If you like censorship raise your hand – Tales of totalitarianism from the US and Canada

I can think of a few groups that would wave both hands so frantically they’d attain liftoff: Feminists, gay rights activists, anti-racist/multicultural fruit cakes, and of-course, organized Jewry. What do these groups have in common? A persecution complex the size of Burj Dubai and a love of censorship aimed at the White heterosexual male. It seems that the Jewish Southern Poverty Law center has set its cross-hairs on Alt Right website Counter Currents and has marked them for financial destruction.

Jewess Heidi Beirich justifies the SPLC’s hate for white America with the following pearls of wisdom:

“Our country, from its inception, until the 1960s, was a white-supremacist country, and that is not that long ago. And we have to be really, really vigilant of not returning to those kinds of views.”

Such a moral stalwart would surely condemn Israeli apartheid would she not? I tried searching that exact phrase on the website’s search engine and found nothing. I also tried searching the phrase “Jewish supremacy” and ended up with reports attacking individuals like David Duke, individuals who exposed Jewish supremacist ideas. That’s Jewish logic for you: that the Jew can tarnish reputations by labeling people racist whereas anyone who accuses the morally upright Jew of racism is also racist. What was that line about Jews supporting diversity and ‘tolerance’ in North America while defending Jewish fascism in Israel?

Alan B. Howard. Jewish chairman of the SPLC. He has America's best interests at heart. Obviously.

Alan B. Howard. Jewish chairman of the SPLC. He has America’s best interests at heart. Obviously.

Anti-bullying and totalitarianism in Canada.

The anti bullying campaign lifted off in Canada amidst a great deal of media fervor and fanfare. I believe the impetus for this movement were the suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. In traditional WASP culture (ie American/Canadian culture) kids were taught to stand up to their bullies but today kids are taught to lean on authority to solve their problems. The issue however goes deeper than this. When one reads the preamble of the anti bullying bill (bill 13) this part stands out:

Believe that students need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude and values to engage the world and others critically, which means developing a critical consciousness that allows them to take action on making their schools and communities more equitable and inclusive for all people, including LGBTTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,  transgender, transsexual, two-spirited,  intersex, queer and questioning) people;

Recognize that a whole-school approach is required, and that everyone — government, educators, school staff, parents, students and the wider community — has a role to play in creating a positive school climate and preventing inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia, transphobia or biphobia;

I suspect this is the true purpose of the anti bullying agenda that has seized Canada; that tolerating gays isn’t going far enough, children must also be conditioned to accept homosexuality as healthy and normal. Children raised in traditional households that refuse to acknowledge such behaviour as healthy will themselves be bullied by being labelled as bullies. Religious leaders have expressed their alarm:

“To force, especially Christian classrooms or schools, to have homosexual clubs would of course be an affront to their family values,” Charles McVety, of the Institute for Canadian Values, told a joint news conference.

“And what does this have to do with bullying? Nothing.”

How does the State respond? From the same liberal source:

Education Minister Laurel Broten rejected the criticisms expressed by the religious representatives as “homophobic,” and said her job was to make sure every child finds school a warm and inviting place, regardless of their sexual orientation or any other factors.

The State has spoken and insists that it will undemocratically imposes the views of 1% on the other 99%. Make no mistake, the real bullies here are elite puppets like Laurel Broten.

Anti-bullying has now been extended to monitor online bullying as well. The “Stop hating online” campaign basically conditions young people to practice self censorship. The official rationale is that intimate photos must not be distributed with the intent of tormenting people. While such a motive is laudable I still fail to see why the state must become involved in what is essentially a dispute between private individuals. Watch the “stop hating online” video below.

This video is tantamount to child abuse as it programs children to fear the law instead of respecting it. Make no mistake, the bullies in the above video aren’t the wide eyed children cowering in fear, it’s the law enforcement officers and the state.

The cases of Parsons and Todd were indeed tragic and their distraught families have every moral right to seek justice. But why must we add new laws? The Globe and Mail Newspaper offers the following explanation:

“Police in northern B.C. are recommending a 13-year-old boy be charged with child pornography for allegedly posting a partly nude photo of an acquaintance on Facebook.

Bill C-13, the proposed federal cyberbullying bill expected to pass this spring, would eliminate the need for such a severe charge in similar cases. It would give the option of lodging the lesser charge of non-consensual distribution of images, which would carry a maximum sentence of five years, compared with 10 years for distribution of child pornography.”

