Green Party Politician Suggests AfD Supporters Should Be Refused Organ Donations

A Green Party councilor, Julia Probst from the city of Weißenhorn, publicly asked in a survey whether her followers would agree to an organ donation if the potential recipient was an Alternative for Germany (AfD) voter.

The survey, taken by nearly 4,000 users, saw about a quarter say they would not agree to an organ donation; however, the vast majority said they would, amounting to 76 percent.

Her post was met with severe criticism from many users, with some accusing her of linking organ donation to political leanings.

One user, who wrote he was an “AfD opponent,” argued that as a first responder, he “first helps a person and not a ‘party affiliation.” He noted that linking organ donation to political affiliation was “inconceivable.”

The user also said: The wording of the question is very confusing to me? Do I have left-wing or right-wing blood?”

Many users with green hearts in their profiles, indicating their support for the Green Party, also took offense at the question. The majority of posters said that organ donation should not be linked to voting intention.

Probst has since locked her X account.

Keep reading

A US Bank Closed Our Accounts Because I’d Visited Cuba Six Months Ago

For years, World BEYOND War and other peace groups from around the world had been attending peace conferences in Cuba. When I visited Cuba this past January it was with a visa for that purpose. I published here the remarks I made at the conference. We shouted as loudly as we could about January’s conference in websites, social media, emails, and media interviews. The notion that there could be anything wrong with it — or that some institution could punish us for it — never entered our minds.

Legally, you’re allowed to go to a peace conference in Cuba. Nobody has so much as hinted that I’ve done anything illegal. But on Thursday June 5th I got a bunch of letters in the mail telling me that on Monday June 9th the U.S. bank accounts of World BEYOND War and the private accounts of all of my family members would be closed without explanation. This was the action of a particular bank called First Citizens, with no indication of any involvement by any government. (The explanation, it would be made clear, was my visit to Cuba.)

Morally, it seems a useful thing to do — attending peace conferences in Cuba. As at similar conferences in many other countries, one can meet diplomats, authors, activists, and politicians from all over the world to discuss peace education, disarmament, negotiations, and cross-cultural understanding. Videos of the entire conferences in Cuba, like most others around the world, are posted online for all to see.

World BEYOND War works to abolish all war, and opposes all sides of all wars — an unusual position even at peace conferences. We are constantly working to persuade some people not to support the Russian side of a war and other people not to support the Ukrainian side. We oppose any and all war-making by the U.S., Cuba, or anyone else, without equating disparate sides or blaming victims in any actual wars. Some groups try to shut down weapons programs because the weapons don’t work well; we start with opposing those that kill the most. When Trump sends troops into Los Angeles, we don’t join the Governor of California in asking that soldiers and Marines do their work abroad; we ask people to think about whether such armed forces should invade anyone else’s city either. The nice thing about peace conferences is that we can advance these views nonviolently, disagreeing amicably.

The problem, apparently, for a U.S. bank, with Cuban peace conferences is that, as with many things in Cuba, the Cuban government is involved. The president of the country wanders into the panel sessions. While that has the potential to cause censorship, it also has the potential to educate decision makers. I’d like to see presidents wandering in at peace conferences in Washington and other capitals.

Of course, the U.S. government has been sanctioning and blockading Cuba for generations, for the stated illegal purpose of overthrowing the government but — as usual — with the result of strengthening it instead, and the actual illegal impact of impoverishing the Cuban people — whose impoverishment is then blamed on the Cuban government and used as an excuse to overthrow it. This cruelty from the North provides a handy excuse for all sorts of repression and awful governance by the Cuban government, just as with the Iranian government and several others.

Keep reading

Europe’s Populist Parties Keep Gaining Ground, But Cannot Get Into Power

Across the European continent, despite gaining considerable proportions of the vote, populist parties are increasingly being frozen out of governing in coalitions by political opponents who regard them as extremist.

Proponents of the tactic known as a “cordon sanitaire” or “firewall” say it’s not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. But one war expert said the tactic will only arouse anger in voters and that “there is no potential for peaceful political change.”

Coalitions are part and parcel of political life in many European countries.

But the cordon sanitaire, a measure normally directed at keeping out fringe outliers, is now being used to keep out parties that are gaining majority-level support.

Such parties include the Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Spain’s Vox, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom.

They all deny being “far-right” as they are often dubbed by media, opponents, or academics, but their political opponents regard them as beyond the pale and have formed coalitions on the promise of shutting them out of governance.

Keep reading

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling ‘Free Palestine’ Slogan as ‘Anti-Semitism’

The resolution is non-binding but seeks to exploit the recent violence in Boulder, CO for political purposes

Colorado GOP Congressman Gabe Evans introduced a non-binding resolution on Friday that labels ‘Free Palestine’ as “an antisemitic slogan.” The bill seeks to limit immigration of people who oppose Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv’s genocidal onslaught in the besieged Gaza Strip. The bill is expected to be voted on some time next week.

