The coronavirus crisis is a human rights crisis and an opportunity for governments to intensify their attacks on press freedom and freedom of speech

Death threats, prosecution, online smear campaigns instigated by the government: this is not something that UK-based journalists expect in response to their work reporting on coronavirus. Yet itsan increasing part of life in the media in many countries around the world.

In Serbia, for example, journalist AnaLalicwas charged with causing panic and unrest after writing an article on PPE shortages. The charges wereeventuallydropped, but since her releaseshesreceived death threats and persistent calls to prosecute her leaving her in fear for her safety.

Over inTurkey,NurcanBaysal, a journalist,writerand activist, was summoned by the police to testify for sharing articles aboutcoronavirus measures ina prison inDiyarbakr.

Meanwhile, in Bosnia, anRTVSlonjournalist and camera operator were briefly detained by policewhile reporting on a group of citizens which had arrived at a COVID-19 isolation centre. Despite having valid press cards and permits that allowed them to move around and work during the curfew, the police seized the journalists phones and deleted all the footage.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more stories like theseof journalists being prevented from doing their jobs; and of peoplewhoshare their coronavirus experienceswith the media being punished for having spoken out.

Indeed, the 2020 edition of the World Press Freedom Index, published by RSF, reveals a correlation between the suppression of press freedom during the coronavirus epidemic and the place of countries in the ranking, claiming that the health crisis is an opportunity for the lowest ranked countries to intensify their repression and attacks on the press, even to impose measures that are impossible in normal times.

Over atthe human rights charity,Prisoners of Conscience, there are growing concerns about the impact of thepandemicon freedom of expression and freedom of speech.The charity provides financial and practical support to people who have been persecuted forpeacefully standing up for their rights and beliefs, including journalists,bloggersand social media activists, among others.

It has noted how many journalists around the world have been harassed, threatened and arrested while trying to cover the crisis, while aggressive cyber-policing and increased online surveillance has led to healthcare workers, medical professionals, activists, political opponents being arrested.

Even before the pandemic hit,the charitysexperiences show thatthe situation had been deteriorating. In the last five years, Prisoners of Conscience has seen a huge increase in the numbers of applications from people who have been persecuted for exercising their rights to free speech and expression 80 per cent of whom had to flee their home countries in search of safety.

The charity is now bracing itself for an influx of applications from people who have been persecuted for sharing stories of coronavirus and for asking difficult questions of their governments.

While judging the Press Gazette Excellence in CoronavirusReporting awards, I wasmovedby the hard workof the journalists in question in helpingthe world make sense of what was going on.

As I think about our peers around the world who face harassment, detainment and often physical and sexual violence at the hands of people who do not want them to speak truth to power, I am even more grateful for their dedication to our profession. These journalists are on the frontline of this crisis and they frequently put their own lives at risk to provide us with true and accurate information.

As the United Nations Secretary-General, Antnio Guterres, said recently: When journalists are attacked, societiesas a whole paya price. No democracy can function without press freedom, which is the cornerstone of trust between people and their institutions.

We need to work together to ensure our colleagues around the worldcancontinue to do their jobs without fear.

Becky Slack is a freelance journalist anda judge for the Press Gazette journalism awards. She is also the part-time fundraising manager at Prisoners of Conscience.www.prisonersofconscience.org

Our free daily round-up of the biggest news about the world of news

Visit link:

How the pandemic is being used by some as an excuse to clampdown on press freedom - Press Gazette

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August/September 2020, pp. 16-18

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, as well as the City of Toronto, have been working for three years to ban the citys annual Al-Quds Day demonstration. Both Torontos city council and Ontarios provincial parliament have taken steps to silence the demonstration.

Bill 84, the Prohibiting Hate Promoting Demonstrations at Queens Park Act, is currently before the Justice Policy Standing Committee in Ontarios legislature, and has gone to a second reading. Conservative member of parliament Roman Baber, who was born in Israel, proposed the bill. Meanwhile, last year, the Toronto city council held hearings into the annual rally.

People have been observing Al-Quds Day worldwide since 1979 to protest the occupation of East Jerusalem and treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

In Toronto, the event previously took place on the grounds of the provincial legislature, but that changed several years ago to make room for the Pan Am and Parapan Games (a sporting event for people with physical disabilities). Since then, the demonstration has been held at Queens Park West, which is municipal property.

