Tag: police state

Canada’s Heritage Minister says online censorship bill will help free speech

To advise the Heritage Minister on regulating Canada’s internet, a panel of experts, most of them academics, has been appointed. One of the government’s internet regulation plans, alongside the online censorship bill, is to create a federal internet censorship agency.

When announcing the panel of experts, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said, “We are open to all ideas. The only thing we want is to do the right thing, is to make it right, is to make it happen.”

The minister was asked if it was a priority for the internet censorship bill not to infringe Canadians’ rights. He said that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and is “at the core” of the bill.

“But I’ll tell you something else,” Rodriguez said. “Actually there are a lot of people who don’t want to share what they think anymore, who are afraid of going online to speak freely because of the negative and violent reaction they may get. I think in some ways this will really help freedom of speech.”

Keep reading

Rep. Maxine Waters warns reporter over LA homeless story: ‘You’ll hurt yourself’

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) tried to stop the publication of a news story about Los Angeles’ homeless crisis this week, reportedly telling a Los Angeles Times scribe: “You’ll hurt yourself and the community trying to put this together.”

The Wednesday story by investigative reporter Connor Sheets detailed a March 25 incident in South Los Angeles, where hundreds of homeless people tried to obtain Section 8 housing vouchers after being misled by social media rumors.

The would-be applicants crashed an event held by nonprofit advocacy group Fathers and Mothers Who Care, which had been meant to help the unhoused obtain emergency shelter. 

The confusion reportedly overwhelmed the non-profit as well as Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA) workers who told the unexpected arrivals that they would only be able to provide their information and enter an emergency housing database.

At one point, Waters told the crowd: “I want everybody to go home,” triggering an angry response.

Keep reading

23 Different Types Of Violent Extremists And Counting — Will You Be Classified As One?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants Americans to believe since 2011, when the word “extremists” was just starting to take root in the public’s consciousness, there has been an explosion of violent extremism.

In 2011, DHS published the “Empowering Local Partners To Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States” report, while at the same time calls for ending America’s neverending war on terror started taking hold.

The DHS report made dubious claims like al-Qa‘ida was trying to recruit and radicalize Americans across the country, which coincidentally was also the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The report mentions extremists and violent extremists interchangeably during a time when Americans were beginning to question the war on terror.

In May 2011, National Public Radio wrote, “Why We Must End The War On Terror” and asked in September, “Is It Time To End The War On Terror?” Similar articles were being published across the country asking the same thing.

Fast forward eleven years to 2022, and the war on terror shows no signs of abating.

DHS, who could be mistaken for magicians if it were not so ironic, have convinced law enforcement that America now has at least twenty-three different types of extremists.

There does not appear to be a master list of American extremists published by DHS or the Department of Justice.

I used four sources to compile this list of twenty-two different types of violent extremists, but I fear that the government’s “official list” is far larger.

  1. Anti–government violent extremist
  2. Anti-war extremist
  3. Anti–authority violent extremist
  4. Anarchist violent extremist
  5. Domestic violent extremist
  6. Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist
  7. Militia violent extremists
  8. Sovereign citizen violent extremist
  9. Individual violent extremist
  10. Involuntary celibate–violent extremist
  11. Abortion extremist
  12. Anti-abortion extremist
  13. Animal rights extremist
  14. Environmental extremist
  15. Right-wing extremist
  16. Left-wing extremist
  17. Christian Identity extremist
  18. Islamist extremist
  19. Muslim extremist
  20. Racist extremist
  21. Nativist extremist
  22. Schoolboard extremist

Sources: National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,  A Schema of  Right-Wing Extremism in the United States,  Homegrown Violent Extremist Violent Indicators (2019) report and the National School Board.

Keep reading

Where Is the Bio-Fascist State Headed?

