Blog

Faith on Trial in Canada as Parliament Moves to Rewrite the Rules of Speech

A Canadian parliamentary committee has set in motion a change that could recast the balance between expression and state control over “hate speech.”

Members of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution.

The decision forms part of the government’s Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9), legislation that introduces new offences tied to “hate” and the public display of certain symbols.

The focus is on Section 319(3)(b), which currently ensures that “no person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

That safeguard would vanish if the Bloc Québécois amendment approved this month survives the remaining stages of debate.

Liberal MPs backed the Bloc’s proposal, which Bloc MP Rhéal Éloi Fortin introduced after his party leader, Yves-François Blanchet, made its passage a precondition for Bloc support of the bill.

Fortin argued that the religious exemption could permit “someone could commit actions or say things that would otherwise be forbidden under the Criminal Code.”

The amendment was adopted during a marathon session that came only after the committee chair, Liberal MP James Maloney, abruptly ended an earlier meeting and canceled the next one to allow MPs time to “regroup.”

On December 9, the committee returned for an eight-hour clause-by-clause review, with government members determined to complete key sections of the bill before the winter recess.

The broader legislation targets intimidation around religious institutions and bans the display of defined “hate” and “terrorism” symbols.

Yet most debate now centers on whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings.

As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”

Keep reading

Mystery as woman reported missing is found dead inside 4ft safe at Baltimore home

A beloved grandmother was found dead inside a four-foot-tall safe at her Maryland home after she was reported missing, according to police. 

Dawn White, 53, was reported missing on April 18 this year after she was last seen on Ring doorbell camera footage at her sister Kimberly Bache’s home on April 14. 

Her body was found inside the large metal safe on April 19 in the basement of her Baltimore home. 

White, who was found in an abnormal position inside the safe, died of PCP intoxication and dehydration, according to the medical examiner’s office, CBS News reported. 

Her manner of death has been classified as undetermined and is not being investigated as a homicide, the Baltimore Police Department told the Daily Mail. 

White had previously been married to her husband, Steven Broyles, until he passed away in September 2024. 

The Baltimore Police Department previously told FOX45 White was involved in two domestic violence incidents reported in March. 

There was also an assault reported at White’s home on April 9, just 10 days before her body was discovered, FOX45 reported. 

Months after the tragic discovery, White’s family is still waiting for answers on how their beloved sister and mother was left to die in a safe. 

‘I just want justice. I don’t care who it was that did it. I just want them to find out who did it,’ one loved one said. 

Her family does not believe White put herself in that safe. 

‘The death of Dawn White is not being investigated as a homicide,’ a spokesperson withe Boston Police Department told the Daily Mail.

Keep reading

Maryland to consider slavery reparations after Gov. Wes Moore’s veto is overridden

Maryland will create a commission to study potential reparations for slavery after lawmakers voted Tuesday to override a veto by Gov. Wes Moore — currently the nation’s only Black governor — that disappointed many fellow Democrats.

Moore said in his veto letter in May that it was a difficult decision to veto the bill, which was a priority of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland. But he wrote there has been enough study of the legacy of slavery, and it was now time to “focus on the work itself” to address it.

But Democrats who control both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly decided the commission was needed to better examine how to do that.

“This topic isn’t easy, but, again, without formal study, reparations risk being dismissed as symbolic or unconstitutional, regardless of moral merit,” said Sen. Charles Sydnor, a Democrat.

After his veto was overridden, Moore said that while he disagrees with the legislature’s decision, “I am eager to move forward in partnership on the work of repair that we all agree is an urgent and pressing need.”

“I believe the time for action is now — and we must continue moving forward with the work of repair immediately,” Moore said in a statement. “That mission is especially vital given the immediate and ongoing effects of this federal administration on our constituents, including communities that have been historically left behind.”

Potential reparations outlined in the bill include official statements of apology, monetary compensation, property tax rebates, social service assistance, as well as licensing and permit fee waivers and reimbursement. Reparations also could include assistance with making a down payment on a home, business incentives, childcare, debt forgiveness and tuition payment waivers for higher education.

Maryland’s Black population is about 30%, the highest percentage of any state outside of the Deep South.

Support for reparations gained momentum in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. However, the issue has been a difficult one, particularly for high-profile Democrats, and comes amid a broader conservative backlash over how race, history and inequality are handled in public institutions.

“At a time of growing attacks on diversity and equity, today’s action reaffirms our shared commitment to truth-telling, accountability, and meaningful progress for Black Marylanders,” the state’s Legislative Black Caucus said in a statement.

Keep reading

Source: Trump To Announce War With Venezuela Tonight

President Trump is expected to announce plans to launch a war with Venezuela this evening when he addresses the nation at 9:00 pm EST, a high-placed source on Capitol Hill has told Antiwar.com.