Toronto city council member James Pasternak has been trying to restrict Al-Quds Day demonstrations since 2017, when he asked the city for advice on the feasibility of banning hate-infested rallies and hate speech on city property. He was proposing that Toronto police use some of their resources to prohibit the Al-Quds demonstration. The pro-Palestinian demonstration is the only event Pasternak mentions in his motion.

At the time, ten city council members supported Pasternaks administrative inquiry. Toronto Mayor John Tory also supports banning the event, though city legal staff does not feel comfortable with such an action.

Supporters and organizers of the Al-Quds Day event say the action is being unfairly targeted. Karen Rodman, voluntary director with Just Peace Advocates and member of the Canadian BDS Coalition, said Bill 84 is focused entirely on Al-Quds Day, with no mention of the almost 20 hate rallies that have been held by right wing, Islamophobic and nationalist hate groups in Toronto over the past two years.

The real problem is that under the guise of fighting hate, the motion aims to silence progressive society, said Robert Massoud, who has acted as a consultant and guide to the Al-Quds demonstration committee. Al-Quds Day is a legitimate protest against the injustices and actions of Israel toward the Palestinians, which have also been condemned internationally, he added. The opponents of Al-Quds Day conflate legitimate protest against Israel with anti-Semitism, Massoud said.

Bnai Brith, a pro-Israel organization, has referred to the annual Al-Quds Day demonstration as a hate fest, and after this years Al-Quds demonstration, which was held as an online event due to COVID-19, the organization filed a complaint with the Toronto police.

There is a strong element of Islamophobia inherent in the opposition to Al-Quds Day and banning the event would reinforce this, charged Sheryl Nestel from Independent Jewish Voices (IJV).

Nestel pointed out that Premier Doug Ford believes the demonstration to be incontrovertibly anti-Semitic. She explained that the fight around Al-Quds has been complicated by the provinces move to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which, if invoked, could have the power to ban the event from city or provincial property.

Under the IHRA definition, some of the sentiments expressed by demonstrators, including that Israel is an apartheid or racist state, constitute anti-Semitism. IJV believes that such a statement [of Israeli apartheid] is, in fact, accurate, and in no way misrepresents the reality on the ground in Israel/Palestine, Nestel said. She added that any attempt to ban the demonstration would result in a challenge to Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of speech and assembly. She said many activists would welcome an opportunity to put the legality of the IHRA definition to the test.

Nestel said the bottom line is that those participating in the Al-Quds Day rally have a right to express their views, even if a minority of demonstrators express radical or even offensive views her organization does not support. While IJV may be hesitant to endorse the event, we support the right of the protesters to gather, she said. We encourage the organizers to continue to be vigilant against overt expressions of anti-Semitism.

For the past four years, members of Ontarios provincial parliament (MPPs) have been taking steps toward restricting the voices of Palestinian solidarity activists.

In February 2020, Bill 168, the Combating Anti-Semitism Act, was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy after a second reading. The bill is guided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

The bill was introduced by two Conservative MPPs, Will Bouma and Robin Martin. Bouma has cited the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as an example of anti-Semitism. If Bill 168 passes, Ontario will be the first province to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Karen Rodman, voluntary director with Just Peace Advocates and member of the Canadian BDS Coalition, says Bill 168 is an unsound piece of legislation. It purports to create a legal definition of anti-Semitism, but the definition it adopts was not intended to serve as a legal definition. Its vagueness leaves it susceptible to being abused and manipulated by opponents of free expression, Rodman said.

Hundreds of academics have signed an open letter denouncing the IHRA definition. U.S. attorney Kenneth Stern, the creator of the definition, also opposes its use to police speech. In testimony to the U.S. Congress in 2017, he noted that it was solely intended as a working definition to help researchers track anti-Semitism. Stern warned that legislation like the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in Congress is a hate speech code which, if enacted, will do much damage to the university and to the Jewish students proponents seek to protect.

Rodman pointed out that a quiet approach to shut down BDS in Canadian universities started in 2016, when Bill 202, an anti-BDS bill, was proposed in Ontarios legislature. The bill would have imposed severe limits on the BDS movement, such as preventing the province from doing business with institutions that support BDS, and also stopping universities from endorsing BDS. It failed on its second reading.

