction-of-cardinal-burke-a-denial-of-free-speech-vatican-source/news-story/e9307ac6a7625be08da32cc207bfbeee

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Inside the UN Plan to Control Speech Online

A powerful United Nations agency has unveiled a plan to regulate social media and online communication while cracking down on what it describes as “false information” and “conspiracy theories,” sparking alarm among free-speech advocates and top U.S. lawmakers.

In its 59-page report released this month, the U.N. Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) outlined a series of “concrete measures which must be implemented by all stakeholders: governments, regulatory authorities, civil society, and the platforms themselves.”

This approach includes the imposition of global policies, through institutions such as governments and businesses, designed to stop the spread of various forms of speech while promoting objectives such as “cultural diversity” and “gender equality.”

In particular, the U.N. agency aims to create an “Internet of Trust” by targeting what it calls “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and “conspiracy theories.”

Examples of expression flagged to be stopped or restricted include concerns about elections, public health measures, and advocacy that could constitute “incitement to discrimination.”

Critics are warning that allegations of “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories” have increasingly been used by powerful forces in government and Big Tech to silence true information and even core political speech.

Just this month, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a report blasting the “pseudoscience of disinformation.”

Among other concerns, the committee found this “pseudoscience” has been “weaponized” by what lawmakers refer to as the “Censorship Industrial Complex.”

The goal: silence constitutionally-protected political speech, mostly by conservatives.

"The pseudoscience of disinformation is now—and has always been—nothing more than a political ruse most frequently targeted at communities and individuals holding views contrary to the prevailing narratives,” states the congressional report, "The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats."

Indeed, many of the policies called for by UNESCO have already been implemented by U.S.-based digital platforms, often at the behest of the Biden administration, the latest congressional report makes clear.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers nevertheless expressed alarm about the new UNESCO plan.

“I have repeatedly and publicly criticized the Biden administration’s misguided decision to rejoin UNESCO, putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times regarding the social-media plan.

Calling UNESCO a “deeply flawed entity,” Mr. McCaul said he is especially concerned that the organization “promotes the interests of authoritarian regimes—including the Chinese Communist Party.”

Indeed, UNESCO, like many other U.N. agencies, includes multiple members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its leadership ranks, such as Deputy Director-General Xing Qu, The Epoch Times has reported.The CCP has repeatedly made clear that even while working in international organizations, CCP members are expected to follow communist party orders.

Lawmakers on the House Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with international organizations are currently working to cut or reduce funding to various U.N. agencies that lawmakers say are using U.S. taxpayer money improperly.

Already, the U.S. government has twice exited UNESCO—under the Reagan and the Trump administrations—due to concerns about what the administrations described as extremism, hostility to American values, and other problems.

The Biden administration rejoined earlier this year over the objections of lawmakers, The Epoch Times reported.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/inside-the-un-plan-to-control-speech-online-5534524?

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

You Can't Say That

Kraus reports that rigid government rules prevent food producers from informing you about useful foods, like low-FODMAP foods.

FODMAP is an acronym for sugars prevalent in garlic, onion, apples, honey and many other foods. Lots of Americans have an intolerance to FODMAPs. For a few, it can be deadly.

Ketan Vakil, who's FODMAP intolerant himself, started a company that sells low-FODMAP foods like bone broths, garlic chive salt and green onion powder -- all with fewer of the ingredients that can cause stomach problems.

"I decided to replace those ingredients with other things that taste great, but don't cause stomach symptoms," says Vakil. "We use the tops of scallions, just the green parts. They taste like onion. Not the exact flavor, but really similar. That part of the plant is lower in FODMAPs."

Sounds great.

But stupidly, the government won't let him say "low-FODMAP" on his labels.

It's not because Vakil is lying about ingredients or their usefulness. He's right in saying his labels have "scientific backing that the medical community accepts."

Doctors acknowledge that FODMAPs are a problem for some people, causing cramping, diarrhea, stomach bloating, etc. Choosing low-FODMAP products would help many.

But the government still won't allow Vakil to put "Low-FODMAP" on the label.

"We had to remove the Low-FODMAP certified symbol, 'gut-friendly,' all the words that would help a shopper find that product for themselves," says Vakil.

The government didn't actually "ban" those words. They just don't allow them because they're not already on the government's approved list.

So Justin Pearson, senior attorney at public interest law firm the Institute for Justice, is helping Vakil sue the government.

"Everyone agrees that Ketan is telling the truth," Pearson points out. "The government just bans it because it's not on the outdated, pre-approved list."

Some of the approved terms don't seem very scientific, or even specific. Ambiguous labels like "home style" and "deli fresh" are approved. But "Low-FODMAP," a more useful term, isn't allowed.

