Friday, December 30, 2022

British beer enthusiasts told not to say 'pub crawl' or 'happy hour' to be more inclusive

Beer enthusiasts have been told not to say 'pub crawl' or 'happy hour' to be more inclusive and end 'lad culture' around drinking.

Members of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) should avoid using phrases such as 'join the lads for a swift few after work' as they could put off women from joining in.

The updated guidelines instead advise members to say they are embarking on a 'pub tour' where they will 'savour a pint'.

Earlier this year, the group launched a diversity drive in a bid to lose its 'male, pale and stale image' and attract more ethnic minorities, women and gay people.

CAMRA was established in 1971 to campaign for the survival of a wide variety of traditionally brewed quality real ales.  It now boasts 160,000 members and 45 paid staff, working out of headquarters in St Albans.

However, the 'brand guidelines' have drawn criticism from members, with one saying: 'Just call it what you want and don't be cowed or bogged down by what terminology Camra deems is safe.'




Thursday, December 29, 2022

In a world where everything that was once normal is now woke, it’s no surprise that the Marine Corps has also turned the tide

A newly released academic report from the University of Pittsburgh recommended that the U.S. Marine Corps drop the words “sir” and “ma’am” used to address senior officers to avoid “misgendering” drill instructors despite there only being 14,000 females in the Marine Corps, which makes up of only 7 percent of the branch.

Instead of using the words “sir” and “ma’am,” recruits in the military services refer to their drill instructors using their ranks or roles followed by their last names.

The 738-page report highlights a $2 million study that was conducted to examine gender-integrated recruit training, which claimed that the change would make both genders feel more comfortable when being addressed by peers.

However, not everyone is on board with the woke change.

According to the Marine Corps Times, Col. Howard Hall, chief of staff for Marine Corps Training and Education Command, expressed several concerns.

“That’s going to take some effort,” Hall said, adding “honestly, that’s not a quick fix. What is inculcating in our young recruits that will or will not be reinforced when they graduate and enter the fleet Marine force? So again, we want to avoid any quick-fix solutions that introduce perturbations down the line.”

Hall also argued that a sudden change in the service members will create unnecessary confusion and inconsistency.

“All of a sudden, we change something at recruit training, and recruits start coming in and using a different identifier. It's not something we would change overnight," Hall said, adding “again, we've got a history of 'sir, ma'am, sir, ma'am.' If we change something at the root level, how do we make the corresponding change at the Fleet Marine Force? So it's not ours to implement alone."




Wednesday, December 28, 2022

Musk: Government Paid Twitter Millions 'to Censor Info'

The FBI handed nearly $3.5 million of taxpayers money to Twitter to pay its staff to handle requests from the bureau as it sought to ban accounts.

A Twitter employee wrote in a February 2020 email that the company's Safety, Content & Law Enforcement (SCALE) had 'collected $3,415,323' in less than two years from the FBI for 'law-enforcement related projects.'

The email, which was revealed by journalist Michael Shellenberger, stated that SCALE had instituted a 'reimbursement program' in exchange for devoting staff hours to 'processing requests from the FBI'.

The emails was entitled 'Run the business - We made money!'.

The accounts the FBI asked Twitter to ban were largely linked to conservatives and 'foreign influence operations'.

Twitter initially believed the Hunter Biden laptop story was 'Russian disinformation'. It was revealed Monday that Jim Baker, Twitter's top lawyer and ex-FBI general counsel, personally intervened to say it should be banned.     

Baker told Yoel Roth, Twitter's head of security, that the laptop story should be blocked - a day after getting a top secret briefing from his former FBI colleagues.

He wrote: 'There are some facts that indicate the materials may have been hacked. We simply need more information.'

We went on to write: 'I'm guessing we are going to  restrict access to their article as  violation of our Hacked Materials policy.'

An investigation into Twitter's behavior around the 2020 presidential election by the incoming Republican majority in the house has been promised with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy telling Fox News this week: 'This is going to be a much bigger situation than people realize.'

Current Twitter CEO Elon Musk said of the emails: 'Government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public.'

In a previous dump, journalist Matt Taibbi tweeted: 'Twitter's contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary.'

In response to the latest developments, House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy said in an appearance on Mornings with Maria on Fox News: 'We’re going to do more than just subpoena them. We’re going to change the course of where the FBI is today.'

He went on: 'Every day we learn something more.'




Friday, December 23, 2022

Censored for speaking the truth

Why did the police investigate Pӓivi Rӓsӓnen, a Finnish doctor, mother of five, grandmother of ten, and devout Christian?

For her words. Because she told the truth about marriage. And for this, they made her out to be a criminal.

Can speaking the truth make Pӓivi—or anyone else—a criminal?

Before the Finnish police began investigating Pӓivi in June 2019, she had been an active member in the Finnish Lutheran Church and served as a member of Parliament since 2005, becoming the Minister of the Interior from 2011-2015.

But when Pӓivi addressed her church’s leadership about their sponsorship of a LGBT “Pride 2019” event, she wrote and spoke publicly on social media about her biblical views on sexuality and marriage.

The Finnish Prosecutor General brought three criminal charges against Pӓivi, accusing her of “hate speech” and discrimination in April 2021. These are serious accusations with real consequences.

Pӓivi’s courage is inspiring, but cautionary. She won her case and was unanimously acquitted in March 2022, but the Finnish prosecutor has appealed the decision and pushed criminal prosecution of her even after the court declared her innocence. Pӓivi’s fundamental freedom to speak her beliefs is still on the line.

ADF International helped defend Pӓivi at the Helsinki District Court, and we won. But her case isn’t over

Pӓivi’s government tried to silence her and make her out to be a criminal. But other nations can do the same to their citizens. We must stand up to censorship across the world because free speech should be a universal right—not only for Americans.

Now, free speech is often punished in public spaces—forced pronoun use in schools and universities, college speakers shouted down, and big tech censoring pro-life viewpoints and allowing harassment of pro-life groups. It needs proper protections.

<i>Alliance Defending Freedom:</i>




Thursday, December 22, 2022

‘I am seen as a bastion of free speech’: Andrew Tate

Tate may be the world's most "incorrect" person. He is, for instance, a self-confessed misogynist. His views, or something like them, were normal within living memory. Perhaps because of that he has attracted much attention both for and against.

The way he has been wiped from social media platforms is instructive, however. It suggests that he may have got some things right. Absurdity does not need to be banned

Social media personality Andrew Tate says he is seen as a “bastion of free speech” as more young men are “forgotten about” and looking towards him as a role model.

“I think there’s a whole swath of the population, especially young men that feel disenfranchised,” Mr Tate told Sky News host Piers Morgan.

“With the media machine and things they’re supposed to believe, they don’t feel an affinity with the educational systems or culture and they look at a person like me who stands up and says the things that many young men think.

“I haven’t put a magic spell on the world.

“But I am seen as a bastion of free speech and a bastion for masculinity as a whole because a lot of men are largely forgotten about.”




Wednesday, December 21, 2022

Trump vows 'free speech' reform of government, universities, media, tech firms if elected in 2024

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a series of aggressive and ambitious proposals to undo what he characterized as the suppression of free speech in the United States if he is elected president in 2024.

Trump, who lost his White House reelection bid in 2020, promised in a videotaped address that he would target government agencies and employees, universities and tech companies with a series of executive orders and policies aimed at their purported censorship of speech and ideas.

