Canadian mayor fined for LGBT thought crime of refusing to bend over
By Rachel Marsden | RT | December 13, 2024
The mayor of the Canadian township of Emo (pop: 1,204), which borders the US state of Minnesota, has to personally pay an LGBTQ group $5,000 for injury to their self-respect. And that’s on top of the $10,000 that the town has to fork over.
According to official documents, the drama started in 2020 when Borderland Pride, a Canadian non-profit group, requested that the town officials officially recognize Pride Month in June of that year. The town had done so in previous years, but reportedly decided to amend their proclamations policy – which had yet to be adopted when this latest request came through. So the group’s request was rejected in a 3-2 council vote that year.
It’s not like this particular policy amendment was high priority, particularly at the height of the Covid fiasco, since they barely had any requests anyway. This one group alone represented half of all of the town’s requests for declarations, proclamations, or flag displays from April 2019 to April 2020.
Their request for the town to fly the rainbow flag for a week, and to send the group photos of it with the town’s officials for use on social media, reportedly wasn’t considered since the town didn’t even have a flagpole.
So here comes a complaint by the group to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal – which was decided on November 20, 2024.
The role of such tribunals across Canada is to deal exclusively with complaints about discrimination on the basis of prohibited factors like race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and criminal convictions. Because if actual courts had to deal with things like this, they’d be clogged up like a frat house toilet after Frosh Week. If the complainant can prove that there was at least a 50 percent chance of discrimination on one of these bases, then it can order cash awards and other remedies. So step right up! Take a spin! Win cash and prizes!
In the case of Borderland Pride against the Township of Emo, the tribunal accepted at face value that the council didn’t consider hanging the flag because of its lack of a flagpole. It did however note that the flag could have been “displayed” somewhere else other than on a flagpole. But it stopped short of ordering the mayor to walk around with it like a Superman cape.
The tribunal also accepted that two of the three council votes against issuing the Pride Month proclamation occurred in good faith and were merely the result of not wanting to adopt any proclamations before the new policy governing them was put into place. It was only the mayor’s “no” vote that was problematic.
During the council meeting in question, after discussing what they should do with the Pride flag display request in the absence of a flagpole, but before the vote against the Pride Month proclamation, Mayor Harold McQuaker said, “There’s no flag being flown for the other side of the coin… there’s no flags being flown for the straight people.”
Uh oh, here’s comes the forbidden-thinking patrol!
The tribunal ruled that the mayor’s comment was “dismissive of Borderland Pride’s flag request and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance to Borderland Pride and other members of the LGBTQ2 community of the Pride flag” and constitutes discrimination.
Suddenly, because of the mayor’s pro-heterosexual comments, it must mean that he hates gays. So it’s decided that “on the preponderance of evidence,” the rejection of the Pride proclamation was, more likely than not, the end-result of the mayor’s homophobia, and couldn’t be because he aligned with the other two Council “no” votes on the need for the policy amendment to deal with it first.
“I don’t hate anybody,” he said. “We just don’t have a flagpole at our town hall,” McQuaker recently told the Toronto Sun. But cognitive deviance is cognitive deviance, and like a colon polyp, best to nip it in the bud so there’s zero risk of it ever potentially developing into systemic cancer.
So here come the experts to tell the tribunal about how malignant this mayor’s thinking already is.
According to Dr. Emily Saewyc, an LGBTQ specialist who testified at the hearing, research suggests that “anti-LGBTQ rhetoric by President Trump, Vice-President Pence, and members of Trump’s cabinet during his presidency visibly increased the amount of hate and violence” towards these minorities. Or, you know, maybe people are just fed up with having special interest agenda shoved down their throats in make-work projects for activists at a time when citizens of all stripes are facing common and federating hardships. She then attempted to draw a parallel with the “homophobic and hateful social media posts about Borderland Pride and the LGBTQ2 community” after the vote – as though people would have been cheering the LGBTQ cause had the mayor not been such a bigot and supported Pride Month.