The "approved" list isn't even easy to find. It's scattered throughout several government websites. It took Kraus hours just to compile a partial list of what's approved.

"How do you get on that list?" Kraus asks Pearson.

"With a giant pile of money," Pearson replies, sarcastically referring to the years of lawyering and lobbying that would be required to get the Agriculture Department or the Food and Drug Administration to agree to a wording change.

Does the government ever update its list?

"No," says Pearson. "Why would they? Federal agencies do not respond to the market. Only businesses do."

Of course, some businesses make meaningless and deceptive claims. "We have a job to make sure consumers have access to accurate and useful new information," says the director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety.

Fine. But in this case, the bureaucracy is banning useful new information!

"It's hard enough to get a product out the door," says Vakil. "Not being able to explain it accurately to my customers, who we started the company for, is very frustrating. Laws that have been on the books for years harm my customer."

Lots of people suffer from a digestive problem. They don't want to wait for vendors like Vakil to struggle through the government's lengthy approval process.

Pearson says, "The best-case scenario: They could do it in a couple years. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you."

Vakil doesn't want to wait to help people. "I don't want to solve it for them in eight years. I want to solve it for them tomorrow."

If Vakil and Pearson win their case, it would be a game-changer not just for people who have trouble digesting garlic and onion, but for millions more whose lives could be improved by future diets we don't even know about

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2023/11/22/you-cant-say-that-n2631524

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Maryanne Demasi: Popular ABC TV science show presenter claims she was discredited and fired after pharmaceutical companies complained

She was absolutely right. There are big doubts about statins. See for instance below:

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-grave-statin-side-effects-lower.html

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/2007/05/dangerous-scare-about-cholesterol-i.html

A former ABC presenter has slammed the national broadcaster and TV medic Dr Norman Swan after claiming she was axed, censored and silenced by her bosses.

Maryanne Demasi was one of the hosts of popular ABC prime time science program Catalyst when it was pulled off the air in 2016 after her reporting sparked a furious backlash.

Her two-part expose in 2013 on an alleged over-use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs was a ratings success - but was later banned from ever being shown again.

It claimed some people were taking the heart medication without need, but the ABC's Dr Swan warned people risked a heart attack if they stopped taking their prescribed drugs.

Three years later, a further report on the alleged health risks of wifi and 5G sparked so much outrage the show was axed completely in its then-current format in 2016.

Now Dr Demasi has compared the furore over her stories with the mainstream backlash against anti-vaxxers during the Covid pandemic.

In a speech to an 'Australians for Science and Freedom' conference at Sydney's University of New South Wales earlier this month, she blasted her former TV bosses.

Dr Demasi said health industry critics had hit back after the statins show aired and said 'the ideas in the program were 'dangerous' [and] expressed by 'fringe experts'. '[They] assured the public that statin drugs were 'safe and effective'.'

'Do those phrases sound familiar?' she asked the conference audience. 'The phrases became a fixture of the pandemic.

'One commentator at the ABC went on national radio and claimed that people would die if they watched the program,' she told the audience.

'Australians will recognise this character - Dr Norman Swan. He rose to prominence during the pandemic.'

She said the outrage against that show had been led by the pharmaceutical industry.

'Within days, all three of the major statin manufacturers complained to the network,' she said.

'So did the Heart Foundation, which was criticised in the program for its outdated dietary advice on heart disease, and of course Medicines Australia, the body that represents the Australian pharmaceutical industry. '

She said the media had jumped on the bandwagon attacking her after Dr Swan spoke out against the show.

'His comments about my programs sparked a slew of national stories,' she said.

'[They] accused the programs of killing people, claiming that ABC had blood on its hands, and asking people to sue the ABC if they'd had a heart attack after stopping their statins because of the programs.

'To enforce the narrative, the School of Pharmacy at Sydney University came out with a study claiming that the programs would be responsible for up to 2900 deaths because around 60,000 people would quit taking statins.

'Basically, they were accusing us of mass murder.'

A six-month internal review found the show had been factually accurate but the second part of the report had slanted unfairly against the statins industry.

'I gave more weight to the view of experts (such as Harvard's Prof John Abramson and UCSF's Prof Rita Redberg), that statins were over-prescribed,' she said.

'Which was rather ludicrous since the point of the program was to highlight the problem that statins were over-prescribed.'

She claimed TV bosses told her they'd been ordered to make the problem go away and took the episodes offline, apologised and vowed never to air them again.

Dr Demasi claimed TV bosses were deliberately silencing her from defending herself in a bid to stem the controversy

'This gave the false impression that we were admitting the programs were misleading,' she said. 'Consequently, I was attacked in the media, I was characterised as 'pseudoscientific' and any attempt to defend me was censored. 'I became the target of an orchestrated campaign to discredit me.'