Among other things, Trump vowed to "ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as 'mis-' or 'dis-information,'" including federal subsidies and student loan support for universities.

"The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed and it must happen immediately," said the Republican, who is prone to linguistic hyperbole and over-promising when announcing plans.

"When I'm president, this whole rotten system of censorship and information control will be ripped out of the system at large. There won't be anything left," he said.

Trump and other right-wing figures have for years claimed they are the victims of efforts to limit their speech by purported "deep-state" actors, mainstream media outlets and social media companies.

Those claims gained added fuel in recent weeks with the release earlier this month of what Twitter CEO Elon Musk called the "Twitter files" to support claims that the company's prior management handled content moderation in a way that was biased against conservatives. Twitter released the internal communications to a handful of conservative writers, who published a series of tweets detailing the social media company's decision before the 2020 election to temporarily suppress a New York Post story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden.

Musk has even gone so far as to say that Twitter, which he bought in October, interfered with U.S. elections. Twitter didn't respond to requests for the records from CNBC and The New York Times.

Some studies have found that, despite claims of a liberal-leaning Twitter censoring conservatives, the social media platform elevated conservative news and voices over liberal content.

Trump said that "within hours of my inauguration" he would sign an executive order banning federal agencies "from colluding" with others to censor or otherwise limit lawful speech by individuals.

He also said he would begin a process to identify and fire "every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship."

And he said he would order the Department of Justice "to investigate all parties involved in the new online censorship regime, which is absolutely destructive and terrible, and to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified."

"These include possible violations of federal civil rights law, campaign finance laws, federal election law, securities law and antitrust laws, the Hatch Act, and a host of other potential criminal civil regulatory and constitutional offenses," he said.

Stephen Farnsworth, professor of political science at University of Mary Washington, dismissed Trump's proposals as "something to generate energy among his supporters" after a soggy campaign kickoff.

"This is not a plan that would ever succeed legislatively or judicially if it came to that," Farnsworth said in an interview. He said Trump was "trying to change the narrative" after many of his handpicked candidates lost high-profile races in the recent midterm elections.

"The former president's fast and loose connection with the truth makes him a poor choice to dictate the terms of discourse in the country," Farnsworth added.

Ian Ostrander, associate political science professor at Michigan State University, said that if Trump were elected again, he "could certainly use tools such as executive orders to creatively alter government policy."

"But making drastic and enduring changes can be hard using just unilateral powers," Ostrander wrote in an email to CNBC.

Trump on Thursday also reiterated his long-standing desire for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from being sued over content posted by their users.

Just as there is no guarantee that Trump will be the GOP presidential nominee in 2024 — or that he would win a general election contest — there is no guarantee that he can or would follow through on any or all of the promises in the plan he announced Thursday.

When he was president, Trump was frustrated by his inability to force the Department of Justice to do things he wanted done, such as taking steps to reverse his election loss to Biden, and was enraged by the department appointing a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to investigate his 2016 campaign's contact with Russians.

And when Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2020 because the bill did not include the elimination of Section 230, Congress overrode that veto.




Tuesday, December 20, 2022

The war on Christmas continues. Namely, just try finding a Christmas tree on public display that is actually referred to as a… 'Christmas tree'

Meanwhile, the folks at Cadillac Fairview, who own the Toronto Eaton Centre, sometimes refer to a Christmas tree as a 'signature tree.'

Now, call us old-fashioned if you must, but we always thought that an evergreen tree in the month of December adorned with ornaments and lights is typically referred to, as, you know… a Christmas tree.

But no. Apparently Christmas is the new C-word these days. It began when the increasingly woke mob began “rebranding” Christmas tree as “holiday tree.” But in real life, who calls it that?

Meanwhile, the folks at Cadillac Fairview, who own the Toronto Eaton Centre, sometimes refer to a Christmas tree as a “signature tree.”

Who’s signature? Kris Kringle’s?

But it’s a moot point this year, given that the mall isn’t displaying a Christmas/holiday/signature/evergreen tree this year, for reasons that remain mysterious.

Alas, we are depressed to report that the anti-Christmas tree virus continues to spread. Because directly across the street from the Eaton Centre, the Rotary Club of Toronto recently erected a decorated and illuminated evergreen tree at Yonge Dundas Square. But don’t you dare call that tree a “Christmas tree”, because this vegetation is officially called… a “remembrance tree”?!

Gee, what are we supposed to be remembering? The birth of Jesus Christ? Or merely that point in time not too long ago in which it was not politically incorrect to call a Christmas tree… a Christmas tree?

Supposedly, the Rotary Club has gone with this name due to… diversity. Yet, how does embracing cancel culture serve as an example of celebrating diversity? Sorry, does not compute.

We asked passersby if they could identify what a decorated evergreen tree is called in the twelfth month of the year. Shockers! Everybody answered “Christmas tree.” Oh, how distressing to see such insensitivity at play on the mean streets of Hogtown, especially during this special time of year!

In fact, can it get any worse when it comes to the war on the once-beloved Christmas tree? Well, yes, it can. You see, recently a celebration of Christmas trees in Mississauga, Ont., took place. The name of this event? “A Festival of Trees.”

Trees? You mean redwood trees? Or palm trees? Or weeping willow trees? No, we’re talking Christmas trees… now being referred to by some lunatics as simply “trees.” How lame is that?

Indeed, you don’t need the services of a green-hued Grinch to steal Christmas these days – not when the woke mob is ready, willing, and able to do that job.




Monday, December 19, 2022

Google is increasing their attacks on this blog

On 18th (yesterday) I republished here an article from the NY SUN about the definition of a woman. Google (who own blogspot) have put a notice on that post saying that they have unpublished it because it violates their guidelines. They have instructed me to revise the article according to their guidelines

The odd bit is that as far as I can see, the article is still appearing on my blog unaltered. Maybe I am the only one who can now see it. I would be obliged if readers would tell me what they see there when they log on.

The blog has been for some time behind a scare warning if you access it via a cellphone but remains accessible without interruption if you log onto it via computer

I update the backup to this blog continuously so if Google block you, you can go to the backuip instead:

Elon Musk is reversing a wave of Twitter suspensions

The megabillionaire and Twitter owner directed the reinstatement of nine accounts which had been suspended from Twitter earlier in the week on Friday night.

Musk tweeted a Twitter poll seeking input from the public on reversing the suspensions on Thursday.

Musk went on to indicate that the poll in question was his basis for reversing the temporary bans, with 58.7 percent of the users calling for the immediate reinstatement of the accounts.

“The people have spoken,” he tweeted. “Accounts who doxxed my location will have their suspension lifted now.”

Musk never said that the suspended accounts in question would be permanently banned from Twitter.

Some of the accounts that were suspended and reinstated include those of Washington Post and New York Times journalists, according to the Daily Mail.

The suspensions roused ire from the establishment media, with CNN releasing a statement threatening to roll back its usage of Twitter.

Musk previously indicated that the suspended accounts had violated Twitter’s terms of service by posting content that “doxed,” or revealed, his physical location in real time.

The users appear to have shared content posted on other platforms by @ElonJet, a suspended Twitter account that posts the real-time travel information of Musk’s private jet.

In a Thursday Twitter Spaces chat, the megabillionaire clarified that journalists would be held to the same standard of conduct as other users under his administration after the suspensions, citing Twitter’s rules against doxing.