Right, because the key to people embracing wokeism is just to firehose even more of it into the public domain. Guess she hasn’t heard about the impact on brands like Bud Light and Jaguar after going woke. Or the public outcry after the Paris Olympics opening ceremony featuring what many interpreted as being a tranny wreck version of the Last Supper.
Borderland Pride wanted the tribunal to allow it to choose a week for the Township to have 2020 Pride Month now, and to force it to hold Pride Month every June going forward. It refused. But it did order Mayor McQuaker to attend a sort of re-education camp. Within 30 days, he has to provide Borderland Pride with proof that he’s completed the province’s human rights training course.
McQuaker has basically told the tribunal to shove it, refusing to pay or take the course, calling it “extortion,” according to the Toronto Sun.
All of this is the sort of blueprint that demonstrates exactly how special interest agendas end up hijacking the most basic aspects of daily life, through relentless activist browbeating that has a chilling effect on anyone who fails to passionately cater to their sacred cows.
Five Eyes Urges Broader Censorship Under “Protect the Children” Campaign
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 12, 2024
A network facilitating spy agencies’ intelligence-sharing between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, known as Five Eyes, has its sights set on encryption, and proceeding from that, also online anonymity.
Even more online censorship would also not be a bad idea – these are some of the highlights from the first public-facing paper the organizations behind this group have published.
We obtained a copy of the paper for you here.
And Five Eyes is not above promoting its ultimate and much more far-reaching goals by using the good old “think of the children” – the paper’s title is, Young People and Violent Extremism: A Call for Collective Action.
Both it and an accompanying press release choose to consider online encryption as merely a tool used by criminals. At the same time, the paper is ignoring the fact that the entire internet ecosystem, from communications to banking and everything in between, requires strong encryption both for privacy, and security.
But, Five Eyes focuses only on communications, which they vaguely refer to as online environments, and ones that can allow sex offenders access to children, they also mention extremists, and equally vaguely, “other” malign actors.
Since encrypted platforms provide anonymity, the spies from the five countries (who refer to the state of affairs as, “a large degree of anonymity”) don’t like that either – and again link it to negative scenarios, such as “radicalization to violence.”
The paper is not specific on the exact mechanisms that would ramp up online censorship, but mentions both governments and the tech industry; the first category should “strengthen legislative support for law enforcement,” while the other is urged to “take greater responsibility for the harm done on their platforms.”
Gaming platforms Discord, Instagram, Roblox as well as TikTok are singled out as “seemingly innocuous” – but the way Five Eyes sees it, they make violent extremism content “more accessible.”
The “whole-of-society response” is the proposed solution to the problem of radicalization of minors in these countries. And the documents vow the alliance will continue working with “government agencies, the education sector, mental health and social well-being services, communities and technology companies.”
“It is important to work together early as once law enforcement and security agencies need to become involved, it is often too late,” the paper warns.
And so, a network whose members are likely, in one capacity or another, behind many of the existing attacks on online encryption and anonymity – has now come out as the campaign’s supposedly “latest recruit.”
Al-Qaeda Rides Again… in Syria
By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | December 11, 2024
As Christians around the world prepare to celebrate Christmas, a hell has been unleashed inside Syria with the seizure of the country by the re-named “al-Qaeda in Syria” now called Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Its leader is a former deputy commander of ISIS, Abu Mohammed al-Julani.
While neocons and the mainstream media in the US and Europe celebrate the overthrow of the Assad government – a priority since the Obama Administration – as with previous US “liberations” in Libya and Iraq the outcome is proving to be anything but liberating. Christian churches are being ransacked and believers abused.
Sharia law has been announced by the new justice minister, Shadi Alwaisi.
Public executions of those who oppose the rule of al-Julani – who still has a $10 million bounty on his head from the US State Department even as he is funded by the CIA – have begun across the country. (Extremely graphic link here).