She said TV bosses were deliberately silencing her from defending herself in a bid to stem the controversy.

'I was unable to challenge the criticisms against me,' she said. 'I was effectively silenced by my network and they were cancelling film shoots.

'They'd send me emails saying that I was not allowed to comment publicly or privately about these issues, or else they would consider it a breach of my employment conditions.

'I was told to stop emailing my concerns because my emails could be FOI'd and become part of the public record, so if I had anything to say, I had to do it by phone or face-to-face.'

She said the pressure was huge and she regularly faced internal investigations into her work before it went to air.

'Often it would take longer to defend a program than it would to make it,' she revealed. 'Because we were on tight budgets, this was simply unsustainable.'

'And finally, I learnt that the ABC was willing to silence its own journalists in order to appease industry. This had a chilling effect on other mainstream journalists.

'The message was that it would be career suicide if you tried anything similar.

'And it seems to be a very effective strategy because I don't think I ever saw another story challenging statins in the Australian media again.'

She added: 'I think the standards at the ABC have continued to slip. 'It's a shame, because the ABC was once considered a great institution.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12798713/Maryanne-Demasi-ABC-Catalyst-censored-Norman-Swan.html

****************************************************

The feds’ censorship machine rolls on even as election-fraud cases keep coming to light

You can see it with your own eyes. But the left-wing media dismiss it as a “fantasy offense.”

And your federal government has put into place an elaborate scheme to censor any discussion of it on the Internet.

What is it? Election fraud.

On Tuesday, Fight Voter Fraud, Inc., a nonprofit election-integrity group, appeared in Connecticut Superior Court to demand the arrest of a woman allegedly caught on video stuffing ballot boxes in the 2019 Bridgeport Democratic mayoral primary.

She was caught doing it again in the 2023 primary.

Fight Voter Fraud protested that after the woman was nailed on camera in 2019 and referred to state election authorities, “there has been nothing but inaction,” allowing her to repeat the crime.

The group also called on the Connecticut Legislature to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate election crime in Bridgeport, a Democratic stronghold.

Don’t hold your breath. Democrats control the Legislature, and the party playbook is to deny election fraud is happening.

Worse, new evidence shows the federal government is complicit in censoring anyone who complains about election cheating, in Connecticut or anywhere else.

Never-before-seen emails the House Judiciary Committee released this month reveal a government-sponsored task force is muzzling public figures, thousands of ordinary Americans and media outlets like Newsmax and The Babylon Bee when they report election irregularities.

The emails show that officials within the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department — the deep state — organized the Election Integrity Partnership in 2020, recruiting academics at Stanford University and the University of Washington to flag postings that questioned election honesty and then instruct tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to label the postings “misinformation” or take them down entirely.

Don’t be fooled by the name Election Integrity Partnership. This task force does the opposite — silencing concerns about election integrity.

In 2020 former House Speaker Newt Gingrich objected when Pennsylvania adopted new election rules during COVID that, in his view, invited cheating.

He tweeted, “Pennsylvania democrats are methodically changing the rules so they can steal the election.”

When Nicole Malliotakis was running for Congress in 2020 from Staten Island and southern Brooklyn, she posted on Facebook: “Be sure to vote tomorrow because we’re not only taking on Max Rose, Nancy Pelosi, & Bill de Blasio. We’re taking on Dead Democrats too!”

EIP disagreed and told Facebook to remove her post, which it did.

Even if Malliotakis were wrong about dead people voting, she has a right to raise the issue. And her thousands of followers have the right to see her views.

In fact, Malliotakis had a point. A Staten Island grand jury subsequently identified numerous instances of fraud in the City Council race there, including a ballot submitted on behalf of a dead person.

The emails the House Judiciary Committee released should outrage Americans.

The federal government devised a scheme to covertly stamp out public debate over election fraud just when Democrats were pushing many states to adopt new election rules in the face of COVID.

Americans were entitled to hear the pros and cons of those rules. They still are. The First Amendment bars government from censoring.

So what did the government do?  It outsourced the censorship to EIP. All the same, it was government calling the shots, telling third parties to censor on its behalf.

Louisiana and Missouri are suing to stop the federal government’s censorship scheme, and that case is now before the Supreme Court.

The University of Washington’s Kate Starbird, an EIP member, told NPR she’s unhappy with the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation and lawsuits will dampen EIP’s future censorship operations.

A staggering 60% of likely voters nationwide consider election cheating a problem, according to Rasmussen Reports.

