Tag: wrongthink

Enoch Burke: Irish School Teacher Jailed Following His Stance Against Transgender Ideology

Irish teacher Enoch Burke was arrested and jailed in November 2025. He was charged with contempt of court, and authorities insist this has nothing to do with his refusal to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns.

Technically, they are correct that his imprisonment stems from repeated violations of a court order barring him from returning to the school during his suspension.

However, it is also true that the entire case began with his refusal to give in to transgender ideology, which led to his suspension in the first place. Burke was a teacher at Wilson’s Hospital School in County Westmeath, Ireland.

In 2022 the school instructed staff to refer to a transgender student by a new name and the “they/them” pronoun, and Burke refused to comply.

After he publicly objected at a school event and confronted school leadership, he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings.

The school then obtained a court injunction barring him from its premises for the duration of his suspension.

Despite that order, Burke repeatedly returned to the school, prompting officials to seek court enforcement. He has since been found in contempt of court multiple times.

In late November 2025, a High Court judge ordered his committal to prison again, describing his repeated attendance as trespass and noting that fines were no longer effective.

Along with jail time, Burke is now facing fines exceeding 225,000 euros.

Historically, Ireland was one of the strongest Catholic countries in the world.

For most of the twentieth century more than 90 percent of the population identified as Catholic, and weekly Mass attendance often exceeded 90 percent.

Religious vocations were high, with thousands of priests and more than a thousand seminarians in the mid-1960s.

Keep reading

Democrats Would Like To Suppress Free Speech The Way Britain Does

It’s easy to look at a collapsing civil society in a foreign country and comfort ourselves that, despite all our problems, we’re not as bad off as those people. Americans are especially apt to do this with our cousins in Great Britain, whose country is now in a state of precipitous and probably irreversible decline, and whose political leadership is openly hostile to the native population.

But it’s a mistake to comfort ourselves this way, partly because the corruption of a place like Britain — the online censorship, the criminalization of disfavored opinions, the two-tiered system of justice — doesn’t stay confined to their shores but eventually makes its way to ours. Indeed, many Democrats here in America don’t see the tyranny of modern Britain as a cautionary tale but as a template to follow.

A startling case in point is a recent story from Drop Site News by Paul Holden, who chronicles how a secret campaign to elevate Kier Starmer to prime minister included a scheme to demonetize news outlets deemed unfriendly to the Starmer wing of the Labour Party. One of those news outlets was The Federalist.

In the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign, a shadowy UK-based group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) worked with NBC News and Google insiders to attempt to blacklist and demonetize The Federalist under false pretexts — an effort that was ultimately unsuccessful. The Orwellian-named NBC News Verification Unit reported in June 2020 that Google had banned the website ZeroHedge from its advertising platform and had warned The Federalist that it too might be banned.

But this wasn’t just “reporting,” it was part of a larger political op. According to the NBC News report itself, Google’s actions came only after the company had been “notified of research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation. They found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the protests, and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.”

And who notified Google about this CCDH report? NBC News did. This was a transparent effort by left-wing activists at NBC News, together with left-wing activists at the CCDH, to demonetize and silence The Federalist for the crime of noticing the hypocrisy surrounding BLM protests and strict Covid lockdowns.

But who or what was the CCDH, and why did it target The Federalist? At the time, the CCDH’s connection to the Starmer political machine and the Labour Party was unclear. But as Holden’s reporting reveals, the CCDH was part of a larger partisan political project that targeted The Federalist, Breitbart, ZeroHedge, and others. “As Keir Starmer rose to power in Britain, the political machine responsible for his rise ran a behind-the-scenes campaign to demonetize the U.S. news outlet Breitbart,” writes Holden. “The attacks on Breitbart were part of a targeted campaign against media outlets on both the left and right considered hostile to the centrist faction of the Labour Party, according to a trove of documents that expose the operation.”

At the center of this campaign was a man named Morgan McSweeney, who is now Prime Minster Starmer’s chief of staff. Between 2018 and 2020, McSweeney served as the company secretary and managing director for an organization called Labour Together that funded a think tank called Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN). At the time, SFFN claimed to be a grassroots effort organized and run by a group of anonymous concerned citizens inspired by the demonetizing campaigns run by Sleeping Giants, which had targeted Breitbart in the U.S. during the 2016 election.

In fact, SFFN was an astroturfing operation created and run by people in positions of real power inside the Labour Party, including not just McSweeney but Steve Reed, now a senior member of Starmer’s cabinet. The original purpose of SFFN, as Holden reports, was “to defeat the left-wing of the Labour Party and the media ecosystem that supported it.” The operations of SFFN, however, expanded to include right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Federalist, which it saw as impediments to Starmer’s rise.