Just today, Christian Churches in Syria were warned not to hold Christmas services, not to hold Christmas parades, and not to even display the image of St. Nicholas! This is what the mainstream media told us was the new “inclusive” government in Syria.
State Department to Shut Down Controversial Censorship Hub but Critics May Call It a Rebrand
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 12, 2024
The US State Department looks set to shut down the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which has for a long time faced accusations of deviating from its stated role abroad, and instead engaging in, and facilitating censorship at home.
This has been revealed in a filing in the Daily Wire v. US Department of State case, in which the latter informed the court that members of Congress were told last Friday about the upcoming move.
However, even though GEC as such is “substantially likely” to cease operations on December 24, the idea seems to be a simple reshuffle – as both the funding and the staff would continue their work in other State Department offices and bureaus.
According to a spokesperson, this development is the result of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) not providing for an extension of GEC. And now the State Department is “hopeful that Congress extends this important mandate through other means before the December 24 termination date,” said the spokesperson.
That mandate, on paper, is supposed to be directing, leading, and coordinating the US government’s “countering of foreign propaganda and disinformation” – in foreign countries. And the State Department continues to maintain that this is in fact the role of GEC and that it is critically important for that work to continue.
But critics say that the office, which was created in 2016, in reality, represents a central component of partisan censorship targeting Americans – particularly conservative and “disfavored” voices.
As evidence of this kept mounting, Republican members of the House of Representatives first investigated the activities of this office, particularly the way it was handing out grants (the suspicion is that GEC “delegated” censorship to third parties in order not to openly violate the Constitution).
Now, House Republicans have decided not to approve the planned 8-year extension of GEC. One of those controversial grants, worth $100,000, went to the Global Disinformation Index – a UK-based group accused of compiling a list of conservative media that advertisers were supposed to boycott and thus deprive of revenue.
But even if GEC will no longer exist as such, the intent is clearly to reassign employees and keep funding their work. What that work will actually be going forward, should depend on the incoming administration’s new State Department.
Bipartisan Push to Shield Free Speech Targets Abusive Lawsuits
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 9, 2024
A new bipartisan bill – the Free Speech Protection Act – has been introduced in the US Congress with the goal of improving ways to fight what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Congressman Jamie Raskin and Kevin Kiley are behind the House proposal, while “companion” legislation in the Senate is sponsored by Ron Wyden.
SLAPPs are described as serving to chill both free speech and political action through litigation that is both frivolous in nature – and burdensome for those targeted by such lawsuits.
“Though many such suits often prove meritless, they are nonetheless effective at silencing, intimidating, and discouraging dissent,” a press release said.
The proposed legislation would prevent “Goliath triumphing over David,” as Congressman Raskin put it, by those with more money and power essentially abusing the judiciary and wearing down their opponents with huge legal costs and “prolonged invasive discovery.”
If the Free Speech Protection Act becomes law, its sponsors hope to rein in “the rich and powerful” both from draining those with fewer resources of money and in the process silencing people whose political views they consider “incorrect.”
Journalists, whistleblowers, and activists are likely to be subjected to meritless SLAPP lawsuits, the lawmakers note in their press release.
The legislative effort, which is supported by a number of civil rights groups, is meant to extend similar state laws to the federal level.
Although two-thirds of US states already restrict SLAPPs, in cases involving First Amendment free speech violations these laws do not apply – since they are tried in federal courts.
And those (ab)using the judicial system to their own end are aware of this and tend to file their SLAPPs in those courts, Institute for Free Speech President David Keating remarked, adding that this is why his group has supported the bipartisan and bicameral proposal.
The Free Speech Protection Act seeks to provide federal courts with a new mechanism to control SLAPPs, including by letting judges act quickly to identify when a SLAPP is going after constitutionally protected speech and dismiss such lawsuits.
Another provision is to prevent those filing SLAPPS from treating the discovery process as a privacy-invasive tool, and lastly, federal judges would be able to deter these lawsuits by awarding attorney fees to the victim – “to reduce the cost burden and deter future exploitation of this tactic.”
