British Banks as censors

Readers of this magazine would be well aware of the latest disturbing phenomenon of banks and financial institutions stepping outside of their core business of managing money and waging war on ‘wrongthink’. While the most high-profile casualty seems to be Nigel Farage, the UK Free Speech Union and the Tiggernometry Podcast have also been targeted by PayPal and Tide, respectively.

Even though a public outcry led to their accounts being reinstated, this has not stopped financial institutions acting as the self-appointed thought police in the same way that Big Tech has.

One of Britain’s leading women’s rights campaigners, Dr Lesley Sawers OBE, the Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland, has had her bank account shut down by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Dr Sawers said that the bank ‘categorically refused to give us a reason why they are closing our account and when I spoke to someone in customer services I was told abruptly: “We don’t have to”.’

Registered charity Families Need Fathers claim that HSBC shut their account in April and they were forced to use credit cards to keep running. Colin Mair, once the Ukip group leader on Lincolnshire County Council, had his account shut down without explanation.

Under the UK Equality Act, it is against the law to discriminate against customers on the basis of their religious and philosophical beliefs.

But banks and other financial services seem to think that they can get away with closing people’s accounts for their views as long as they don’t say why.

A whistleblower who worked in a Santander branch helping with complaints, told the Daily Mail Online that the bank is on a ‘really toxic path’ and has been ‘policing the views of their customers’. He said LGBT groups in the bank had pressured bosses to axe one customer because she complained about Pride flags in branches and told them to stick to banking.

Now banks have taken their puritanical war on freedom of speech to a new, more sinister level, by adopting the Nero approach and specifically targeting Christian organisations.

Core Issues Trust, a non-profit Christian ministry that supports men and women who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression, had its bank accounts closed following a campaign of harassment and intimidation.

The group has received abusive calls and messages, and been dropped by multiple service providers since being targeted through a social media campaign.

After Barclays Bank closed the ministry’s bank accounts, the Christian Legal Centre helped challenge the decision through the courts.

Eventually, Barclays agreed to pay over £20,000 in compensation to the group.

There is also the case of Anglican vicar, Reverend Richard Fothergill, cancelled by the Yorkshire Building Society (YBS). Last month Fothergill responded to a monthly email he gets from YBS asking for his feedback, after noticing that it was displaying support for Pride month on its website. He wrote out ‘a couple of paragraphs’ about how he did not agree with trans ideology – or the idea that you can have alternative genders – being pushed on children.

On 22 June he received a letter from YBS about his ‘views regarding LGBTQIA+’. It said the comments he made were ‘not tolerable’, that their ‘relationship had irrevocably broken down’ and the building society had a ‘zero tolerance approach to discrimination’.

Speaking to the Times, Fothergill said, ‘I wasn’t even aware that our relationship had a problem. They are a financial house – they are not there to do social engineering. I think they should concentrate their efforts on managing money, instead of promoting LGBT ideology.’

Now the matter of a Christian charity organisation working in Nigeria having its accounts closed in the UK has emerged.

While the world focusses on the war in Ukraine, the daily bloodshed in Nigeria is ignored. Violent attacks on Christians and their churches are commonplace, and in the country’s south-east, warlords have usurped local authority and nothing – including marriages and funerals – can be done without their approval. A spate of gruesome killings, kidnappings and extortion rackets has left residents there living in fear.

The unrest has forced people to flee villages where they led a peaceful life until just a few years ago. Where so many live in abject poverty and in fear of their lives, this organisation (which wishes to remain anonymous for fear of further reprisal) carries out its ministry, caring for hundreds of refugees from conflict, feeding children and providing schooling and health care among all the trauma and bloodshed.

It prioritises patients who would otherwise not be able to afford treatment, particularly young mothers and those suffering from HIV and chronic hepatitis B.

It also runs a displacement camp, not just for Christians, but for Muslims who have also been subjected to violence, thus promoting peace and reconciliation.

Even though clearly carrying out the Gospel messages of the Good Samaritan, loving thy neighbour and thy enemy, caring for the most vulnerable in our world, the charity is considered ‘intolerant’ and their bank accounts in the UK are also being shut down, without reasons being given.

In all these instances, the banks seem to be using EU laws incorporated into the UK to close the accounts of ‘politically exposed persons’ (PEPs), in the same way Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of the Canadian truckers and their supporters who were protesting his government’s vaccine mandate.

Ostensibly, PEP laws were designed to ensure politicians can’t take bribes or launder money. However, following the revelation that UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt was denied a bank account because he was a PEP, UK banks are facing a Treasury investigation into claims they are using these laws to close customers’ accounts because they do not like their views on politics, Brexit, gender and sexuality. Indeed, the UK government is now moving to scrap the EU PEP laws altogether. Nevertheless, there is clearly a trend here.

Behave yourself and you can live a measure of a normal life; challenge the approved ideology and you will be punished, including ‘switching off’ access to your money, and the Marxist commissars who enforce this new cultural revolution dare to call themselves ‘progressive’ and ‘tolerant’.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/banks-do-a-nero/?

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leading gender dysphoria expert lauded for his work on sexual orientation says he has been censored

One of the world's leading experts on gender dysphoria claims an academic journal has withdrawn an article he wrote for it due to pressure from trans activists.

J Michael Bailey, 66, professor of psychology at Northwestern University in the US state of Illinois, has published more than 100 academic articles during his 40-year career and has previously been lauded for his 'groundbreaking' work on sexual orientation.

On March 29, his article 'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria' was published in the academic journal Archives Of Sexual Behavior. The professor co-authored the piece with a mother called 'Suzanne Diaz', whose daughter is transgender. She declined to give her real name for fear of reprisals.

In the report, Prof Bailey concluded that young girls reported feeling 'pressured' into receiving medical transition treatments, including drugs to block puberty, after suffering Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). ROGD is where children, mostly girls, with no history of gender dysphoria suddenly declare they want to transition to the opposite sex.

Prof Bailey has long argued ROGD is caused by peer pressure and says doctors encourage drastic medical interventions, including mastectomies, which the girls later regret.

He wrote: 'Increasing awareness about ROGD is largely attributable to parents with daughters claiming to be sons.

'Desperate for sound medical advice, they find themselves confronted with a medical establishment that has come to prioritise surgical and hormonal intervention over traditional psychotherapy that seeks to resolve the feelings of distress.'

He says that from the day it was published the report received 'negative attention from trans activists'.

Writing on The Free Press website last week, he said: 'These activists began to lobby both the publisher (Springer Nature Group) and the organisation affiliated with the journal to retract the article and to punish the editor.'

On May 5, more than 100 gender activists published an online 'open letter' citing 'ethical concerns' over Prof Bailey's study.

He said: 'This was a pretext for their real complaint: dislike of certain ideas. Debate is essential to good science, but that is not what these activists want.

'On May 23, we received an email from Springer informing us that they were retracting our article.' The professor consulted lawyers but the article was removed last month.

Last night Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, told the MoS: 'Activists dare not challenge the concept of ROGD according to the standard rules of academic debate because they know they'd lose.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12302683/Leading-gender-dysphoria-expert-says-censored.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banning the Nazi salute

It's true that the salute given by Nazis, even by Hitler himself, varied a lot.  It was often more like a wave

Last month the Tasmanian government, in addition to banning Nazi symbols (as many jurisdictions around the world have done), took the further step of banning the Nazi salute, a favourite gesture of the brain dead, on pain of three months’ imprisonment.

How did this come about? Were there unreported Nuremberg rallies taking place in Devonport and Launceston? Or did the ever-vigilant legislature, spotting a novel threat, leap into pre-emptive action?

The desire to cancel these morons and their posturing is understandable, perhaps noble; but to my mind, it’s flawed. I’ve never considered this before, but as well as being a free-speech advocate, I find myself an equally committed defender of free movement, like some radical modern choreographer. It’s bad enough that increasingly authoritarian governments want to control the sounds that come out of our mouths, without also seeking to limit the directions in which our limbs are allowed to point.