Consider ten bills that were introduced in the California State legislature in January 2022:

  1. SB 871: adds covid vaccine to required immunization schedule for all private and public schools, regardless of whether these vaccines receive full FDA approval.
  2. AB 2098: classifies any medical opinion that runs contrary to the establishment’s covid narrative as “misinformation” and subjects physicians expressing such views to charge of “unprofessional conduct” which is subject to discipline by the medical licensing board.
  3. SB 866: lowers the age of covid vaccine consent to 12 years without parental notification or consent.
  4. SB 920: authorizes medical board to inspect a doctor’s office and medical records without patients’ consent.
  5. SB 1464: requires law enforcement to enforce all public health guidelines or lose their funding.
  6. SB 1479: requires schools to create long term testing plans, test children without parental consent, and report test results to the CA Department of Public Health.
  7. SB 1390: prohibits any person/entity from making statements the government deems “misleading” by any means including internet or ads.
  8. SB 1184: authorizes school health personnel to disclose children’s health information to a third party without parental consent.
  9. AB 1797: creates an immunization tracking system giving all government agencies complete access to vaccination records for all citizens.
  10. AB 1993: requires proof of covid vaccination for all employees and independent contractors working in CA.

If this unholy decalogue is passed legislatively, Californians would live under a regime that allows: (1) the state to force on children medical interventions that are not FDA approved, (2) the state to muzzle the speech of physicians and decide which interpretations of scientific or medical evidence are correct, (4) the state to censor online information it does not like (4) the state to act as surrogate parents for 12-year-old children who are not yet cognitively and emotionally capable of giving free and informed consent to medical decisions that have potential lifelong ramifications, and (5) the state and its agents to access your personal medical records without your consent.

Furthermore, these measures would require (1) law enforcement to enforce arbitrary, capricious, and often unscientific public health measures mandated by unelected bureaucrats, such as indoor masking requirements, (2) schools to become medical centers that routinely administer medical tests to your children without consent and share that private information with third parties without your knowledge, (3) the state to track and share private health information across government agencies, (4) the state to force novel medical interventions on all competent adults as a condition of working.

In these proposed laws we see the features I’ve sketched in previous posts on the Biosecurity Surveillance Regime unfolding around us: the welding of public health, digital technologies, and the police powers of the state into an invasive model of surveillance and control.

Keep reading

State Passes Bill That Could Jail People for 30 Days for Filming the Police

Frequent readers of the Free Thought Project know that filming the cops is not a crime. Despite this being a widely known provision — held up with multiple court precedents — cops continue to violate the First Amendment protected right of citizens to film the police. Last month, the Arizona House Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would criminalize filming cops on the job, dealing a massive blow to First Amendment rights. And this month, the Senate passed it.

It now moves to Governor Doug Ducey’s desk for signature, where it will become law.

Republican Representative John Kavanaugh, who is a former police officer, is the lead sponsor of the legislation. According to the bill, it is illegal “for a person to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity, including the handling of an emotionally disturbed person, if the person does not have the permission of the law enforcement officer” and is within 8 feet of the cop.

Kavanaugh originally stipulated a 15 foot radius, however it was later amended after multiple objections. But for many, this is still too far.

As Valera Voce, points out, the law also classifies unlawful video recording of law enforcement activity as a petty offense, unless a person fails to comply with a verbal warning of a violation or has been previously convicted of a violation in which case an offense is a class 3 misdemeanor. A class 3 misdemeanor comes with a minimum of 30 days in jail. Finally, the bill explicitly declares that it “does not establish a right, or authorize any person, to make a video recording of a law enforcement officer.”

“It’s crazy thinking about that for a second. The video that led to the criminal conviction of the police officer who killed George Floyd would itself be a criminal act. And that makes no sense whatsoever,” attorney Dan Barr told FOX 10.

“We believe that this bill stacks the deck against the public check on officer misconduct,” Timothy Sparling, a lawyer and legislative advocate for Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. Sparling argued that the bill leaves too much up to the discretion of the officers. “When officers have such wide discretion to determine, say, what is lawful conduct or what is unlawful conduct on the ground and that is not properly defined … it’s ultimately up to whatever the officer wants it to be,” Sparling said.

Keep reading