An Open Letter From A UK Doctor To Muslim Scholars Advising On Covid Vaccines
A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie | December 8, 2024
Following my call recent for religious leaders to reflect on their response to the experimental COVID-19 vaccine rollout, I am grateful to share Dr Ayiesha Malik’s open letter to Muslim Scholars. Dr Malik is one of the founders of Doctors for Patients UK, an organisation for ethical doctors based in the UK.
Dr Malik’s Note:
I have been a medical doctor for nearly 20 years. I graduated from the University of Birmingham in 2005 and as a GP in 2014. I am an NHS GP and have my own private clinic.
I am a practising Muslim and am advising here in my personal capacity.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.”
Objective
I am submitting my views and research on Covid vaccines for consideration by respected scholars because many believe there is a consensus amongst Muslim doctors that the vaccine is safe and effective and, therefore, to be recommended to Muslim patients. There is no such consensus. I don’t believe the covid vaccines to be safe and effective, but unsafe and ineffective.
Doctors and scientists internationally are raising concerns about the harms they are seeing following vaccination, including “turbo” cancers and heart conditions. The rates of advanced cancer, strokes and heart disease are rising and the Covid-19 vaccine is not even being considered as a possible cause. Vaccine harms need to be investigated.
Action
I call for its rollout to be immediately suspended. I call on Muslim scholars to abstain from recommending the Muslim community “get vaccinated” as an Islamic duty and a commendable action to protect themselves and their communities.
Need For Muslim Doctors To Do Independent Research
The Shariah (Islamic law) recommends that Muslims consult a God-fearing doctor for advice about their medical treatment. This is because Muslim doctors will advise the patient from a place of taqwa (sincerity to God), wanting the best outcome for the patient, regardless of facing any backlash for their advice.
UK doctors were warned that they could face disciplinary action if they criticised the Government guidelines on Covid-19 measures and vaccines. (1) It’s important for scholars to be aware of this because doctors are not safely able to raise concerns and have open discussions but are expected to conform to current guidance.
To sincerely give medical advice requires an open mind, research beyond the medical school curriculum, accurate knowledge about the illness, conflicts of interest and possible safe alternatives. I am concerned that advice and guidance are being issued with a lack of awareness as to the larger relevant issues, as stated in this principle:
حكم الشيء فرع عن تصوره
“Judging something is based on understanding it.”
This means that making a correct or accurate judgment about something depends on having a clear and comprehensive understanding. If the thing is not properly understood, the judgment about it is likely to be incomplete or incorrect.
Criminal Record of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of Vaccines
Pfizer has been charged with fraud and criminal liability, for which they have been ordered to pay billions of dollars (2), yet they continue to manufacture vaccines that are recommended to the Muslim community and beyond.
Censorship
Many doctors follow government guidelines and cannot state a concern without threats from the GMC and being accused of spreading misinformation. GP Dr Sam White lost his medical license for raising his concerns about the harms mRNA vaccines, lockdowns and masks. (3). Other doctors have been reported to the GMC for raising similar concerns.
Islam allows for debate and discussion- but unfortunately, it’s difficult to have conversations and debate with fellow doctors about these issues.
This lack of opportunity to discuss and debate vaccine concerns means that only one viewpoint is being heard, by Islamic scholars, doctors and patients.
Lack Of Support For Vaccine-Injured Patients
Patients who raise concerns are gaslighted and left without support. One example is Mr Adam Rowland, father of 4, who was a fit and well physiotherapist and has been left unable to work or function since his 2nd Astra Zeneca vaccine due to experiencing medical issues, including myocarditis and neuropathy (4)
UKCVFamily, a UK charity has been set up by the vaccine-injured to help support those injured. They have supported over 2000 UK residents. (5) They have sadly, experienced gaslighting, a lack of acknowledgement of their condition and little medical or financial support.