Eventually, SFFN was absorbed into a new entity, CCDH, whose CEO is a man named Imran Ahmed. Ahmed worked with McSweeney in the London office of Labour Together, which first launched the SFFN project. Ahmed has said that McSweeney gave him a “shell company” called Brixton Endeavors that later became CCDH and in early 2020 absorbed the entire SFFN project. McSweeney has tried to distance himself from all this but as Holden notes, McSweeney was the sole director of Brixton Endeavors between 2018 and September 2019, and remained a director of CCDH until April 2020.

During this time, a plan was developed to target disfavored news outlets by going after their advertisers. As Ahmed himself said in an October 2020 U.S. State Department conference on antisemitism, the CCDH “put together a program called stop funding fake news” designed to undermine ad revenue of certain news sites. He boasted that the weak points of news websites is that they’re expensive to run, so eliminating their ad revenue meant that “within a couple of months, you can completely eviscerate the economic base of a website.”

What Ahmed and his underlings at CCDH needed was a willing news outlet to “report” on its targeting of certain websites for being “hateful” or “racist.” This they found in the NBC News Verification Unit, which tried to goad Google into demonetizing The Federalist and others, and then “reported” it as news.

Take a step back and realize that this is the equivalent of people like Ron Klain or Jeff Zients, who served as chiefs of staff during the Biden administration, running secretive demonetization ops against conservative news outlets in America.

But even that isn’t very far-fetched. After all, the Biden administration’s State Department used its now-defunct Global Engagement Center to fund censorship operations by groups like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index, which targeted The Federalist and The Daily Wire, among others. We here at The Federalist joined with The Daily Wire in a lawsuit against the State Department in 2023, claiming these groups, supported by the federal government, sought to defund and suppress our reporting and commentary in violation of our First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

Canadian pastor arrested for refusing to write apology to librarian who hosted ‘drag queen story hour’

A Canadian pastor has been arrested for refusing to apologize to a librarian who hosted a “drag queen story hour” for children.

In the afternoon of December 3, Calgary police arrested Christian pastor Derek Reimer for refusing to comply with a court order mandating that he pen a formal apology to a Calgary Public Library manager who he criticized for promoting a children’s “drag queen story hour” in 2023.

“Do you know why you’re arresting him? He won’t say sorry for his beliefs,” an independent Canadian journalist under the handle Dacey Media asked police during the arrest.

Present at the arrest was pro-freedom pastor Artur Pawlowski and Reimer’s son. Videos of the arrest quickly circulated on social media, with many Canadian activists condemning it as targeting Christian and pro-family values.

“Canadian pastor arrested for refusing COURT ORDERED LGBTQ APOLOGY,” former Ontario teacher turned pro-family advocate Matt Alexander wrote on X.

“Derek Reimer is taken away,” he continued. “He protested a drag queen story hour and has faced legal repercussions for years. Religious freedom is gone.”

“Welcome to Canada, where freedom of religion and expression are no more,” another Canadian wrote. “A pastor who would not apologize for opposing drag queen story hour has been arrested and could receive up to 2 years in prison. Pray for pastor Derek Reimer.”

At the time of his arrest, Reimer was serving a one-year house arrest, which he had previously appealed, as reported by LifeSiteNews. Last Wednesday, he was in court to go over his sentence conditions.

Keep reading

WEAPONIZATION EXPOSED: Justice Thomas Corners New Jersey AG’s Counsel — Confirms Subpoena for Pro-Life Donors Issued Even Though NO ONE Complained

Justice Clarence Thomas forced New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin’s chief counsel to admit that the state launched an intrusive investigation into a pro-life pregnancy center without receiving a single complaint about the organization.

During oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, Justice Thomas methodically dismantled the state’s justification for issuing a donor-snooping subpoena targeting First Choice, a faith-based, pro-life pregnancy support network that has operated for over 40 years.

Justice Thomas drilled into a simple, devastating question: “You had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?”

Sundeep Iyer, chief counsel to AG Platkin, conceded that New Jersey received zero complaints about First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.

Instead, he claimed the state merely “canvassed public information” before issuing a sweeping subpoena demanding years of internal records, including confidential donor information.

Iyer further admitted that the state did receive complaints about other pregnancy centers, but not First Choice.

First Choice, a faith-based pro-life nonprofit operating in New Jersey since 1985, provides free ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, counseling, and material support to women. It is fully upfront about its pro-life mission, stating on every page of its website that it does not provide or refer for abortion services.

