Tag: wrongthink

Germany: Top CDU Politician Floats Banning AfD Days After Its Landslide Win

Barely after the ballots were counted in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany’s political establishment began discussing possible legal action against the election winner.

After the AfD captured 43.8% of the vote, senior CDU politician Hendrik Wüst called for the first structured federal-state examination that could eventually open the door to a party-ban proceeding, the German press reports.

The move comes at an extraordinary moment. Voters handed the AfD its strongest result in the state’s history while Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU crashed to just 17.2%, leaving Germany’s governing conservatives facing uncomfortable questions about why so many voters have walked away.

Instead of brushing aside the ban debate, Wüst wants to formalize it. The North Rhine-Westphalia premier has proposed a working group bringing together federal and state officials, constitutional lawyers, intelligence authorities and other experts to examine the AfD and possible legal consequences.

Wüst insists the outcome mustn’t be decided beforehand. The group, he says, could recommend a prohibition proceeding, some other legal response or ultimately something short of either.

Even so, the timing has poured gas on an increasingly heated argument. A party that had just received the backing of nearly 44% of Saxony-Anhalt voters now finds itself at the center of renewed discussions over whether Germany’s institutions should explore removing it from electoral politics altogether.

Wüst says constitutional protection, not electoral arithmetic, should determine the issue. If investigators conclude that the legal conditions for banning the AfD have been satisfied, he argues, Germany’s constitutional institutions would have a duty to pursue the matter.

Keep reading

Alberta woman hauled before human rights tribunal for opposing rainbow crosswalk

George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four nearly 80 years ago as a warning about totalitarianism. The novel’s true horror isn’t censorship — it’s compelled speech. In the book’s climax, the rebellious Winston Smith is sent to the Ministry of Love, where torture is used to force him to agree that an obvious falsehood is the truth. Asked how many fingers his tormentor is holding up, the correct answer isn’t four or five — it’s whatever the party says it is.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction. But in 2026, examples of compelled speech in Canada are not hard to find.

Take the claim that a mass grave of Indigenous children sits at a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C. — a claim unsupported by any forensic evidence to date. Simply asking questions about it, or declining to wear an orange shirt on September 30, is enough to be branded a denier and an enemy of reconciliation. Merely questioning the official Kamloops narrative could one day be treated as a criminal matter.

Then there’s gender identity, where a person born with a penis is a man and a person born with a vagina is a woman — a statement now considered controversial enough to invite official sanction. A U.S. Supreme Court justice, asked to define the word “woman,” could not do it. And in Canadian institutions, a man who says he identifies as a woman is now entitled to compete against women in sports, shower in women’s changerooms, and be housed in women’s prisons. Object, and expect to be labelled a hater, a bigot, and a transphobe.

Canada has no Ministry of Love, and no torture chambers. But there is more than one way to enforce conformity, and a case headed to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal on September 14 shows how it’s done.

Westlock, Alberta, resident Benita Pedersen — a DJ, children’s entertainer, and event coordinator — is facing a human rights complaint over a flyer she handed out three years ago opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk incorporating the colours of the transgender pride flag. According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, Pedersen’s flyer stated facts, including the potential for infertility following gender transition, and encouraged residents to contact their elected representatives if they shared her concerns.

On June 19, 2023, local resident Laurie Hodge filed a complaint against Pedersen under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging the flyer constituted discrimination based on gender, gender expression, and gender identity. Hodge was not on Westlock town council at the time. Both women ran in a January 2024 by-election; Pedersen finished second, Hodge third — though Hodge was later elected to council in a subsequent vote. Whether the complaint was ever really about a crosswalk, or about eliminating a political rival, is a fair question.

The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission has since taken carriage of the complaint on Hodge’s behalf and referred it to the Tribunal under Section 3 of the Act, which bars publications likely to expose people to hatred based on protected characteristics. The Director is expected to call an expert witness to testify that failing to paint the crosswalk could cause physical and mental harm to transgender and marginalized youth. Pedersen, in turn, must rely on evidence from an endocrinologist and a psychiatrist specializing in gender dysphoria simply to defend a flyer about a paint scheme. In May, the Director moved to exclude most of Pedersen’s witnesses as irrelevant; the Tribunal denied that motion in July.

“Albertans should be free to express their opinions on controversial topics without being accused of hatred and discrimination,” said constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic of the Justice Centre.