Over 16,000 people applied to the Covid vaccine scheme (6), with very strict eligibility and therefore, the majority of these claims are refused. The number of applicants is the tip of the iceberg but again highlights the vaccine has caused harm to many.
What will happen to Muslim patients who suffer side effects, from a Covid vaccine? Who will accept responsibility for this harm? Or will they be abandoned, like others have?
Mohamed Hijab, a prominent Muslim speaker, was hospitalised after he suffered a pulmonary embolism, a life-threatening clot of his lung 10 days after his first Pfizer vaccine, which he regretted having. Despite this, he was still being invited for further vaccines. (7)
The Risk of Covid-19 Was Exaggerated
To increase compliance with lockdowns and the uptake of Covid-19 vaccines, government messaging aimed to “frighten the pants off everyone (8)
Side effects from the vaccines are not openly addressed. This was the case from the very beginning and in the early trials, the voice of patients who were harmed was censored from the internet.
One such case is that of Maddie De Gray, a 12 year old who was left wheelchair-bound with a nasogastric tube following the Pfizer vaccine (9). Her symptoms were misleadingly recorded in the trial data as “abdominal pain”.
A whistleblower from the initial Pfizer trials raised many concerns about the trials, including the lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events (10).
There Is no Long-Term Safety Data For COVID-19 Vaccines
Covid-19 vaccines are being promoted as safe, effective and necessary without long-term data, even to groups such as pregnant women, breastfeeding women and children.
Lack Of Safety Data To Recommend To Pregnant Women
In the 1950s, a drug called thalidomide was promoted to women for morning sickness without any long-term data. Thousands of women suffered miscarriages, and babies were born blind and without limbs and the drug was subsequently withdrawn. (11) This scandal is taught to doctors during training, and a great deal of caution is urged when prescribing medications to pregnant women.
Pregnant women are taught to be very careful in terms of what they consume. They are advised to reduce caffeine intake and not take unnecessary medications for the first 12 weeks in particular, as the fetus’s organs are developing in this delicate time.
Concerningly, a new mRNA vaccine was recommended for pregnant women by the government and the medical profession, with no long-term safety data. It continues to be promoted to pregnant women, although will be withdrawn from July 2025 after 4 years of the rollout. (12)
A US obstetrician Dr James Thorpe raised concerns about vaccinating pregnant women and published a paper highlighting an increase in adverse events in vaccinated mothers, including development disorders and fetal deaths. (13)
I also wrote a rapid response in the BMJ, highlighting my concerns about this group of women being vaccinated. (14).
Concerns About “Turbo” Cancer
Professor Angus Dalgliesh, a professor of Oncology at St George’s, London, has been raising concerns about the link between Covid vaccines and “turbo” cancer in his patients. (15) “Turbo” cancer refers to cancer that is presenting in advanced and alarming stages.
Consultant Surgeon Mr James Royle has also raised concerns about turbo cancers and thrombosis in his Covid-vaccinated patients. (16)
Concerns About Myocarditis and Heart Attacks
Consultant Cardiologists Dr Aseem Malhotra and Dr Dean Patterson have both been raising concerns about the rates of myocarditis and myocardial infarction following Covid vaccination. (17)(18)(19)
I joined other UK doctors who were also concerned about about the harms of Covid vaccines and together we formed, Doctor for Patients UK. (20)
Safe Treatment For Covid-19
Doctors have been treating covid safely using ivermectin, blackseed oil, vitamin C and D, along other supplements with good results. Dr Tess Lawrie has raised awareness about the effectiveness of treatment such as ivermectin and treatment protocols can be found on the World Council For Health website. (21)
International Concerns By Doctors And Scientists
There are many doctors and scientists internationally raising concerns about vaccine harms, but we have no voice in the mainstream, due to censorship.
US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. (22)
Over 64 000 people worldwide have joined me in calling for the suspension of the covid vaccine and an investigation into the roll-out, by signing The Hope Accord. (23)
Vaccinating To Prevent Transmission
There is no evidence that vaccines prevent transmission to another individual, as this was not studied in the early trials. Pfizer admitted they had not studied transmission in the early trials to the EU Parliament and they had “lied” about this previously. (24) Recommendations to get vaccinated cannot be made to prevent spread and protect the vulnerable.