Agreed, it does put an end to those tedious friends’ recreations of Basil Fawlty not mentioning the war, but I’m not sure that’s sufficient justification. Furthermore, is the full range of Nazi salutes forbidden? (Jerry Seinfeld once did an amusing bit on this.) Watch any WWII film and contrast the Wehrmacht motorcycle messenger snapping to attention with the SS-sturmbannfuhrer’s response, an effete, limp-wristed “Ja, ja” salute from the elbow. And careful when you’re stopping a taxi in Hobart: “Honest, officer, I see how it might have looked, but I was hailing a cab, not a genocidal dictator.”

By passing this law the Tasmanian government unintentionally buttresses the neo-fascists’ delusions that there is a conspiracy against them, that they are a force to be feared rather than ridiculed, and drives them into the darkness.

It has missed the opportunity to implement my preferred solution, which would be to expose the pathetic cretins so the rest of us know who to avoid. For ease of identification, instead of banning the Nazi salute, we might make it compulsory for them; they should be obliged to incorporate the gesture in their dealings with everyone else, enter shops and pubs with a click of the heels and a shout of devotion. Let’s see where that gets them.

Hitler, to their disappointment (and perhaps surprise), has been dead for almost 80 years, but I’m sure they’d find some other arsehole to “heil”. In fact if they’re short of ideas, I’ve got one or two first-rate candidates in mind.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/honest-officer-i-was-hailing-a-cab-not-a-dictator/news-story/2eb71225fde9a623b10cd7f20511b62e

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free speech benefits the weak

Free speech advocates often face the accusation that they are defending a right that embeds existing structural privilege. Many claim that free speech protects the wealthy and powerful from the consequences of language and beliefs that oppress others. For this reason, they argue, legal limitations are needed on free speech to defend the powerless.

Yet this is demonstrably false.  

Research which will be published next month in the Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization by academics from Victoria University of Wellington and Motu Economic and Public Policy Research demonstrates a fact we have long claimed at the Free Speech Union: free speech defends first the vulnerable and marginalised. The study, which looked at population datasets from around the world and drew from the World Values Survey, found that while individuals with greater resources may place greater stated priority on freedom of speech, it is individuals with fewer resources who consistently receive the greatest benefits from free speech.

We are often told that the poor and otherwise marginalised need state protection from certain speech. Indeed, the New Zealand government’s recent attempt to extend hate speech laws, and the current proposals to regulate social media, often stem from these claims. Yet, the researchers write: ‘Our results indicate that, within countries, individuals with lower income and lower education levels benefit most from free speech. These results support the hypothesis that free speech has an empowerment effect for those with fewer resources in society.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/free-speech-benefits-the-powerless/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tech giants warn Australia's ‘fake news’ rules could limit free speech

Tech giant Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, says it is concerned new legislation designed to limit the spread of online misinformation could have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia, with potential for it to be abused to shut down legitimate debate.

The federal government announced legislation last month that would give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) new powers, including a potential government-mandated industry-wide standard on misinformation and disinformation.

The laws would give ACMA the power to request specific content or posts be removed from social media sites, but some Coalition MPs have branded it an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”.

Social media companies could be hit with fines of $2.75 million or 2 per cent of global turnover, whichever is larger, if they repeatedly fail to remove disinformation and misinformation.

Meta’s head of public policy in Australia, Josh Machin, on Tuesday told a Senate inquiry examining foreign interference through social media that the company was happy to be part of a voluntary industry code but was concerned about a compulsory government-run scheme.

Manchin said the draft legislation, which is currently open for public submissions, “empowers the ACMA to, for example, develop binding standards around misinformation and disinformation with some very substantial civil penalties and also criminal penalties for individuals who are involved”.

“That is a part of the legislation that we’re looking at quite closely,” he said.

“We can see some potential for that power to be abused, or for it to be used in a way that inadvertently chills free and legitimate political expression online. We’re thinking through some constructive suggestions.”

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tech-giants-warn-new-fake-news-rules-could-limit-free-speech-20230711-p5dngw.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook Speech Suppression Reaches a New Low

“A coordinated and well-funded assault on the First Amendment is well underway. So egregious are these attacks that even the leftist ACLU’s legislative counsel notes, ‘It should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier.’”

Fortunately, things for Twitter have changed since our own Mark Alexander mentioned the above ACLU quote. But the social media monster Facebook (Meta) continues down the path of conservative speech suppression.

The Patriot Post joined Facebook in 2009, seeing the opportunity to reach millions of people with the message of Liberty. Our efforts have resulted in a substantial following of over three-quarters of a million people, with the ability to reach millions on the platform. Compared to our peers, we have some of the most engaged followers on the platform — and thus leftist types at the Big Tech behemoth took notice.

We had a good run for over a decade building our Facebook presence (and, subsequently, building Facebook itself). That all changed in January 2020, when we received a Hate Speech strike for telling the truth. This unleashed an unending parade of strikes in the run-up to the presidential election, leaving our page in perpetual peril of deletion and severely limiting our reach. We have received at least 21 fact-checks and at least six Community Guidelines violations since, mostly for utterly absurd reasons — none for legitimate ones. In most cases, we have been given little to no recourse to resolve these. Indeed, what we have experienced has been unending capriciousness, lack of recourse, and civil rights violations.

Today, we stand on the other side of a newly kindled offensive, having now four “violations” that existentially threaten our page. Over 750K people have intentionally followed us for the purpose of seeing our content, but only a tiny fraction of them see anything we post. To shed light on the sheer absurdity of these most recent strikes, a brief recounting is in order.

Here are the causes for lost traction on Facebook:

Fact-checks. Facebook uses (read: pays) “independent” third-party fact-checkers to supposedly combat the spread of false information on the platform without bias. If original content is directly cited by a fact-checker, the author may contest it with them and might have a chance to reverse it. If it has been reposted, even just as similar content that is not expressly cited by the fact-checker, there is no recourse — just punishment. Due to the third-party nature, Facebook does not help in these instances, based on our experience. One of the most famous labels fact-checkers use is the “missing context” category. This makes it easy to fact-check just about anything that differs from their opinion.

Community Standards/Guidelines violations. We can understand a platform wishing to limit things such as adult content or spam, but in our experience nearly every Community Standards violation levied against us has been a “gotcha” situation based on a technicality. For example, in a recent violation we received a strike for promoting “Dangerous Organizations or Individuals” because in 2021 we posted an editorial column summarizing the rise of political Islam (more on that later). There are countless examples where Facebook flat-out gets what we’re saying wrong (willfully or otherwise) — but when we contest the ruling, 99% of the time it upholds its decision, or there is a convenient “technical error” that does not allow us to submit a claim.

Facebook limiting political content. After using political content to drive massive growth and engagement on its platform (and collect huge sums of money for itself), Facebook decided in late 2021 to limit political content on the platform. This directly impacts our ability to spread the message of Liberty, and it comes, again, after we expended significant effort to build the platform over many years.

Here are the ways we have lost traction on Facebook:

Page no longer recommended.

Distribution in news feed reduced.

Ability to advertise was taken away for two years

Page at risk of being unpublished.

Our message of Liberty intentionally hidden from people who want to see it.

Traffic from Facebook to our website reduced by over 85%.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/98678-facebook-speech-suppression-reaches-a-new-low-2023-07-10

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michigan ‘hate speech’ bill makes using wrong pronouns a felony

A new bill passed by the Michigan House of Representatives, HB 4474, has sparked outrage among conservative Republicans and could threaten free speech in the state.

The bill would criminalize causing someone to feel threatened by words – including misusing someone’s desired pronouns – with a potential prison sentence of up to five years or a fine of up to $10,000.

Critics have raised concerns about the implications of this bill and how it will be enforced. State Rep. Angela Rigas said, “The state of Michigan is now explicitly allowing the gender delusion issue to be used as a ‘protected class’,” She went on to say that there are similarities with attempts to block “conversion therapy”, insinuating that Democrats want to control how people think.

The language of the bill defines “intimidate” as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.”

It also considers “sexual orientation” and “gender identity expression” as protected classes under HR 4474.

Gender identity expression means having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.