Pedersen’s case is not isolated. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted four organizations intervenor status in nurse Amy Hamm’s appeal of a March 2025 disciplinary ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives, which found her guilty of unprofessional conduct over online statements she made about sex, gender, and sex-based rights between 2018 and 2021. In a decision released September 8, Justice J. Hughes granted standing to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., West Coast LEAF, Egale Canada, and the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada (ARPA), while dismissing an application from the Vancouver Lesbian Collective. ARPA is expected to argue that criticizing gender identity theory does not amount to discrimination or hatred. Hamm’s appeal is scheduled to be heard in Vancouver this November.

The reach of compelled speech isn’t limited to tribunals and regulators. In 2024, David was covering a story on Ash Davis, a biological male competing on the Fergus Highlanders women’s rugby team, when Ontario Provincial Police officers threatened him with arrest simply for asking questions on a public sports field. Later that same day, while conducting consensual interviews with spectators in the stands — not on the field, not interfering with play — police made good on the threat and arrested him. 

All of this unfolds while southern Ontario endures a record crime wave, raising the obvious question of what, exactly, police resources are being prioritized for.

Keep reading

University Of Washington Settles Case Against Professor Disciplined For Mocking Land Acknowledgment

Land acknowledgments have become standard at academic and political events, including the opening of the Obama Presidential Library and a recent Michigan Democratic event. While supporters insist it merely shows respect for original inhabitants, critics argue it is the ultimate virtue signaling and is increasingly being forced on both speakers and audiences. One critic is Professor Stuart Reges, who teaches at the computer science and engineering school of the University of Washington. He has now received a settlement from the University of Washington, which spent a significant amount of time and resources in response to his mocking of the school’s land acknowledgment.

We previously discussed the case of Professor Reges, who was disciplined because he refused to post the school’s “land acknowledgment” and instead posted an alternative statement. Professor Reges sued the university and various officials in 2022. Professor Reges has declared “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”

The defendants included Nancy Allbritton, the Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington, Magdalena Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, UW President Ana Mari Cauce, and the Allen School’s Vice Director Dan Grossman.

After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgment” statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own statement. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people.

The school provided a recommended statement for all faculty to post and/or read to their students at the first of every course:

“The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”

Professor Reges disagreed with that statement and expressed his doubts to the faculty while also noting that “Magda” did not want the faculty to discuss such reservations on the email system. That may refer to the Director of the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Magdalena Balazinska.

Reges’ alternative statement read:

“I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

The labor theory (which I teach) generally refers to John Locke’s theory. In his Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature, where all was created in common by God. Reges declared that these tribes, indigenous people, “can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land and that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people. That acknowledged group is a broad collection of different groups with ethnic or linguistic associations.”

In his lawsuit, Professor Reges says that, after he stated his own views, the university moved against him.

“On January 4, 2022, the day after Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class met for the first time, Defendant [Magdalena] Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, sent Professor Reges an email ordering him to remove the statement from his syllabus because it was ‘offensive’ and created a ‘toxic environment.’“

Reges noted that the university allowed other professors “to include modified statements in their syllabi that were more consistent with the University’s recommended statement.” The operative point is that “other faculty at the Allen School continue to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi that differ from the University’s own statement, so long as they express a viewpoint consistent with the University’s recommended version.”

Keep reading

Regina University union files grievance over dumpster for wrong-think

The University of Regina Faculty Association has filed a formal policy grievance over the presence of a Just Bins dumpster on campus after reportedly failing to have it removed from university property.

Just Bins, a Regina-based waste disposal company known for its irreverent social media presence and outspoken political commentary, revealed the dispute Monday on X.

“After failing to have a Just Bins dumpster removed from university property, the University of Regina Faculty Association has officially filed a policy grievance over the presence of a Just Bins dumpster on the campus,” the company wrote.

A photograph posted alongside the announcement shows one of the company’s bins positioned outside a university building. The union’s complaint reportedly centres on Just Bins’ public messaging rather than the dumpster’s condition or the service being provided.

The garbage container appears to work just fine. The union simply objects to the opinions associated with the company whose logo is painted on it.

Universities routinely present themselves as defenders of academic freedom, ideological diversity and open debate. Attempting to banish a dumpster because its owner expresses unfashionable views would seem to demonstrate precisely the opposite.

For now, the bin remains on campus, stubbornly performing its intended function while committing the apparent offence of belonging to the wrong company.

Keep reading

More than 60,000 arrested in ‘chilling curb of free speech’ as damning report exposes zealous policing of social media as ‘Orwellian mess’

A major free speech row erupted last night after it was revealed that more than 60,000 people have been arrested over the past five years for ‘communications offences’ – some as trivial as viewing disparaging TikTok videos.