This is obviously the oldest trick in the book: to present an extreme proposal as moderate by positioning it by an even more extreme alternative. Aakar Patel once wrote that civilized societies should have no need for multiplying laws and the same approach is called for here. While I’m no lawyer, I’m fairly confident that current laws can be amended to adequately tackle the issue of cyber harassment. The true purpose of the superfluous anti-bullying legislature is to condition people to self censor themselves and get comfortable doing it.

In a somewhat related incident, a private conversation on Facebook stirred up a hornets nest at the University of Ottawa. Anne-Marie Roy (President of the student federation) became the subject of a sexually course conversation between 5 friends on Facebook. A screen shot of the conversation was anonymously emailed to her and she went public with it decrying “rape culture” (whatever that means). This feminist fruitcake has obviously never visited Pakistan or Afghanistan. Four of the five threatened her with legal action but later withdrew their threats. The usual assortment of idiots (feminists, liberals, manginas) applauded her “bravery” for speaking out against “rape culture”; as if speaking out on a topic that is widely covered by the mainstream media requires courage. Idiots like Roy remind me of people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller who “bravely” bash Islam knowing full well that it is actually fashionable to do so. Granted that some Muslims deserve to be bashed (Pakistanis/Afghans/ Khaliji Arabs) and should be taken to task for collectively stupid behaviour, but I digress. Roy has single-handedly destroyed the reputation of five men that had a private conversation which did her no harm. The conversation contained no threats made against her and was purely private. Yet despite these facts Roy has herself genuinely convinced that SHE is the victim, thereby demonstrating her inability to tell right from wrong. In our culture of excessive victim coddling it would appear that intent is indeed in the eye of the beholder. According to lunatic liberals, American and Canadian universities are saturated with ”rape culture”, women like Roy are victims, and society oppresses and bullies gays. War is peace and freedom is slavery.

Anne Marie Roy. Morally retarded feminist and bully.

Anne Marie Roy. Morally retarded feminist and bully.

I can’t help but think that such developments portend a prelude to harsher forms of speech censorship unless the slumbering masses take matters into their own hands. Unless we confront these trends head on our free voices will be smothered beneath the pillow of oppressive tolerance.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in conservative values, Feminism, Homosexuals, Israel, Jewry, Organized Jewry, Rape Culture, Subversion, Uncategorized, Western Values and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to If you like censorship raise your hand – Tales of totalitarianism from the US and Canada

  1. Bay Area Guy says:

    Wow, Heidi Beirich looks like a troglodyte. She’s the multiculturalist version of Lindy West.

    Otherwise, very good post. You’re on a roll lately! This part was especially spot-on:

    as if speaking out on a topic that is widely covered by the mainstream media requires courage. Idiots like Roy remind me of people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller who “bravely” bash Islam knowing full well that it is actually fashionable to do so.

    Like I said, far from fighting the power, people like Roy are the power. It reminds me of the late Joe Sobran’s great quote (he was specifically speaking of Jews, but it applies to other supposedly oppressed minorities):

    A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.

    Powerless victims with the power to ruin their enemies, indeed.

  2. Acartia says:

    You lose all credibility when you quote Charles McVety. This man has a long history of distorting facts and making blatantly sensational lies to support his twisted views. Bill 13 is a prime example. He claimed that gay-straight alliances are homosexual clubs, teaching and promoting homosexuality. They are not. He completely ignores the evidence that in schools where they have been in place for several years, bullying has been reduced. After all, why allow facts get in the way of a good hatred.

    He also claimed that the bill would require religious groups that rent school space to promote homosexuality. Again, an outright lie. It requires all groups that rent school space to abide by a code of conduct, the same as churches require when they rent out space. But I can see why McVety would have a problem with codes of conduct. His TV show was kicked off the air because was incapable of abiding by the station’s code of conduct. Basically, the part of the code that he had a problem with was their prohibition on lying in order to support a viewpoint.

    • Dota says:

      There’s also a quote from Rabbi Kaplan on that same page and they are in agreement. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The agenda isn’t tolerance, it’s conditioning.

    • Dota says:

      Interesting points here.

      Like I said in my article, imposing the view of 1% on the other 99% is undemocratic and a form of bullying in itself. Genuine tolerance is accepting people despite disagreeing with their views. There’s nothing objectionable about accepting homosexuals as colleagues, friends, family, fellow citizens ect… But you can’t force people into thinking that homosexuality is normal and healthy.

      It requires all groups that rent school space to abide by a code of conduct, the same as churches require when they rent out space.

      From the link:

      The clause prohibits rental or use of public schools by external organizations who do not comply with the “provincial code of conduct”.