According to Zero Hedge:

“The state of Michigan is now explicitly allowing the gender delusion issue to be used as a ‘protected class.’ This opens up numerous issues when it comes to the courts and the continued weaponization of the system against conservatives,” said State Rep. Angela Rigas, adding “We saw similar concerns when they wanted to pass blocks on ‘conversion’ therapy. It seems Dems want to be in the business of telling people how to think.”

The bill, passed by a 59-50 vote in the Democrat-controlled House, now moves to the state Senate for consideration. If passed, it will move to the desk of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who is expected to sign it.

If signed into law it could have serious consequences for free speech rights in Michigan.

https://libertyonenews.com/michigan-hate-speech-bill-makes-using-wrong-pronouns-a-felony/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covid Censorship Strikes Again: "Their Actions are Reprehensible," Dr. Peter McCullough M.D., MPH

Throughout these past few years, particularly post Covid, the censorship-industrial complex has grown unabated.

My 3-part (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) investigative series for TrialSite in 2021, ‘Are the scientific journals censoring the science?’ exposed how the scientific journals had been withdrawing or retracting studies, which revealed the COVID-19 vaccines in an inconvenient light (one counter to the official narrative).

In addition, studies showing favourable results for repurposed drugs as an effective early Covid treatment were also ‘fair game’ to the agents of censorship. For my series, I interviewed Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Robert Malone and Dr Pierre Kory- who all gave their personal testimonies on how their scientific papers and/or that of their colleagues were abruptly removed, without any prior warning.

This systematic removal of critical papers by medical and scientific experts informing the scientific community and the wider public on evidence-based data, scientific observations and cutting-edge research, can easily be regarded as censorship.

Unfortunately, this damaging trend has continued. On July 5th, Dr McCullough’s co-authored paper entitled, ‘A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination’ was published on The Lancet’s preprint server. The paper’s damning findings showed: ‘A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.’

In less than 24 hours, this landmark paper was suddenly removed and a note appeared stating, “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”

This is just another example of a paper with findings, not fitting in with the “very good safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccines,” being expelled from a prominent journal.

Dr McCullough commented exclusively for TrialSite about this highly concerning issue. This is what he said: "This act of medical censorship occurred after the paper met all the criteria for listing on the Lancet PrePrint Server and appears to be triggered by very heavy worldwide interest and rapid downloading of the paper. This speaks to the importance of our findings as the largest summary of autopsies after COVID-19 vaccination. Elsevier and Lancet are trying to suppress critical scientific observations on COVID-19 vaccine safety. Their actions are reprehensible."

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/censorship-strikes-again-their-actions-are-reprehensible-dr-peter-mccullough-md-mph-b5e5407e

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Levin says Target refuses to carry his new book to avoid customers being 'offended' by the title

Seven-time #1 New York Times best-selling author Mark Levin said that Target told his publishing company stores would not carry his new book because customers might be offended by the title.

The book is entitled "The Democrat Party Hates America."

Levin, who is also the BlazeTV host of "LevinTV," tweeted about the announcement from Target on Wednesday and gave his fans a call to action to counteract the partisan restrictions on his book.

"Target has informed my publisher, Simon & Schuster, that it will not carry my new book when it is released on September 19. It claims that certain customers might be offended by the title," Levin tweeted.

"Imagine that!" he added. "So, the corporatist leftwing censorship begins. I will discuss this in more detail on this evening's radio show."

He went on to call on his fans to pre-order the book at Amazon to combat the censorship at Target.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/mark-levin-book-refused-target

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free speech dying in Australia

In many ways the federal government’s proposal for Acma to regulate the content of social media platforms – via the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation bill – is simply another attempt to restrict freedom of speech by limiting expressions of political opinion. There is nothing new in this.

There are various terms used by critics and regulators to describe the kind of material that they would like to see prohibited on social media and in more traditional forms of publication, including: ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’, ‘malinformation’, ‘fake news’ and ‘hate speech’.

Largely, however, these terms do no more than reflect disagreement by politically correct critics and regulators with the view being expressed. And it should be noted at the outset that there has never been any issue about imposing penalties on incitements to violence against individual or groups in the community. This has always been a criminal offence under the common law and an offence under various state statutes. But this kind of conduct is different from expressions of opinion that may be offensive to many, sometimes to almost all, members of the community but that do not advocate any form of action in reliance on those opinions.

In addition to their distaste from all opinions contrary to their own, those who propose restrictions on freedom of speech have a basic distrust of members of the general community because they fear that some of those members might be influenced by those contrary opinions. This fear was reflected in the 2012 report, commissioned by the Gillard government, into the subject of media regulation by former Federal Court judge, Ray Finkelstein.

The report recommended that a government body be established to supervise the news media. The report noted the observation that ‘citizens must have the capacity to engage in debate, in the form of the relevant critical reasoning and speaking skills’ but added that there is ‘real doubt as to whether these capacities are present for all, or even most, citizens’.

It also suggested that ‘even armed with full information, people do not necessarily have the means for weighing and evaluating that information’. Ultimately the report was not implemented at that time but the view that members of the community cannot be left to form their own judgments when confronted with conflicting opinions is still widely held in some quarters.

It is when views that are abhorrent to most members of the community are publicised that the sternest test for freedom of speech occurs. The use of Nazi salutes would fall into this category, being offensive to an overwhelming majority of the community and, of course, particularly to Jews. But, as the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said in a judgment of the US Supreme Court in 1919: ‘All life is an experiment…. While that experiment is part of our system I think we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe’.

Where does banning stop in the case of discredited regimes? What of the hammer and sickle under which millions in the Soviet Union were killed or sent to gulags? Or the Confederate flag under which the Old South fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery? 600,000 lost their lives.

Hate speech and misinformation have often been suggested as targets of section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful to do an act that is reasonably likely to, amongst other things, offend or insult another person or group of persons because of their race, colour or ethnic origin. It is important to note that this kind of legislation is a significant restriction on freedom of speech because it is aimed at expressions of opinion on political and social issues.

It is very different from the law of defamation which allows proceedings to be brought where there has been an allegation of specific misconduct but there is a complete defence to the proceedings if the allegation can be proved to be true. Section 18C does not deal in facts but with opinions and it makes the expression of those opinions unlawful if they fall within its terms.

Those who complain of ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ are essentially saying that they want opinions contrary to their own to be supressed. As already observed, there is nothing new in this and in the days of the Inquisition people were burnt at the stake because they held dissenting opinions. Those who lit the fires felt entirely justified because, in their view, their own beliefs were the truth and error – or heresy as it was called in the religious context of that time – had no right to exist.

This is the same view of the modern inquisitors. They are no longer able to have dissenters burnt – however much they might like to – but they can subject them to all manner of legal penalties, as well as portraying them as dangers to the well-being of the community.

There was a time when a robust defence of freedom of speech might have been expected from academics and administrators in universities but these bodies are now bastions of political correctness. Currently an associate professor at Melbourne University has to be escorted to and from her lectures by a security guard to avoid harassment by hostile students.

Universities were originally established as places where ideas could be exchanged and challenged. What has been the response of Melbourne University? It has been to set up a procedure for students to complain about courses of which they do not approve. It is not enough that they do not have to attend those courses but in the spirit of the Inquisition, their very existence remains an affront.

Freedom of speech is the starting point for all other political liberties but it is an endangered species here in Australia where it once had a long-established history.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/free-speech-dying/ ?

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

Government-Backed Censors Confuse ‘Disinformation’ With Mainstream Opinions

Disinformation, misinformation and fake news are real problems in a world that is now mainly online. However, this shouldn’t blind us to the very real risk that comes from a government that aggressively polices information or becomes an arbitrator of the truth.

It’s simply too easy to use this power to silence political opponents or people who hold unpopular opinions. Caution on this front is more, not less, important now that America is so politically polarized.

The consensus in favor of genuine free speech is eroding as the focus shifts towards fighting “disinformation.” Separating truth from fiction has become more difficult in certain respects, but does that mean we should target speech that merely makes some people uncomfortable?

If we interpret this speech as a form of violence — as many people now do — then a politically opportunistic government might well be tempted to classify those guilty of nothing more than being politically out of favor as dangerous.