At least one account that had been banned this week remains suspended — that of progressive extremist Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann claimed he had been permanently banned from Twitter in a bizarre video posted on what appears to be his burner account.

A wave of accounts previously permanently suspended under Twitter’s old ownership have been restored since Musk acquired the company in October.




Sunday, December 18, 2022

Concerning the definition of "woman"

I originally put up here a copy of an article from the NY SUN on the above topic.  Google have however told me they are going to "unpublish" it

Since the article contained no original content from me I have decided not to fight.  I have now deleted what I put up on this date. The link to the original article still seems to work, so nothing has been lost.  See below:

The original article is also available on my backup site.  To access the backups go to




Friday, December 16, 2022

NZ’s free speech laws may turn out to be a blessing in disguise

In the first attempt to frame new “hate speech” laws last year, Ardern’s government wanted to prohibit speech that was intended to “incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred.” That would have replaced a similar clause in the 1993 Human Rights Act that currently bans speech designed “to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule” various groups.

The government also wanted to expand the groups covered by the legislation to communities defined by sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, employment status, family status, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), ethical beliefs (or lack thereof), or political opinions. In its current form, the law only mentions groups defined by “colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.”

Finally, the government wanted to stiffen penalties for “hate speech,” to up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000.

The proposals soon collapsed under the weight of their own absurdity, though not before uniting commenters from across the political spectrum against them.

One problem was the awesome breadth of the provisions, which threatened to criminalise vast swathes of perfectly ordinary political speech. When the journalist Tova O’Brien asked the then Justice Minister Kris Faafoi whether millennials might be imprisoned for hating on boomers (which is, after all a group defined by age), the Minister couldn’t give a clear answer.

Another issue was the astonishingly stiff penalties provided for in the proposals. As David Seymour, leader of the libertarian-leaning ACT Party, pointed out at the time, the three years’ imprisonment Ardern’s government wanted to make possible for speech-crimes is more time than you can get for some types of physical assault.

Considering the car-crash quality of the proposals and Labour’s defence of them, nobody was surprised when, earlier this year, the government signalled that their “hate speech” reforms would be put indefinitely on ice.

That, though, dismayed some government allies like Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon, who urged Labour “to get on with making Aotearoa a safer place.” And only three years after repealing an archaic law against “blasphemous libel,” Ardern’s Labour Party seemed intent on bringing it back in a different form. The result is the latest round of proposals from the new Justice Minister Kiri Allan.

After the thrashing the government took for their earlier efforts, the new proposals are suitably modest in scope. All Allan wants to do is to add a single category – religious groups – to the list of communities covered by the current provisions.

Who could possibly have a problem with that?

Well, rather a lot of people, as it turns out. Once again Ardern has pulled off the difficult trick of uniting New Zealanders from across the political spectrum in opposition to the proposals.

The first major sticking-point is that even just protecting religious groups against “hostile” speech would limit public discourse and the rights of individuals in an indefensible way. As David Seymour put it, it is important for citizens to be able to criticise religions “without fear of being prosecuted.”

Supporters of the proposals, like the journalist Marc Daalder, have insisted that the new law can’t and won’t be used against simple criticism of religious beliefs, and that the bar for prosecutions is very high. Seymour’s point, though, is that New Zealanders would have a reasonable fear that their criticisms could be taken to “excite hostility or ill-will” (or contempt or ridicule, for that matter), and that in itself would exert a chilling effect on speech.

There is, in any case, something puzzling about arguments like Daalder’s. On the one hand, we’re told that the current provisions leave “vulnerable communities unprotected” against “violent language,” something that would presumably change if the police were able to prosecute people for “hate speech” more readily. Whenever concerns are raised about the erosion of free speech, though, we’re assured by Daalder and others that the new provisions will almost never be used.

But surely the new proposals either would allow significant numbers of people to be prosecuted for speech, in which case “vulnerable communities” might be “protected” from words; or they wouldn’t, because the bar is set so high that prosecutions would be extremely rare. Which is it?

Nowadays, of course (and somewhat bewilderingly for a child of the 80s like me), it’s those to the right of centre who are more likely to defend free expression. And so it’s proven in this case, even if a few stalwarts of the old Kiwi left, like writer Chris Trotter, have also attacked the proposals on classical free speech grounds. But defenders of free expression haven’t been the only people to criticise Kiri Allan’s latest proposals.

Just like last year, Labour’s latest “hate speech” proposals have also been getting heat from the new, hyper-progressive left. Their major complaint is that the planned restrictions on speech don’t go far enough.

The Green Party wondered why the latest proposals leave out “gender, rainbow, and disability communities.” The Human Rights Commission (bizarrely enough, a consistent cheerleader for more limits on New Zealanders’ rights to speak freely) similarly asked why the new proposal “fails to protect some communities that are most vulnerable to harmful speech.”

In other words, if criminalising speech protects people, why only protect religious groups?

It’s actually a very good question, one that exposes the incoherence at the heart of the whole idea of “hate speech.” If you accept the idea that speech can be violence, and people need to be protected from words, there’s really no reason to only ban language some groups find offensive. You really need to cut the problem off at the root by banning any speech that might “harm” (that is, offend) anybody.

Obviously, that would leave us with some very broad restrictions on speech, of a sort that would hardly be compatible with a genuinely open and liberal society. But that’s where the logic of “hate speech” legislation inexorably leads – and that’s why this kind of legislation poses an inherent threat to liberal democracy as we know it.

Luckily, if the past couple of years have taught us anything, it’s that New Zealanders recognise this.

Most of us, it turns out, quite like living in an open society, and would rather not live in a country where people risk being thrown in jail for using the “wrong” words.

And it’s in that sense that Ardern’s strange, Quixotic push to further curtail New Zealanders’ free speech rights may just turn out to be a blessing in disguise.




Thursday, December 15, 2022

Gold Star Mother Who Ripped Biden After Afghanistan Gets Great News as Elon Musk Revamps Twitter

A woman who became one of President Joe Biden’s most vocal critics after her Marine son died during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan last year has seen her voice restored on Twitter.

Shana Chappell posted to Twitter on Tuesday — returning to the social media platform after a permanent ban imposed under the network’s previous ownership.

Chappell was suspended from Facebook and Instagram in the aftermath of the Aug. 26, 2021, death of her son, Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem Nikoui, with the networks censoring her criticism of Biden, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Nikoui was only 20 years old when he was killed in a suicide bombing at Kabul International Airport, according to KABC-TV in Los Angeles.

Twelve other members of the United States military died in the bombing, as well as about 170 Afghan civilians.

The Gold Star mother’s Twitter account was silenced in seeming concert with Instagram and Facebook, with three of the major Big Tech platforms acting to silence her digital voice, according to The Post Millennial.

Chappell emerged as a critic of the Biden administration’s handling of the ugly Afghanistan evacuation in the aftermath of her son’s tragic death.

“The withdrawal was a complete failure,” Chappell said in an August interview a year after the operation.

“It doesn’t look good for the administration, so they wanted the disastrous pullout forgotten about and they wanted the 13 [Americans] that were killed forgotten about, mainly because they were so young.

“They were treated like they were disposable and replaceable.”

In a presidential meeting following her son’s death, Chappell recalled that Biden interrupted her and changed the topic to his own son — who died of cancer.

