Thursday, November 30, 2023

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 "The government just bans it because it's not on the outdated, pre-approved list."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




Wednesday, November 29, 2023

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:

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.'


Tuesday, November 28, 2023

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.




Monday, November 27, 2023

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.




Sunday, November 26, 2023

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.




Thursday, November 23, 2023

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.




Wednesday, November 22, 2023

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




Tuesday, November 21, 2023

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.




Monday, November 20, 2023

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.




Sunday, November 19, 2023

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.'




Thursday, November 16, 2023

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.'




Wednesday, November 15, 2023

‘It Isn’t a Crime to Tweet a Bible Verse,’ Finnish Politician Says After Court Dismisses Charges Against Her

An appeals court has dismissed “hate speech” charges against a member of Finland’s parliament who posted a tweet citing Bible verses.

The Helsinki Court of Appeals, based in Finland’s capital city, unanimously cleared Päivi Räsänen, a member of the Finnish parliament and the country’s former interior minister, and Bishop Juhana Pohjola, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, of “hate speech” charges.

The Helsinki District Court had unanimously cleared Räsänen and Pohjola of all charges in March 2022, but prosecutors appealed the case to a higher court, arguing that the lower court “misinterpreted” Räsänen’s tweet. The prosecution claimed that the court failed to “fully perceive and understand” the “degrading and dehumanizing” message against “homosexuals and … their right to dignity and self-determination.”

“In order to protect the dignity and equality of homosexuals, it is necessary to exclude Räsänen’s statements from freedom of expression by interpreting them as punishable hate speech directed at them [homosexuals],” the prosecution wrote.

Yet on Tuesday, the appeals court found that it “has no reason, on the basis of evidence received at the main hearing, to assess the case in any respect differently from the District Court.”

The district court had ruled that it isn’t the court’s job “to interpret biblical concepts.”

“I am deeply relieved,” Räsänen said in a statement after the ruling Tuesday. “The court has fully endorsed and upheld the decision of the district court, which recognized everyone’s right to free speech.”

“It isn’t a crime to tweet a Bible verse or to engage in public discourse with a Christian perspective,” she noted. “The attempts made to prosecute me for expressing my beliefs have resulted in an immensely trying four years, but my hope is that the result will stand as a key precedent to protect the human right to free speech. I sincerely hope other innocent people will be spared the same ordeal for simply voicing their convictions.”

The court ordered the prosecution to pay tens of thousands of euros in legal fees to cover Räsänen’s and Pohjola’s legal costs. The prosecution can appeal the case to the country’s Supreme Court before Jan. 15.

ADF International, which represented Räsänen and Pohjola, warned that “hate speech” charges threaten free speech rights.

“Vague hate speech laws, such as that found in Section 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code, have a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression,” Elyssa Koren, legal communications director at ADF International, told The Daily Signal in August. “Individuals are left with no clear guidance as to whether their deeply held beliefs will be the subject of criminal prosecution merely because another person is offended by them and deems them ‘hateful.’”

The Tweet

Räsänen, 62, has served in the Finnish parliament since 1995 and was interior minister from 2011 to 2015. She is a member of the center-right Christian Democrats party.

Her case dates to June 2019, when the Finnish legislator criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland for supporting an LGBTQ “Pride” event.

“The whole case started when I criticized the leadership of the church because of its support for the ‘Pride’ event on Twitter,” Räsänen previously told The Daily Signal.

“The church has announced that it is the official partner of [the LGBTQ group] SETA in Pride 2019,” the legislator tweeted. “How does the doctrine of the church, the Bible, fit together with the fact that shame and sin are raised as a matter of ‘pride’?”

Her tweet included a photo of a 2004 pamphlet she wrote with the title “As Man and Woman He Created Them,” explaining the Bible’s position on sexuality and marriage with citations from the Old and New Testaments. The photo cites Romans 1:24-27, which teaches that “women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” and “men committed shameful acts with other men.” Pohjola, who published the pamphlet, faced the charges alongside her.