Tell our leaders to crack down on election fraud instead of censoring those who dare to report it.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/22/opinion/the-feds-censorship-machine-rolls-on-even-as-election-fraud-cases-keep-coming-to-light/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The University of Michigan Failed To Protect My Right To Free Speech

Josh Hammer

I arrived at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on Thursday, Nov. 16 to deliver a speech on Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza. The talk's blunt title, selected by the local Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter, reflected my own unambiguous approach to the conflict: "Israel's Righteous Fight Against Jihadism." Given the nature of the talk, given the highly noxious climate now pervading campuses when it comes to this topic in particular, and given the harrowing images of massive anti-Israel gatherings in nearby Dearborn, I anticipated possible fireworks and worked with YAF on event security measures.

Those security measures, unfortunately, turned out to be necessary.

Within minutes of starting my speech, 20 to 25 protestors stood up in unison. They held their arms high in the air to expose their shirts, which featured photos of Palestinian Arabs who have died in Gaza since the war started. (The students are unaware of, or simply disinterested in, the fact that every one of those deaths is legally attributable to Hamas under international law.) Undeterred, I continued. A few minutes later, the students began obnoxiously coughing in unison each time I opened my mouth in a clear attempt to drown me out. I reminded them of the university's code of conduct, which prohibits shouting down speakers, but that only made them cough louder.

Shortly after that, the mass coughing turned into shouting, coordinated by a visible ringleader toward the front of the pack. The chants would be familiar to those who have paid attention to the explosion of on-campus antisemitism since the Hamas Holocaust of Oct. 7: "Remember their names!," "Free Palestine!," "Stop the genocide!" and so forth. At one point, a protestor started to walk briskly toward the stage, prompting my body man to leap out of his front-row seat to protect me. Finally, a tepid university administrator replaced me at the podium, seemingly to once again remind the students that their conduct violated university policy. He too was drowned out; his exhortations were largely inaudible.

Eventually, the protestors escorted themselves out of the back of the room. They never ceased chanting, and proceeded to physically bang on the walls of the lecture hall exterior once they exited -- leaving red handprints all over the wall behind them, since they had painted their hands blood-red. The whole disruption lasted probably 30 to 35 minutes, after which I finished my remarks for those who had the patience to remain in their seats. After student Q&A and photos, a campus police officer escorted me to my friend's car.

Let's be clear about what happened: The University of Michigan, one of the nation's preeminent public universities, failed to secure my First Amendment right to free speech. Even more important, the university failed to secure the other half of the right to free speech: the right to freely listen, especially for those who drove hours to Ann Arbor just to hear my talk. University administrators and campus police officers acted shamefully in failing to suppress the pro-Hamas students' heckler's veto -- a disreputable act that here, there and everywhere falls outside the scope of First Amendment-protected activity under well-established case law, and which may even be prosecutable depending on the jurisdiction.

The pro-jihadist students seemed to intuit they could act with impunity quickly. The day after my disrupted talk, in a video now seen millions of times on social media, a mob of antisemitic protestors stormed the office of University of Michigan President Santa Ono, chanting "No justice, no peace!" as they bombarded their way past campus police to infiltrate and occupy the office space. All this, it seems, because a conservative student group had the temerity to host a Jewish, pro-Israel speaker the night prior.

The inmates are running the asylum these days at America's most prestigious universities. Absent firm and unequivocal punishment of students who violate universities' code of conduct, and perhaps the law itself, we can only expect more of the same sordid behavior.

Fortunately, universities are not powerless in such circumstances. In April 2019, I was personally present at my alma mater, the University of Chicago Law School, to see fellow alumnus and legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich speak about the First Amendment and state-level anti-BDS ("Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions") legislation. He too was shouted down by a not-so-merry band of jihadist sympathizers. There too, campus police was shamefully slow to act. But ultimately, when the dust settled weeks later, the University of Chicago took a very necessary scalp: The law student ringleader of the protest was kicked out of the law school and told not to reapply for two to three years -- a de facto expulsion.

If free speech is to have any chance of prevailing on university campuses amidst the current climate of nihilism, Jew-hatred and jihad-sympathy, we need to take a lot more scalps. The University of Michigan, which failed to secure my First Amendment right to free speech on Nov. 16, would be a fine place to start.

https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2023/11/24/the-university-of-michigan-failed-to-protect-my-right-to-free-speech-n2631575

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Amazon Prime Video Removes ‘The Plot Against the President’ Documentary Without Explanation

Amazon has blacklisted the Amanda Milius-directed documentary The Plot Against the President by removing the title from its Prime Video streaming service without explanation.

Consumers are no longer able to digitally rent or purchase  The Plot Against the President from the platform.