The bill reads, “Whereas, while shouting ‘Free Palestine,’ an antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and Jewish people, Mohammed Sabry Soliman attacked the peaceful demonstrators with homemade Molotov cocktails.”

The term “Free Palestine” refers to the desire to end the nearly 60 -years-long brutal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, illegal per international law. It also implies support for ending Israel’s apartheid regime, replacing it with either a two-state solution or a single state with equal rights, including the right to vote, for all citizens currently living under the rule of the Israeli government.

The introduction of the bill follows a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado by 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who was living in the United States on an expired nonimmigrant visa. He had applied for asylum subsequent to his visa’s expiration. Over a dozen people were injured after the assailant threw Molotov cocktails at attendees at a small pro-Israel demonstration.

The attendees were calling for the release of the hostages taken during the October 7th Hamas attack in southern Israel. Hamas has repeatedly offered to release all hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza including the end to the blockade on the Strip which has pushed the population closer to full-scale famine amidst constant bombardment. Both Tel Aviv and Washington strongly oppose a ceasefire despite the fact that it is the only way to secure the hostages’ release and safety. Top Israeli officials, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are committed to continuing the war and finishing its ethnic cleansing campaign.

Keep reading

Stripe And Substack Demand Authors’ Financial Details

Financial privacy is a right under the Constitution, as is free speech.  

Under the guise of “credit review,” Stripe is now rolling out a requirement that appears to target conservative or “anti-vax” Substack authors. Stripe is requiring that these authors provide all of their current and historic financial records associated with the bank account into which Stripe deposits Substack subscriber payments (after taking 10% off the top for Substack and 3% for Stripe). Stripe already has information concerning this bank account (including deposits from Stripe), as we have been doing business with Stripe via this account for over two years.

If I or anyone else agree to these new terms, this newly implemented arbitrary, capricious and overreaching requirement will provide Stripe with complete records of all financial transactions associated with this account. Consequently, this will provide Stripe with comprehensive information on all of my customers, patients, and clients, all of my travel (historic and planned), all of my purchases, and any donations (and donor information).

This information from my account and those of any others who comply with this demand can be hacked or sold, provided to the US Government, used to fuel predictive algorithms (AI), used to derive insights into my political orientation, weaponized against me by press or other hostile actors, or used to support future social credit score-based restrictions.

Stripe has a history of financially deplatforming (or debanking) for political reasons, including removing support for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Despite its relatively recent entry into the financial transaction business, Stripe has become a major global financial organization, and processed one $1 trillion in payments during 2023, and is now expanding its credit charge program. 

Keep reading

Gender ideology mandate in foster care opposed by religious liberty, gay rights, pro-drag groups

Vermont’s refusal to place foster children in families with religious objections to gender ideology compels parents to parrot the government’s preferred messages, establishes the Green Mountain State’s own religion and treats “comparable secular activity” more favorably, while the judge who upheld the gender-affirming mandate relied on dubious research.

Those are a handful of arguments in friend-of-the-court briefs as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals evaluates whether Vermont violated the First Amendment by stripping foster-care licenses from Christian couples Brian and Katy Wuoti and Michael and Rebecca Gantt.

Social workers gave the couples glowing reviews, but Vermont deemed them “unqualified” to parent “any child (even a relative) of any age (even an infant) and for any length of time (even a few hours)” due to their religious beliefs, harming children who need “loving homes,” the couples’ lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom said.

No federal appeals court has yet determined “whether a state may categorically exclude families from foster care because of their protected speech and religious beliefs,” though the 9th Circuit will “likely” rule on the issue “soon,” ADF’s opening brief says.

The San Francisco-based appeals court heard oral argument nearly a year ago, but has yet to rule, in another ADF case by Oregon widow and mother-of-five Jessica Bates, who is suing the Beaver State to let her adopt foster siblings without requiring her to use their preferred pronouns and even give them “hormone shots” if they desire.

Keep reading

UK: Mainstream Beliefs Meet the Terror Watchlist

By now, if you believe Britain has taken leave of its senses, you’re not alone. The government has decided that worrying about immigration or caring about British culture might make you a terrorist.

This gem of bureaucratic genius comes courtesy of the “Prevent” program, that once well-meaning initiative designed to stop actual terrorism, like bomb plots and people with a fondness for Kalashnikovs, now apparently more concerned with sniffing out your aunt’s Facebook posts about British bulldogs and Yorkshire pudding.

