Tag: hate speech

Police show up at Tanya Gaw’s door over ‘hate speech’

Tanya Gaw, co-founder of Action4Canada, says two police officers arrived at her home to inform her she was under investigation for the “willful promotion of hate” under Section 319 of the Criminal Code, with no evidence to support the complaint.

The exchange, captured on video, was discussed at length on Friday’s Rebel Roundup livestream by Sheila Gunn Reid and Drea Humphrey, who said the encounter was both alarming and emblematic of a double standard in how hate-related complaints are pursued by police.

In the recording, an officer identifying himself as Constable Mason told Gaw the complaint concerns material posted to her website and social media accounts that he said specifically target Muslims and Islam. Gaw pushed back, telling the officer everything on her site is factual and carefully researched, and asked for a letter detailing the specific posts in question before agreeing to speak further.

Drea said Gaw has a track record of choosing her words carefully, noting she is currently facing an unrelated lawsuit from a drag queen and, in that case too, was measured in what she actually said publicly.

“She really didn’t even say the things. Like she was very careful in her wording,” Drea said.

The hosts also noted the officer’s appearance and manner during the exchange, joking that he did not initially strike them as a credible authority figure.

“Why does that cop look like during the pandemic when Justin Trudeau was giving press conferences on the steps of Rideau Cottage?” Sheila said.

Beyond the tone of the encounter, the hosts questioned why police would investigate Gaw’s website while, in their view, taking no similar action against other public figures who have made inflammatory comments. They pointed to remarks made by Harsha Walia, former executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, after a string of church fires several years ago.

“And when the churches first started burning, she said, burn it all down. Did any police go to her door? No, of course not,” Sheila said.

Drea said the pattern raises broader concerns about who is targeted for scrutiny and who is not.

“I wonder how many police are going to the doors of people posting hateful things against Christians. That’s happening all the time,” Drea said.

Rebel News intends to follow up directly with Gaw for more detail on the investigation.

Keep reading

Unacceptable! Auburn students circulate list of racial slurs toward White people

In the latest instance of unacceptable anti-white bias, Campus Reform is reporting “Auburn University students recently circulated a seven-page document that compiled a list of over 250 racial slurs toward White people.”

“The document was sent in a GroupMe chat called “AU Student Connect” used by students at Auburn University.”

To be clear, this is wrong, and it should not be viewed as acceptable to be hateful towards White students just as it wouldn’t be towards Black or any other students. 

We all know this would have been all over the major networks had this been done to any other group. This double standard is unacceptable.

“Among those insults were “failed abortions,” “deformed dna,” “mockery of humanity,” “bleach demons,” “albino pigs,” “not meant to exist,” and “white ‘people’ was just god experimenting.”

These disgusting epithets reveal a deeps seated Anti White hate among some of these students.

“Screenshots of the group chat obtained by Campus Reform showed students using the document, titled “Creaker Names,” to ridicule and mock White people by highlighting insults from the list. ”

This is clearly an outrage and begs the question of whether this anti-white hate is being taught or fostered by these students’ professors.

This chat crossed the line to threatening language as well, with one comment threatening to “body check” a White person if they don’t move out of the way. 

This hateful, threatening rhetoric should be disciplined at school.

We are constantly lectured by the Left about “hate speech” and racism in America, yet here’s an example of just that, yet because it’s hate directed at White people, the level of outrage seems to be lower.

All students involved should be disciplined just as if the races were reversed.

Keep reading

Meet the Woke Judge Who Sentenced Minnesota Mother Shiloh Hendrix for Speech ‘Crimes’ and Learn About Her Sordid Judicial History

The far-left judge at the center of the alarming verdict in the Shiloh Hendrix case is going viral, and much has come about her judicial past. And it is not pretty.

As The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra MacDonald reported, a Minnesota jury on Thursday night delivered a split verdict in the disorderly conduct trial of Shiloh Hendrix.