“The archbishop of the church has publicly said that it is good that this case is being evaluated by the court,” Räsänen told The Daily Signal. “I have received thousands of messages of support from the members and even some pastors of the church, but not from the top leadership. Some of the bishops have criticized me heavily.”




Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Pope fires outspoken conservative bishop

On Saturday, in a rare instance in Catholic governance, Pope Francis “relieved” conservative Joseph Strickland of his authority as the Bishop of Tyler, Texas. The move comes after an investigation by Vatican authorities who recommended Strickland leave his position as Bishop, and Strickland refused. What amounts to Strickland’s firing led to an outcry from conservative Catholics in Texas and internationally.

Earlier this year, Strickland explicitly stated his opposition to Pope Francis when he tweeted, “I believe Pope Francis is the Pope, but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the Deposit of Faith.” The “Deposit of Faith” combines scripture and tradition in Catholic teaching, so Strickland’s belief that the Pope is undermining it stems from the Pope’s reforms to Catholicism worldwide.

Among those reforms, the Pope’s restrictions, set out in 2021, on performing the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) became a stand-in for much more significant issues. Many observers agree that the TLM functions as a symbol of adherence to more severe traditionalist views on what Catholicism should look like. Pope Francis himself has said that the mass was “being used in an ideological way” by conservative priests who sought to move the Church backward instead of forward. Strickland began performing the TLM in 2020, just one year before the restrictions but has become a staunch advocate for the more traditional mass.




Monday, November 13, 2023

Texas office of Rep. Monica De La Cruz vandalized over her support of Israel: 'I make no apologies'

The South Texas office of U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz was vandalized this week by pro-Hamas sympathizers angry over her solidarity with Israel, the Republican congresswoman said Thursday.

De La Cruz has expressed support for Israel amid its military response to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists that killed 1,400 Israelis in communities near the Gaza Strip. Many pro-Palestinian supporters have criticized Israel for its bombardment of Gaza, which has resulted in thousands of deaths.

"On October 7th, Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists murdered over 1,000 innocent civilians, including many Americans, in the single largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust," De La Cruz said in a statement. "These savages burned babies in ovens, decapitated toddlers in front of their families, tortured parents before their children, and continue to hold hundreds of hostages."

De La Cruz released images on X showing her office in the border city of McAllen vandalized with spray paint. On a window read the message: "Israel kills Jews too." Another on the ground said: "You can't escape your crimes Monica."




Sunday, November 12, 2023

Woman claims liberal NYC moms’ Facebook group banned her for standing with Israel

A war over Israel has erupted between famously liberal Upper West Side moms  — and even more left-wing mommies.

Morgan Roslyn Cohn, 26, claims she and her husband were booted from the Upper West Side Moms Facebook group last month because she posted on her profile picture, “Stand with Israel.”

The fallout caused a firestorm, with Cohn charging antisemitism and other members demanding an explanation for the expulsion.

An administrator claimed Cohn was bullying others on the site.

“The administrator was very upset that I was calling her out for being antisemitic,” Cohn, a teacher, told The Post. “I would never [bully]. Why would I put my career at risk?”

Cohn, who had been a member of the popular 29,000-strong chat group for “three or four years” believes she fell into crosshairs when she “liked” a few comments on the site that said, “‘We need to condemn Hamas.”

She reached out to administrator Irene Johnson, but “she was ignoring me.”




Friday, November 10, 2023

Canceling Cancel Culture

John Stossel

"I was not genuine in my own beliefs," says 23-year-old Rikki Schlott in my new video. "I self-censored."

Why? What did this college student believe that was so unacceptable that she felt she had to hide it?

The fact that she's a right-leaning libertarian.

"I was afraid to have Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson books on my bookshelf."

If her classmates at NYU saw that, she says, she might have been "verbally attacked on social media, maligned as whatever 'ist' or 'ism' people might attack me with."