This is why a Department of Homeland Security “anti-terrorism” program, which distributed approximately $40 million to groups with a tendency to demonize their political opponents, is worrisome.

The agency has funded a program that has produced material classifying mainstream conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Fox News and the GOP as only a few steps removed from neo-Nazis and far-right terrorists in terms of the threat of radicalization they represent.

I sometimes criticize conservative political rhetoric, but it’s far-fetched to believe that simply watching Fox News puts one on the road to radicalization any more than watching MSNBC does.

People are always entitled to their opinions. A government that forgets this could end up normalizing censorship while rendering us all less alert to real threats of radicalization.

Also problematic is government support for the so-called Global Disinformation Index, a United Kingdom-based group reportedly funded through State Department-backed entities.

The group was the recent target of a multipart investigation by the Washington Examiner for building questionable and secret advertiser “exclusion lists” targeting conservative and libertarian media.

According to GDI’s assessment, among the highest-risk sites were the New York Post, RealClearPolitics and Reason. I not only write for Reason, but it employs many of my friends.

Simply suggesting that a lab leak was to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic, a position which has now become relatively mainstream, was reason enough to be blacklisted.

Meanwhile, the outlets deemed “least risky” are all considered left-of-center with the exception of The Wall Street Journal. Supposedly low-risk for disinformation was the now-defunct BuzzFeed News, infamous for publishing the falsehood-laden Steele dossier.

Methodological problems, such as arbitrary and ideological distinctions between acceptable criticism and “negative targeting” of people and institutions, account for part of the ranking.

Yet simple sloppiness is also on display: GDI falsely justified Reason’s poor ranking by claiming “the site publishes no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.”

A quick look at Reason’s website is all it takes to rebut these claims. The authorship of articles is clearly communicated to readers and corrections are issued when needed, as with The New York Times and other respectable publications.

Contrary to GDI’s belief, the fact that Reason doesn’t police its comment section isn’t based on its desire to spread disinformation but rather its belief in “free minds and free markets.”

The people behind GDI are entitled to their own opinions and methodology, and advertisers are free to direct their dollars wherever they want, including for ideological reasons. Condoning this with taxpayer dollars is the problem, even if political demonization is not the government’s intent.

Government involvement, direct or indirect, sends a signal that the recipient is trustworthy and neutral. Hence, some chief executives fell for the labelling.

Xandr, a Microsoft-owned advertising firm, informed clients last year that it would no longer advertise on platforms with content considered by GDI to be “morally reprehensible” or “offensive.”

Following the reporting by the Examiner (a publication which was itself blacklisted), Xandr suspended its relationship with GDI pending review.

The government involvement also exacerbates suspicions that public institutions have been corrupted, especially among those whose favorite outlets were targeted.

It could also incite some conservatives, whenever they regain power, to intensify their own efforts to use government against progressive adversaries. That in turn creates even more polarization.

While not a unique occurrence, it is a good reminder that a government that sits in judgment of what is proper or improper information is inconsistent with the values of a free society.

https://www.nysun.com/article/government-backed-censors-confuse-disinformation-with-mainstream-opinions?

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ireland’s deeply sinister hate crime bill

These are certainly interesting times in Ireland. Like every other European country, there’s a cost of living crisis. Mortgages are going up. Inflation is wiping out savings and the ruinous impact of our strict lockdowns is still killing jobs.

We’ve even spent recent days convulsed in a bizarre national uproar over RTE’s highest paid star being allegedly bunged money ‘off the books’; a scandal so serious that it led to the Director General of RTE being suspended while investigations are carried out.

This is both a crank’s charter and a heckler’s veto

Yet while these various issues dominate the papers and the airwaves, the really important issue of freedom of expression has been largely ignored.

In recent weeks, the Seanad (Ireland’s Upper House) has been busy ratifying the utterly draconian Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate offences) Bill.

Many of us have looked on with growing horror at the UK’s laws against free speech, which have seen mediocre comedians investigated for making a lame joke, or a Celtic fan having his collar felt by the police because he mocked the late Captain Tom Moore.

But this Bill, which is expected to become enshrined in legislation in September, will make the UK look like a libertarian bastion of freedom of expression.

First mooted by previous Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan three years ago, many observers assumed that when he left office his terrible idea would be simply forgotten. Far from it.

In fact, the current Justice Minister, Helen McEntee, has embraced it with gusto.

Under the Bill, soon to become an Act, it will become a crime to say anything, in person or online, which anybody from a protected category (race, gender religion, sexuality etc.) finds hateful or offensive.

Of course, offence is in the eye of the beholder and the fact that there is no actual definition of what ‘hate’ actually is has not deterred the current Justice Minister from blithely dismissing any objections or criticisms by saying that, apparently, ‘we all have an understanding of what hatred means.’

The new law won’t just prosecute people who go online and say stupid things on Twitter (we’re going to have a build a lot more prisons when that particular piece of legislation comes into force). The Gardai will soon have the right to search your laptop or phone for anything that may be deemed ‘offensive or hateful’. That includes books you may have downloaded on your Kindle. So, for example, if you have a copy of something like The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf on your phone or laptop, you are now looking at a potential sentence of five years in jail.

It is, to use a technical term, completely bonkers.

So we have a justice minister ushering in frighteningly authoritarian restrictions on freedom of expression and railing against ‘hatred’ while being unable to actually define what hatred is, and an already overworked, understaffed and demoralised police force who will shortly be forced to round up people who have expressed an opinion that someone else didn’t like.

So why is the government taking such a hard line on this vexed issue?

Well, in Ireland, our political leaders simply like telling us what to do, and many citizens are quite comfortable with that arrangement.

Perhaps it’s part of our colonial history. But even when the Republic of Ireland achieved independence, it quickly swapped English overlords for the belt of the crozier and rule from the Vatican. Then after half a century of servitude under the bishops, we became more liberal and decided to serve the EU instead.

Indeed, it was rather interesting to see one university lecturer of social policy come out and demand the Bill be enacted immediately because otherwise we will be ‘laggards in Europe on this issue’.

And that’s the real fear of many in what passes for the Irish intellectual elite – a paralysing fear that we aren’t as eager as our European masters to stamp down on mean things being said on the internet.

In reality what this means is that Irish pro-life groups can expect calls from the cops when they say that life begins at conception. It means that feminists who assert that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and who believe in biological reality can expect criminal prosecution, with jail and unlimited fines lurking over their shoulders.

Frankly, this is both a crank’s charter and a heckler’s veto.

The effect on free speech in this country will be so chilling that many people will simply be afraid to say or write anything that may cause an activist mob to descend on them and demand the state takes action.

It’s bad law with bad intentions and will have terrible consequences for Irish democracy and freedom.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/irelands-deeply-sinister-hate-crime-bill/?

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Truth Winning? Musk, Rowling Deride Use of Term ‘Cisgender’

Is “cisgender” about to be relegated to the dustbin of history?

The term, which has relentlessly been popularized by gender ideologues and their liberal media allies, refers to a person “whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth,” as the Human Rights Campaign, a major LGBT activist group, puts it in a handout.

It’s a term that has a clear ideological objective: Get people to buy into the idea that one’s gender identity and biological sex can be different. That’s the foundational principle of the transgender movement. After all, if it’s not true that gender identity and biological sex can be different, why does anyone “need” to transition to become their “true” gender?

But now billionaire Twitter owner Elon Musk and “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling—who has already faced the full fury of the gender ideology mob for her prior comments—have pushed back on the term, with Rowling calling it “ideological language.”

Earlier this week, James Esses, a writer and co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, tweeted, “I formally and publicly declare that I reject the label of ‘cis.’ I don’t believe in gender ideology. I don’t self-identify as ‘cis’.”

“Using this term makes me feel unsafe and is demonstrative of your hatred towards me,” he added. “Anyone who uses the term ‘cis’ to describe me is a bigot.”

Now, under the general terms of the leftist mindset, self-identity should be—pardon the triggering language—the ultimate trump card when it comes to getting your way regarding language, right? After all, it is our feelings that reveal our truest reality, not something inane like our bodies.