At this point no anti-BDS legislation has been passed in Canada, unlike in the U.S., Rodman noted. The Canadian federal government accepted the IHRA definition as part of its anti-racism strategy in 2019. While the definition informs the governments approach to anti-Semitism, it is not legally binding.

Months of work by activists has paid off, as Canada lost its bid for the much-desired temporary seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Canada lost in the first round of voting on June 17, with Ireland and Norway winning the two available seats. Norway received 130 votes, and Ireland 128, while Canada only received 108. In its last UNSC bid in 2010, Canada managed 114 votes. Canada has been elected to the Security Council six times, and last held a seat in 2000. There are ten temporary member countries that each serve two-year terms.

By rejecting Canadas bid, the international community also delivered a blow to the Israel lobby, said Karen Rodman, voluntary executive director at Just Peace Advocates, the organization that initiated Twitter and letter writing campaigns opposing Canadas UNSC run.

As part of the campaign, in the month leading up to the UNSC vote, over 1,300 individual letters from around the world were sent to 193 U.N. ambassadors asking them to vote for Ireland and Norway instead of Canada. More than 100 civil society organizations also wrote expressing their opposition.

Hundreds of artists, activists and academics joined the open letter, including Noam Chomsky, Roger Waters, Richard Falk, John Dugard, and English filmmaker Ken Loach. Roger Waters also posted a link to the No Seat on the United Nations Security Council for Canada petition on his Facebook page.

The letters focused on Canadas abysmal record on Palestinian rights. The messages highlighted Canadas many failings in regards to Palestine, among them adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which targets critics of Israel. Canada has also added Palestinian organizations to its terrorism list and threatened to cut off funding to the International Criminal Court if it continues investigating Israeli crimes.

The reach of the campaign caught Canada off guard. On June 11, Marc-Andre Blanchard, Canadas permanent representative to the U.N., delivered his own letter to all U.N. ambassadors defending Canadian policy on Palestinian rights and claimed Just Peace Advocates letter contained significant inaccuracies.

Rodman, from Just Peace Advocates, said Canada was undeserving of the U.N. position for many reasons. Canada has consistently isolated itself against world opinion when it comes to Palestine, she said. Canada has voted 166 times against Palestine at the U.N. this century. She also noted that Norway and Ireland have much more respectable records on Palestine.

Yves Engler, a Montreal author and activist, said the Canadian governments policies are anti-Palestinian, militaristic and aggressive toward the Venezuelan government. Engler asserted that the likely result of Canada getting a seat at the Security Council would have been a de facto second vote for the United States, noting that they share a similar voting record, especially when it comes to the Middle East.

Long-time Winnipeg peace activist and videographer Paul Graham expressed similar concerns. He said Canadas aggression toward Venezuela, as well as supporting Israeli actions against Palestinians, waging war in Afghanistan, bombing Libya and selling arms to Saudi Arabia, all indicate that Canada is closely aligned with U.S. imperialism.

When Canada demonstrates consistent, active work for international peace, development and cooperation, it will have earned the right to aspire to Security Council membership, he said.

With regard to what he referred to as Canadas orphan vote at the U.N. in December 2019, when Ottawa voted in favor of Palestinian self-determination, Engler pointed out that Canada had previously voted against 67 different resolutions for Palestinian rights. Engler said the vote, which received a huge amount of media attention, was almost certainly designed to respond to the Just Peace Advocates letter writing campaign. He believes that single vote was a way for Canada to counter the opposition to its Security Council run.

Engler also noted that Canada played a direct role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947. Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson rejected a Palestinian call at the time for an end to the British Mandate and establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Most Canadians, if they understood any element of international politics, they would be very uncomfortable with Canadian policies, Engler said.

Michael Lynk, United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and a Canadian citizen, said that although Canada may be one of the great advanced liberal democracies in the world, it doesnt have a lot to be proud of in the international arena.

We lost the Security Council seat bid in 2012, in part, because of our record and embrace of Israeli policies around occupation, and while we have made some changes in policy since 2015 with the new liberal governmenttheir voting record, among other things, is really no different from the Harper years, Lynk said. Former conservative Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper was an emphatic supporter of Israel.