The astonishing figure has been described as ‘Orwellian’, and having a ‘chilling effect’ in stifling opinions online.

The statistics – to be published in a hard-hitting report this week – also highlight the chaotic implementation of rules on ‘malicious’ messaging, with some police forces making 14 times more arrests under the powers than others. 

The report, by campaign group Big Brother Watch, discloses that at least 62,199 people in the UK have been arrested for such offences over the past half-decade, with 18,510 being charged and 12,292 convicted.

Campaigners say that although a proportion of the arrests will be justifiable – such as intervention to stop threatening messages from abusive partners in domestic violence cases – the scope of the laws has spawned a rash of over-zealous policing of everyday communications.

The report cites the case of West Midlands Police visiting the home of a vulnerable teenage girl to accuse her over a TikTok post containing a teacher’s image with negative comments. 

They demanded that the girl hand over all her devices and either attend a voluntary interview or face arrest – even though she had not created, shared or commented on the video.

The investigation later concluded with the child formally told that no further action was taken. The force defended their actions on the grounds that they were ‘investigating alleged malicious communications offences’.

Writing in today’s Mail On Sunday, Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, said: ‘Why are the authorities spending so much time policing our tweets when they could be policing our streets?

‘Shoplifting, mobile phone theft and sexual offences are all on the rise, yet the police seem increasingly obsessed with catching thought criminals.

‘The sheer number of people being arrested for online offences, even though only one in five end up being convicted, cannot help but have a chilling effect on free speech. 

‘People up and down the country daren’t say what they think about a whole range of issues for fear they’ll get a knock on their door at four in the morning by a couple of plainclothes officers wearing rainbow lanyards.’

Last year, a Hertfordshire couple were arrested after they made complaints about their daughter’s primary school on a WhatsApp group chat.

Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications. 

They later received £20,000 in damages following a public outcry. 

Keep reading

How Britain Tried To Rig the Trial of a Genocide Opponent – and Lost

The jury took just two hours. Tony Greenstein – Jewish socialist, anti-Zionist – had faced fourteen years under the Terrorism Act for three social media posts and a blog article opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The Crown called it “inviting support for Hamas.” The jury called it something else.

Section 12 of the Terrorism Act makes it an offense to invite support for a proscribed organization. Greenstein’s reference to a “Gaza ghetto uprising”, it argued, amounted to support for Hamas. Three social media posts and a blog article. The bill the State was demanding for those words – fourteen years.

Judge Sarah Plaschkes repeatedly objected when Greenstein brought the wider historical-political context of Palestine/Israel into the courtroom – warning him against treating the proceedings as a political forum. When the closing speech came, Greenstein was by now so concerned about what might happen to his barrister that he decided to address the jury himself (no doubt considering what had happened to Barrister Rajiv Menon KC – more of whom later). For thirty minutes he examined the prosecution case and the context in which his posts had been written. The jury wasn’t asked to lay aside the offending words; instead, he guided the jurors in an articulate reading (see his address to the jury, here) in which the world in which they’d been written was made clear (full trial coverage at the Canary, here).

But this court was rigged and thus determined to keep all context out of the courtroom. Nevertheless, despite Judge Plaschkes’ hostile interruptions, Greenstein’s speech laid bare the realities the prosecution had no interest in facing: his opposition to Hamas evident in dozens of articles he’d penned and published on his platform over the years; and Israel’s genocide in Gaza after October 2023. He spelled out the difference between supporting Hamas and defending the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli oppression, and the obvious point that the posts in contention clearly did not express support for Hamas.

Greenstein recounted to the jury how his grandparents fled Poland before the War, and most of those left behind perished in Treblinka. To him, Greenstein told the jury, the Holocaust was not history, but inheritance. He invoked the story of the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising as a parallel of Gaza: young Jewish men and women rising up against the SS with smuggled pistols against tanks, knowing it was hopeless yet choosing resistance anyway. October 7th was Gaza’s uprising. The judge objected.

Once Greenstein had finished speaking (to a round of applause from the public gallery), Judge Plaschkes addressed the court to say that she had considered referring Greenstein for contempt of court. She then dismissed his address as a “rambling speech delivered by an old man”. An extraordinary turn of phrase in a criminal trial in which Greenstein was about to find out whether he was to be sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper added Palestine Action to the UK’s list of proscribed organizations in July 2025, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But proscription criminalizes more than membership. Up to fourteen years in prison can follow under section 12, which makes it an offence to “invite support for a proscribed organization” or to “express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organization…” That was the provision the Crown used to prosecute Tony Greenstein, and it applies right now to public expressions of support for Palestine Action. Serious concerns over freedom of expression and peaceful assembly were raised by a group of five UN Special Rapporteurs over proscribing a group for property destruction.