Keep reading

Britain Is Lost

A recent interview Tucker Carlson had with George Galloway, a long-time member of the British Parliament and with a show himself in Britain, who was recently detained at the border under terrorism charges for, apparently, the opinions broadcast on his show.

No nation has fallen quicker or more completely than Britain into the totalitarian mindset.

It’s why we highlighted this aspect of modern Europe into the film Deconstruction.

Britain, as long as it pursues the same oppression of free speech as the Soviet Union, can not be called or considered an ally of the United States.

This is what we have to decide as a people, the American people, who will and who will not be our allies. Governments, especially now, are poor judges of character. They will hold onto traditional alliances, when those alliances have long been strained, simply because they would be unsure of what that would do to international relationships. If we lose Britain, France and Germany as allies, what effect does that have on NATO?

My question, however, is what damage does continued alliances with nations who punish their people for what they have said, posted or broadcast do to international perception? Are we not tarnished by their brush? Yes. It also signals that the United States is not determined to uphold the right to free speech. That in order to maintain these alliances will betray their own people.

As Britain, France and Germany turn toward implementing a police state to support immigrants who rape and kill their sons and daughters, put protesters in jail and silence not only their own citizens, but any who arrive through the internet, can they still be considered allies of a free nation? No. So, how free is that “free” nation? It is not free as it supports and continues alliances with nations diametrically opposed, not only to free speech, but a series of democratic principles.

The battle taking place within the European nations draw a stark contrast to the Central and Eastern European nations, formerly Soviet client states, who distance themselves from European Union dictates that promote illegal migration and the silencing of objectors.

The whole idea of democracy comes from the idea that the people have a say in who governs them and the policies they impose. When freedom of speech is so blatantly outlawed and only approved narratives permitted, there is no democracy. I don’t know what sort of government Britain has, but it is not a democracy as it claims. Yes, I know it’s technically a Monarchy, but the King or Queen has nowhere near the political power they once held.

All of this centers around illegal migration, it’s where people like Keir Starmer intend to derive their power, in the end. If he supports the replacement population when it is unpopular to do so, they might look kindly on him when the Islamists take full control of the politics, but he is a useful idiot.

They continue to put forth the idea that a declining birthrate is the reason for the importation of these migrants, but if European and American birthrates are dropping, as it is in all Western societies, it would seem that the logical conclusion would be to outlaw abortion, not import rapists and murderers.

But that’s not the reason. It isn’t the birthrate, it’s an attempt to forever change politics that eliminates the right, the Christians. This point was made clear by Viktor Orban in the film Deconstruction that’s coming out soon.

Communists and Islamists work well together. They have the same goal, supremacy through murder and imprisonment of an uncompliant populace. Democracies must tolerate the naysayers, the critics, that’s the difference. It won’t be long and the UK will be an Islamic nation, just as Iran became an Islamic nation. Are they still allies of the US? If so, why are not all Islamic nations allies? Because Islamic nations are at war with the US. “Death to America” does not seem like the pronouncement of an ally. Will it be heard across Britain, while we still consider it a close ally? Of course.

The United States had better figure this out, too. The only true allies the US has in Europe are the Central and Eastern European nations.

They are also the ones that need more protection from Russia and China, because, as smaller economies, they can’t afford to be too choosy about who they do business with and the more that the United States can be a better economic partner, the stronger we will all be.

The world is changing rapidly and our government is incapable of keeping up with the pace. It has to be led by the people.

The film Deconstruction makes this point. 

Keep reading

Why Banning Hate Speech Is Evil

We often hear demands to ban so-called “hate speech.” Negative remarks about various groups, including women, black people, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, can it is alleged, have a negative effect on members of the group who hear or see the speech. It encourages people to hate them and cements negative stereotypes about them in people’s minds. In addition, hearing or seeing “hate speech” offends the members of the group. Free speech may have some value, but whatever value it has it outweighed by the evil of “hate speech.” Almost any group can claim to be victimized by “hate speech,” except for white heterosexual males and Christians, but “hate speech” applies primarily to members of so-called “protected classes.”

From a libertarian standpoint, the question of banning so-called “hate speech” is a no-brainer. Banning any kind of speech, whether it is good or bad, is incompatible with a free society. As the great Murray Rothbard has taught us, all rights are property rights. Everyone can set the rules for speech on his own property, and no one has the right to control what anyone says on someone else’s property. This includes speech which counts as “offensive.” Of course, we don’t live in a libertarian society, but we should come as close as we can in practice to it. This means following the strictest possible interpretation of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law. . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” “No law” means “no law” and that includes laws against so-called “hate speech.”