And as the rush to adopt “preferred” pronouns should supposedly demonstrate, don’t all words need to cater to an individual’s feelings?

But, at least on Twitter, Esses faced ample hostility. “Yesterday, after posting a Tweet saying that I reject the word ‘cis’ and don’t wish to be called it, I receive a slew of messages from trans activists calling me ‘cissy’ and telling me that I am ‘cis’ ‘whether or not I like it,’” he tweeted Tuesday. (On Thursday, he tweeted that he had received death threats as well.)

Musk responded to Esses’ “cissy” tweet, saying, “Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions. The words ‘cis’ or ‘cisgender’ are considered slurs on this platform.”

Then Rowling—no stranger to the power of words—tweeted why the fight over the word “cis” matters.

“‘Cis’ is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity,” she wrote. “You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/23/elon-musk-j-k-rowling-bash-cisgender-term/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Library Association Coaches How to Censor Conservatives

Public libraries are supposed to be for everyone. They are a government-sponsored institution for the curating and borrowing of books, as well as a source of knowledge open for the use of anybody wise enough to take advantage of its contents.

Over the years, however, the library has also become a community space with rooms that are available for people to read to children or host other community events. Lately, this public space has been infiltrated by drag queens to read LGBTQ+ and other books to kids. Moreover, librarians determine how government stipends are to be used in terms of the books they buy, and some of those resources have been used to incorporate a children’s book written by the Satanic Temple.

Let’s just say this is not the idea of liberalism put forward by the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin, an avid bibliophile, helped start the first library in the American colonies in 1731. Many of the first books in that library were religious or educational — think philosophers like John Locke or Plutarch. Franklin was also alive in a day and age when the discussion of ideas could be polarizing. Not every colonist wanted to split with England in 1776. However, there was a consensus that an educated people was a better sort of citizenry. Ideas about morality and politics are better discussed when both parties are well informed. It helps us answer why we believe what we believe.

Today’s American Library Association (ALA) seems to be run by “progressives” intent on letting bad messages be showcased in their houses of learning and silencing other voices such as conservative Christians. Instead of pushing patrons toward higher thinking, they instead give children and young adults books that push left-wing agenda items in their most palatable form (which is to say, euphemisms and sometimes outright lies).

Kirk Cameron, former actor and current Christian author, has been on a mission to balance out the infiltration of Drag Queen Story Hour in public libraries. He and the Brave Books team have created books with positive content and good moral teaching, and the authors of the various books, such as Cameron, have been going to libraries and reading them aloud. It’s an opportunity for Christian parents to feel comfortable taking their child to a story hour without fear that the content might be offensive to them and their beliefs.

It is because of this bold counteraction to Drag Queen Story Hour that the ALA has taken steps to try to ban readers like Kirk Cameron from coming to libraries. The ALA has disseminated to librarians ways to block or sabotage parents who invite conservative voices to the libraries and avoid legal battles over First Amendment violations. It was Deborah Caldwell Stone, one of the directors of the ALA, giving this advice. The ALA’s argument for blocking Brave Books and Kirk Cameron is that these Christians are creating a security risk. For who? Well, drag queens and others who disagree with the conservative messaging. Why are drag queens so threatened? Well, because their worldview is indefensible and easily uncovered for the utter nonsense that it is.

These actions by the ALA are disturbing but sadly not surprising. The ALA last spring elected a self-proclaimed lesbian Marxist as its president. When Ben Franklin extolled the virtues of the library, he proclaimed, “These Libraries have improved the general Conversation of Americans, made the common Tradesmen and Farmers as intelligent as most Gentlemen from other Countries, and perhaps have contributed in some Degree to the Stand so generally made throughout the Colonies in Defence of their Priviledges.”

How is one improved by drag queens reading about sexual orientation to children (diversity, pride, disordered thinking)? How is one improved by having a Satanic Temple children’s book available for checkout (promoting a religion that has long been the antithesis of all that is good and true)? How is one not improved by being taught good and patriotic lessons?

Promoting well-written, constructive, classical, and informative books is what a healthy society would do. Sadly, the ALA is part of the continual rot both intellectually and morally.

Libraries are for everyone, and if the ALA weren’t such a partisan hack, it might be part of the solution instead of yet another problem.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/98404

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michigan Tries to Muzzle Its Citizens

Canada has long been a bastion of cowardice where free speech is concerned, and it appears that our neighbor to the north has now infected the border state of Michigan.

Last week, the Democrat-controlled Michigan House passed an alarmingly vague, restrictive, and punitive package of bills to reclassify certain offenses as hate crimes. As the Detroit News reports, the bills would “designate the defacement of synagogues, churches or cemeteries as a crime separate from ordinary destruction of property.”

So far so good, right? No one wants to see our houses of religious worship targeted and defiled, right? But wait. There’s more. The Detroit News continues, “The Michigan Hate Crime Act, which passed 59-50 in the Democratic-controlled House, would replace Michigan’s 1988 ethnic intimidation law so that more categories of people fall under the law’s protections.”

Hmm … more categories of people? What categories might those be? Were there certain races or ethnicities that weren’t covered by the 1988 law?

As it turns out, no. The proposed new law would expand the original law to include protections based on — wait for it — sex, sexual orientation, age, gender identity, or physical or mental disabilities. (Religion, ethnicity, and race were already protected under the original law.)

It gets worse. As The Daily Wire reports:

The bill, HB 4474, is part of a package of legislation that would replace Michigan’s existing Ethnic Intimidation Act and make it a hate crime to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.” Under the bill’s framework, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” are included as classes protected against intimidation. If passed, the hate speech legislation would make violators guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

Republicans who voted against the package were well short of stopping it. HB 4474 passed 59-50. Now it’s on to the Democrat-controlled Senate, and then to Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s desk for passage, despite the vagueness of some of the terms left undefined in the bills — terms such as “intimidate” and “harassment.”

“We are setting our citizens’ disagreements up to be criminal prosecutions,” said Hillsdale-based State Representative Andrew Fink.

Another vocal critic, former federal judge William Wagner, offered this grim prediction: “Make no mistake about it. Those advocating for this legislation will wield these policies as a weapon capable of destroying conservative expression or viewpoints grounded in the sacred. … Proponents use these laws to silence and financially cripple those who dare to adhere to a different viewpoint and oppose their agenda.”

Needless to say, free speech in Michigan has never been more imperiled. And the state’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, must be feeling downright giddy about it. Nessel, a hard-left lesbian, was among those testifying in support of the legislation, arguing that by restricting people’s right to express their opinions, the legislation will reduce crimes that are perpetrated out of bias toward the victim. “These hate crime laws are murder prevention,” she hyperbolized.

In other words, Nessel thinks taking away people’s constitutional rights will make them less angry and less dangerous.

She couldn’t be more wrong. Speech is more than merely a means of communicating thoughts and ideas. It should also be seen as a pressure-relief valve, a means of venting and blowing off steam instead of resorting to violence.

We made this point a couple of years back when Twitter was being run by Jack Dorsey and having a field day with its censorship of conservative opinion. At the time, we wrote: “If we seem a bit obsessive about Big Tech’s efforts to selectively silence political speech and thereby restrict the marketplace of ideas, it’s for good reason. Media censorship breeds frustration, because it eliminates what we might call a pressure-relief valve. When we as citizens have no voice, we stew and we simmer, and sometimes we boil over.”

That same reasoning, of course, holds for state censorship — and even more so, we would argue, because of the stakes. Whereas Big Tech can do little more than kick inconvenient truth-tellers off its platforms, the state can fine us or put us in prison.

As frustrating as it is, Big Tech firms aren’t barred by the Constitution from censoring or shadow-banning speech that they deem hurtful to their sensitivities. Remember: The First Amendment begins, Congress shall make no law, not, Big Tech shall impose no restriction.

The Founders understood the importance of free speech — and especially free political speech. Because in its absence, and even more so in its suppression, we ultimately get political violence.

