Tag: wrongthink

Netanyahu: I’ll introduce bill to revoke citizenship of those who slander IDF abroad

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that he will introduce two bills to punish those who slander IDF soldiers abroad.

The first bill will introduce the option of revoking their citizenship, and the second will increase the sum they can be sued for if found guilty, Netanyahu says in a video, explicitly referencing Democrats party chief Yair Golan, former military advocate-general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and the filmmakers behind the recent film “NAZA.”

“Their place isn’t here,” says Netanyahu, adding that he expects all Zionist parties to support the measures.

Keep reading

Christian teachers fired in Canada over beliefs now face losing their licences

Two Ontario teachers who say they were fired after refusing to compromise on their Christian beliefs are facing another professional battle, this time, one that could cost them their teaching certificates altogether.

I first interviewed Matthew Alexander in 2023, after he and his wife, Nicole, were suspended from their teaching positions in different schools. Matthew had spent 24 years in education without disciplinary issues and had held leadership positions in schools. Nicole, who also had an unblemished record, was teaching kindergarten.

According to Matthew, after their son, Josh Alexander, made headlines for taking a stand against biological males accessing female washrooms at his high school, he and his wife appeared to become targets despite neither of them teaching at their son’s school.

Matthew says the board raised concerns about his association with Josh, the Christian youth organization Save Canada and even Christian pastors he had been photographed with. Nicole, meanwhile, was suspended after quietly removing a Pride flag someone had placed on her kindergarten classroom door.

The couple says they were ultimately given an ultimatum: agree to comply with the board’s requirement that they “celebrate and affirm LGBTQ issues in the classroom” or lose their jobs.

The Renfrew County District School Board later terminated the couple on October 26, 2023. “We had never discriminated against anybody, always had warm, welcoming classrooms,” Matthew told me. “But somehow if we won’t celebrate, we’re not allowed, not allowed to teach.”

Now, the Alexanders are facing an investigation by the Ontario College of Teachers, the regulatory body responsible for their professional teaching certificates.

Matthew said the implications could extend far beyond simply losing the ability to return to the classroom.

“The ramifications are broad, wide and very serious,” he said, warning that an adverse professional ruling could carry significant financial consequences and affect future licensing opportunities.

The couple has joined forces with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is assisting with their legal defence through crowdfunding efforts as they continue their fight.

Keep reading

Alberta woman forced into human rights hearing over anti-Pride flyer

An Alberta woman will face an eight-day human rights hearing over a flyer she distributed opposing a rainbow crosswalk and raising concerns about transgender ideology.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal hearing against Westlock resident Benita Pedersen begins Monday.

Pedersen distributed the two-sided flyer in June 2023 after learning that the Town of Westlock planned to paint a rainbow crosswalk incorporating colours from the transgender pride flag.

The front urged residents to “Say NO to the rainbow crosswalk in Westlock” and provided instructions for contacting municipal officials and attending a council meeting.

The reverse side contained stronger language about transgender ideology, children and medical transitions. It described certain treatments as “chemical castration and genital mutilation” and claimed that children could be left “infertile and unable to reproduce.”

The flyer alleged that “the transgender agenda is part of the de-population agenda, which is part of Agenda 2030.”

Keep reading

SHOCK: Devout Catholic Parents in Massachusetts Say State Took Custody of Their Teen Daughter After they Refused to Affirm Her as a Boy

A devout Catholic couple in Massachusetts said the state took custody of their teenage daughter after they refused to affirm her as a boy.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko said they have been fighting in court for nearly two years after their minor teen daughter Sophie was taken away from them because they would not recognize the child as a boy.

In December 2024, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) took Sophie away and is now beginning the process of medically transitioning her with testosterone.

The distraught parents alleged that the counselors at Algonquin Regional High School secretly began the process of socially transitioning their daughter without their permission.

A restraining order was lodged against the parents with allegations of abuse.

The DCF put the teen girl in a boys’ dormitory, put her on psychiatric drugs, and gave her birth control.

The couple has not spoken to their daughter Sophie, who is now 17 years old, in nearly two years.