So Schlott kept her mouth shut, eventually dropping out of NYU.  I ask her, "If you were doing it again, you'd speak out?"  "I did speak out! Here I am!" She responds.

By "here," she means my TV studio, where I interviewed her about a new book she co-wrote titled, "The Canceling of the American Mind." It details how cancel culture grew into a serious problem on campuses.


A teacher in Virginia lost his job for calling a transgender student "she."

At Hamline University, an art history lecturer lost her job simply for showing a painting of Muhammad.

A University of Virginia med student was banished from campus for merely questioning the importance of "microaggressions."

Then such idiocy spread beyond campuses.

A Levi Strauss executive felt she had to resign because employees objected to her tweets criticizing Covid school closures and mask mandates for children.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's top editor was forced to resign after approving an article titled "Buildings Matter Too," after Black Lives Matter rioters burned down buildings. Some at the paper called his headline "extremely inappropriate" and "tone-deaf."

And so on.

Now some want to punish people who defend Hamas. Others want to silence Israel's defenders.

Schlott argues that America needs more free speech, even if it's hateful. "Being a true free speech champion does require that you defend speech that even you disagree with."

Schlott's co-author on "The Canceling of the American Mind" works for FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. FIRE argues that everything can be said, as long as it's not direct incitement of violence, willful negligence or defamation.

Schlott tells me, "You are well within your First Amendment rights to cancel people and to malign them on social media. But the question is, 'do we want to live in a culture where that is our first reaction?'"

She points out that her generation started tweeting when they were kids, and many posted stupid things.  "Young people need to be able to screw up."

Maybe. But based on what I see on my newsfeeds, it's people her age who are most eager to "cancel" people.

"It is true that younger Americans tend to be more pro-cancel culture," she replies. "Millennials have the most positive view, and as you get older, it goes lower and lower. But Gen Z (ages 11 to 26) completely switches that around. Only 8% have a positive view of it. That's because if you're a young person who grows up in a graceless society, you're always looking behind your back. You see friends torn down on social media. You're not going to want to live in a world like that."

I push back. "But they perpetuate a world like that!"

"It's a tyranny of the minority," she replies. "One squeaky wheel scares the life out of everyone else. Then we self-censor."  She did that in college.  

Students like her kept their mouths shut because they didn't want to be reported as "biased." NYU officials, like the secret police in East Germany, even encouraged students to report on others.

She tells me, "When I got to NYU, the first thing I had to do was go pick up my ID card. I found on the back the emergency number, in case you're in danger, and a bias response hotline in case you're offended. The university itself sanctioned the idea that you can snitch on your peers."

She says it's time for students to push back against school censorship.

"We need to say we want to live in a free speech culture. ... Courage is contagious. As soon as I spoke out at NYU, people came out of the woodwork to say, 'Thank you for saying that! I completely agree with you.'"




Thursday, November 09, 2023

War in Gaza tests free speech limits at Sydney University

The Gaza conflict is testing the limits of freedom of speech on campus after Sydney University warned that it won’t tolerate support of Hamas’ attack and the vice chancellor moved to ban a pro-Palestinian student meeting, dividing opinion among academics.

Jewish groups have welcomed the approach and have urged other universities to follow its lead, saying it’s calmed tensions on campus.

Sydney University vice chancellor Mark Scott wrote to staff and students on October 26, in what was a marked shift from previous communications on the war, saying the institution “will not tolerate any pro-terrorist statements or commentary, including support for Hamas’s recent terrorist attacks”.

Last week, Scott also moved to shut down a planned student meeting titled “Palestine: the case for a global intifada”, saying it could be reasonably interpreted as supporting terrorism based on its promotional posters.

The action has prompted anger from some academics and students who say the university has shown an anti-Palestinian bias.

But Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim praised the university’s response and wrote to Scott to thank him.  “The reports we’re getting from staff and students is that it has actually had a calming effect on the whole situation on campus,” he said. “The number of academics who think they should be free to endorse a listed terrorist organisation is fractionally small compared to the overall number of academics in Australia.”