Which is why Michigan’s HB 4474 is not only unconstitutional — it’s idiotic.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/98445-michigan-tries-to-muzzle-its-citizens-2023-06-29?mailing_id=7599

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Around 250 Hollywood figures, spanning movies, TV, and music, have signed an open letter that asks top tech companies to silence differing views on certain aspects of the transgender narrative, including gender reassignment surgeries for minors.

Notable names like Amy Schumer, Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato, Jamie Lee Curtis, Judd Apatow, Patrick Stewart, and others, support the letter.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) sent it to the CEOs of Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter.

The letter suggests a systemic failure on these platforms to moderate “hate, harassment, and anti-LGBTQ disinformation,” linking the alleged lack of oversight to an increase in real-world violence against transgender individuals.

In essence, the letter asks these platforms to limit voices that don’t fully support childhood gender transitions, which could be seen as a massive infringement on freedom of speech.

The signatories focus on practices like ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’, questioning the platforms’ strategy against content they regard as disinformation about healthcare for transgender youth.

This demand is reminiscent of how tech companies have previously handled divergent opinions on topics like the 2020 election or the COVID-19 origin.

However, public sentiment may not align with these celebrities.

A recent poll by Summit Ministries and McLaughlin & Associates found that 61% of U.S. voters worry about the early exposure of children to transgenderism and LGBTQ+ themes. About 63% of respondents believe the proponents of such exposure have a specific cultural agenda.

Another poll revealed that 73% of respondents prefer businesses to stay neutral on political and cultural issues, with over half willing to boycott companies that strongly promote these agendas.

This aligns with a poll by The Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action, which found that 62% want corporate neutrality during Pride month, and 41% have boycotted a company for taking ‘woke’ stances.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/250-hollywood-celebrities-send-letter-big-tech-companies-demanding-censorship-trans-issues

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sex that dare not speak its name

Who would have thought there would come a time in human history when educated adults could not answer a simple question: What is a woman?

Between the silences and stammers, languishes the simple answer – a woman is an adult human female.

What is astonishing is that so many cannot, or rather, will not, provide this answer.

It is as if there is a force at work within society to diminish, downgrade, and even extinguish women as a sex. What purpose could that serve? To me, it represents a vicious and evil misogyny. While women continue to protest against discrimination, many support the greatest discrimination of all – a movement that seeks to eradicate the concept of woman as female from our language and our social lexicon. Everything unique about the feminine, the female, and womanhood is being debased in service of this goal.

The claim is that society is seeking the concept of inclusion, where a tiny minority of men who wish to identify as women should be described and treated as though they really are women, even though biology disagrees. But why should the world (and sanity) be turned upside down supporting something that is still considered a tragic mental illness from which people long to recover from?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/the-sex-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alarming attack on "misinformation" in Australia

 

Who is to decide what is misinformation?  The government?  Much that was called misinformation about Covid subsequently was vindicated as truth.  We may have to rely on the High Court to strike this arrogance down

Digital platforms – including social media, search engines, and dating sites – could face fines of up to $6.8m under proposed new laws aimed at combating misinformation online.

Under historic new legislation proposed by the government, digital platforms could face penalties of up to $6.88m for failing to address systemic disinformation and misinformation.

The government has released a draft framework to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to hold digital platforms responsible for misleading or deliberately deceptive information online.

Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland said the proposed legislation was aimed at protecting Australians from the growing threat.

“Mis and disinformation sows division within the community, undermines trust, and can threaten public health and safety,” she said.

“The Albanese Government is committed to keeping Australians safe online, and that includes ensuring the ACMA has the powers it needs to hold digital platforms to account for mis and disinformation on their services.”

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill would give the media regulator greater powers to act on systemic issues.

For the first time, the ACMA would be empowered to access documents from digital providers related to misinformation and disinformation on their platforms.

The proposed authority would not extend to the content of private messages sent online.

The bill targets endemic misinformation and disinformation issues which pose a serious harm to Australians, and it would allow the ACMA to fight continued noncompliance from digital providers.

If platforms allow the spread of harmful lies and propaganda to continue, the regulator would be able to register enforceable industry codes with a maximum penalty of $2.75m or 2 per cent of a company’s global turnover (whichever is greater).

Should the code of practice prove insufficient, the ACMA would be able to implement an industry standard which would carry maximum penalties of $6.88m or 5 per cent of global turnover.

The proposed powers would apply to digital platforms accessible in Australia, including search engines, social media sites, dating sites, and web forums.

The ACMA would be focused on encouraging services to implement strong systems to tackle misinformation and disinformation rather than regulating specific content.

Unlike the eSafety Commissioner, the regulator would not have the authority to request the removal of posts or content.

The proposed legislation enacts key measures recommended in the 2021 ACMA report on the adequacy of digital platform measures to combat disinformation.

Public consultation on the draft bill will begin on Sunday and conclude on August 6, with the legislation to be introduced later this year.

“This consultation process gives industry and the public the opportunity to have their say on the proposed framework, which aims to strike the right balance between protection from harmful mis and disinformation online and freedom of speech,” Ms Rowland said.

“I encourage all stakeholders to make a submission and look forward to introducing the Bill into parliament later this year, following the consultation process”.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/digital-platforms-could-face-68m-fines-over-misinformation/news-story/3a3c800427d86864262d16100682b871

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The courage to ‘speak the truth’

Roger Karge writes from Australia

A recent Spectator Australia article by Victorian Liberal MP Beverley McArthur, in which she criticised Geelong Council’s decision to cancel Australia Day, brought the wrath of the usual suspects – the Leftist media including the Guardian – but also surprisingly, and sadly, a rebuke from her Party Leader, John Pesutto.

McArthur had only rightly pointed out that:

‘Cancelling Australia Day is code for saying we are not a good nation. We are not worth celebrating’ and, ‘Geelong councilors will not allow one day to reflect upon the wonderful things that have been enabled via colonisation by a democratic nation… In cancelling Australia Day, it has given in to the oppression of identity politics, of victimhood. In so doing, it fails to applaud the successes of the Aboriginal people in this modern nation.’

McArthur is said to have commented further that:

‘Should we also say sorry for hospitals, roads, mobile phones, ready food at supermarkets, homes, running water, electricity for light and warmth, indigenous-only medical centres, aged care, and court processes?’

Pesutto is reported to have distanced himself from McArthur’s comments by saying:

‘I do not accept that as a statement, I think it is hurtful to Indigenous Victorians and Indigenous Australians. I think it’s incumbent on everyone to engage in debates about Indigenous Australians and the great contribution our First Nations people have made it [sic] our country in a very respectful way. There are ways to conduct this debate without causing hurt or offence.’

Less surprisingly, Marcus Stewart, a Victorian Nira illim bulluk Aboriginal man, also attacked McArthur, describing her as:

‘…another unknown politician saying something offensive at our expense as they try to make a name for themselves. Should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be saying thanks for the invasion of our lands and massacre of our people?’

The irony of Stewart’s and Pesutto’s own ‘hurtful’ and somewhat ignorant comments is not lost on many of us educated Speccie readers.

Stewart, in his public role as co-chair of Victoria’s First Peoples’ Assembly, is well within his rights to critique McArthur’s policies and claims, but he discredits his case by disrespectfully attacking her personally.

He also criticised McArthur by asking, ‘Should Torres Strait Islander people be saying thanks for the invasion of [their] lands…?’

Well, they should say thanks, because that is what they do every July 1. This is the date on which Torres Strait Islanders celebrate the Coming of the Light, a commemoration of the day in 1871 when the London Missionary Society introduced Christianity into the islands. Christian values are some of McArthur’s ‘wonderful things that have been enabled via colonisation’, the celebration of which her critics now perversely label as ‘hurtful’.

And how do we know that the Coming of the Light is as important and as celebratory to Indigenous people in the Torres Strait as Australia Day is to Australians generally? Because the Victorian government’s website Deadly Story tells us so.

This website was legislated under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 to, ‘satisfy the requirement that all Aboriginal children in out-of-home care are to be provided with a cultural plan’.

Pesutto should be aware of this legislation, shouldn’t he? If even the Victorian government acknowledges an Indigenous Torres Strait Islander celebration of the coming of colonisation, why can’t McArthur’s critics acknowledge and support defenders of Australia Day?