Further Issues Needing Research
I have summarised some of my concerns about the Covid-19 vaccines. There are still many issues that need to be discussed, including the DNA plasmids and the ingredients of these genetic injections.
Concluding Remarks
Islamically, medication is merely mubah (permissible). This is when a patient is suffering from an illness. In the case of prophylaxis, to prevent illness the ruling for intervention is even less.
I believe the Covid-19 vaccinations should be suspended and the harms investigated. I do not support Muslim organisations or scholars making blanket recommendations for every Muslim to get vaccinated.
Instead, patients should seek the advice of a local God-fearing Muslim doctor, who has independently researched any benefits and harms of the vaccines beyond Government recommendations.
I hope this helps provide insight into deeper issues that need to be considered when issuing guidelines for Muslim doctors and the community about COVID-19 vaccinations and beyond.
And Allah Almighty knows best.
Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
Website: https://www.drayieshamalik.com/
UK: Student’s Suspension Over Gender-Critical Views Sparks Campus Free Speech Uproar
By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2024
A third-year student at the University of Leeds has found herself at the center of a free speech controversy after being suspended from her role at the university’s student radio station. Connie Shaw, who studies philosophy, ethics, and religion, has drawn attention from campaigners advocating for free expression, who claim her removal is rooted in her views critical of modern gender ideology.
According to The Telegraph, the dispute arose following a complaint to Leeds Student Radio (LSR), where Shaw held the position of head of daytime radio. She oversaw popular programs such as Woman’s Hour and LGBTQ+ Hour. According to the Free Speech Union (FSU), the student union accused the 20-year-old of breaching its code of conduct, alleging she had failed in her “duty of care” and damaged the university’s reputation.
The situation escalated when Shaw received a suspension notice in October. The union cited her social media activity as a central concern but withheld specifics until a meeting on November 6. During this meeting, Shaw learned that the complaint stemmed from a blog post she published on Substack the previous month. The post was hosted by Graham Linehan, a writer known for his outspoken views that are critical of modern gender ideology. In the piece, Shaw critiqued Leeds University’s gender policies, including a fund that provides financial support for trans students to purchase items such as chest binders and makeup.
The blog also scrutinized a feminist philosophy essay question Shaw encountered during her studies, which asked whether subordination is essential to being a woman. Describing the question as problematic, she argued it implied that systemic oppression defines womanhood. Additionally, Shaw’s podcast, linked in the post, featured interviews with both Linehan and Charlie Bentley-Astor, a notable detransitioner. These interviews, recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival in London, were cited as contributing factors in the complaint.
In late November, the Leeds University Union (LUU) determined that Shaw’s actions had brought the station into disrepute, resulting in her suspension from the LSR committee. To regain her position, she was reportedly instructed to issue a written apology and complete an e-learning course.
The FSU, acting on Shaw’s behalf, has challenged the union’s decision, alleging it constitutes direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which protects gender-critical beliefs. Toby Young, FSU’s general secretary, criticized the investigation’s process, describing it as flawed and biased. “The natural inference from their approach was that Shaw’s beliefs alone were sufficient to tarnish the station’s reputation,” he said.
Young further denounced what he called “hostile questioning” during the inquiry, including being asked how she could foster inclusivity at LSR when her views might discomfort others. He argued that the complaints against her were exaggerated and lacked concrete detail.
Shaw herself expressed frustration at the outcome, pointing to what she views as hypocrisy. “It is ironic that LSR promoted a freedom of speech event – the Battle of Ideas – only for me to face repercussions for interviews conducted there and for exercising my legal right to free speech,” she said.