But in an open letter to Scott responding to an all-staff email, politics professor John Keane said many believed the vice chancellor had an “eerie” pro-Israeli bias.

“It is founded on silence about such ugly matters as non-stop aerial bombardment, the illegal use of white phosphorus bombs on civilians, settler violence, bulldozers wrecking the homes of fearful innocents, death by suffocation,” the letter read.

‘While we all support intellectual freedom … sane people draw the line at the advocacy of genocide.’

It prompted a flurry of “reply-all” emails from academics who were divided in their support or rejection of Keane’s sentiments.

Sociologist Salvatore Babones responded by saying Hamas was “a genocidal organisation intent on the destruction of the Israeli people”.  “While we all support intellectual freedom … sane people draw the line at the advocacy of genocide,” he wrote.




Wednesday, November 08, 2023

A Canberra doctor has been banned from practising medicine for a year after breaching doctor's codes with an offensive email sent to an Indigenous doctor.

A straight talker.  Under Australian law you can be classed as indigenous even if you are white  -- as long as you have some remote Aboriginal ancestry.  I have a neice who is as white as snow but she is still indigenous under Australian law.  So she can get benefits aimed at blacks;

The doctor, whose name was suppressed by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), sent an email to an Indigenous specialist, in which he criticised pharmaceutical policies designed to benefit Indigenous people and questioned the man's Indigenous identity.

The email was sent to a Yuggera, Warangoo and Wiradjuri man Dr Kristopher Rallah-Baker, whose name was originally suppressed before his legal counsel informed the tribunal that he wished to be identified.

However, he denied the email was discriminatory on racial grounds according to clause 5.4 of the Medical Board of Australia's code of conduct, because the offensive email was not generated in a workplace or sent to a colleague.

But the tribunal did not accept that because Dr Rallah-Baker was considered a peer of the doctor, and even if he was not, clause 5.4 states that doctors must not discriminate against "others" – meaning any person.

In the offensive email, the doctor noted Dr Rallah-Baker "claim[ed] to be Indigenous", and questioned what percentage of Aboriginal blood he had.

The doctor went on to suggest Dr Rallah-Baker's Indigenous heritage was "like a watered-down bottle of Grange. Not the real thing".

He also criticised a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidy for simple modified-release paracetamol only being available to Indigenous people, saying: "So rich dudes like you ... could get your Panadol Osteo for absolutely NO CHARGE ... but my struggling old-age pensioners with their osteoarthritis have to buy it at full cost".

The Medical Board of Australia referred the doctor to the tribunal for the email earlier this year, which found his actions did amount to professional misconduct.




Tuesday, November 07, 2023

British singer, 36, who was 'cancelled by the music industry' for slamming 'men claiming to be women' says she's now been 'deplatformed' by streaming platform Bandcamp and lost her revenue

This is truly shocking.  It is about time someone struck back at these Fascists in some way

A singer-songwriter who believes she's been a victim of cancel culture in the music industry has claimed she's now been 'deplatformed' by Bandcamp.

Louise Distras, 36, from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, has been labelled a ‘Terf’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) because of her views - and a week ago her artist page was apparently shut down on the American online audio platform.

Taking to X (formerly Twitter) today, the musician wrote:   A week ago I was deplatformed by @bigcartel and @Bandcamp in the space of 24 hours.

'After eight yrs of paying Bandcamp commission they shut down my artist page without notifying me or giving me a reason why. My discography has disappeared into thin air along with £££s in revenue, ripping off me and my fans in the process.

'Despite being cancelled by the music biz, Bandcamp gave me a direct way to market my music via my own record label, and I relied on having this independence as an artist to pay my bills in a cost of living crisis.'

She continued: 'Since the pandemic many gig venues have closed down and the music industry is shrinking rapidly.  'What's left of it is being kicked to death by intolerant activists who actively discriminate against and threaten artists and audiences who don't bow down to their delusional demands of ideological compliance.