On 6 August 2024 activists from Palestine Action staged a break-in at Elbit Systems, in Filton, near Bristol.  It’s an Israeli defense company with British operations supplying equipment to the IDF. They entered facilities, sabotaged machinery and hindered production they regarded as part of Israel’s war-making infrastructure. During the parliamentary debate on the proscription order, it was argued that Palestine Action had targeted only industrial facilities, and not civilians. The government went ahead with proscription anyway.

Rajiv Menon KC represented one of the six defendants in the February 2026 Filton Trial. All six were acquitted of aggravated burglary but the jury failed to agree on criminal damage. At the May retrial, four were convicted. Menon’s closing speech was a masterclass and invoked the 1670 Bushell case – a landmark ruling on jury independence from judicial interference, arguing that the judge could not direct a conviction. Judge Jeremy Johnson then referred Menon for contempt, a referral the Court of Appeal overturned on procedural grounds in May before Johnson referred to it correctly in June.

The Filton defendants were acquitted of the most serious charge – the barrister who defended them is now facing contempt proceedings for the way he did it.

So what lies behind all this courtroom drama is a routine machinery. Proscription – the government’s designation of an organization as terrorist – takes effect by order of the Home Secretary. It falls to the barrister to gauge how far a closing speech can go before crossing the line into contempt, while the judge cautions against political argument. Indeed, the evidence shows that judges are increasingly directing what juries are allowed to hear before threatening barristers with contempt. To an outside observer there is little sign of a conflict – yet behind these routine procedures is something damning: what the jury doesn’t get to hear – could mean years in prison.

And, of course, the elephant in the room is that Britain is directly implicated in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. In September 2024, as the government suspended thirty arms export licenses to Israel, Foreign Secretary David Lammy told Parliament that “there exists a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. Thirty licenses suspended out of three hundred and fifty. Britain would also continue to supply F-35 components through the global parts pool serving Israel, with the government arguing that withdrawal would undermine allied security. British weapons armed a state committing a genocide despite their supposed withdrawal.

The state that arms Israel prosecutes those who oppose it.

The Crown had brought three posts, a blog article and an accusation of terrorism before the jury. But Greenstein stood on that essential context – despite the hostile judge’s interjections. And a mere two hours after retiring – the jurors returned with a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

Keep reading

Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court

The Trump administration’s crusade to crush campus criticism took another wallop on Friday in a California courtroom. Federal judge Noël Wise ruled that the Trump administration’s “ideological-deportation policy” brazenly violated the US Constitution.

The Stanford Daily—one of the best-known college student newspapers in the nation—sued the Trump administration for changing its “immigration policy and pattern of enforcement, namely by arresting, detaining, and deporting students with F-1 visas when those students use their freedom of speech to express opinions that the government does not like.” It asserted that the Trump administration’s “actions have specifically impacted Stanford Daily by decreasing the quantity and diversity of opinion pieces The Stanford Daily is able to publish on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” Foreign students who had written on the issue requested that their previous articles be deleted, and other foreign students were no longer willing to comment on hot issues.

The Trump administration claims unlimited discretion to silence foreign students by deporting those whose opinions it disapproves of. Judge Wise wrote, “The language of the [First] Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people. . . . It is not the government’s to take.” This is a notion that conservatives instinctively understand when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. But many people fail to recognize the same right for freedom of speech. Conor Fitzpatrick—the chief supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which represented the student newspaper, declared, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” FIRE president Greg Lukianoff clarified the scope of the ruling:

This ruling does NOT say the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech. The government cannot tell a legal immigrant: An American is free to say this, but if you say it, you’re out.

George Porteous—Editor in Chief of Stanford Daily—hailed the decision: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.” But it remains to be seen whether this latest judicial rebuff slows the Trump censorship juggernaut.

Keep reading

Documents reveal why the Canadian military was asking soldiers about ‘extremist’ hats

In December 2024, Harrison Faulkner of True North broke the story: a questionnaire went out to soldiers asking if they’d ever “liked” an extremist post on social media, donated to an extremist cause, or purchased “extremism merchandise — such as a Make Canada Great Again hat.” 

Rebel News filed an access to information request the day it went viral. Twenty-one months later, the answer came back: 2,688 pages, most of it useless — the actual survey questions are blacked out entirely, withheld under the Access to Information Act’s trade-secret provisions. A hat questionnaire, apparently, is a trade secret.