      What on earth does renting space to external groups have to do with preventing one kid from bullying another? Nothing. That’s why it’s clear there’s another agenda at play. Dr. Thomas pointed out that the provincial code of conduct can be changed at any time to suit the whim of the ruling government. Given this bill’s obsession with sex education, it’s clear where things are headed. Dr. Thomas said that hundreds of evangelical churches currently rent space for worship services from public schools. This clause, he predicted, would be used to ban those churches should they dare to preach, or be known to preach, about biblical passages that deal with human sexuality.

      • Acartia says:

        Are you suggesting that people renting public space should not agree to follow a code of conduct? Have any religious groups been kicked out because they did not follow the code of conduct?

        Using “what ifs” as an argument against something is just proof that they lack a sound and rational argument. It ranks right up there with the “slippery slope” argument.

  3. Dota says:

    “What ifs” are a logical response to laws that are deliberately ambigous.

    • Acartia says:

      What if religious groups advocated for the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality? See, “what ifs” are just scare tactics, not rational argument. If you want to argue for more clarity in the code of conduct, fair enough. But I have never heard a single argument in this respect. All arguments against Bill 13 have been based on fear, not logic.

      Gay-straight alliances are only required if the students want one. If the schools truly offered inclusiveness, without being judgmental, students would not see the need. These clubs are not about advocating or promoting a gay lifestyle, the are about dispelling stereotypes. I don’t know if people are born homosexual, but I can guarantee that a kid’s sexual orientation is week established by the time they reach high school, and no therapy or intervention is going to change it at that point.

      • Dota says:

        What if religious groups advocated for the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality?

        Irrelevant, they are in no position to do so. Liberals on the other hand are in a position to trample the rights of religious people.

        Gay-straight alliances are only required if the students want one.

        That’s not what the bill is about, it isn’t even remotely democratic.

        If the schools truly offered inclusiveness, without being judgmental, students would not see the need.

        I have little faith in the maturity of most students. Allowing liberals to define “inclusiveness” and “judgmental” is going to get us nowhere either. Liberals focus on feelings instead of empirical observations. Intent is in the eye of the beholder and this bill places people’s intent on trial. Doesn’t sound very fair to me.

        These clubs are not about advocating or promoting a gay lifestyle, the are about dispelling stereotypes.

        Sure, and feminism is merely about equal rights and opportunities for women. I never take liberal pet causes at face value.

        if you want to argue for more clarity in the code of conduct, fair enough.

        I am curious to be honest.

  4. Acartia says:

    “What if religious groups advocated for the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality?”

    “Irrelevant, they are in no position to do so. Liberals on the other hand are in a position to trample the rights of religious people.”

    Actually, not irrelevant. Within my living memory, homosexuality could (and often did) result in jail time. And this was largely due to pressure from religion.

    “That’s not what the bill is about, it isn’t even remotely democratic.”

    Again, you are incorrect. It was completely democratic. It was proposed by a democratically elected government, and required a majority of MPPs to vote yes to enact it. If conservatives get elected during the next election, they have the opportunity to repeal the act. That is how democracy works. It’s not a perfect system, but it is certainly better than a theocracy.

    “Sure, and feminism is merely about equal rights and opportunities for women.”

    And what demands of feminists that have been enshrined in law have not been about equal rights and opportunities.

    I think the following quote from your previous comment says it all; “I have little faith in the maturity of most students.”

    • Dota says:

      Actually, not irrelevant. Within my living memory, homosexuality could (and often did) result in jail time. And this was largely due to pressure from religion.

      Actually, still irrelevant as we aren’t going back in time. As things stand today, liberals are in a position to trample on the rights of Christians.

      Again, you are incorrect. It was completely democratic. It was proposed by a democratically elected government, and required a majority of MPPs to vote yes to enact it. If conservatives get elected during the next election, they have the opportunity to repeal the act. That is how democracy works. It’s not a perfect system, but it is certainly better than a theocracy.

      Again, you’re taking things at face value. The act of voting is a hollow gesture if leaders do not represent the views of their constituency. The conservatives were behind the ‘stop hating online’ ad campaign and on a separate charge, channeled excessive funding towards radical feminist initiatives such as Status of women Canada. Conservatives indeed. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that “left” and “right” mean anything anymore as they both serve the same elite interests. They might reason differently, but the outcomes are the same.