'Now would be a good time for any self respecting artist to get a grip and grow a spine, [because] otherwise we're all screwed. Cancel culture is murder by the back door and I'm not gonna let this one drop. Thank heavens for @Freedom_in_Arts!'

Louise previously told The Daily Mail how she believes the music industry is ‘so captured by gender ideology that they don’t know what a woman is any more’.  She added: ‘Yet the “mob” always hounds women who speak out more than men. So they do know what a woman is, really.’

Louise has been labelled a ‘Terf’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) for sharing her views online, with radio stations refusing to play her songs, magazines refusing to include her, and she feels her own live booking agency have lacked in their support for her.

‘None of us woke up one day and decided it would be fun to go to war, but we are on the frontlines as women, whether we like it or not,’ said singer Louise, who has had tracks played on Radio 1.

‘As a solo female artist, I’ve ended up in some particularly dangerous situations with men and have been assaulted on more than one occasion.

‘I don’t care if people think I’m transphobic. If men want to claim to be women, then there is always going to be a clash when it comes to defending the hard-won rights of women.

‘It started with me sharing my views on Twitter about cancel culture, free speech and gender identity.

'Female-centric platforms and organisations that once supported me started calling me transphobic and a national station wouldn’t play my song called Girl In The Mirror — apparently because it was all about girlhood and womanhood.

‘Music journalists won’t speak to me because they think I’m transphobic — but I refuse to self-censor my views on this.

‘I asked my live booking agency to help me put measures in place to keep me safe at my future gigs, and they responded by sending me an email with a series of links to “educate” me on why cancel culture can be a good thing.

‘In a separate email, I was advised to “distance” myself from the debate for the sake of my career. Since making my views clear, they have not booked me any gigs to promote my new album.

‘I was feeling pretty broken about all this,’ she admitted. ‘There’s no doubt I’ve lost money. But I refuse to be quiet about what’s happening.’

Louise’s live booking agency Midnight Mango denied her allegations, saying: ‘As a music booking agency, we offer balanced and practical advice where we are careful not to discriminate.

'We have in place a robust policy for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion as well as a policy for Cancel Culture. It is noted that Gender Critical views are a protected belief...and we fully respect that.’




Monday, November 06, 2023


I have owned a  huge mass of books over the years, including a lot of reference books, if anybody remembers what they are.  But I have given most of them away.  Once I became an internet user, there seemed no point in looking up books any more.  It was easier to click on a link and read anything I wanted without getting up from my armchair.

What I did not foresee is the huge climate of politically correct censorship that has descended on us.  Just mentioning simple facts can be verboten these days.  The Left would love us not to know that Hitler was one of them, for instance. Though their celebration of Jew-killing by Palestinians is a compelling reminder of what they are. Much of history, in fact, may not now  be mentioned.  Statues honouring heroes of the past are regularly torn down by angry Leftists.  We are supposed to forget any bit of the past that the Left dislike.  

It is foreseeable that generations will arise for whom much of the past will be a closed book.  It is in fact already happening.  What schoolkids learn today is very different from what I learned long ago.  What I learned embodied a scale of values that would be disowned today but at least we got the facts, even if our view of them was one-sided

So I have done a complete turnaround in my attitude to books.  Leftists can and do remove them from our public libraries but can they remove books from my personal library?  They would undoubtedly like to try but I think it will be  while before they go after personal book collections. And books are not easy to destroy.  So I encourage anybody reading this to take opportunities of buying reference books from the past.  Old encyclopedias could be particularly useful. You will be able to look up facts there unobstructed by Leftist censors




Sunday, November 05, 2023

Eighty bird species will be renamed ‘to break links with ‘slavery and racism’

Birds in the United States and Canada will no longer be named after people because the previous selection process was “clouded by racism and misogyny”, the American Ornithological Society has announced.

The organisation will rename 80 species next year due to their associations with controversial historical figures, including slave owners and white supremacists.