When the story broke, National Defence’s approved line for reporters was: “DND/CAF is not funding this research, nor has it contracted this research.” But the consent form every soldier signed lists, at the top: “External Funder/Sponsor: Department of National Defence (DND).”

In fact, DND signed a $49,995 funding agreement with Ontario Tech University, five dollars under the disclosure threshold, and later paid $250,000 more to Dr. Barbara Perry’s “Network for Research on Hateful Conduct and Right-Wing Extremism in the Canadian Armed Forces.” She is getting rich off of calling our soldiers racist.

The whole thing traces back to General Jonathan Vance ordering the study in 2019 — not long before resigning over his own conduct scandal. DND then rewrote the survey questions, pushed it down the chain of command, and leaned on a reluctant Navy — already suffering “severe staff shortages” — to participate. The consent form warns soldiers that “incriminating” answers get reported to military police, who can in turn notify their commanding officer. Risk to a career, for a hat.

Ezra is more worried about left-wing violence in the CAF — like Gabriel Lepage, the Antifa extremist who threw incendiary devices into a crowded Montreal church while working at a Canadian Forces base, exposed by Rebel’s own Alexa Lavoie.

Internally, DND tracked the media fallout using MediaBiasFactCheck.com, grading True North as low-credibility and “part of the right ideology perspective,” while noting with relief: “We have not observed any articles from mainstream media.” When reporters pressed on the funding, staff wrote plainly: “I don’t think we touch it at this point.” They knew, and they chose not to tell you.

The study’s own vetted webpage admits the number of CAF members holding extremist beliefs is “comparable to the general population.” No epidemic. Just a headline, and a professor with a grant.

This was a loyalty test, not a research project. If you were nineteen and thinking about enlisting, and you saw this — would you?

Keep reading

DOJ Admits Anti-Christian Bias

The Justice Department’s own announcement describes a report — variously cited at 200, 210, and 565 pages across different DOJ statements, with roughly 1,200 footnotes — compiling findings from seventeen federal agencies on how “prosecutions, policies, and practices demonstrated anti-Christian bias throughout the federal government” during the Biden years. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the conclusion in blunter terms, describing a “systematic culture” of bias that ran through law enforcement, tax policy, education, and healthcare. Senior DOJ counsel Camille Verone laid out fourteen specific findings in interviews accompanying the release, including Catholic schools losing federal school-lunch funding for declining to endorse gender-identity policy, HHS pressuring Christian medical providers on gender-affirming care under threat of losing federal funds, and the EEOC declining to protect religious objections to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

The report also alleges the DOJ enforced the FACE Act — the federal law protecting access to reproductive health clinics — unevenly, with pro-life protesters drawing harsher sentences than people who vandalized pregnancy centers, and it claims the IRS scrutinized churches for hosting political candidates while overlooking comparable conduct by Democratic officials. These are specific, agency-by-agency allegations, not a single anecdote, and they form the bulk of the task force’s case that bias was structural rather than incidental.

Keep reading

DOJ Weaponization Working Group Drops Explosive Report Exposing FBI’s Outrageous Spy Campaign Against Traditional Catholics Under Biden Regime

The Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group released a bombshell report detailing how the Biden-era FBI expanded an investigation of one dangerous criminal suspect into a disturbing intelligence operation targeting Catholic priests, traditional Catholic churches and constitutionally protected religious beliefs.

The 231-page Richmond Domain Perspective Report concludes that personnel responsible for the disgraceful intelligence product have now been removed.

“The FBI personnel involved in the creation of the Richmond Catholic Memo have been terminated from their positions,” the report states.

The Justice Department did not publicly identify the terminated personnel.

The DOJ announced Thursday that investigators reviewed more than 1,800 pages of internal emails, intelligence assessments and investigative records concerning the FBI Richmond Field Office’s infamous January 2023 memorandum.

The report reveals that FBI personnel:

  • Opened investigative “Guardian” assessments on two Catholic priests.
  • Examined the priests’ travel and communications.
  • Pulled airline and credit-card information.
  • Searched one priest’s phone at Boston Logan International Airport.
  • Followed that priest from the airport to a private residence.
  • Conducted surveillance outside another residence associated with him.
  • Proposed cultivating Catholic clergy and church leaders as “tripwires” and sources.
  • Considered elevating the Richmond memo into a national intelligence product for senior FBI leadership.
  • Continued revising the project even after FBI headquarters ordered the original memo removed from bureau systems.

The FBI eventually closed both assessments after finding no national-security threat or evidence linking the priests to violent extremism.

Keep reading