The controversy has sparked a broader conversation about freedom of expression on university campuses. The FSU has vowed to support Shaw through an appeal process and potential legal claims, calling for the investigation to be overturned. Meanwhile, the LUU has maintained its commitment to inclusivity but has declined further comments due to the ongoing appeal.
This case highlights the tension between fostering an inclusive environment and protecting individuals’ rights to express contentious views, raising critical questions about the boundaries of free speech in academic settings.
US, Canadian universities hire Israeli firms to curb pro-Palestinian protests, report says
Press TV – December 7, 2024
A report by an Israeli newspaper reveals that several universities across the United States and Canada have engaged Israeli-linked security firms to suppress pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses.
The report by the Yedioth Ahronoth highlights that following Donald Trump’s election campaign, during which he promised to penalize institutions that didn’t adequately control “radicals and Hamas supporters,” many universities sought Israeli security companies for assistance in managing protest activities.
The City University of New York (CUNY), a significant site for protests in the past year, has recently signed a contract worth $4 million with Strategy Security Corp., owned by Yosef Sordi, a former New York City police officer with professional training in Israel.
The report also draws attention to the involvement of Israeli security firms in violent confrontations that occurred in May at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Protesters stated that personnel from Magen Am, a company with Israeli military ties, were aggressive in their actions during the demonstrations.
UCLA confirmed that the firm worked alongside local police to manage the protests, with the company receiving $1 million in return.
Additionally, the Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), which has a specific division in Israel, has been contracted to oversee demonstrations at various US university campuses.
In Montreal, Concordia University has engaged two Israeli security firms: Percentage International and Moshav Security Consulting.
In April, Columbia University students and faculty staged a sit-in opposing Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, demanding the administration cut ties with Israeli universities and divest from companies supporting the occupation.
As police intervened and arrested dozens of protesters at US universities, similar demonstrations spread to universities across France, the UK, Germany, Canada, and India, as protesters expressed solidarity with their American counterparts and called for an end to the war on Gaza.
Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza has killed over 44,664 people, most of them women and children, since October 7, 2023.
Last month, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former war minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice due to its genocidal campaign in Gaza.
TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 6, 2024
The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States.
TikTok responded with the following statement:
“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”
The Free Speech Shuffle
TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom.
“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China.
ByteDance’s Legal Tango
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold.
But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term.
The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory.
Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator.
Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit.
Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark.
TikTok Fights Back
TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist.
But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else.
A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security
The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides.
Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses.
Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet.
$2 Billion in Data Defenses
TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago.
But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech.
Divestment Drama
Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic.
Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations.
A Perfect Storm of Lawsuits
TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one.
The Clock is Ticking
If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it.
And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise.
This is far from over.
You’d Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making a List, and You’re On It
By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | December 4, 2024
You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.
You’ll be on this list whether you like it or not.
Mass surveillance is the Deep State’s version of a “gift” that keeps on giving… back to the Deep State.
Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Drones. Contact tracing apps. License plate readers. Social media vetting. Surveillance towers.
What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.
Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.
Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.
This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—has been made possible by a global army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms.
Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.
Tracking you based on your phone and movements: Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6.
Tracking you based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.
Tracking you based on your face: Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded in real-time as they go about their daily business. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.
Tracking you based on your behavior: Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations.
Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities: Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit.
Tracking you based on your public activities: Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.”
Tracking you based on your social media activities: As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
Tracking you based on your social network: Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.
Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.
Don’t believe it.
The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—haven’t made America any safer. And they certainly aren’t helping to preserve our freedoms.
Indeed, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
US embassy in Kiev blocking Zelensky interview – Tucker Carlson
RT | December 4, 2024
American journalist Tucker Carlson has said the US government has been blocking his attempts to organize an interview with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for more than a year.
On Wednesday, Carlson published a video on X in which he previewed the upcoming release of an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The journalist said the conversation with Russia’s top diplomat was aimed at providing a perspective on how close Washington and Moscow could be to a direct clash, after the administration of outgoing US President Joe Biden granted Ukraine permission to fire American-made long-range weapons deep into Russian territory.