It appears likely that Chappell’s restoration on Twitter may have come as a result of Elon Musk’s amnesty to users of the service who found themselves previously banned under its prior administration.




Wednesday, December 14, 2022

Cambridge Dictionary changes definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’

Cambridge Dictionary is being blasted by critics online for revising the definition of “man” and “woman” to include people who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.

“Man” is now includes the definition “an adult who lives and identifies as a male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

In the same vein, the updated definition of “woman” reads “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

Both definitions previously reflected the outdated views on sex, which assumed that sex and gender identity always adhered to one another.

The changes were quickly derided on the internet, with political commentator Steven Crowder tweeting “Remember, if you can control the language, you can control the population”.




Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Soft censorship of this blog now in place

Google has put this blog behind a scare warning. Free speech is dangerous in their view, apparently. I can't say I am surprised. They have done the same to my Political Correctness Watch blog.

I do however back this blog up elsewhere so readers who encounter the scare notice can go straight to the backup site if they wish. See here. I will upload to the backup site only minutes after this site updates




Second University Must Pay Big For Free Speech Denials

Two universities in just the last few weeks have been forced to pay out large sums to faculty and students as a result of law suits charging that the schools violated their free speech rights.

In a just reported development, the University of Idaho was forced to pay $90,000 to settle a lawsuit from members of a Christian law students' organization who claimed their freedom of speech was violated when the school's civil rights investigation office issued no-contact orders against them, apparently for praying and expressing the position of their religion.

The orders were issued after an LGBTU student claimed she felt harassed when Christian students expressed negative opinions regarding her sexuality.

Another big victory for campus freedom of speech occurred when a jury imposed a whopping $500,000 verdict in punitive damages, in addition to a verdict of $145,000 for compensatory damages for harm actually suffered, against Auburn University in Lee County, Alabama, for retaliating against a tenured professor for voicing concerns about its dumbing down of certain courses.

He had spoken out about what appeared to a program of using an academic majors of limited value and easy courses - which had in fact been recommended for closure - which enabled its student athletes, especially football players, to remain eligible to play.

These two different cases, in which universities had to pay out large sums for deliberately violating the free speech rights of faculty and students, are important because the possibility of similar financial hits may encourage other students and faculty members to sue when their own free speech rights are similarly violated, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who recently helped obtain a major free speech victory at his own george washington university .

Such big payouts should also encourage other attorneys to be willing to sue universities and their top officials, since such suits offer the real hope that attorneys taking on such cases can receive a substantial fee out of the winnings.

Lawyers who take on campus free speech cases can also use the threat of similar payouts as a powerful argument and strong negotiation tool, said Banzhaf.




Monday, December 12, 2022

Stanford professor revealed to be blacklisted by Twitter for opposing COVID lockdowns says it's like McCarthyism

A Stanford professor says he was blacklisted by Twitter for opposing the COVID-19 lockdowns because some thought his ideas were too dangerous.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya appeared on the Ricochet podcast with conservative host James Lileks on Friday to discuss his inability to be verified on Twitter since it was revealed last week that the social media giant shadowbanned him to prevent his ideas from spreading.

Bhattacharya is a tenured professor at Stanford, who previously co-authored a letter in 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration, which declared the lockdowns were damaging.

'It turns out James that I'm on a blacklist which I thought the United States kind of put behind us in like the 1950s but I guess that's the modern way now,' Bhattacharya said. 'What happens with this kind of mechanism of social control is to tell the world that this idea is too dangerous to discuss. This person is too dangerous to think about.'

The Stanford professor joined Twitter in 2021, a year after he wrote the controversial letter.

After appearing on various news channels to share his views on the pandemic and ramping up a following of about 290,000, it appeared as if the social media giant didn't want to give him the blue checkmark.

'I had some success, but I applied three times to become verified and they turned me down,' Bhattacharya said.

Journalist Bari Weiss confirmed on Thursday that the professor was on Twitter's blacklist, along with other public figures that questioned the severity of the COVID-19 lockdowns.

At the time, Specialist teams were put to work dealing with 200 cases a day.

Conservative commentators, including Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk, were also deliberately put on a 'search blacklist' in Bongino's case or tabbed 'do not amplify,' in the case of Kirk

'It's basically a social credit system, right? It's a system designed to... tell people look I'm bad [and] I have dangerous ideas, don't listen to me,' Bhattacharya continued. 'I think that's really the purpose of something like that like it's not possible for the internet to squelch ideas if they happen.'




Sunday, December 11, 2022

Woke Military Brass and Police Chief collude to suppress speech of concerned mother

Yes, wokeness has infected even the United States military, at least as far as its woke higher-ups are concerned, as evidenced by the shocking case we are examining today.

You see, one Lt. Col. Christopher Schilling, who is apparently affiliated with Joint Base McGuire -Dix-Lakehurst, appears to have literally sicced the military on a concerned elementary school mother over her concerns that her 7-year-old child was asking her questions about what “polysexual” meant. At least, that seems to be the impression he was trying to give her.

Yes, this is the actual story and no, I’m not hyperbolizing any of it.

The incident arose when Schilling noticed a Facebook comment from a mother who was upset by some posters she’d seen at a local elementary school.

According to screenshots posted to the Chaos and Control Substack page, which originally broke the story, New Jersey mom Angela Reading shared in a local Facebook group that she’d accompanied her child to a “Math Night” event at the school when she noticed the offending posters, which had been made by some of the students.

The post reads like any other social media post raising outrage that a child who is likely still learning sight words is asking mommy about a term that has been coined by higher-education critical theory academics and capitalized by political radicals to own sexual promiscuity as a point of identity.

Yet to Schilling — whose social media profile indicates he uses the pronouns “He/Him” — Reading’s post apparently read like a national security threat. He responded with an ominous post of his own:

“The current situation involving Ms. Reading’s actions has caused safety concerns for many families,” he/him wrote. “The Joint Base leadership takes this situation very seriously and from the beginning have had the Security Forces working with multiple state and local law enforcement agencies to monitor the situation to ensure the continued safety of the entire community.”

Reading’s actions included such horrifying offenses as asking questions like “Why are elementary schools promoting/allowing KIDS to research topics of sexuality and create posters?” and “Are adults talking about their sexual life with my kids and looking for affirmation?”

“I was more than surprised. I was scared,” Reading told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Wednesday. “I actually pulled my kids from school the day I found out. It was mind-boggling and I was worried for them when the US military comes after you for simply raising concern about a public poster that is widely available for all to see.”

Her post, she explained, essentially said “I didn’t think my 7-year-old was age-appropriate to be exposed to words such as polysexual and pansexual. I said that all people are deserving of love and respect. My post was very explicit about that. Still, it prompted this response and it’s really scary that in this country we can’t have a right to speak and raise concerns about our public education system.”

Fox News reported that the Joint Base confirmed it did indeed reach out to North Hanover Police Chief Robert Duff. The police department, in turn, reached out to the administrator of Reading’s Facebook group, urging that the post be removed.

“I said, ‘I don’t want Homeland Security coming after me,” Reading recalled telling the Facebook group administrator. “Take the post down. I don’t want to be dealing with this.’ So I agreed that the post should come down,” she told Carlson, adding that she contacted Duff later on “and reminded him of the First Amendment.”