Birds that will be renamed include Audubon’s shearwater, a tropical seabird widespread in the Atlantic Ocean that honours John James Audubon, a 19th-century slave owner and perhaps America’s best-known ornithologist.

Townsend’s warbler and solitaire will also get new names. John Kirk Townsend, who died in 1851, stole skulls from indigenous graves and believed they were racially inferior.

Colleen Handel, the society’s president, said: “There is power in a name and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today. Everyone who loves and cares about birds should be able to enjoy and study them freely.”

The society said that rather than go through each bird name individually to assess whether it had links to a controversial person, it would make blanket changes.

There had been a heated debate within the birdwatching community over the names given to species. An increasingly vocal faction demanded historical figures with links to slavery or colonialism be removed from names.

The society said it would aim for descriptive titles about a bird’s habitat or physical features instead. Judith Scarl, the society’s executive director and chief executive, said too many historical figures who had been honoured in bird names were racist.

She said: “As scientists, we work to eliminate bias in science. But there has been historic bias in how birds are named and who might have a bird named in their honour. Exclusionary naming conventions developed in the 1800s, clouded by racism and misogyny, don’t work for us today.”

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 42.6 million people took trips to observe wild birds last year.

This year progressive naturalists were defeated in attempts to rename the National Audubon Society, the bird protection organisation. The board of directors voted against it.




Friday, November 03, 2023

Macron rejects gender-neutral writing to protect French language

Paris: Emmanuel Macron has urged France not to “give in to the spirit of the times” and reject gender-inclusive writing in order to safeguard the French language.

“In French, the masculine is neutral. We don’t need to add points in the middle of words or hyphens to make it readable,” said the French President at the opening of a new language centre in the town of Villers-Cotterêts, about 80 kilometres north-east of Paris, on Monday.

The French Senate is considering banning gender-inclusive writing, in order to “protect” the French language. This move reopens a long-standing debate that has divided the country between right-leaning language purists versus the left and feminists.

Under the proposal tabled by a Republican senator, gender-inclusive writing would be banned in administrative documents including job contracts, job adverts, internal company regulations and all legal documents.

The bill would also ban inclusive writing in the national education code, doubling down on an existing 2021 directive. Documents written in gender-neutral language would be considered null and void.

In French, all nouns are either masculine and feminine and the written endings of nouns, adjectives and verbs must reflect the gender of the object or person in question. But when a noun involves both men and women, the default spelling is in the masculine in accordance with the long-taught rule: ‘masculine always wins’.

The timing of the inauguration of Macron’s €211 million ($350 million) Cité Internationale de la Langue Française, or International French Language Centre, and the Senate agenda may be coincidental but he was unequivocal about his stance during his speech.

“We must allow the language to live, to be inspired by others, to steal words from the other end of the world… and to continue to be reinvented, but all while keeping the fundamentals, the basics of grammar, the strength of its syntax and to not give in to the spirit of the times,” Macron said.

He was met with applause from a crowd, which included historians, philosophers, linguists and French writers.

The bill has a strong chance of being adopted in the Senate given that the Republicans hold a majority in the upper house. It will then be examined in the National Assembly.

Feminist groups have been fighting to make the French language more gender-neutral for decades. Left-wing critics have called the bill retrograde and yet another attempt by the conservatives to marginalise women, while supporters believe that inclusive writing poses an additional constraint on people who are illiterate or dyslexic.

In 2021, the addition of the gender-neutral pronoun “iel”, a mash-up of the French pronouns “he” (il) and “she” (elle) to the French dictionary Le Robert, provoked the ire of right-wing politicians who accused the dictionary of pandering to “wokeism”.

The new centre, opened on Monday (Paris time) is housed in a restored Renaissance chateau in Villers-Cotterets, some 80 kilometres north-east of the Elysee Palace in central Paris, an area Franc€24 said was the heartland of the far-right. It hopes to attract 200,000 visitors a year to its large library, interactive exhibits, games and cultural events.