Similarly, other prominent Liberal Indigenous Australians have publicly made claims similar to McArthur’s without censure by the Liberal Party or Aboriginal activists.

Warren Mundine has offered a nuanced perspective on the topic. He recognises that there were negative impacts on Indigenous communities due to colonisation, but that our discourse ‘shouldn’t be just negative stuff all the time’ because Australia is ‘one of the most successful countries when it comes to improving the lives of Indigenous people’.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, another influential Liberal-aligned Indigenous voice, has also contributed to the conversation without attracting the ire of the party. Price ‘does not see herself as a victim to white people or the idea of colonisation’ but rather, ‘She “speaks the truth” when it comes to Indigenous people helping themselves with their own problems, instead of pointing the finger and laying blame elsewhere.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/the-courage-to-speak-the-truth/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK: Free speech, protected beliefs and discrimination: Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) lays out the 'ground rules' that apply in the workplace

Over the last few years, we've seen an increase in the number of clients asking for advice on how to deal with staff who have expressed views on their social media accounts which are at odds with the organisation's ethos or have upset other members of staff. Despite the fact there's a lot of decided cases on this issue, it can be difficult to draw firm conclusions because each case turns on its own facts and there's no 'one size fits all' approach.

However, we do now have some helpful guidance, courtesy of the EAT in Higgs v Farmor's School. In that case the EAT had to determine whether an employee had been discriminated against because of her Christian and gender critical beliefs, or because of the way she had expressed those beliefs in a social media post.

Facts

Mrs Higgs worked in a secondary school as pastoral admin and work experience manager, positions which put her in direct contact with children. She re-posted someone else's post on her Facebook page which objected to the government's consultation on relationship & sex education in primary schools. The post said that it normalised single sex relationships, presented gender as a matter of choice, suppressed Christianity and "brainwashed" children.

A parent complained to the school and Mrs Higgs was asked about the post. She said that she was "not against gay, lesbian or transgender people" but did object to government policy and wanted to raise awareness of this. She said that she didn't regret making the post, but acknowledged that she should have used her own words to express her feelings. She made it clear that her views wouldn't impact on how she interacted with children at the school.

The school dismissed her for gross misconduct. It said that she had breached its written code of conduct which prohibited 'illegal discrimination' and social media posts which could bring the school into disrepute. The school said that her language was 'inflammatory' and 'quiet extreme' and amounted to harassment. She lost her appeal and brought a claim against the school for direct religion/belief discrimination or harassment.

The tribunal dismissed her claim. It said that she had been dismissed for the way in which she had expressed her protected beliefs - not because she held those beliefs. It said that a reasonable reading of her post was that she was homophobic and transphobic. Mrs Higgs appealed.

EAT decision

The EAT said that protection isn't limited to allowing people to hold specific beliefs. Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 10 (freedom on expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights gives people a right to 'manifest' those freedoms too. Manifest in this context means making their beliefs known to others through their actions or words. However, these rights can be limited or restricted by law, to meet a legitimate aim, and where it's necessary in a democratic society. In a work context, legitimate aims are usually linked to the rights and freedoms of other people or the reputation of the employer.

Applying this to the facts of the case, the EAT said that the tribunal should have asked itself whether Mrs Higgs was dismissed because of, or for a reason that related to, the way she had expressed her protected beliefs. To answer this it needed to decide if there was a close enough connection between Mrs Higg's beliefs and her post. The tribunal hadn't properly answered this question and had made a fundamental mistake by viewing her behaviour through the 'prism' of the employers views.

The key question was whether the school could justify limiting Mrs Higg's right to express her beliefs in the way it had. The tribunal hadn't answered this and the EAT remitted the case to the tribunal to determine.

Why this case matters

Although we don't know whether Mrs Higgs will ultimately succeed with her claim, the EAT set out some basic principles all employers need to be aware of. These are:

    The right to hold a belief (religious or otherwise) and express views on it are essential, whether or not the belief in question is popular or mainstream, and even if its expression offends others.

    Those rights are qualified and can be restricted by law to the extend needed to protect the rights and freedoms of others (legal restrictions will include employer policies and procedures, provided they are accessible to staff and explain what could happen if they disobey the rules). An employer has to objectively justify any restrictions it imposes on its staff and, provided it can do so, it will be able to discipline staff if they express themselves inappropriately.

    But, each case has to be assessed individually. While it may be appropriate to limit what some people can say on their own accounts, that doesn't mean that everyone's rights should be limited. [This suggests that employers should avoid 'blanket' rules that apply to all members of staff.]

    In all cases, an employer needs to ask itself (1) whether its rules etc are important enough to justify being limited? (2) Are the rules connected to that objective? (3) Is there a less intrusive way of achieving the same objective? And (4) whether the severity of the rules on the employee are more important than the objective.

    To help employers weigh up those questions, they should consider what the employee has said or done, the tone used, the employee's understanding of the likely audience, whether they've made it clear that their views are personal and whether that presents a reputational risk to the business, whether those views could impact vulnerable service users or clients, and if there is a potential power imbalance between the employee (and their role) and those whose rights are being intruded upon.

Our view

Whilst it is true that we have more in common than that which divides us, it's not easy for employers to deal with fundamental differences in values or beliefs between colleagues or people they come into contact with.

Whilst its sensible to have policies in place which set out the standards of behaviour you expect your staff to follow, it's important not to be too restrictive about what they can say, or do, in their own time, particularly where their comments or profile don't reference you as their employer. Employees are entitled to hold and express views on controversial matters of public interest even when those views offend, shock or disturb others or don't align with your EDI values.

It's also worth evaluating your approach to disagreement. Organisations that expect and welcome dissenting views are likely make better decisions and be be mentally healthy places to work. They provide an environment where employees are able to speak up, whether they're sharing ideas, asking questions, expressing concerns or acknowledging mistakes. These environments provide 'psychological safety' and allow staff to bring their whole self to work.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they can say what they want about other people. All colleagues should treat each other with respect and courtesy - particularly when they have a difference of opinion.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f133cf25-629c-4331-99e1-8d591e6b2848

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube says it removed Jordan Peterson interview of RFK Jr. for violating vaccine policy

Social media giant YouTube took down an interview of Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming that chemicals in the water are turning kids transgender.

On Sunday, both Kennedy and podcast host Jordan Peterson tweeted that the video-sharing website had taken down their interview from an episode of Peterson’s show and accused the social media platform of censorship and interfering with a presidential campaign.

“What do you think… Should social media platforms censor presidential candidates?” Kennedy asked on Twitter. “My conversation with [Peterson] was deleted by [YouTube].”

“Luckily you can watch it here on [Twitter] (thank you [Elon Musk]),” Kennedy added, going off in a Twitter thread.

“Maybe you can help me figure out what ‘misinformation’ was in this interview,” Kennedy tweeted.

“Now [YouTube] has taken upon itself to actively interfere with a presidential election campaign,” Peterson tweeted.

Kennedy’s campaign told Fox News Digital that although “vaccines are not a major priority for Mr. Kennedy in this campaign, he will be happy to debate the issue with any prominent proponent of the conventional view.”

“Even so, there are troubling indications in published research of serious safety issues with vaccines in general, but especially the Covid shots,” they continued.

“The real issue for Mr. Kennedy is regulatory capture and corporate influence over government. He is in favor of properly conducted, unbiased, transparent safety testing of all vaccines.

A Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital YouTube “removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTube’s general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.”

https://nypost.com/2023/06/20/youtube-says-it-removed-jordan-peterson-interview-of-rfk-jr-for-violating-vaccine-policyyoutube-says-it-removed-jordan-peterson-interview-of-rfk-jr-for-violating-vaccine-policy/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Georgia man successfully sued Facebook after his account was permanently banned for allegedly violating the social media network’s child exploitation rules

“I woke up one Sunday morning, I tapped on my Facebook icon, and I was locked out," Jason Crawford told WAGA this week.

Crawford said the only explanation for his Facebook account being terminated was a quick pop-up message that said he had violated the platform's child exploitation standards.

"It just gave me the briefest snapshot of saying that I had violated their standards on child sexual exploitation," he said. "And then it went away."