“We shouldn’t be utilizing government resources and our positions to pressure individuals to take down Facebook posts,” the concerned mother also said. “I also shared with him the post that he’d already seen. There was nothing wrong. It didn’t violate any law, it didn’t violate any Facebook rule whatsoever.”

I can’t speak for Schilling personally, of course, but to consider even mere disapproval for simply teaching children about being “polysexual” is often argued within the critical theory paradigm to be itself violence against individuals who are perceived to be marginalized due to their sexual identity.

But the fact that he seems to have thought Reading’s speech was so dangerous he involved the police — and he apparently implied he also was involving the U.S. military — is beyond chilling.

It sickens me to think whether there might not be others like him serving as officers across the military branches.

All I can say is that, if you are a praying person, please start praying fervently that Americans wake up to the abject threat that this dangerous ideology poses to our liberty, our country and our children’s future hopes of living freely.

Lord, please save our country from this scourge.




Friday, December 09, 2022

Major News Style Guide Tells Reporters ‘Don’t Use Pro-Life, Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion,’ Instead Say ‘Anti-Abortion or Abortion-Rights’

Journalists are being told not to use the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” when writing about abortion.

The Associated Press issued new guidelines for the topic of abortion Monday. The writing stylebook says to now “use the modifiers anti-abortion or abortion-rights; don’t use pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion unless they are in quotes or proper names. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”

The Associated Press is the most common stylebook among journalists, used by news outlets on the political left and right, including The Daily Signal. However, the updated abortion guidelines are one set of writing rules The Daily Signal will not be following.

Words have power, and it is no secret that the media sometimes uses the power of words to shift or alter the narrative around an issue or story.

Replacing the term “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” with “abortion-rights” inaccurately implies that women have a right to end the life of the child growing in their womb. The Declaration of Independence speaks of a right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” but neither the Declaration nor the Constitution provides a right to end a pregnancy through elective abortion.   

The Associated Press Stylebook’s decision to replace the term “pro-life” with “anti-abortion” is another attempt from the left to paint the pro-life community in a negative light. The new phrasing is not reflective of the pro-life community that exists today, a community that consists of millions of Americans, more than 3,000 pregnancy care centers, and thousands who give of their time and resources every day to journey with women during and after unplanned pregnancies.

If news outlets want to represent the pro-life and pro-choice communities accurately, they will be wise to ignore these latest updates from the Associated Press Stylebook.




Thursday, December 08, 2022

A Democrat for free speech (!)

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., reaffirmed his stance on the First Amendment on Monday as the only Democratic figure who criticized Twitter’s decision to suppress the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

On Friday, journalist Matt Taibbi, with permission from Twitter CEO Elon Musk, released the "Twitter files" which revealed communications between political figures and employees at the company. Among them included the decision in Oct. 2020 to block users from sharing the breaking report from the New York Post that showed Hunter Biden’s laptop being discovered in a repair shop in Delaware.

Khanna, Taibbi noted, was the only Democratic official within the files who reached out to Twitter executives showing concerns over the New York Post’s First Amendment rights.

The California lawmaker stood by his comments during an interview with CNN's Erin Burnett and called on more Democrats to stand up for free speech.

"What surprised me is that Twitter made the decision in the first place to censor. Look, liberal Democrats should be, for the principle of standing up for First Amendment speech. The [New York Times Co. v. Sullivan] said we want free speech to be open, uninhibited wide-ranging. I get Twitter’s a private actor, but they’re effectively a modern public square. And it was disappointing to me that they were suppressing the New York Post," Khanna said.




Wednesday, December 07, 2022

As a clinical psychologist, I believe free speech, not censorship, benefits mental health: Here’s why

By Chloe Carmichael

Elon Musk’s recent Twitter purchase and his love of free speech have sparked a firestorm of conversations about mental-health issues related to hate speech and bullying. Cries for cancellation, deplatforming, content-throttling and other stifling measures are often made in the name of “trust and safety.”

But these conversations rarely consider free speech’s mental-health benefits. As a clinical psychologist, I believe that freedom of expression far outshines censorship in terms of well-being. Here are three reasons:

1. Free speech promotes learning and growth.

Humans develop ideas based on social feedback. Free speech facilitates this by aiding the exchange of information and a healthy separation between people’s beliefs and their core self. Our thoughts and beliefs are part of who we are, but a healthy person can retain a stable sense of self despite changes in his or her beliefs. When we can separate our beliefs from our core identity, we set the stage for growth. Conversely, if we experience them as synonymous with our core identity, we can become rigid and inflexible.

Learning to discard maladaptive beliefs is key to mental health. Sometimes, simply hearing ourselves say something aloud — and realizing how foolish it sounds — helps generate a fresh perspective! In addition to hearing ourselves, it can be helpful to listen to others: Exposure to diverse viewpoints furthers growth.

2. Free speech helps safe spaces.

Censorship doesn’t squash hateful viewpoints; it merely subverts them. This makes it harder to trust that we’re accessing others’ true views — ironically undermining the concept of a “safe space.” But when “haters” share openly, we can see them clearly — rather than constantly second-guessing ourselves and each other.

Free speech also helps “safe spaces” because security increases when people realize they are actually safe — even when hearing abhorrent viewpoints. Teaching people that “Words are violence” is disempowering because it stimulates an unwarranted fight-or-flight reaction rather than an intellectual response.

It is my legal duty to alert the authorities if a patient is at imminent risk of harm to self or others — yet it would be a gross breach of confidentiality if I did so because a patient intended to vituperate his neighbor. The essential distinction is that physical harm is on a completely different level from nasty words.

3. Free speech may reduce anxiety and depression.

Free speech might boost resiliency against anxiety and depression in several ways:

Verbalizing our internal life increases our sense of control. Putting our thoughts and feelings into language increases our sense of control and self-efficacy, both of which are protective factors against anxiety and depression. Labeling feelings also helps prevent the amygdala from “hijacking” our thought process, setting the stage for more clear-headed thinking.

Authenticity facilitates social support. Social support is a known protective factor for mental health. When we are forced to hide significant parts of ourselves, we feel inauthentic and isolated. Fears of being “canceled” over open dialogue can degrade our social support, thereby increasing vulnerability to anxiety and depression.
happy woman

Free speech may increase self-awareness. Self-awareness is essential to mental health. When we habitually hide our thoughts from others, we can become less aware of them ourselves. We are more vulnerable to anxiety and depression when we lack self-awareness due to suppression, repression or denial.

As a clinical psychologist, I understand that free speech promotes growth by allowing healthy self-reflection and authentic change — rather than creating pressure to pantomime change by parroting politically correct talking points for fear of being canceled. Mental wellness and resiliency require the ability to examine and withstand challenges and even grow from them. A society that permits open dialogue facilitates this process.

Mental wellness also requires healthy boundaries. If I encountered a client who expected it was the role of others to stop having thoughts he disliked or that it was the role of the public square (a k a Twitter) to eliminate voices he disliked, I would help him build a sense of personal agency, boundaries and resilience for his own benefit.

There are situations when certain dialogue is inappropriate, but excessive restriction causes unhealthy levels of suppression and repression. As a clinical psychologist, I believe we would be a richer, healthier, more intelligent society if we welcomed more diversity of thought.