Some states have “hate speech” laws on the books. New York is considering a law, already passed in California that requires social media companies to report “hate speech.” This is the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” and has been passed by the State’s Assembly. Here is an account of the measure from Vince Chang, who favors it:

“Under pressure from the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] and other groups, internet platforms have voluntarily adopted measures to regulate hate speech. The ADL described some of the measures that have been taken: Facebook prohibited Holocaust denial content, hired a vice president of civil rights, changed parts of its advertising platform to prohibit various forms of discrimination; expanded policies against content that undermined the legitimacy of the election; and built a team to study and eliminate bias in artificial intelligence. Due to pressure from ADL and other civil rights organizations, Twitter banned linked content, URL links to content outside the platform that promotes violence and hateful conduct. Reddit added its first global hate policy, providing for the removal of subreddits and users that “promote hate based on identity or vulnerability.”

We can see how such laws have a chilling effect on speech if we look at bans on so-called “hate speech” in foreign countries where they are already in operation. I want to focus especially on the Scottish Hate Speech Act.

Let’s first look at an official summary of the Scottish act, from the Scottish parliament site:

“Hate crime is the phrase used to describe behaviour which is both criminal and based on prejudice.

There are already laws in place to protect certain groups from hate crime.

This Bill aims to do three things. It updates these existing laws and pulls most of these laws into one Bill. It also adds to the groups currently specifically protected by hate crime laws.

Criminal courts can generally take into account any prejudice when sentencing a person. Also, people are protected from hate crime through specific laws that apply.

Keep reading

Thicko Rep. Jasmine Crockett Says She Only Wants to Deport U.S. Citizens She Considers ‘White Supremacists’

Thicko Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett has her own deportation plan, and it doesn’t involve illegal immigrants.

During an appearance on MSNBC on Saturday, Crockett weighed in on the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown against the scourge of illegal immigration. 

“Obviously, in Trump’s America, this is exactly what he wants, and the idea that one person can get out of line and commit such a horrific crime as shooting two of our national guardsmen that never ever actually asked to be here.”

”In fact, we know that the young lady that lost her life specifically was saying that this is a waste of time. But now you want to go against every single immigrant.” 

“That doesn’t make sense, and it is frankly not who we are because if that’s the case, let’s talk about the white supremacists and how many of them need to be kicked out of this country.

“I can guarantee you, I can track down more crimes they’ve committed because overall immigrants have a lower crime committal rate than white supremacists. But we don’t wanna talk about that.”

Keep reading

UK Ofcom Pushes Rules Targeting “Misogynistic” Content, Prompting (Even More) Free Speech Concerns

Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has unveiled a new framework urging social media and technology companies to censor so-called “misogynistic” content as part of its A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls campaign.

The initiative, framed as an effort to protect women from online abuse, further weakens the distinction between “harmful” conduct and lawful expression, a tension Ofcom itself acknowledges in its own documentation.

The regulator’s new guidance encourages platforms to adopt a wide range of “safety” measures, many of which would directly influence what users can post, see, and share.

These include inserting prompts that nudge users to “reconsider” certain comments, suppressing “misogynistic” material in recommendation feeds and search results, temporarily suspending users who post repeated “abuse,” and de-monetizing content flagged under this category.

Moderators would also receive special training on “gender-based harms,” while posting rates could be throttled to slow the spread of unwanted speech.

Ofcom’s document also endorses the use of automated scanning systems like “hash-matching” to locate and delete non-consensual intimate imagery.

While intended to prevent the circulation of explicit photos, such systems typically involve the mass analysis of user uploads and can wrongly flag legitimate material.

Additional proposals include “trusted flagger” partnerships with NGOs, identity verification options, and algorithmic “friction” mechanisms, small design barriers meant to deter impulsive posting.

Some of the ideas, such as warning prompts and educational links, are voluntary.

Yet several major advocacy groups, including Refuge and Internet Matters, are pressing for the government to make them binding on all platforms.

If adopted wholesale, these measures would effectively place Ofcom in a position to oversee the policing of legal speech, with tech firms acting as its enforcement arm.

In a letter announcing the guidance, Ofcom’s Chief Executive Melanie Dawes declared that “the digital world is not serving women and girls the way it should,” describing online misogyny and non-consensual deepfakes as pervasive problems that justify immediate “industry-wide action.”

She stated that Ofcom would “follow up to understand how you are applying this Guidance” and publish a progress report in 2027.

Keep reading

Professor sues Millsaps College after being fired for ‘racist fascist country’ email

A former Millsaps College professor is suing the institution, alleging his termination for describing America as a “racist fascist country” in an email to students was censorship. 