  5. Acartia says:

    Dota, I don’t mean to flog a dead horse, but you still have not provided me a single concrete example of how Bill 13 tramples on the rights of Christians. The bill does not state that Catholic schools cannot continue to teach that homosexuality is a sin. The bill does not say that parents cannot teach their children that homosexuality is a sin. The bill does not say that church groups that rent school space cannot preach that homosexuality is a sin. The bill does not say that you, as a parent, must allow your children to participate in a gay-straight alliance. The bill does not require mandatory student participation in gay-straight alliances.

    So please, explain to me how this bill tramples on your Christian rights?

    The arguments against gay-straight alliances are as ridiculous as those that were once used to justify removing pregnant teens from their high schools. There was the twisted belief that allowing a pregnant girl to continue to attend school would be the same as the school approving of and promoting teen pregnancy.

    • Dota says:

      If you don’t think pushing unpopular legislature is undemocratic, I don’t know what to tell you. Parents weren’t consulted when this bill was drafted and forcing Catholic schools to host gay clubs (violating their religious teachings) is also immoral. If you can’t see the irony of violating the rights of one group to protect another I don’t know what to tell you. Most people do not think gender is “socially constructed”, yet that is precisely what is being pushed onto our children.

      he bill does not say that parents cannot teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.

      Irrelevant when schools go ahead and do the opposite. Kids spend half their day in school. Gays might think that their lifestyle is healthy and normal, but most of us do not. Nobody is forcing gays to change and we likewise don’t want gays to impose their views on us.

      The bill does not say that church groups that rent school space cannot preach that homosexuality is a sin.

      Depends on how you define “code of conduct.”

      From the source I’d quoted earlier:

      Dr. Roland Thomas from The Evangelical Association has pointed out another dangerous clause, part 7 in the bill, which appears to target churches and Christian groups. The clause prohibits rental or use of public schools by external organizations who do not comply with the “provincial code of conduct”…Dr. Thomas said that hundreds of evangelical churches currently rent space for worship services from public schools. This clause, he predicted, would be used to ban those churches should they dare to preach, or be known to preach, about biblical passages that deal with human sexuality.”

      and

      In Part 1a of Bill 13, McGuinty has rewritten the definition of bullying to include “behaviour by a pupil where… the behaviour would be likely to cause harm, fear or distress to another individual…” (emphasis added).

      Who gets to interpret whether a certain behaviour is “likely” to cause fear or distress? It’s important to note that no actual harm, fear or distress needs to take place for something to be labeled as bullying. Only somebody’s subjective interpretation that a behaviour, speech, or attitude was “likely” to cause those things. Make no mistake, this definition is designed to censor certain opinions.

      As I said earlier, any law that attempts to place somebody’s intent on trial is a slippery slope towards tyranny.

      • Acartia says:

        “Nobody is forcing gays to change and we likewise don’t want gays to impose their views on us.”

        Exactly what views are they imposing on you? The view that they are human? The view that they deserve respect? The view that they don’t have to live their lives based on your view? Isn’t that exactly what you are demanding from society as well?

        And you made a statement that gay clubs are being forced on Catholic schools. Have you ever done any research into gay-straight alliances? They are definitely not gay clubs. They are clubs where gay people feel safe because they receive support from non gay students. In schools that are intolerant of different sexual orientations, these clubs do not survive. I would be far more concerned about a school in which a GSA didn’t survive than one in which it thrived. But I guess that is the difference between you and me. I would rather have a situation where kids talk to each other in a safe environment than one in which we discourage discussion.

        My experience has been that many of the problems in the world are caused by the prejudices of parents. The kids, in many respects, are far more mature than the adults. I have three kids that just went through high school. What I observed is that they are far more open and accepting of other races and cultures and sexual orientation than we were at the same age. Unlike you, I have faith in the maturity of our kids.

      • Dota says:

        Exactly what views are they imposing on you? The view that they are human? The view that they deserve respect? The view that they don’t have to live their lives based on your view? Isn’t that exactly what you are demanding from society as well?

        Straw man argument. I never said that gays shouldn’t be respected or are less than human. You are also shifting the debate away from the totalitarian nature of bill 13 to a grey area about tolerance. You have also not elaborated on the deliberately vague phrase “code of conduct.” The safety of gay students is important but I fail to see why additional legislature is required to account for the interests of just one group (accounting for 1% of Canada’s population). In a society that is genuinely tolerant and equal, this should not be the case as the law should protect everybody. Even in India this is so. The colonial law that criminalizes injuring religious sentiments has been invoked to eject Rushdie’s Satanic verses (offensive to Muslims) and Doniger’s “The Hindus” (Offensive to Hindus) from India. The law applies equally to the majority (Hindus)and the minority (Muslims). I’m not advocating the censorship of literature, just making a point. When new laws are legislated with the sole intent of catering to the interests of one group at the expense of the majority, there’s an agenda. That’s just common sense. Any sane freedom loving person should be wary of any proposal for drafting new laws as opposed to amending existing ones.