It is located in the castle where, in 1539, King François I signed an edict adopting French as his nation’s official tongue. Villers-Cotterets is also famed as the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas, author of the Three Musketeers.

While it lauds the fact that French is a living language open to foreign influence, exhibits also warn against the abuse of “globish” (global English) via the use of words such as “bankable” and “open bar”.



Thursday, November 02, 2023

Why the ACLU is going to bat for Donald Trump

When the American Civil Liberties Union goes to bat for Donald Trump, it’s a red flag.  The ACLU generally fights for far-left causes.

But the ACLU always has championed the rights of the accused.   This time, the accused is Trump.

The ACLU is protesting a gag order US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed Oct. 17 to silence Trump, at the request of federal prosecutor Jack Smith. Trump has called Smith a “thug.”

Chutkan’s order bars Trump from making any statements “targeting” Smith, the witnesses in the case or the judge herself. Trump’s lawyers appealed.

Chutkan paused the gag order for several days but reinstated it Sunday.  The ACLU is backing Trump’s right to speak.  

Whether you like Trump or hate him, watch this battle. If prosecutors can silence a former president, think what they could do to you.

The ACLU argues the gag order violates Trump’s First Amendment rights and the public’s right to hear Trump’s views so it can decide “whether he deserves to be elected again.”




Wednesday, November 01, 2023

Twist after Australian woman ‘cancelled’ for selling sushi

An Aussie who became the target of an online bullying campaign after she opened a sushi restaurant in New York City has enjoyed a boom in business, with a telling sign placed outside her store window.

Alex Mark was labelled a “coloniser” and accused of “cultural appropriation” by US chef Eric Rivera after she quit her job as a corporate lawyer to open the Sushi Counter and sell ‘Australian-style’ sushi earlier this month.

“But it’s ‘stralian sushi. Give me a break coloniser,” Mr Rivera wrote on social media. “If you don’t see why this is a problem, you are the problem.”

While many blasted Ms Marks online in an attempt to have her cancelled, others including TikToker Jack Mac came to the Aussie’s defence in a video seen by 3.2 million people.

Now, in a fortunate twist, Mr Mac has revealed when he later visited the restaurant to show his support, he discovered all the sushi had sold out.

“Guys so obviously I went to the sushi shop,” he told his over 600,000 followers in a video last week.  “I got here [and it’s] sold out for tonight,” he said, as he pointed the camera towards a closed sign in the window of the restaurant.

In his prior video, Mr Mac pointed out that the internet tried to cancel Ms Marks “because they deemed her opening a sushi restaurant is cultural appropriation”.

“Thankfully our society has slowly woken up to buzzwords like that, often being nonsense, [and] it failed,” he said.

In the recent update, Mr Mac joked that he played a role in selling out the restaurant.

“You know how many people are selling out a sushi restaurant in New York City? You know who did that? Jack Mac did. We did that.”

A wave of support

Others have taken to social media to show their support to Ms Marks, whose restaurant now boasts a 4.2 star Google rating.

In one TikTok video, a foodie by the username ‘legendary.eatz’ said the bullying of Ms Marks was “despicable” and pointed out the hypocrisy of Mr Rivera’s plans to open a fusion Puerto Rican Izakaya restaurant.

“Izakaya in Japanese. He is Puerto Rican,” he said.

Chef and TV personality Marc Murphy also showed his support by visiting the store and encouraging others to try the food.

“It’s hard enough making money in the restaurant business, let’s not pick on each other, let’s just be nice to each other,” he said on TikTok.

Conservative US political commentator Matt Walsh also spoke out in defence of Ms Marks on the Daily Wire.

“As a sane person myself I can’t fathom how anyone could conjure those kinds of emotions in relation to a sushi restaurant,” Mr Walsh said.

“You’ll never hear of a pizza place being bombarded with negative reviews because it’s owned by an Asian guy. Or a burger joint being protested because it’s run by a Hispanic woman.

“You’ll certainly never hear anyone telling a black chef what sorts of cuisine he isn’t allowed to cook based on his race.”