Professor James Bowley’s complaint, filed in September, alleges that the small Mississippi college breached his tenure and its founding tradition connecting faith to free speech. Bowley taught politics and religion at the college for more than 20 years.

“Millsaps fired a tenured professor because he expressed a political opinion in an email to three like-minded students in a political seminar,” the complaint claims.

However, college spokesperson Joey Lee told The College Fix that the institution is “confident” about defending its actions in the case.

“Millsaps College is dedicated to academic excellence and open inquiry. We are also committed to providing a safe and supportive campus for all,” Lee said in a recent email.

“Due to the pending litigation, we will not go into any further details at this time, but we look forward to the opportunity to tell the whole story,” Lee said. “We believe the facts will speak clearly, and we are confident in our position and in the legal process ahead.”

The college placed Bowley on administrative leave in November 2024. Almost a year later, in September, Bowley was terminated, according to the complaint. Initial reports said Bowley was fired in January, but Lee told The Fix that he was still on administrative leave at the time.

The controversy stems from an email Bowley sent to three students after the 2024 presidential election. Bowley wrote that he was canceling his “Abortion and Religion” class to “mourn and process this racist and fascist country.”

According to the complaint, Bowley’s decision was “rooted in compassion for the emotional distress that he knew his students were going through” due to the election of Donald Trump.

The lawsuit also argues that he was justified in sending the statement because the campus culture was tense after a Millsaps student threatened Kamala Harris voters in a YikYak post. 

Bowley claims that the college violated his tenure when it fired him. “The faculty member’s expression of unpopular political views is not ‘cause for dismissal,’” the lawsuit states. 

The complaint also highlights the Methodist background of the institution.

It quotes Methodist founder John Wesley: “The Methodists alone do not insist on your holding this or that opinion; but they think and let think . … Now, I do not know any other religious society, either ancient or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is now allowed, or has been allowed, since the age of the apostles.”

The complaint argues that the college’s Methodist background is a foundation for academic freedom: “The requirement that all Methodist colleges respect academic freedom remains enshrined in policies set by the Church, stating that all ‘colleges and universities are to ensure that academic freedom is protected for all members of the academic community and a learning environment is fostered that allows for a free exchange of ideas.’”  

It also connects open inquiry and freedom of speech and expression: “Challenge and discomfort are essential at Millsaps.”

Keep reading

Nicolás Maduro’s Socialist Regime Sentences 65-Year-Old Physician Marggie Orozco to 30 Years in Prison for a WhatsApp Voice Message Criticizing the Regime and Urging Neighbors to Vote in the July 2024 Elections

The socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro has orchestrated a 30-year prison sentence — the maximum penalty in Venezuela — against Dr. Marggie Orozco, a 65-year-old general practitioner suffering from serious health problems.

This verdict, handed down on November 17, 2025, by Judge Luz Dary Moreno of the 4th Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit in the state of Táchira, is based on fabricated charges such as “treason against the homeland,” “incitement to hatred,” and “conspiracy.”

All of this for a simple WhatsApp voice message in which Orozco criticized the irregular distribution of domestic gas cylinders by the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP) — clientelist structures loyal to Chavismo — and encouraged her neighbors to participate in the presidential elections of July 28, 2024, a process blatantly rigged by Maduro to cling to power despite the overwhelming victory of the opposition.

Orozco was detained on August 5, 2024, in San Juan de Colón, near the border with Colombia, amid the post-election crisis that unleashed massive protests against the evident fraud.

A CLAP leader loyal to the regime reported her to the authorities — part of a neighborhood surveillance system that Maduro has actively promoted through mobile apps that allow citizens to denounce “fascists” (his euphemism for any dissident) in exchange for subsidized food bonuses.

After her arrest by the Bolivarian National Police, Orozco suffered a heart attack on September 15, 2024, while in custody, yet she was returned to prison the very next day despite her critical condition. She has suffered from chronic depression since 2013, worsened by the tragic loss of two of her children: one murdered during an attempted robbery and the other killed in an accident.

Today, imprisoned at the Western Penitentiary Center in Santa Ana, Táchira, her health continues to deteriorate without proper access to medication or family visits, effectively turning this sentence into a slow death penalty.

This case is not an isolated incident but rather one more cog in the repressive machinery that tyrant Maduro has perfected to silence every critical voice. According to Foro Penal, Venezuela currently holds 882 political prisoners, both civilians and military personnel — a figure that skyrocketed after the fraudulent elections: more than 2,400 initial arrests, of which around 2,000 were released months later under international pressure, yet leaving behind a trail of terror.

Keep reading