Lynk explained that both Ireland and Norway have very strong records with respect of voting in favor of U.N. resolutions on Palestine and both are widely thought of, either because of their peace keeping or because of their international mediation efforts.

Canadians apparently desire to see a new foreign policy from their government. A survey conducted from June 5 to 10 and sponsored by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), Independent Jewish Voices, and the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine, reported that 75 percent of Canadians polled want their government to oppose Israels annexation of large portions of the West Bank and, almost half of those who responded, support the use of sanctions against Israel.

Candice Bodnaruk has been involved in Palestinian issues for the past 14 years through organizations such as the Canadian BDS Coalition and Peace Alliance Winnipeg. Her political action started with feminism and continued with the peace movement, first with the No War on Iraq Coalition in 2003 in Winnipeg.

See original here:

Canada's Attacks on Free Speech May Have Cost It a Seat on the Security Council - Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Harpers magazine recently posted a letter signed by over 150 leading authors, journalists, and public intellectuals calling for greater support for freedom of speech. The letter criticized the intolerance for opposing views frequently exhibited on Twitter and social media. Does the freedom to criticize speech threaten the free exchange of ideas?

Signers included David Brooks, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm Gladwell, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem, and Matt Yglesias. To quote from the letter, The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.

A society organized for the benefit of people as opposed to the glory of rulers requires freedom for people to think, voice their ideas, and engage with others. Our rational faculties require critical exchange. And limiting government requires freedom to criticize our leaders.

Some commentators have criticized social media censorship by companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google while others want more active removal of offensive content. The censorship claim is technically false, as only governments truly censor, whether through prior restraint to prevent publication of views or punishments for speech.

Is freedom from government coercion sufficient, or can the actions of private individuals neutralize freedom of expression? Negative reactions to the Harpers letter ultimately turn on these questions.

Third parties can illegitimately chill speech, as Harpers signatory Salman Rushdie can attest to. His 1988 novel The Satanic Verses was considered blasphemous by Muslims; Irans Ayatollah Khomeni issued a fatwah on or order to Muslims to kill Mr. Rushdie, who spent a decade in hiding. In January 2015, armed gunmen killed 11 employees at the offices of the French radical magazine Charlie Hedbo over offensive content.

Criminal acts are unacceptable. We will not have free exchange if violence is the price of speaking. Are other forms of outrage over or criticism of speech acceptable?

Some must be. People who found Mr. Rushdies book offensive should be free not to buy it. The writing of letters by newspaper readers or television viewers demanding that certain columnists or reporters be fired also seems acceptable.

Social media mobs seem more adept at getting offenders fired than letter writers ever were. A parallel for todays events might be the Hollywood blacklist during the anti-communist McCarthy era. While Senator McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Affairs exercised government power, the blacklist was private reprisal. The entertainment industry feared public backlash from employing actors, actresses, directors or writers seen as communists or communist sympathizers.

Is there anything different and more dangerous about social media? For one, social media permanently records peoples misstatements and offensive actions. An inappropriate Halloween costume lives forever on Facebook or Instagram and cannot be denied. Furthermore, social media outrage organizes at warp speed compared to the letter writing campaigns of yesterday.

Yet social media critics cannot fire businesses employees; they prevail only by persuading business managers of the merits of their complaints. I may think that businesses respond too quickly and overreact to social media outrage. As an economist, I recognize that business leaders know the challenges they face much better than I do.

Consider the recent resignation of CrossFit founder and CEO Greg Glassman in the wake of his criticism of protests over George Floyds death at the hands of Minneapolis police. Was his company taken from him unjustly? Not necessarily; the financial harm he caused was real. Reportedly 1,000 of the companys 14,000 gyms ended their affiliations in response, and Reebok severed a decade-long licensing deal. CrossFit is privately held, but investors sought to make money, not lose due to Mr. Glassmans comments.

Loss of ones ability to earn a livelihood is a harsh penalty likely to chill speech, both now and during the Hollywood blacklist. Ultimately, however, social media protests only succeed by persuading others that someones speech is offensive. Persuasion and criticism are part of life in a voluntary society.

More here:

News - The Freedom to Speak and Criticize - The Heartland Institute

Angry that the CEO of Goya Foods praised Donald Trump as an incredible builder, the Left has organized a boycott of the company. Goya, of course, brands itself as providing authentic Latino foods. According to its website, Goya Foods is the largest, Hispanic-owned food company in the United States.

