The Chinese are making doubly sure public displays of displeasure with their totalitarian regime such as occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989 will never be repeated. They are instituting a technological surveillance program so pervasive that when completed — quite soon, it seems — it will enforce conformity throughout their giant country on a scale that would stupefy Orwell and Huxley.
Friday’s data protection crackdown has sparked chaos as small companies, charities and religious organisations are misinterpreting the rules.
The new rules, called GDPR, which stands for General Data Protection Regulation, are designed to better protect consumers’ data and stop businesses bombarding them with unwanted marketing material.
Companies that break the rules can now be fined up to 4 per cent of their turnover by privacy watchdogs.
The goal of the GPDR is not the protection of personal information but the advancement of censorship.
A wave of controversial far-right speakers will descend on Whitehall – and activism groups will meet them there like a wall, ready to face-off with controversial free speech fighters like Tommy Robinson and Milo Yiannopoulos.
Sunday’s ‘Day for Freedom’ touts the big names in alt-right and far-right preachers – Robinson, Yiannopoulos. Youtube comedian Count Dankula, who recently achieved infamy for teaching a dog to perform a Nazi salute while using anti-semitic language, is also set to attend. Canadian right-winger Lauren Southern is also expected to attend. Southern has previously been blocked from entering the country after handing out flyers in Luton declaring “Allah is gay.”
From Denyse O’Leary at MercatorNet: Unhinged criticism of the man has obscured the merits of his book
Professor Jordan Peterson, author of the top-selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, is beginning to look weary in the face of the waves of hatred he has endured recently. Two years ago, he was almost unknown outside his field. A Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology (University of Toronto), he is author of over 100 papers in his specialities, the psychology of religious and ideological belief and personality theory. His principal work, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999), was a well-received tome. He taught at Harvard before being awarded tenure at the University of Toronto.
So how do we account for the fact that Peterson has also been targeted in Canadian media in a way that seems, quite honestly, unhinged: “the stupid man’s smart person?” (Maclean’s 2017); “The Professor of Piffle” (Walrus 2017); a faintly flickering intellect (Globe and Mail 2018). Some in academia are actively seeking to get him terminated. Few detractors seem to grapple with what he says or care to. As a longtime news writer, I don’t recall seeing anything like it. Some explanation is in order, one that includes a consideration of his recent best-selling book, 12 Rules for Life. More.
Outside of watching the occasional hockey game or purchase of maple syrup, most Americans pay little attention to Canada.
We may know of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s colorful socks, but little of how unpopular he is among his constituency. We may discuss the single-payer health care system, but are unfamiliar with the government’s disrespect for religious liberty of our neighbors to the north.
Faithful patriots in this country who are concerned by the attacks on free exercise of religion in America should also be concerned by the similar attacks on liberty echoing within Canada, a country with strong protections for religious liberty in its Charter for Rights and Freedom.
Various progressive factions have undertaken an effort to criminalize dissent using the courts and statutory law.
For quite some time the American Left has been busy turning American law into a partisan political weapon. Various progressive factions have undertaken a disparate and uncoordinated but still ideologically homogeneous effort to criminalize dissent using the courts and statutory law.
July 14, 2016 (ThePublicDiscourse) — Immediately following last year’s same-sex marriage ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, Pennsylvania news site PennLive published an editorial explaining that “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.” Such opposition was equated with “homophobia,” which in turn was equated with racism. All of which made the decision “Pretty Simple.” After a burst of public outcry the paper revised its policy and stated that letters to the editor on the issue of same-sex marriage would be allowed “for a limited time.”
Chief Inspector Umer Khan made the statement on social media this weekend, and was immediately questioned by alarmed free speech campaigners.
He then apologised to those defending the right to be offensive for any “offence cause”, and argued that, “free speech should be used to promote tolerance & respect all.”
“[The statement regarding free speech] was a thought after a moving visit to Auschwitz”, he added.
When asked if Mr. Khan and the police force generally support the right to offend religious beliefs, the Greater Manchester Police press office told Breitbart London: “I don’t think we support anyone who would want to say anything offence[sic]”.
Isn’t a sexual revolution a kind of revolution?” a Soviet dissident, the grandson of one of Stalin’s henchmen, asked me rhetorically in the mid-1970s. Recently released from five years’ Siberian exile, he certainly knew what slavery and tyranny were. But now, he wondered, couldn’t the waning of Russia’s sexual constraints be the harbinger of wider liberty? After all, he asked hopefully,
British Police have promised not to tolerate any speech that could cause offence on social media regarding Syrian migrants, after arresting a man for Facebook comments made about recent arrivals on his small Scottish Island. The tiny Isle of Bute in the Firth of Clyde, which had a total population of just 6,498 in 2011, is expected to take in around 1,000 Syrian migrants, with 12 families already arriving since December last year.
…A police spokesman was unequivocal, that any harsh criticism of the Muslim influx would not be “tolerated”. Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian following the arrest:
“I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media”….
VANCOUVER, December 10, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Trinity Western University has won round three of its tumultuous battle with Canada’s legal profession, as the B.C. Supreme Court ruled today the province’s lawyers had violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they rejected in advance graduates of the Langley, B.C. Christian university’s proposed law school.
“The evidence in this case and the relevant precedents conclusively establish that the decision does infringe the petitioners’ Charter right to freedom of religion,” stated Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson.
Hinkson’s ruling echoed Nova Scotia judge Jaimie Campbell’s January decision to nullify a vote by the legal profession there to reject in advance and sight unseen all TWU law grads. The Ontario courts, however, upheld the decision by the legal profession of Canada’s most populous province also to reject TWU law grads.
In every debate where I am defending unfettered free speech these days, somebody will inevitably ask the question ‘But what about incitement to violence?’. The crime of incitement is widely seen as the killer argument against allowing speech too much freedom.
The hidden danger facing our society today, however, is not that wild-eyed Islamist or Islamophobic orators will incite violence. It is the danger of the meaning of incitement being broadened beyond recognition, to allow the authorities to crack down on ideas and opinions that they and others might simply find too offensive or hateful.
A policy created by President Bush that exempted religious organizations from non-discrimination policies in their hiring practices is under assault by far-left groups.
The policy, contained in a Justice Department memo from 2007, said that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, religious groups seeking federal grants were exempted from complying with non-discrimination laws in hiring.
In a free society do pubs or hotels have the right to turn away gays, or blacks, or Jews? UKIP and James Delingpole oppose prejudice but believe people should have the right to discriminate. We think they are wrong and that you can derive anti-discrimination legislation from impeccably libertarian principles
happens when a free society has to decide whether one person has a right to discriminate against another, particularly where religious and lifestyle sensibilities intervene?
The short answer is this: an almighty row. That was what transpired on Twitter and other social media yesterday when Alexandra Swann published a piece on The Commentator entitled UKIP’s Christian Soldiers.
Swann’s piece was a critique of a recent policy announcement by UKIP which appears to allow for discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere when Christian religious beliefs clash with homosexuality.