Amazon searches performed by Breitbart News produced different results. In some cases, such as using the Prime Video app, the title doesn’t appear at all. In other cases, the movie does appear but with a message saying “This video is currently unavailable to watch in your location.”

It remains unclear when Amazon took down the movie, though it appears to have happened in the past two months.

A spokeswoman for Prime Video didn’t respond to an inquiry from Breitbart News.

The Plot Against the President, based on the bestseller by Lee Smith, provides an in-depth look at the Russiagate hoax and how Democrats and the mainstream media conspired to undermine the peaceful transition of power following the 2016 election.

The documentary focuses in large part on then-Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) efforts to expose efforts to take down then-President Donald Trump.

Since it became available to stream on Amazon in late 2020, the movie accumulated about 17,000 user reviews. By comparison, the Oscar-winning Al Gore climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth currently has around 2,800 reviews.

“In my opinion, Amazon was embarrassed that this film they had no idea about, and probably ideologically disagree with, ever did so incredibly well on the platform, even if it made them a lot of money,” Amanda Milius said in a statement.

Amazon Prime Video has also removed the entire library of the movie’s distributor, Turnkey Films. The decision appears to have stemmed from a single copyright complaint against one title.

As Breitbart News reported back in 2020, Amazon held back the streaming release of The Plot Against the President for almost two weeks, saying that the movie needed a “content review” before it could begin streaming on Prime Video.

Amazon has a history of blacklisting conservative streaming content. Prime Video did not offer a live stream of the Republican National Convention during primetime in 2020 after it livestreamed all four nights of the Democratic National Convention.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns the far-left Washington Post, which has positioned itself as an anti-Trump outlet.

The Plot Against the President will be available to stream on the Rumble / Locals platform starting Thanksgiving Day. It is still available on iTunes and YouTube, as well as Movies Plus.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/11/22/exclusive-amazon-prime-video-removes-the-plot-against-the-president-documentary-without-explanation

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Popular ABC Host Quits Live on Air, Says There Are 'Penalties for Speaking Bluntly'

A popular radio host in Sydney has quit live on air while making a thinly veiled critique of the national broadcaster's management and its listeners around “uncomfortable conversations.”

“Having truly rational, bull-[expletive] free conversations about controversial issues is risky these days,” Josh Szeps, host of ABC Radio Sydney, said just before the 3 p.m. news on Nov. 15.

“The penalties for speaking bluntly, the penalties for trying to coax people out of their thought silos and their echo chambers are very high.”

The radio host, who appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience show and famously entered into a heated debate with the American commentator on the COVID jab, said the fact that controversial topics are risky “makes it more important to me.”

“The fact I have found a way of doing it independently that is financially viable leads me to the question that I have been mulling over ever since chatter about the 2024 [ABC] line-up began—which is, where am I at most use to the national conversation?” he said.

Mr. Szeps added that regular listeners know him for thriving on controversial discussions.

“You know I am the kid who gets invited to Christmas lunch and then starts talking to people I’m advised not to talk to,” he said.

“Like Uncle Herbie who might have voted for Pauline Hanson—as that old codger farts his way through the potato salad I will have an uncomfortable conversation with him.

“Maybe all I do is make the prim and proper partygoers uncomfortable, but that is not my intention. My hope is that by understanding Uncle Herbie’s point of view I might better understand my own. Everyone might better understand their own.

He explained that his conversations have become somewhat of a “misfit” at the ABC.

“I’m a child of refugees, but I'm a white Australian. I'm a gay guy, but I hate Mardi Gras,” he added. “I have Holocaust-surviving grandparents but I'm conflicted about Zionism. I'm an ABC presenter but I don't like kale.”

Mr. Szeps urged journalists to be “contrarians” rather than “team players.”

“The way to expand the conversation is to expand the people having the conversation, not just in ways that prioritise superficial diversity but in ways that reward true idiosyncrasy,” he said.

Mr. Szeps also plugged his podcast titled “Uncomfortable Conversations,” and said he would launch a YouTube show after he finished up with the public broadcaster.

Steve Ahern, acting head of ABC Capital City Networks, said: “Josh’s mixture of playfulness, intellect and fearlessness is one of a kind. We wish him all the best and hope he can contribute his significant talents to the ABC again in the future.”

Mr. Szeps said he will continue with his role at ABC Radio Sydney Afternoons until Dec. 22.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/popular-australian-radio-host-quits-live-on-air-over-penalties-for-speaking-bluntly-5530701

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Australia: Fears tough new hate speech powers for NSW police could have ‘chilling effect’ on public debate

I suspect that these "fears" are just pandering to Muslims.  What is wrong with the police  putting a matter  before the courts?  You don't have to be a genius to notice "threats and incitement to violence based on race and religion".  Such events are now common and public among pro Palestinian protesters

New South Wales police will be handed the power to lay charges for threats and incitement to violence based on race and religion in a reform introduced to state parliament amid rising tensions over the conflict in Gaza.