The jury found the 37-year-old mother not guilty on the count related to her words directed at the eight-year-old Somali boy who was stealing from her, but guilty on the count stemming from her comments to the man who filmed and confronted her at a Rochester playground.

Last April, Hendrix was at the park with her toddler when the boy reached into her diaper bag and took an applesauce pouch. She confronted the child and allegedly used the N-word.

A Somali man named Sharmake Beyle Omar, who was not the child’s father, began recording the scene, became extremely confrontational with Hendrix as she was holding her toddler, and continued filming as he demanded and provoked her to repeat the slur.

Following the verdict, Judge Christa M. Daily sentenced Hendrix to a $1,000 fine, 200 hours of community service, supervised probation, and a stayed 90-day jail term.

While racism is horrible and no one should condone racial slurs, punishing someone for uncouth speech is precisely what our Founders fought against. Yet, Hendrix will pay a legal price unless the sentence is overturned.

This outrageous travesty of justice becomes even more glaring when one learns of Judge Daily’s past cases.

Back in January 2023, Daily sentenced a pervert named Thomas Lee Meyer to NO JAIL TIME even though he was convicted of four felony charges of possessing pornographic work.

The victims were reportedly 6 to 8 years old.

Back in August 2024, a 22-year-old Mississippi man named Trashun Haywood was convicted of first and second-degree assault and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Haywood had repeatedly stabbed a 26-year-old Rochester man with a pocket knife after the two men got into an argument at an apartment complex in northwest Rochester on Christmas Eve of 2021.

The victim suffered stab wounds to his neck, abdomen, and arm. The injuries were so severe that medical personnel at the St. Mary’s Hospital Emergency Department had to perform “life-saving measures.”

But Daily decided to waive 4-1/2 years of the sentence. She said she did so because Haywood eventually admitted to the stabbing and expressed remorse.

Keep reading

Verdict Reached in Shiloh Hendrix Case After More Than Eight Hours of Deliberation

A Minnesota jury has delivered a split verdict in the disorderly conduct trial of Shiloh Hendrix, finding the 37-year-old mother not guilty on the count related to her words directed at the eight-year-old Somali boy who was stealing from her, but guilty on the count stemming from her comments to the man who filmed and confronted her at a Rochester playground.

The jury reached a verdict just before 10:12 p.m. local time, after over eight hours of deliberations.

The incident took place on April 28, 2025, at Roy Sutherland Playground in Soldiers Field Memorial Park.

Hendrix was at the park with her toddler when the boy reached into her diaper bag and took an applesauce pouch. She confronted the child and allegedly used a racial slur.

A Somali man named Sharmake Beyle Omar, who was not the child’s father, began recording the scene, became extremely confrontational with Hendrix as she was holding her toddler, and continued filming as he demanded and provoked her to repeat the slur.

Keep reading

When A Hate Group Tries To Destroy You: Moms For Liberty Stands Against The SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center placed the conservative parents’ rights group Moms for Liberty on its “hate map” alongside the KKK, Antifa, and neo-Nazi organizations in 2023.

But last week in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the SPLC, Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., vindicated Moms for Liberty by slamming Bryan K. Fair, the SPLC’s interim president and chief executive officer, for placing them on the map.

Tiffany asked Fair, “Why was it important for your organization to put the Moms for Liberty on a hate map?”

Fair responded, “Moms for Liberty is listed on our hate map because it demeans and vilifies people based on mutable characteristics,” he said, referring to biological sex.

Tiffany replied, “Moms for Liberty is not a racist organization. They may differ with you [regarding] gender mutilation for children … but I think that’s a fair debate to be having!”

The SPLC is a leftist advocacy group that claims to “dismantle white supremacy” and “eliminate economic inequality.” The organization started a “hate map” in 2000 to flag racist groups, but it now flags practically any organization that supports parental rights, Christianity, or opposes LGBT insanity and transgender mutilation surgery.

The SPLC has many Christian, conservative organizations besides Moms for Liberty flagged as “hate groups” on its website, leading Moms for Liberty chapter leader Alexandra Bougher to speak up on their behalf on The Vicki McKenna Show on iHeartRadio.