Tuesday, December 06, 2022

Cornell After Coulter: The Value of Free Speech

By Gabriel Levin

Last month, Republican pundit Ann Coulter came to Cornell for a sold-out talk at the invitation of campus conservatives. Twenty minutes into her hour-long event, she left frustrated. The continued outcry of protesters in the auditorium drowned out her voice. As long as she was onstage, she could hardly get a word in. The interrupters appeared to operate according to a systematic plan to silence her. Once one had disrupted the proceeding and was escorted out, another began heckling, then another, and still more until she was finally taunted offstage. Although I deeply oppose just about everything Coulter stands for, my support for her right to freely express herself overshadows our stark political differences. I condemn those hecklers.

For democracy to succeed, America must be a marketplace of ideas where no viewpoint, even one fueled by hatred, can be suppressed simply because others object to it. We should resolve our political differences through rigorous, civic-minded debate, sometimes with those whom we deeply disagree with. Screaming contests aimed to silence are never justified.

“If you want to really discredit somebody in an academic community, you challenge them intellectually,” Prof. Richard Bensel, government, told me. “Anger doesn’t do that.” Had those hecklers wanted to change the opinions of conservatives at Cornell, they would have disciplined their outrage into a well-reasoned argument. Instead of jeering her offstage, they would have challenged Coulter’s hateful rhetoric during the Q&A segment. Now, Coulter is raking in undeserved publicity from the spectacle. All the interrupters did was harden the opinions of conservative students, many who are not racists and might have been jarred out of their complacency by a frank discussion of Coulter’s bigotry.




Monday, December 05, 2022

Supreme Court again confronts case pitting free speech against LGBTQ rights

When the Supreme Court convenes for oral arguments Monday, it will be confronted with an issue it has been asked to resolve before in court fights involving bakers, a florist, and now, a web designer.

And with the latest case before it, brought by graphic designer Lorie Smith, Colorado is once again the battleground in a dispute pitting the First Amendment right to free speech against LGBTQ rights.

Smith, like bakers Jack Phillips and Aaron and Melissa Klein, and florist Barronelle Stutzman before her, is a Christian business owner who says her religious beliefs prevent her from creating custom websites for a same-sex wedding. But her refusal could violate Colorado's public accommodation law, which prohibits businesses open to the public from refusing service because of sexual orientation and announcing their intent to do so.

Smith argues the law violates her First Amendment rights, saying the state is forcing her to express a message she disagrees with.

"If the government can censor and compel my speech, it can censor and compel anybody's speech," she told CBS News. "We should all be free to live and work consistently with our deeply held beliefs."

The Supreme Court was last confronted with a case sitting at the crossroads of the First Amendment and LGBTQ rights in 2018, in a dispute involving Phillips, who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding a decade ago. The baker, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, argued the state's public accommodation law requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech and religious freedom.

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly for Phillips, finding the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility toward his sincere religious beliefs. But it left unanswered the question of whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.

Smith's case, known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, could now be the vehicle for addressing that issue.

"Nobody should be forced to create artwork, custom expression, that goes against the core of who they are and what they believe. And that's what Colorado is doing," she said.




Sunday, December 04, 2022

Australian conservative apparat refuses to have an anti-vaxer as an election candidate

The conservative lawyer favoured to win preselection in the ultra-safe Liberal seat of Castle Hill has had his nomination blocked because he criticised the Berejiklian government’s pandemic lockdowns.

Noel McCoy, a former Young Liberal president, was expected to win the coveted seat after using his support in the hard-right faction to edge out centre-right rival and sitting member Transport Minister David Elliott.

However, McCoy on Friday said a Liberal Party internal review committee had rejected his candidacy over his vocal opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations.

“I have consistently and publicly sought to defend the party’s core values – freedom and liberty – and, in doing so, have at times in the more recent past criticised some aspects of the Berejiklian government’s and the Morrison government’s policy responses to COVID,” McCoy said.

“This has been weaponised to block me.”




Friday, December 02, 2022

Elon Musk suddenly backflips on ‘war’ threat to Apple

Elon Musk has backflipped on his threat to “go to war” with Apple, revealing he had met up with the tech company’s CEO and sorted out the dispute.

It seems the ongoing beef between Musk and Apple CEO Tim Cook has finally been resolved, with the Twitter CEO sharing a post thanking Cook for “taking me around Apple’s beautiful HQ”.

He claimed the pair had a “good conversation” and “resolved the misunderstanding about Twitter potentially being removed from the App Store”.

Musk said the Apple CEO made it clear that his company had “never considered” removing Twitter from the App Store.




Thursday, December 01, 2022

‘Where are you from?’: Now a dangerous question

image from

“Where are you from?” If you’re a migrant, or aren’t white, this seemingly simple question isn’t always so simple. You quickly have to anticipate what is often the true interest behind the question: “But where are you really from?”

Most of us who are minorities have comical or ghastly stories about someone not content with us telling them we were born here or where we grew up in Australia. I certainly have a few. But not many can compete with Ngozi Fulani’s experience at a Buckingham Palace reception hosted by Queen Consort Camilla.

The British charity CEO, who is of African heritage and Caribbean descent, was asked repeated questions about her origin by royal aide Lady Susan Hussey. When Fulani explained she had British nationality and was born in Britain, Lady Hussey insisted: “But where do you really come from? Where do your people come from?”

Buckingham Palace quickly announced that Lady Hussey, the late Queen’s lady-in-waiting, had resigned from her honorary position in the palace. A spokesperson for Prince William (Lady Hussey’s godson) issued a statement saying the comments were unacceptable, and that “racism has no place in our society”.

We should be clear about one thing. No one is saying you aren’t allowed to ask people about where they’re from. It is a good thing for people to be curious about others. Very few people would object to questioning that comes from a genuine interest in getting to know them.

But how a question is asked also matters. Manners maketh the man; or in this case, the lady. When you dispute someone’s nationality because of their race or ethnicity, you don’t get to enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

Watching this from Sydney, I was struck by Buckingham Palace’s swift response. No doubt, royal family dynamics played a role. Allegations of racism made by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, place the royal household under intense scrutiny for anything involving bigotry.




Wednesday, November 30, 2022

Elon Musk scorches media for being ‘against free speech’

WH press secretary says Biden admin is 'keeping a close eye' on Elon Musk's Twitter

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that the Biden administration is "keeping a close eye" on Elon Musk's Twitter over concerns about "misinformation" on the platform.

Twitter users jumped on tech mogul Elon Musk’s tweet Monday attacking the media for being "against free speech."

At Monday's White House press conference, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed that the Biden administration is "keeping a close eye" on Twitter after Reuters' Andrea Shalal asked what is being done to prevent the platform from becoming a "vector for misinformation."

"There’s a researcher at Stanford who says that this is a critical moment, really, in terms of ensuring that Twitter does not become a vector of misinformation," Shalal said. "Elon Musk says there’s more and more subscribers coming online, are you concerned about that and what tools do you have – who is it at the White House that is really keeping track of this?"

Political commentator Dave Rubin shared video of the exchange, condemning the reporter for advocating for the government to intervene in social media. Musk responded by calling out the media for acting against free speech with regard to Twitter.

"Absolutely insane watching The Machine go after @elonmusk for defending free speech. This whole exchange is kabuki theater, from the ridiculous leading question by the ‘journalist’ to KJP’s obviously pre-planned response," Rubin tweeted.

Musk tweeted in response, "Why are so many in the media against free speech? This is messed up,"

Several social media users agreed with Musk, telling him that the mainstream media is now determined to limit free speech.