The premier, Chris Minns, said the laws governing hate speech needed to “have teeth” when he announced the change, after a swift review of the legislation.

Leading legal minds have spoken out against the change, insisting safeguards are important and the changes would “risk opening the floodgates for controversial speech to be investigated”.

As it stands, police need to seek approval to use the laws from the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge anyone for making threats or inciting violence. Under the proposed change, the DPP would be sidestepped and the power would rest with police.

The 2018 law was reviewed after weeks of pro-Palestine protests and a string of alleged antisemitic incidents across Sydney.

The attorney general, Michael Daley, said he was making the change because “recent dynamic events” had shown him the law was no longer “fit” for NSW.

“Some of the alleged behaviour that was seen on the streets has caused us within government to have a look at this provision and then to come to the conclusion that it could be better improved,” he said.

Despite the law having been available to police and the DPP for five years, just 12 changes have been laid using the legislation as it stands. Of those, 10 were withdrawn and two convictions were being appealed in the high court, Daley said.

According to the attorney general, the administrative burden added by the referral of possible cases to the DPP meant police had been less likely to opt for the provision and he hoped to remove it would see it used more.

An individual found guilty under the laws would face a fine of up to $11,000 or up to three years in jail, or both.

Daley has said the change would bring the process in line with that available to police charging someone for displaying a Nazi symbol, but legal groups have said the two offences should not be compared due to the complex difference between the charges.

Greg Barns, criminal justice spokesperson at the Australian Lawyers Alliance, said the law, which was “only introduced in 2018”, needed to be applied carefully and as such needed DPP oversight.

“It requires careful consideration before charging anyone with this offence because it is broad and it applies in the context of it being a curtailment of freedom of speech,” he said.

“It is important to have DPP oversight in those circumstances.”

Lydia Shelly, the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said the changes risked unintended consequences.

“These … may include the politicisation of police investigations and prosecutions, the misuse of police resources … as well as a chilling effect on issues that should be debated in public,” she said.

Shelly said the alleged abhorrent chants at the Opera House should already be captured under the legislation and any controversial speech that falls short of the current legal threshold should not be criminalised.

“Removing the DPP as a safeguard risk opening the floodgates for controversial speech to be investigated, risks further deteriorating social cohesion,” she said.

The NSW Greens MP Jenny Leong said the changes would not make the state a safer place.

“Rushing through changes that give police more powers without oversight on complex issues at the intersection between freedom of speech and vilification will not make our community any safer.

“As much as NSW Labor might want a quick and easy solution, you can’t police your way out of this complex issue.”

The opposition is expected to support the bill and it will be considered when the shadow cabinet meets this week

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/22/fears-tough-new-hate-speech-powers-for-nsw-police-could-have-chilling-effect-on-public-debate

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Backlash erupts after Hard Solo is banned and forced to rename - as Aussies highlight blatant hypocrisy in the decision

Aussies have unleashed after regulators forced Solo's controversial alcoholic option to change its name.

Hard Solo will now be known as Hard Rated after the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code Scheme ruled that its original packaging appealed towards children.

The ruling found that Hard Solo cans were too similar to the classic non-alcoholic Australian beverage despite its different colour and bold alcoholic labelling.

Fans of the massively popular ready-to-drink alcoholic lemon beverage called out the Cancer Council and teal MP Kylea Tink, who led the push for the name change in August.

The hypocrisy of the government was put on blast by many who said other adult products appeal to minors as well.

'Go back to regulating vapes,' one woman wrote.

'Okay, and what about vaping packaging and Cruiser packaging and Billson's non-alcoholic cans,' a second added.

'Imagine thinking this is marketed to kids, yet Vodka Cruisers are fine with all the colours. Australia is cooked with regulations,' a third wrote.

Vapes and e-cigarettes have been slammed across the world in recent years for enticing children with their colourful packaging and extravagant flavours.

Vodka Cruisers have similarly been popular in the youth market, with vibrant colours and flavours like Exotic Lychee, Summer Peach and Lush Guava.

Billson's beverages have also faced complaints after the company released strikingly similar non-alcoholic versions of their adult products in supermarkets.

Billson's have non-alcoholic options which are sold in supermarkets and look very similar to their alcoholic counterparts

Vodka Cruisers came under fire for their colourful contents and extravagant flavour names like Lush Guava and Summer Peach
Many people complained about the hypocrisy of Australian regulators who they claimed did had not acted on other alcoholic drinks that are highly popular in the youth market

Others coming to the defence of Hard Solo have been left scratching their heads as to how anyone could confuse the two versions of the lemon drink in the first place.