“People have been doxxed, swatted, lost their jobs … because of this hate map,” she said on the radio interview. “The fact that the [SPLC] has no remorse over it is disturbing.”

The hate map led to worse than a lost job in 2012 when a gunman stormed into the lobby of the Family Research Council, a conservative family and education non-profit. The gunman shot a security guard before being subdued. An FBI interrogation revealed that the shooter chose FRC after he found it on the SPLC’s hate map for being anti-LGBT.

“We as Americans should be able to disagree on things without being smeared or demonized … we don’t need to destroy someone’s life because we don’t see eye to eye,” Bougher said in the interview. The DOJ announced an 11-count indictment in April against the SPLC for fraud and false statements, and scheduled a federal trial for October. The DOJ found that the “SPLC is lying to everyone, saying that they’re warning people of hate, meanwhile funding the hate groups to make more money,” Bougher explained. “It’s absolutely sickening.”

The SPLC secretly funneled over $3 million to racist, extremist groups, including the KKK and the American Nazi Party, while simultaneously claiming to fight them between 2014 and 2023, according to the DOJ. “The objective of the scheme and artifice was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for,” the DOJ stated.

Keep reading

German Intelligence Deems Watermelon Emoji Hate Speech

Germany has reached the point where even a watermelon can now be treated as a political threat. That is how absurd Europe has become. According to reports surrounding the latest antisemitism controversy in Germany, authorities and institutions are increasingly targeting symbols tied to pro-Palestinian activism, including the watermelon symbol that protesters began using after Palestinian flags and imagery started facing restrictions in some settings.

Think about how insane this has become. A watermelon is now being politically analyzed for “hate speech” implications while Europe is collapsing economically, energy prices remain elevated, migration tensions are exploding, and Germany itself is entering one of the worst industrial downturns since World War II. Instead of fixing the economy, Berlin is policing fruit symbolism and online speech.

I have warned that Germany has been moving steadily toward censorship for years. They raid homes over social media posts, prosecute citizens for insults online, and constantly expand speech laws under the excuse of fighting extremism. The problem is governments never stop at genuine extremism. Once censorship machinery exists, everything eventually becomes “dangerous.” Today it is a watermelon emoji. Tomorrow it becomes criticism of migration policy, opposition to war, or questioning government spending.

The Germans of all people should understand where this road leads. Europe has convinced itself that suppressing speech somehow eliminates social anger. It does not. It only drives resentment underground where it becomes more radicalized. History has shown repeatedly that governments trying to regulate political thought always end up creating even greater instability.

The frightening part is the sheer hypocrisy. Europe claims to defend democracy while simultaneously deciding which symbols, opinions, protests, or political expressions are acceptable. A watermelon itself is obviously not hateful. It is a piece of fruit. What governments fear is not the symbol itself. They fear losing control over public opinion as anger grows across Europe over war, migration, inflation, and collapsing living standards.

This is the real crisis developing in Germany. Not merely antisemitism, which absolutely exists and should be condemned, but the broader destruction of open discourse itself. Once governments begin defining ordinary political symbolism as dangerous, free society is already in serious trouble.

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s X Commits to Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’ in UK Watchdog Agreement

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has reached an agreement with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to significantly accelerate the censorship of what England considers “hate speech” and antisemitic content from the platform.

The Telegraph reports that Elon Musk’s X has entered into a formal arrangement with Ofcom, the UK’s online safety regulator, pledging to take swifter action against illegal “hate speech” including racism and antisemitism. The agreement represents a notable shift for the platform, which has faced sustained criticism over its content moderation policies since Musk’s acquisition in 2022.

Under the terms of the commitment announced today, X will now aim to review posts containing hate speech and potential terrorist content within 24 hours of identification. The company has established a minimum performance target of checking and removing at least 85 percent of hateful and antisemitic posts within a 48-hour timeframe. Additionally, X has pledged to take more aggressive action in blocking accounts operated by organizations proscribed under British law.

Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s online safety director, characterized the agreement as progress while acknowledging significant work remains. “We have evidence that terrorist content and illegal hate speech is persisting on some of the largest social media sites,” Griffiths said. “We are challenging them to tackle the problem and expect them to take firm action.”

Griffiths emphasized the particular urgency of the agreement in light of recent hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish community in Britain.

The agreement comes after a period of tension between X and the regulatory authority. Musk’s company previously clashed with Ofcom over the Online Safety Act, Britain’s primary legislation governing technology companies’ responsibilities. Last summer, X accused the regulator of employing a “heavy-handed approach” and claimed Ofcom was “seriously infringing” on free speech protections.

Ofcom is also conducting a separate investigation into X concerning a wave of non-consensual deepfake images of women and children that spread across the platform in January.

Keep reading

King’s Speech 2026: Britain’s Monarchy Reads a Doomed Agenda as Starmer Clings to Power

For many years, it was called the Queen’s Speech and delivered year after year by Queen Elizabeth II. Now it’s the King’s Speech — the traditional State Opening of Parliament where King Charles reads out the government’s planned laws. The Prime Minister’s team writes the whole thing, so it’s really their agenda, not the King’s personal views. Think of it like a presidential address to Congress, but with all the robes, crowns, and centuries of tradition.

This year’s speech, delivered on May 13, 2026, felt particularly awkward. Just six days earlier Labour had been hammered in the local elections — losing over 1,000 council seats while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK stormed ahead with more than 1,100 gains and took control of several councils. Keir Starmer is clearly fighting for his job. Dozens of Labour MPs are already calling for him to go, four ministers have resigned, and the party looks in open revolt. Yet there was the King in full ceremonial dress, reading out Starmer’s wishlist as if everything was business as usual.

The optics aren’t great. Critics are right to worry that the monarchy is getting dragged into Labour’s internal mess at a time when trust in institutions is already low. When the head of state appears to back the government’s plans just days after voters delivered a clear rejection, it raises serious questions about whether the Crown is staying truly neutral.

Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic should pay close attention to the six main priorities. Far from listening to last week’s verdict at the ballot box, Starmer’s team looks completely tone-deaf to the issues that drove so many people toward Reform UK.

Keep reading

California Can’t Define ‘Hate Speech’ But May Mandate Workplace Training Anyway

“Hate speech” is notoriously hard to define and is usually a subjective characterization of harsh words. Though the term is thrown around by people describing comments they don’t like, it generally refers to expression that might not be nice but is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as state speech protections. But that’s not going to stop California lawmakers from trying to hector people into refraining from voicing nasty sentiments.

Existing California law requires employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of training regarding sexual harassment to all supervisors, and at least one hour of training to all other employees, repeated every two years. Assembly Bill 1803, introduced by Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal (D–Long Beach) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D–Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D–Moreno Valley), “would additionally require that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training.”

In a press release, Lowenthal claims that “AB 1803 is about making our workplaces safer, more respectful, and more inclusive for everyone. Hate speech has no place on the job, just as sexual harassment has no place on the job. By incorporating anti hate speech training into existing sexual harassment prevention programs, we are building on a proven framework to address harmful behavior before it escalates.”

What the world really doesn’t need, it should be noted, is more state-mandated nagging about the allegedly naughty activities we shouldn’t engage in. As PBS’s Rhana Natour reported in 2018, “there’s little evidence that sexual harassment training works.” A 2016 U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission report concluded that “much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool—it’s been too focused on simply avoiding legal liability.” Research by Justine Tinkler, a sociologist at the University of Georgia, found that such training mostly reinforces traditional views of sex roles by portraying men as predators and women as victims. But training is an effective time suck.

Hate speech has the added burden of being primarily a political term used to describe expression that somebody doesn’t like. This makes it very difficult to describe in an actionable way in a country that has vigorous speech protections. California’s lawmakers have not risen to the challenge.

Keep reading