        Have you ever done any research into gay-straight alliances? They are definitely not gay clubs.

        Then why did GLSEN promote homosexual sex and fetishes, link to gay pornographic websites and gay sex tourism websites? Is Sex Tourism only wrong when evil white heterosexual men practice it?

        What I observed is that they are far more open and accepting of other races and cultures and sexual orientation than we were at the same age.

        First, I’ll let you in on an old secret: total agreement is not a prerequisite for tolerance. It is possible to tolerate and treat people with respect while maintaining a tactful distance from their views and worldviews. One of my closest friends in town is a Pastor who obviously believes that Muhammad is a false prophet. That never stopped him from treating me like family. That’s genuine tolerance. Tolerance without boundaries leads to cultural suicide.

  6. Acartia says:

    Dota, I don’t see how I was shifting the debate away from the totalitarian nature of the bill. If participation in GSAs is purely voluntary, how can the bill be totalitarian?

    Stating that the “Code of Conduct” mentioned in the act is vague is, to use your phrase, a straw man argument. The act does not go into detail about the Code of Conduct because it refers to a Code that has existed for years. If you are interested in the requirements detailed in this Code, it can easily be found through a simple Google search. If you allow links in this blog, it is here (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/128.pdf). The act only requires that other people and groups who use school property must abide by the same code that everyone else has for years. In fact, many schools already required outside groups to follow the Provincial Code of Conduct. The act simply ensures that all schools follow this practice.

    If you are concerned that the Code of Conduct has been significantly changed as the result of Bill 13, the only change has been to add “To prevent bullying in schools.” as one of the seven purposes of the Code. In fact, the only mention of sexual orientation in the entire Code is the requirement for all members of the school community to “respect and treat others fairly, regardless of, for example, race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability”. (not a new requirement).

    While we are on the topic, I should mention that any GSA that is established, and everyone who participates, must also abide by the Code of Conduct.

    Your reference to GLSEN is irrelevant. They are an outside group and are not recommended by any school, school board or the Province. I sure hope that you are not trying to claim that the bad behaviour of a small sector of an identifiable group is reflective of all within the group. If so, 911 is proof that all Muslims are terrorists and the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church is proof that all Christians are hate filled homophobes. Obviously, these are absurd conclusions.

    • Dota says:

      How does forcing something that is supposedly voluntary even make sense? What we have here is a difference of values. This is obvious from the fact that you’ve spent most of your time trying to convince me that homosexuality is normal and should be “tolerated” as opposed to how this new law benefits society (or even has anything to do with bullying for that matter). It all comes back to the question of whether we need new laws that specifically address the interests of one group. The problem here is this phrase: “”behaviour would be likely to cause harm, fear or distress to another individual…” All gays need to do is complain that mainstream Catholic teachings on sexuality are “likely to cause harm, fear or distress” and the state would pressure the school boards to water down their curriculum.

      In ethics, there is a big difference in deciphering intent for the purpose of establishing moral context as opposed to placing someone’s intent on trial. I can’t for the life of me understand why someone as intelligent as you fails to comprehend this. Ambiguously phrased laws that criminalize intent have been used by countries like North Korea and the UAE for decades (intention of ”defaming the UAE’s image” and threats to “national security”).

      The reason why China and Korea destroy our students in PISA scores is because those societies value strong families and scientific talent, whereas we value gender bending and homosexuality. See what this has produced.

      There are a few more points I want to address, but I’ve got to out now. This week has been crazy busy.

      • Acartia says:

        You keep mentioning that a person’s intent is being placed on trial by this bill. Could you explain how?

        If a student’s intent is to bully another student, the school has an obligation to put systems in place to prevent this. If this is what you mean, then, yes, the student’s intent is on trial. And it should be. But GSAs are completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing the bully to attend. In spite of this, it has been shown that schools with active GSAs have lower incidents of bullying. What they do is shift the focus of intolerance away from gay kids (and other bullied groups) and centres it on the bullies. Frankly, I think teaching kids to be selectively intolerant is a good thing. Intolerant of bullies, racists, etc.

  7. Pingback: Feminism and anti-patriotism part 2: A few thoughts on internationalism | Occident Invicta, the unconquered west

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s