Also, earlier in the day, Tucker Carlson told Judge Andrew Napolitano that he has heard from a member of Congress that Trump is planning war.

“Members of Congress were briefed yesterday that a war is coming and it will be announced in the address to the nation tonight,” Carlson said on the Judging Freedom podcast.

On Tuesday night, President Trump announced a “total and complete” blockade on “sanctioned tankers” going into and out of Venezuela, which came after US forces boarded and seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan oil.

The Trump administration has made clear that its goal is to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. It’s unclear what kind of military action the president is preparing to take, but according to earlier media reports, he has been briefed on several options, including strikes on government targets, sending in a special operations force to kill or capture Maduro, or deploying a larger force to capture airbases and oil fields.

Any attack on Venezuela without congressional authorization would be illegal under the Constitution. The House is expected to vote on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution today aimed at blocking Trump from launching the war.

Keep reading

Governments Are Pushing Digital IDs. Are You Ready To Be Tracked?

Politicians push government IDs.

In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.”

European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev.

They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do.

Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” on social media!

Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.”

Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs.

The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.”

That’s a good thing?

“That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism,” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.”

“I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?”

“It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier.

“You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister.

Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.'”

Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily.

Keep reading

Lawsuit: Female Inmates Forced to Live with Trans-Identifying Males at Texas Special Needs Women’s Prison After Initial Court Win

Two female inmates at a federal prison for women with special needs in Fort Worth, Texas, saw a landmark early court win in November when a judge ordered transgender-identifying male inmates to be housed away from them following claims of sexual abuse.

But rather than keep the biological males completely separate from the female prison population at Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Carswell, Texas, Warden Tyal Rule has chosen to move the males to different housing units to live among other female inmates during litigation, a court filing first obtained by Breitbart News alleges.

In the November temporary restraining order, a judge in one of the nation’s most conservative district courts gave Rule the option to house trans-identifying male inmates in their own area or in another female housing unit away from the two plaintiffs, inmates Rhonda Fleming and Miriam Herrera. Rule chose the latter, allowing biological males, most of whom have not undergone surgical modifications, to live among other female inmates, the filing alleges. Several female inmates in the housing units where the trans-identifying males have been moved are now asking to join the lawsuit in the hopes of also securing protection for themselves.

Attorneys Brian Field and John Greil with D.C. law firm Schaerr|Jaffe LLP are representing four women who are asking the court to include them in the lawsuit, called a “motion to intervene” in legalese. Attorneys first asked for inmates Elizabeth Hardin and Brenda Kirk to be added to the lawsuit on Nov. 10, and on Wednesday they are asking the court to add inmates Jasmine Meabon and Keisha Williams, who are now living with transgender-identifying males who were moved into their housing unit following the court’s order. 

“Having been ordered to protect Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera from biological males, the Warden simply took a male inmate and moved him into a different women’s unit in the same prison,” the attorneys wrote in the proposed complaint. “Instead of solving the problem, he chose to injure different women.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ), which oversees the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), appears to be against more female inmates seeking redress in this case, asking the court on Dec. 1 not to allow more plaintiffs to be added to the case on procedural grounds. The DOJ’s position seems surprising, given President Donald Trump’s executive order mandating the removal of biological men from women’s prisons. The executive order has been on pause during other litigation brought by transgender-identifying inmates in a D.C. case, but that litigation would not bar the segregation of trans-identifying males inside women’s prisons for safety purposes. 

The DOJ did not respond to request for comment by time of publication, and the BOP told Breitbart News via email that it “does not comment on pending litigation or matters that are the subject of legal proceedings.”

When asked about apparent DOJ opposition in the case, Field and Greil said: “That’s the million-dollar question.” 

“It’s clear that Warden Tyal Rule is fighting the president’s policy, and he’s likely hoping that the White House doesn’t notice,” they told Breitbart News. “In fact, even when he faced a court order, Warden Rule did the absolute minimum to comply. It’s possible that this matter has flown under the radar at Main Justice and the White House, but DOJ needs to put eyes on it, hold folks accountable, and make sure that the President’s policies become reality.”

Keep reading

Porn Sites Must Block VPNs To Comply With Indiana’s Age-Verification Law, State Suggests in New Lawsuit

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is suing dozens of porn websites, claiming that they are in violation of the state’s age-verification law and seeking “injunctive relief, civil penalties, and recovery of costs incurred to investigate and maintain the action.”

Last year, Indiana Senate Bill 17 mandated that websites featuring “material harmful to minors” must verify that visitors are age 18 or above. Rather than start checking IDs, Aylo—the parent company of Pornhub and an array of other adult websites—responded by blocking access for Indiana residents.

Now, Indiana says this is not good enough. To successfully comply, Pornhub and other Aylo platforms (which include Brazzers, Youporn, and Redtube, among others) must also block virtual private networks and other tools that allow internet users to mask their IP addresses, the state suggests.