Prevent, for those lucky enough not to be familiar, is the UK’s flagship anti-extremism strategy. It was born in the post-9/11 panic and was originally tasked with steering vulnerable individuals away from radicalization.

What started as a good-faith attempt to stop kids from being lured into jihadist cults has since mutated into something far less noble: a state-sponsored snooping operation that now treats the phrase “too much immigration” like it’s a secret handshake for neo-Nazis.

The smoking gun is a government-hosted training module advising public sector workers, nurses, teachers, librarians, and probably the guy who does your recycling collection, that “cultural nationalism” should be seen as a potential marker for extreme right-wing terrorism.

Keep reading

Major bank announces end of de-banking policies on guns and political affiliation

After years of criticism from the right about unfair “de-banking” practices, a major U.S. bank announced the end of the policy as it relates to political affiliation and gun sales.

Citigroup announced that they changed their firearms policies, which had been instituted after the heinous 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

“We appreciate the concerns that are being raised regarding ‘fair access’ to banking services, and we are following regulatory developments, recent executive orders and federal legislation that impact this area,” the bank said in a statement.

The statement said Citigroup had updated its employee code of conduct to ensure that no one was discriminated against on the basis of their political affiliation.

Among those who claimed they were the targets of political de-banking were first lady Melania Trump and Eric Trump, who said the Trump Organization had been negatively affected.

In October, the first lady recalled in an interview the shock she felt on finding out a bank had “suddenly informed me they will not be able to do business with me anymore.”

She also said that a university returned her money when she tried to contribute to a philanthropic effort to fund scholarships for foster kids.

“They didn’t want to do business with me because of political affiliation, my political beliefs,” she added.

Keep reading

BC nurse Amy Hamm faces over $160,000 in legal fees, 3-month license suspension after being found guilty of ‘unprofessional conduct’

Vancouver nurse Amy Hamm, who was found guilty of professional misconduct by a disciplinary panel of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives in March, is facing over $160,000 in legal fees and a potential three-month suspension of her license. 

In late May, British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) attorney Michael Seaborn sent a request to the group’s disciplinary panel urging them to suspend her license for three months and order her to pay $163,053 in legal fees to the BCCNM.

Hamm wrote in response to the filing that the BCCNM “spent 4+ years persecuting me for my political views. Their latest move is to try to take $163,053 dollars from me, a single mother, to pay for their bullsh*t persecution that I wanted nothing to do with. And suspend my license for 3 months. I already lost my 13 year job because of them. They are f*cking evil. Evil. Who does this?”

In a statement to the Epoch Times, BCCNM spokesperson Johanna Ward said that the request is part of the regulatory disciplinary process. “Costs may be awarded to the successful party, in this case the College, to partially offset the cost of running a hearing. The College has made its submissions to the Discipline Committee regarding the penalty and costs sought. Ms. Hamm and her counsel have the opportunity to respond to those submissions. Ultimately, the Discipline Committee will decide what, if any, order to make on penalty and costs.”

In a June 2 post, Hamm said she would fight the request. “Unfortunately for them, I am not a weak person. I reject their lies, and their punishment, and will fight to see that they never see a penny of the $161,000 they want to take from me. I will fight to see that they are punished for what they’ve done.”

The case against Hamm spans back to 2020, when Hamm co-sponsored a billboard that read “I [heart] JK Rowling,” the British author best known for her Harry Potter series who has been a vocal defender of women’s spaces. A complaint was lodged against Hamm with the BCCNM claiming that she was transphobic and unfit for her profession. A second complaint, filed anonymously, was filed against Hamm accusing her of “promoting and stoking hate speech towards trans and gender-diverse communities.” 

The BCCNM’s Inquiry Committee launched an investigation, resulting in a 332-page report on Hamm’s online activities and a citation against Hamm for alleged “discriminatory and derogatory statements” that constituted professional misconduct.

In March, Hamm was found guilty of committing “unprofessional conduct” for her statements in support of sex being a characteristic that cannot be changed, statements in which she identified herself as a nurse. 

Keep reading

Retired UK Constable Detained for Social Media Post Receives Financial Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment

Under leftist Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the United Kingdom is sinking ever deeper in the censorship quagmire, signaling an authoritarian future where free-speech will be completely criminalized.

But that is not to say there has been no pushback from the British society.

Now, a retired police constable has been awarded some measure of justice in the form of compensation of £20,000 [US$ 27,000] after a wrongful arrest over one social media post in which he warned about rising anti-Semitism.

The Telegraph reported:

“Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham, Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X. Kent Police officers searched his home and commented on his ‘very Brexity’ book collection. The force detained the 71-year-old for eight hours, interrogated and issued him with a caution after officers visited his home on Nov 2 2023.”

Keep reading