Crawford admitted that his account had been suspended in the past over posts about politics. However, he said that he had not done anything that would violate the child exploitation rules.

"I had, I don’t even know how you quantify it, pictures, videos, posts that, you know, come up as memories that I like to look at from time to time. You know, all that kind of stuff that I wasn’t willing to let a bunch of bullies take away from me for no reason," he explained.

They don’t want you to see this … Big Tech does its best to limit what news you see. Make sure you see our stories daily — directly to your inbox.

Crawford wanted to clear his name and get his Facebook page back. He attempted to contact Facebook, but found it impossible.

He said, "It was as if I didn’t exist and Facebook was operated by a bunch of ghosts or something."

"What I learned is the way you submit your appeal, or whatever, is through your own profile, your own account," he told the Atlanta station. "If you don't have an account, you have no way of submitting it, so it’s like a dog chasing its tail."

Crawford, who is a lawyer, launched a lawsuit against Facebook's parent company Meta Platforms in August 2022. In the complaint, Crawford accused the tech giant of being "negligent" for banning him from the social media platform "based on a violation that did not occur."

Crawford said he was also banned from Instagram and WhatsApp – which are both owned by Meta Platforms.

Meta Platforms allegedly did not respond to the lawsuit, and the judge ruled in favor of Crawford.

"Defendant was properly served with process in this action in according with Georgia law. … Defendant has failed to respond thereto as required by law; this action has automatically become in default; Defendant has failed to open the default as a matter of right within 15 days of the day of each Defendant’s default; and default judgment is demanded against Defendant," the ruling reads, according to BizPac Review.

“Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, as hereinabove described, were directly and proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has endured great mental pain since Facebook unjustifiably and unreasonably shut down his account and that his pain and suffering will likely continue. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to just and adequate compensation for his injuries and for his past and future damages," the ruling states.

The judge ordered Meta Platforms to pay $50,000 to Crawford.

Crawford said that Facebook finally restored his account. "I felt a little bit vindicated, and they activated my account again," he said.

A Facebook attorney allegedly told Crawford that his account had been hacked.

However, Crawford said that Meta Platforms has not paid him a dime yet. "Every step of the way, Facebook is choosing not to do the right thing," Crawford declared.

"It feels like a poke in the eye, and it feels like they're continuing to poke in the eye," he said. "Poke the local court system in the eye. Poke me in the eye. Poke other users in the eye, and it’s time that they at least respect our legal system."

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox 5 Atlanta.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/facebook-lawsuit-banned-violation-censorship

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Speech Advocates Blast Elizabeth Gilbert For Pulling Book Set In Russia

Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't

After receiving “an enormous, massive outpouring” of “anger, sorrow, disappointment and pain” from Ukrainian readers about the decision to publish a book set in Russia, Elizabeth Gilbert said on social media she was indefinitely delaying the release of her book The Snow Forest.

While some fans called it a compassionate move, others wondered what precedent this creates for free expression and self-censorship.

In a statement, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel said Gilbert’s decision was “well-intended” but ultimately “wrongheaded.” Several fellow authors took to Twitter to express their confusion and dismay, including Lincoln Michel who wondered whether “no book should be set in historical Russia now? . . .  A novel about people resisting the USSR no less?”

And Rebecca Makkai wrote, “So apparently: Wherever you set your novel, you'd better hope to hell that by publication date (usually about a year after you turned it in) that place isn’t up to bad things, or you are personally complicit in them.”

In Unherd, Leigh Stein wrote that the “idea that a novel about a family fleeing religious persecution from Communists is in any way ‘pro’ Russia is not only absurd, it’s also the exact same argument of potential ‘harm’ wielded by the crusading book banners in American schools.”

In the Guardian, Francine Prose called Gilbert’s decision “unsettling” and said, “If we are to ban the cultural products of countries who are attacking, or who have attacked, smaller, weaker nations and innocent populations, there would be almost nothing left for us to read.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/06/15/free-speech-advocates-blast-elizabeth-gilbert-for-pulling-book-set-in-russia/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Group Pulls Study on ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’ in Children as a ‘Social Contagion,’ as Authors Blame Transgender Activists for Forcing Retraction

A research firm that publishes independent scholarly articles has retracted a paper that details more than a thousand parents’ concerns that their children were pressured to change their genders. The paper’s authors are saying their study was redacted due to blowback from a transgender community angered by its findings.

The article, titled “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was written by a Northwestern University psychology professor, Michael Bailey, and the head of Parents of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria Kids, Suzanna Diaz. Ms. Diaz’s organization acts as a support network for parents of children with gender dysphoria.  

The paper surveyed more than 1,500 parents about their experiences of caring for children and young adults who have transitioned. It details “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria.”

The paper itself received some criticism online. One professor at Indiana University, Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces, said in a tweet viewed more than 50,000 times that the “terrible” paper is “transphobia masquerading as science” and deserved retraction.

“I hate that this got published,” the professor wrote on Twitter. “I’ve said this before but I’d love to contribute to the community fighting back against this.”

The paper was retracted by Springer Nature, an independent scholarly database, which Mr. Bailey says “sets a dangerous precedent.”

“The vitally important question of how best to help gender-dysphoric youth, whose numbers have sharply increased, is one of the most urgent questions in medicine today,” Mr. Bailey wrote in a letter to the Springer publishers, objecting to the retraction. “We must promote such ground-breaking research, not quash it.”

Mr. Bailey also said that this decision will harm the publishers’ reputations should they not walk back from the retraction. “To silence the critical conversation around gender issues will result in harm to Springer’s important position as a source for fair, unbiased publication of scholarly articles addressing the urgent gender issues facing society today,” he wrote in his letter to the publishers.

Mr. Bailey did not reply to a request from the Sun for comment.

The reason for the retraction, Springer claims, is that the authors did not receive the informed consent that is necessary for publishing such data.

“The Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article due to noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent,” the publisher wrote in a retraction notice. “The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.”

Following the survey of parents, Mr. Bailey and Ms. Diaz analyzed the research findings in order to come to the determination that ROGD is “a socially contagious syndrome” spread mostly online between disaffected or mentally ill adolescents and young adults. The authors note that “these youths were disproportionately (75 percent) natal female,” meaning born female.

During their research, the authors found that there were social and institutional pressures placed on parents after their children began exhibiting signs of gender dysphoria. “Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their adolescent or young adult child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, adolescent and young adult children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.”

Mr. Bailey and Ms. Diaz offer two hypotheses for the rapid increase in gender dysphoria among children and young adults.

The first, they say, is that transgender people are simply receiving the care they have always needed, but are only now being recognized by the medical community. “There has not been an increase in the actual number of gender dysphoric adolescents, but more of them are being recognized and referred to gender clinics,” the authors hypothesize. They note that those who take this view tend to support the rights of children and young adults to transition both socially and medically.

The second hypothesis is that there has been a genuine increase in the number of children and adolescents who believe that they themselves are transgender amid social debate about the issue and the prevalence of press coverage of transgender people.

The authors write that mentally ill children and young adults come to the incorrect conclusion that they “believe that they are transgender, and that they must undergo social and medical gender transition to resolve their issues.” Mr. Bailey and Ms. Diaz write that ROGD is “a culture-bound syndrome, which did not exist until recently, when transgender issues began to attract considerable cultural attention.”

https://www.nysun.com/article/research-group-pulls-study-on-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-in-children-as-a-social-contagion-as-authors-blame-transgender-activists-for-forcing-retraction

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JK Rowling has blasted a university in America for saying a lesbian is 'a non-man attracted to non-men'

'Non-man (formerly known as woman)': JK Rowling hits out at US university after it declared a lesbian as 'a non-man who is attracted to a non-man'

The Harry Potter writer, 57, slated the US medical school for the new definition in its LGBTQ guide.

The guide states that 'lesbian' should not just include women but also non-binary people, according to a report by The Sun.

It therefore refers to lesbians as 'a non-man attracted to non-men'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12192097/Lesbian-non-man-attracted-non-man-university-says-sparking-outrage-JK-Rowling.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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