This is an insane—and frighteningly dystopian—interpretation of the law.

Broad Anti-Privacy Logic

In a section of the suit detailing how Aylo allegedly violated the age-check law, Indiana notes that last July, “an investigator employed by the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (‘OAG Investigator’) accessed Pornhub.com from Indiana using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) with a Chicago, Illinois IP address.”

“Defendants have not implemented any reasonable form of age verification on its website Pornhub.com,” the suit states. It goes on to detail how Indiana investigators also accessed Brazzers.com, Faketaxi.com, Spicevids.com, and other adult websites using a VPN.

Keep reading

Tim Walz Goes It Alone: Uses Executive Orders for Gun Control After Legislature Rejects His Push

Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed executive orders Tuesday expanding Minnesota’s red flag law and creating a “Statewide Safety Council” intended to prevent “mass violence” and “targeted attacks.”

Walz’s gun control executive orders come after the state legislature refused to pass gun control measures he pushed after the August 27, 2025, Minneapolis Catholic school attack, in which a transgender man who had been identifying as a woman opened fire during mass.

According to KSTP, Walz said:

These actions today don’t limit your freedoms at all. Being shot dead in your school certainly does. … There’s no one fix to this, but there are certainly things that we know, there are certain things we’ve learned globally that make a difference, and these two actions will be another step in that direction.

Walz did not mention that the Catholic school attacker used three guns–a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun–and that he bought all three guns legally, which means he complied with the left’s gun controls on acquisition.

Keep reading

New Congressional Bill Would Let People Use Marijuana In Public Housing Without Being Evicted

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) have filed a bill in Congress to allow people living in federally assisted housing to use marijuana in compliance with state laws without having to fear losing their homes.

Under current policy, people who live in public housing are prohibited from using controlled substances in those facilities regardless of state law, and landlords are able to evict them. The new bicameral legislation—titled the “Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act”—would change that.

The bill would provide protections for people living in public housing or Section 8 housing from being displaced simply for using cannabis in states that have legalized it for medical or recreational purposes.

Norton has filed similar versions of the proposal over recent sessions, but the reform has yet to be enacted. Booker joined Norton in sponsoring the legislation last Congress as well.

“Tenants should not be discriminated against, evicted, or denied federally assisted housing for legally using marijuana or treating a medical condition in states where it is permitted,” Booker said in a press release on Wednesday. “The Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act would end these discriminatory practices and ensure tenants are not punished for personal choices made in accordance with state law.”

The bill would further require the head of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to enact regulations that restrict smoking marijuana at these properties in the same way that tobacco is handled.

“Individuals living in federally funded housing should not fear eviction simply for treating their medical conditions or for seeking a substance legal in their state,” Norton said. “Increasingly, Americans are changing their views on marijuana, and it is time that Congress caught up with its own constituents. With so many states improving their laws, this issue should have broad bipartisan appeal because it protects states’ rights.”

Keep reading

Twitter user is jailed for 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets made after Christmas market car attack that were viewed just 33 times

A Twitter user who posted two anti-immigration tweets that were viewed just 33 times has been jailed for stirring up racial hatred.

Luke Yarwood, 36, received an 18-month sentence after tweeting in the wake of the Christmas market car attack in Magdeburg, Germany, in December 2024.

His posts were reported to the police by Yarwood’s own brother-in-law who he did not get on with.

The case has drawn comparisons with Lucy Connolly, the 42-year-old wife of a Tory councillor from Northampton, who was jailed after she called for people to ‘set fire’ to asylum hotels in the wake of the Southport attack in July 2024.

Siobhan Linsley, prosecuting, said Yarwood’s ‘extremely unpleasant posts’ had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three high-profile migrant hotels in Bournemouth, Dorset, near to where he lives.

His barrister argued the posts had 33 views between them and were the ‘impotent rantings of a socially isolated man’ that had no ‘real-world’ consequences.

But Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood’s ‘odious’ tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him.

Bournemouth Crown Court heard Yarwood from Burton, near Christchurch, Dorset, made a series of anti-Muslim and anti-immigration posts from December 21, 2024 to January 29, 2025.

It started the day after the car attack in Germany in which six people were killed. At the time misinformation on social media suggested the person responsible was an Islamic extremist.

Yarwood responded to a post that stated thousands of Germans were taking to the streets and they wanted their country back.

Yarwood replied: ‘Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.’

While further posts by him displayed a ‘rabid dislike’ for foreigners, particularly Islam, these did not stir up racial hatred or incite violence.

For example, Yarwood wrote about the amount of foreign people in Bournemouth, stating: ‘Walking for ages and not hearing a word of English.’

He also wrote of his disgust at seeing ‘asylum seekers outside the hotel staring at young college girls’.

The second illegal tweet was made in response to a post by GB News.

Keep reading