"Their world view doesn’t rely on truth. It relies on emotion and truth interferes with that. Freedom of speech interferes with them controlling the narrative. And here you are to flip that," RedState columnist Buzz Patterson tweeted.

Radio host Gerry Callahan wrote, "So messed up, so wrong, so unAmerican. Musk should be viewed as a hero for what he’s doing for free speech. Instead the media want the federal government to crush him. Freaking insanity."

"This is about raw power, and control over the flow of information. The same principle underlies the battle over ‘Spanish-language disinformation,’" director of MRC Latino Jorge Bonilla explained.

"They’re literally scared to death of Twitter 2.0. Massive implications for the future, especially in politics," PJ Media columnist Ryan Ledendecker commented.




Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Elon Musk Says He Has a Plan If Twitter Gets Kicked Off App Stores

Tech billionaire Elon Musk suggested he would make his own phone amid speculation Twitter could be booted from Google Play or Apple’s App Store.

“I certainly hope it does not come to that, but, yes, if there is no other choice, I will make an alternative phone,” he wrote in response to a Twitter post from podcaster Liz Wheeler. “The man builds rockets to Mars, a silly little smartphone should be easy, right?” Wheeler said.

Neither Apple, which makes iPhones, nor Google, which is behind the Android mobile operating system, have publicly indicated that Twitter could be jettisoned from either the App Store or Google Play.

Speculation ramped up earlier this month after Apple’s Twitter account deleted all of its posts and an Apple executive in charge of the App Store, Phil Scheller, appeared to delete his account. Apple CEO Tim Cook, however, is still active on the platform along with several other Apple Twitter accounts.

And Twitter’s former head of safety Yoel Roth wrote for the New York Times earlier in November that Twitter not adhering to “Apple and Google’s guidelines would be catastrophic” for the app and would risk its “expulsion from their app stores.” Roth also claimed that when he recently “departed the company, the calls from the app review teams had already begun,”




Monday, November 28, 2022

Elon Musk proves the woke left wrong again as he shares slides from talk with Twitter workers showing hate speech is DOWN since his $44B takeover

Elon Musk has shared slides from his talk with Twitter workers saying hate speech is down since his $44billion takeover.

The slides, posted to on his Twitter page, show between October 17 and November 13 hate speech impressions are lower.

The CEO also reported new user signups were at an all time high, averaging over two million per day in the past week.

These new figures counter reports early last month which claimed an uptick in the amount of hateful language being tweeted in the wake of Musk taking the helm.




Sunday, November 27, 2022

Elon Musk has uncovered a “woke” goldmine at Twitter’s headquarters

The company’s new owner shared a video of a storage closet filled with #StayWoke t-shirts on Tuesday night.

“Found in closet at Twitter HQ fr,” Musk tweeted. “And there’s an entire closet full of hashtag ‘Woke’ t-shirts.”

The word “woke” has been since reinvented as a term to describe politically correct, race-obsessed liberals. It’s broadly considered an epithet today.

But that wasn’t always the case. The term originally had a positive connotation, at least in the eyes of the liberals that used it.

The phrase can trace its origins to the early days of the Black Lives Matter movement, according to Fox News.

Its original definition referred to being awake to the knowledge of supposed wide-scale racism in American society.

The phrase was refitted as a criticism of sanctimonious liberals around 2020. It’s very rare to see the word “woke” used in its original context as of 2022, with liberals having acquiesced to the word’s retooling as a criticism of their worst excesses.




Friday, November 25, 2022

UK: Dominic Raab has renewed his commitment to crucial free speech protections in a resurrected Bill of Rights

It is the first time the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear measures to guard free speech will be pursued after the legislation was put on the back burner by Liz Truss's administration.

Mr Raab, who is also Justice Secretary, oversaw the first incarnation of the Bill – which set out to prevent human rights legislation being abused.

He told the Daily Mail last night: 'Free speech is a quintessentially British right and the Bill of Rights will strengthen its protection on these shores.'

Mr Raab told the House of Commons: 'The idea that the Human Rights Act was the last word on human rights in UK constitutional history is daft.

'Indeed, there is an opportunity here to strengthen things like free speech… but also deal with problems, particularly things like foreign national offenders abusing the right to Article 8 – the right to family life – to avoid deportation.'

The legislation, published in March, was due to make free speech a 'trump card' over other rights, barring the creation of European-style privacy laws by unelected judges through the back door.

The measures were drawn up following widespread concern at a legal ruling in favour of the Duchess of Sussex in a privacy dispute against The Mail on Sunday, as well as growing 'cancel culture' over other issues.

Legal experts predict it will face difficulties getting through the Lords.




Thursday, November 24, 2022

Senior Biden officials have been privately lobbying the WHO to rename monkeypox for months because the original 'is racist', sources say

The Biden administration has asked global health officials to rename monkeypox 'MPOX' because the current name is racist, according to reports.

Senior White House officials are said to have been privately lobbying the World Health Organization over the change, and even threatened to change the name in the US without the agency's blessing if it did not move quickly enough.

Monkeypox caused a global outbreak for the first time ever this year — infecting 30,000 Americans and killing 14 — but the virus has been triggering flare-ups in Africa for decades.

Biden staffers believe the original term outbreak carries an unnecessary stigma for people of color.

The WHO promised to re-consider the name in June over similar fears of stigmatization and a decision is expected within weeks.

There have been concerns over potential racist undertones of the name since the outbreak began this summer.

It comes after a study found monkeypox patients can spread the virus up to four days before symptoms appear, raising questions over current strategies to contain the infection.




Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Truth at last -- but not on YouTube

Still burning over past YouTube censorship of his site’s “factually accurate video about lefties’ “rigged election” comments,” TKNews’ Matt Taibbi jumps on the latest (CBS’s) “verification” of the Hunter Biden laptop, noting how “major news media — including CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and countless other outlets — actively embraced disinformation,” namely the false “Russian information operation” charge, to justify ignoring The Post’s reporting.

“YouTube also pushed this disinformation campaign. It still does”: “Despite the total absence of evidence ever existing that the laptop was either fake or part of a Russian ‘information operation,’ and a growing pile of evidence that the laptop is real,” it still hosts “countless videos promoting the conspiracy theory,” including by PBS, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and Washington Post writer David Ignatius. “YouTube has become a place that censors true content but traffics in official and quasi-official deceptions.”

TK News is at




Tuesday, November 22, 2022

UK: Ministry of Justice staff told to not use 35 everyday phrases including 'gender critical' and 'protecting women and girls' so they can be trans 'allies'

Ministry of Justice staff have been instructed not to use 35 everyday phrases - including ‘gender critical’ and ‘protecting women and girls’ - in order to be trans allies.

Ahead of transgender awareness week, thousands of officials were emailed a glossary titled ‘recognising transphobic coded language’ through the HMP Probation Service (HMPPS) diversity and inclusion team, according to The Sunday Telegraph.

The document claimed that the phrases were ‘turning what would be considered overt discrimination into covert behaviour’, and that it was ‘vital we keep scaremongering and misinformation at bay’.

For example, the term ‘gender critical’, which is used to refer to campaigners who believe biological sex is binary, is claimed to be a ‘term used to make anti-trans discrimination sound palatable or a respectable opinion’ and warns staff to look out for social media accounts that hold this view.