Solo is available in a bright yellow can while Hard Solo is only available in bottle shops in a black can with an 'Alcoholic Lemon' label equal in size of its Solo branding.

'If you get confused about the difference between hard solo and regular solo then natural selection is gonna get ya,' one man wrote.

Just 10 complaints were made to ABAC before it dealt the swift blow to Carlton & United Breweries which only caused the drink to sell out again.

However some sided with the regulator's decision, with one woman recounting the time her underage child was served Hard Solo at a pub by accident.

'We recently went to a pub and asked for a Solo for one of our kids, out came a hard solo with a straw in it,' she said.

'The bartender was first day on the job and had no idea, he just thought they had changed the colour.'

Another man said that as long as Hard Rated still tasted the same, he would still buy it.

'It doesn’t matter what it’s called. If it’s sweet and tasty and I can get their hands on it, I'll drink whatever it is,' he declared.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12759797/Backlash-erupts-Hard-Solo-banned-forced-rename-Aussies-highlight-blatant-hypocrisy-decision.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The truth that may not be spoken

First, they came for our spaces, then our sports, our language, our opportunities and our children. Now, they’re coming for our thoughts and our voices.

I’m a Councillor with the Hobart City Council, arguably one of the Wokest councils in Australia. I’m also a wife, mother, and firm believer in freedom of belief and expression. I know how critically important tolerance and inclusion is to our democracy. Inclusion goes far beyond race, age, sexual orientation, and other variables. True inclusion is also diversity in belief and opinion.

The fundamental rights that underpin our democratic way of Australian life are under the type of attack we never would have thought possible only a handful of years ago. For me, this attack is hitting very close to home and my hip pocket.

I’ll soon be fronting the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal facing an allegation that I have ‘incited hatred on the basis of gender identity’. My supposed crime? I spoke the truth.

The pathway here began when I spoke at a Let Women Speak women’s rights event outside Parliament House in Hobart in March this year. As part of my speech, I stated that ‘transwomen are transwomen and remain biological men’ and that someone ‘cannot be raped with a penis, if there is no penis present’, in reference to the valid need for some female-only spaces. Clear-thinking people know these to be undeniable truths, yet I’m absurdly being taken to court for saying them.

What we’re seeing is the pinnacle of gender ideology madness. The lunacy has gone beyond the loss of once female-only vulnerable spaces, like changerooms, toilets and shelters. It’s well advanced in women’s sport where men are celebrating from the top of the women’s podium. We have male rapists being housed in women’s prisons.

Women have lost their language, as ‘she’, ‘her’ and ‘woman’, is now under the ownership of, and ‘inclusive’ of, men. It’s no surprise when a man is the keynote speaker for an International Women’s Day event. And now the final frontiers – controlling and compelling the beliefs, thoughts and speech of others.

To complete the domination, activists and their well-funded ideology-driven organisations are weaponising legislation to silence people who don’t subscribe to the religion of gender ideology. The concept of gender ideology is just a set of beliefs, but more like a cult given questions are not permitted. Thankfully, in Australia at least, we would never see people being taken to Court for not believing in someone else’s religion, which is essentially what is happening here.

Taxpayer money is being shamefully chewed up on punishing people for speaking the truth, and making an example of them so that other non-believers dare not even try. Defending such absurdity – especially when there are Constitutional questions at hand – doesn’t come cheap. I’ve already invested thousands personally in our fight to speak the truth and our fair and valid opinion, but backup is needed to defend this right as far and high as we need to.

Laws around stamping out real incitement of hatred and violence are undoubtedly needed, but setting the threshold so ridiculously low is a full-blown assault on our implied right to freedom of belief, freedom of expression and political communication.

Yes, I could have grovelled when the complaint that ignited this firestorm first reared its head. I could have begged for forgiveness and made promises to ‘do better’ – ‘I’m so sorry for hurting your feelings’ and, ‘of course you’re a woman’, – but that is lying, and I won’t do that. Truth, reality, science and safety and fairness for women and girls are more important than the feelings of some men.

‘I’m offended’ cannot dictate where the bar on allowable public discourse is set. We all have the capacity to be offended by something, and being offended is part of being in a society. This is even more clear-cut when the ‘offence’ stems from fact. We all have facts we wish were not true, but they are, and no amount of outrage can change that. The possibility of being offended goes hand-in-hand with the right to speak – it’s a two-way exchange. In exchange for your right to speak, you accept the prospect of offence when others do. Being offended is part and parcel of diversity, debate and democracy.