In the same clip, filmed on Manezhnaya Square in the heart of Moscow, the former Fox News host revealed that “we have also tried for over a year to get an interview with Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.”
According to Carlson, his team “have attacked that from a bunch of different angles. We have spoken to a lot of different people around him, had dinner with them. We have been in talks continuously.”
“And those efforts have been thwarted by the US government. The American Embassy in Kiev, which our tax dollars pay for, told the Zelensky government: No, you may not do the interview. You can talk to CNN. You cannot talk to us,” Carlson said.
In June, the journalist said he had agreed an interview with the Ukrainian leader. However, Zelensky’s press-secretary, Sergey Nikiforov, swiftly rejected the claim, saying that “Tucker Carlson should check his sources in the FSB (Russia’s Federal Security Service) more carefully.” Zelensky “has a completely different schedule, and Tucker Carlson is not on it,” Nikiforov stressed.
Carlson’s latest trip to Moscow is his second since the escalation between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022. In February, he interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the recording of their two-hour conversation getting 14 million views on YouTube and 185 million views on X in the first three days after its release.
UNESCO’s New Mission: Train Influencers About Combatting Online “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 2, 2024
The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is now incorporating teaching influencers how to “fact check” into its activities.
UNESCO claims that influencers have become “primary sources of news and cultural information” around the world – which prompted it to carry out a survey into how these online personalities verify the “news” they present.
Citizens in UN member-countries may or may not be happy that this is how their taxpayer money funding the world organization is being spent these days. But UNESCO is not only conducting surveys; it is also developing a training course for said influencers (which are also interchangeably referred to as content creators in press releases).
It’s meant to teach them not only to “report misinformation, disinformation and hate speech” but also to collaborate with legacy media and these outlets’ journalists, in order to “amplify fact-based information.”
The survey, “Behind the screens,” was done together with researchers from the US Bowling Green State University. 500 influencers from 45 countries took part, and the key findings, UNESCO said, are that 63 percent of them “lack rigorous and systematic fact-checking protocols” – but also, that 73% said they “want to be trained.”
This UN agency also frames the results as showing that respondents are “struggling” with disinformation and hate speech and are “calling for more training.”
UNESCO is justifying its effort to teach influencers to “rigorously” check facts by referring to its media and information literacy mandate. The report laments that mainstream media has become “only the third most common source (36.9%) for content creators, after their own experience and their own research and interviews.”
It would seem content creators/influencers are driven by common sense, but UNESCO wants them to forge closer ties with journalists (specifically those from legacy, i.e., traditional media – UNESCO appears very eager to stress that multiple times.)
Under the guise of concern, the agency also essentially warns creators/influencers that they should be better aware of regulations and “international standards” that pertain to digital media – in order to avoid “legal uncertainty” that exposes them to “prosecution and conviction in some countries.”
And now, UNESCO and US-based Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a one-month course which is currently involving 9,000 people from 160 countries. The goal is to train them to “address disinformation and hate speech and provide them with a solid grounding in global human rights standards.”
The initiative looks like an attempt to get “traditional” journalists to influence the influencers, and try to prop up their outlets, that are experiencing an erosion in trust among their audiences.
Featured Video
Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual?
The Occidental Observer | February 5, 2023
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2) by Whitney Webb
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Germany’s CDU Pushes Real-Name Social Media Mandate and ID Checks
- Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies
- Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ exports Israeli ‘ceasefire’ diplomacy to the world
- Israeli army closes dozens of cases involving killing of Palestinians inside torture camps
- Europe creates a ‘Russian government-in-exile’, consisting of a bunch of losers
- Munich, 2007: The Day the West Was Told No
- At The Munich Security Conference, AOC Gets It Wrong On Foreign Policy
- Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing – Orban
- Russia and China Are Expanding Their Cooperation to Counter US Efforts to Bully Iran and Cuba
- NATO plotting maritime blockade of Russia – Moscow
- If Americans Knew
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 