Also listed is ‘protect women’s spaces/protecting women and girls’, which the document says ‘relies on equating trans women with being predatory men, to play on unfounded fears and convince people that supporting trans inclusion threatens their safety’.

The glossary was shared by the HMPPS pride in prisons and probation LGBTI+ staff support network under the watch of a diversity lead who is paid a £37,166 salary.

Civil servants are warned in the introduction: ‘Whilst passing uses of these phrases might not be considered misconduct, the importance of challenging their use cannot be overstated.’

An MoJ staff member told the Telegraph: ‘When I first read the attachment in the email, I could not quite believe it - the worst thing was that I was unable to raise it safely at work for fear of being labelled a transphobe.

‘It came across as very aggressive and antagonistic towards anyone who believes in biological reality. I feel upset and powerless.’

The prison population that identifies as transgender stood at 197 in England and Wales last year, a 21 per cent jump from 163 in 2019.

A Prison Service spokesman said: ‘This guidebook was published by a staff network, its content was not approved prior to being communicated and it is a network rather than a corporate HMPPS view.

‘Following its publication, HMPPS is reviewing the rules around internal communications to staff from network groups.’




Monday, November 21, 2022

Almost half of young people in Britain are too frightened to dispute the idea of white privilege and some even feared being EXPELLED from school

Nearly half of Britain’s young people are too frightened of being ostracised to challenge beliefs in ‘white privilege’, a poll shows.

It reveals that 59 per cent of school leavers have been taught ‘critical race theory’ – the premise by American academics that racism shapes Western life and white people enjoy advantages because of their colour.

But 40 per cent of the 18-20-year-olds taught about ‘white privilege’ and similar concepts said they were afraid of being outed for their beliefs if they disagreed.

Some even said they worried about being expelled, according to research by the think tank the Policy Exchange.

Critics of the notion of ‘white privilege’ suggest it ignores the achievements of people from diverse backgrounds such as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who is Hindu and whose parents are of Indian descent.

Reacting to the study Dr Samir Shah, a member of the Government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, said: ‘School children should be able to say what they think without feeling an inability to do so.

‘It is incumbent on teachers, lecturers and parents to allow to children to voice their own feelings without fear of favour and that is quite central in my mind to what makes a liberal democracy- that there is no constraint on what you say within the law.’

Dr Shah, called for balance to be provided in classrooms and warned against presenting only one side of the debate around “white privilege” and critical race theory.

He added: ‘This thought-provoking report is a stark warning against such complacency.

‘Views which remain on the fringe in society as a whole, are held by a significant number, or even a majority, by voters in this age category.

‘But what makes the survey disturbing is that these new attitudes challenge the very foundations of liberal thought: free speech, tolerance, debate, and democracy.’

The poll took a sample from 1,542 18- 20 year-old British young people between 14 April and 6 May 2022.

It also revealed that 42 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 24 believe that schools should: ‘Teach students that Britain was founded on racism and remains structurally racist today’.

Last night Toby Young of the Free Speech Union said: ‘Schools should not be teaching these politically contentious theories as if they were indisputably true.

‘It leaves children feeling ashamed of their country and fearful that if they say something positive about Britain they will be accused of racism and targeted for cancellation.

‘We passed a law in 1996 making it illegal to politically indoctrinate children. They can be taught about political issues, but only if they’re given a balanced presentation of opposing views.

‘Unfortunately, that law is more honoured in the breach than the observance.’




Sunday, November 20, 2022

Threats to free speech

Does it not make you shake your head in disbelief and despair that in the third decade of the 21st century there exists a frightening number of people who are jubilant that the ‘Satanic Verses’ author, Sir Salman Rushdie, was very nearly stabbed to death?  And, while it is reassuring that the overwhelming majority of people believe that no one should be killed for writing a book or, in the case of JK Rowling, receive ominous threats for voicing her support for Rushdie and her entirely legitimate stance on transgenderism, of greater concern is the disappointment some have exhibited because Rushdie survived his ordeal and wasn’t killed – which speaks volumes about the mindset of those who seek grievance where none exists, and insult when none is given.

It is reported that Rushdie has life-altering injuries, but his survival is testament to the EMT’s, doctors and surgeons who kept him alive, an outcome which all reasonable people should give thanks for.  Heck, some might even thank god for his ‘divine intervention’…though, which god they’re giving praise to is a question that only the religious can answer.

It is also reported that sales of the largely forgotten book have surged several hundred percent.  Sic transit.  Ultimately we should all give thanks and prayers – metaphorically of course – for the survival of a fine example and proponent of free speech, and whilst we are at it, we should express sentiments to all those who bang the drum for our Western values; values which bestow on us so many freedoms that too many of us often take for granted; values which the enemies of democracy loathe with every fibre of their being.

The attack on Rushdie is an attack on us all, a brief yet vivid skirmish in an insidious fight fought with the sole aim of dismantling our much-cherished values and freedoms, an outcome to strike fear in the hearts of all those who dare to criticise and question, and, yes, ridicule anything that does not adhere to antiquated or revisionist dogma.  Some even say that concerns over the fate of free speech are unfounded, and that those voicing such concerns are wrong-thinkers, racists, homophobes, xenophobes and anti-religionists, I disagree.  The perception that free speech is under attack may well be an unrealised one, but there’s no doubting that far too many of us appear impotent in the face of the new Woke religion – that word again – and its strange new credos, including the rewriting of our warts and all history, the bending of the knee to illiberal precepts, cancel culture, no platforming and the imposition of critical race theory, all of it policed by oh-so-pious, virtue signalling keyboard warriors.

Is history not replete with examples of such intolerances, from the book-burning of the Nazi’s to the fate of Galileo under The Inquisition.  On immigration, Brexit, transgenderism, antisemitism, terrorism, capitalism v socialism, rich v poor, the political left v the political right, and on a whole host of other issues where opinions are irreconcilably divided, behind every furore involving the shifting sands of free speech, censorship, offence and political correctness, numerous questions of principle arise in their wake.  It’s a problem that keeps arising, and it should be tackled head-on.  Every society requires some general guidance on what we can and cannot say if we are to travel unharmed the increasingly dangerous highways that those four ideas represent.

The salient point around which all must revolve is that free speech is a fundamental of such great significance that without it we could only have the most limited society and possibilities for individuals.  Such a thing should go without saying, right?  Well, remember that the next time you see a politician squirming when asked to answer the ‘can a woman have a penis?’, question.  Whilst it would be fair to say that, for all its importance, free speech is not an absolute and has to be responsibly and maturely used.  Without free speech we cannot lay claim to other civil rights and liberties or defend them when they are under attack.  Without free speech our lives would be as closed as our mouths.

It would be great to think that, in a perfect world, disparate views might reach an accord.  You don’t have to agree with someone whose religion tells them that 2 and 2 make 5.  Improve and win your argument.  And so, to all those who refuse to be kowtowed and silenced by the fanatics.  I say this – ‘We will not speak insultingly or act discriminatorily – even indirectly – with aspect to your race, age, sex, or disability, if any; we will not do so because it is unacceptable and bloody rude to disrespect someone for things over which they have no control.  But, with respect, to what you CAN choose to be and say and think, such as matters concerning your political and religious affiliations, it is open season’.  Feeling offended is no defence from an attack on your most cherished views or beliefs by those who do not share them, and violent retaliation is simply telling the world that you have lost the argument.