The vast majority of Australians are on the same page as me. We don’t wish transwomen any harm and we want to ‘be kind’ but we won’t lie, and we won’t compromise the fair and valid needs of women. This complaint even being accepted for investigation shows that the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is on a different wavelength to the general population.

All sane people know that this situation is ludicrous. We know that humans cannot change sex and that males, as a collective, are bigger, stronger, and present an inherent risk to women. Statistics show that 97 per cent of sex offenders are men.

There is nothing ‘progressive’ about prioritising the demands and feelings of some men over women’s safety, fairness, dignity and rights. There is nothing righteous about declaring that facts are hate and only one view is allowed. There is too much at stake to not fight back on this obscene level of censorship.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/i-spoke-the-truth/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: 'Woke' police force guide that warned its own staff not to use the word 'policeman' or risk breaking the law

A new 'woke' police force guide that warns its own staff to not use the word 'policeman, or risk breaking the law, has been slammed by a Tory MP.

Nigel Mills blasted police bosses for banning 'perfectly acceptable, normal language' in the 12-page guide from Staffordshire Police.

The guide which was published by the force in June of this year suggests officers 'try not to use the words' such as 'policeman', and to use 'police officer' instead.

The recommendations also advise against using gender-biased expressions or expressions that reinforce gender stereotypes, such as 'man up' or 'grow a pair'.

Mills, the Conservative MP for Amber Valley, told The Sun: 'You'd think the police have enough on their plate without spending time worrying about which perfectly acceptable, normal language they can and can't use.'

The guide makes further suggestions for the way officers identify individuals by their jobs, adding that 'cleaning lady' should be swapped for 'cleaner', 'spokesman' should be switched to 'spokesperson' and 'statesman' should be replaced with 'official', 'diplomat', 'political figure', or 'leader'.

The document makes clear in capital letters, that it was issued as a guide that is 'by no means exhaustive or definitive'.

It adds: 'Discrimination through language, whether intended or not, causes offence, patronises and may also be unlawful'.

The guidance also covers disabilities and medical conditions, advising officers to try not use terms such as 'diabetic person', 'handicapped', 'confined to a wheelchair' and to definitely not use the term 'dumb' because it often 'used as a derogatory term regarding someone’s intelligence'.

On ethnicity, using the terms 'half-caste', 'mixed race' 'oriental' and 'BAME' are also advised against, with officers being encouraged to 'be specific where you can'.

In August, words such as 'policemen' and 'chairmen' were banned in advice handed out by a court industry body.

The Magistrates Association told its staff and volunteers to avoid umbrella terms such as 'black, Asian or minority ethnic groups', which can be 'unintentionally divisive'.

It also encouraged them to 'describe someone's sexual orientation in the terms they suggest'.

Staffordshire Police told The Sun: 'The guidance was produced alongside external consultants to ensure we treat each other and our communities with the utmost courtesy and respect.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12760181/Woke-police-guide-policeman-breaking-law-Tory-MP.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: Female Newcastle United fan who said 'trans women are men' says her club membership has been suspended after police investigate her

A football fan claims her club suspended her membership after police investigated tweets saying 'trans women are men'.

The woman, a 34-year-old who lives near Newcastle United's ground, said she first heard about the inquiry in an email from the club's security complaints team at the end of last month.

The club said her £37-a-year membership was being suspended as 'standard practice' because her alleged 'malicious communications' under investigation 'contravene our ground regulations'.

The woman, who has asked not to be named, voluntarily attended an interview at Northumbria Police's Forth Banks station on Friday.

She recorded the interview with an officer after being advised to do so by campaign group WeAreFairCop. According to the transcript, the woman was questioned for posting online:

'Just your daily reminder that trans women are men';
'This period of time where people are mutilating children will be looked back in history with disgust. I'll be able to say I never agreed with this';

The transcript records the officer telling her that she is being questioned over alleged breach of the Malicious Communications Act.

The officer reads out the posts, asking her of each of them: 'Do you think this could be seen as offensive?' The woman, who said she was alarmed by the questions, answered 'no comment' to everything.

The Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday that Newcastle United's decision to suspend the woman because of the police probe meant she had missed out on priority tickets for big matches.

The woman, who works in hospitality, said that although she understood the police inquiry had been dropped, her club membership remained suspended.

She said: 'There's a part of me that feels like I've done something wrong. I'm a good person and the last thing in the world I would want to do is to hurt someone with my words.'

Harry Miller, spokesman for WeAreFairCop, said of the investigation: 'They do this to terrorise members of the public. They have put this woman through absolute hell.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12740943/Female-Newcastle-United-fan-said-trans-women-men-says-club-membership-suspended-police-investigate-her.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************