Keep reading

Digital Surveillance Is Becoming the New Form of Government Power

The latest revelations involving the Department of Homeland Security demanding Google surrender data tied to a Canadian citizen demonstrate just how far governments are pushing digital surveillance powers beyond traditional legal and national boundaries. According to reports from WIRED, DHS used a “customs summons” under the Tariff Act of 1930 to demand location records, account activity, and identifying information connected to a Canadian man who had criticized ICE online following controversial immigration enforcement incidents earlier this year.

The individual reportedly had not entered the United States in more than a decade, yet American authorities still attempted to access his digital information because the technology platforms involved operate under U.S. jurisdiction.

People need to understand the implications because this goes far beyond one investigation or one political controversy. Governments are increasingly treating access to private technology infrastructure as a gateway to global surveillance authority. If your information passes through American technology companies, authorities now appear willing to argue they possess legal grounds to access portions of that data regardless of where you physically reside.

According to the lawsuit described in the WIRED investigation, DHS issued what is known as a customs summons, which functions as an administrative subpoena that does not require prior approval from a judge or grand jury. The summons reportedly demanded records involving location history, account activity, and communications tied to “threatening or harassing language.” The government allegedly justified the request under customs law despite the fact the individual was not accused of importing goods or violating customs duties in any conventional sense.

Authorities rarely begin by openly announcing broad monitoring programs targeting ordinary citizens. They start with politically sensitive cases involving terrorism, immigration enforcement, extremism, sanctions violations, or national security concerns. Then the scope quietly expands over time until governments normalize monitoring broader categories of speech, behavior, and political activity.

Keep reading

North Carolina Dem Visits Dachau, Says MAGA Supporters Belong There

Most people who visit Nazi concentration camps say that they cannot believe anyone could have ever committed such atrocities. But one North Carolina Democrat decided she would love to see her political opponents suffering in one of the most infamous camps.

Shelly Headen seems to have deleted her social media accounts, or at least made them private, because although there are screenshots of her crazy comments, I was not able to find the original posts. She has made seriously concerning comments before, but her latest one is particularly staggering.

Breitbart uncovered the latest craziness. There are many things wrong with the photo below, the first being that Headen is smiling broadly. That is not the expression you would expect from someone standing in front of ovens used to incinerate the corpses of tens of thousands of people.

Secondly, of course, she is not only advocating for locking up people with whom she disagrees politically; she’s literally calling for them to be massacred and burned in ovens, since she is literally standing in the Dachau crematorium.

Keep reading

The far-left will import Europe’s methods of suppressing free speech to the USA

Hillary Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.” Joe Biden said, “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic” – while his own Justice Department was trying to incarcerate Trump. Anderson Cooper asked Kamala Harris whether Trump was a fascist, and she answered, “Yes, I do. Yes, I do.”

The label was never just a label. Twitter banned Trump in January 2021 even though, as I discovered reporting on the Twitter Files, the company had concluded he did not violate its rules. Prosecutors then indicted him. A New York jury convicted him on 34 felony counts.

Meanwhile, AP [Associated Press] calls the socialist mayor of New York not “far left” but rather “the democratic socialist leader of America’s largest city.”

In the five months after Trump’s inauguration last year, the networks used “far right” and similar labels 1,222 times. They used “far left” 86 times. Another analysis of more than 30 million articles found that American and British media use right-wing extremism labels more than three times as often as left-wing ones.

If you think this ended with the 2024 election, look at what the same people are doing in Europe, because that is the playbook they intend to bring back here [to the USA].

A German court sentenced a journalist to seven months in prison for a satirical image of the interior minister. Prosecutors raided the home of a pensioner who called the vice chancellor an idiot in a meme. Police carried out 46 home searches in a single day for online speech.

Election officials strike opposition candidates from ballots. A Romanian court annulled a presidential election. French judges banned Marine Le Pen from office and a court ordered her to wear an ankle monitor. German bureaucrats kept a local political candidate off the ballot for his interpretation of “Lord of the Rings.”

What they do over there matters over here. The European Commission fined X [Twiter] €120 million after, in the words of the House Judiciary Committee, it “successfully pressured major social media platforms to change their global content moderation rules.” Global means you.

Keep reading

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