CEO Robert Unanue was at the White House to participate in President Trumps Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. The initiative was created by executive order and seeks to improve access to education and economic opportunities in the Hispanic community.

According to the Mercury News, In his brief remarks, Unanue announced Goya would donate 1 million cans of Goya chickpeas and 1 million other food products to American food banks. He said the company wanted to help families hurt by the coronavirus pandemic. This is a nice gesture and shows corporate responsibility.

But for AOC and others, any praise or association with Trump is a capital offense that requires shaming and dire economic consequences.

Unanue protests that the boycott of Goya amounts to a suppression of speech. Well, not exactly.

Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The right to free speech cannot be impaired absent government action. We, as citizens, have the freedom to buy from whomever we choose, whether our reasons are good or bad. If, for example, Middle America boycotted the NFL because of its embrace of the radical woke agenda, this would not deny the players or league the right to speak their minds. Boycotts and protests are a proper tool that can be used to convey a message and/or put pressure on another private actor. But they should not be used lightly or casually.

While Unanue was incorrect to assert that his free speech rights are under attack, he is correct in saying that other democratic values are endangered. What is really at stake is American pluralism. The typical dictionary defines pluralism as a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist. According to Thought.com, [t]he political philosophy of pluralism suggests that we really can and should all just get along. First recognized as an essential element of democracyby the philosophers ofAncient Greece, pluralism permits and even encourages a diversity of political opinion and participation.

With the present cultural revolution, there is no room for a diversity of opinions. You are either a supporter of the radical agenda or you are an enemy who must be silenced and destroyed. For the Left, if you are one of the 62,984,828 Americans who voted for Trump in 2016, then you are the evil. The new revolution denies that reasonable people can hold different positions on the best course for our country. Those expressing opinions contrary to Leftist dogma are being forced out of the marketplace of ideas by cancel culture run wild. Again, this crusade is not an attack on the constitutional right of free speech, but on pluralism.

There is no denying that we will have strong disagreements. Principles often have sharp edges and can cut. But we will not survive as a country if we cant agree to disagree. The fact that AOC and others would seek to tear down the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the United States for the CEOs nice words about Trump when Trump is pushing a program to help the Hispanic community shows Procrustean conformity is the only allowable course.

The United States is more diverse today than it ever has been. If we abandon pluralism, then our future will be nothing but warring factions seeking to cancel each other. We will be at perpetual war until one faction prevails. This winner will dictate what one is allowed to say, think, and do. We are headed in an ugly direction. Cant we all just get along?

Link:

Goya Foods, Free Speech, and Pluralism | William J. Watkins, Jr. - The Beacon

By Martricia ODonnell McLaughlin

Federal law enforcement is infiltrating U.S. cities led by Democrats, by order of Donald Trump. We citizens who value free speech, free assembly, states rights and our Constitution must loudly condemn this action.

Our federal government was established as a limited government and has successfully functioned as such, through periods of crises and turmoil as well as through more tranquil times, for more than 240 years. Under the Constitution, the federal government does not have a general police power. Police powers belong to the states and their delegations to local law enforcement.

Trumps deployment of federal law enforcement to cities such as Portland, Ore., is a dangerous disruption of constitutional power. It also places our civil liberties at great risk.

For a man who opines that mandating the wearing of masks for public health and safety is an infringement of liberty to operationalize federal law enforcement against protesters is outrageous. There is not a constitutionally protected right to be mask-free during a pandemic, any more than there is a constitutional right to enter restaurants shirtless. There is, however, a long-protected right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

The tactics reportedly used in Portland should arouse the outrage of every citizen. We are not Argentina, East Germany, China, or North Korea. We do not condone authoritarian police tactics to sweep protestors from the street, to deploy police without identification, to blindfold and question citizens. We must be aware that if we allow a Republican president to act in this way today, a Democratic President may act similarly tomorrow. The former might attack the radical left, the latter the radical right.

Also disturbing is the blatant partisanship of these deployments. Trump and his allies, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, overtly indicate they are targeting jurisdictions led by Democrats. Politicization of the police is dangerous. The administration similarly politicized coronavirus infections early, claiming the highest rates were in regions led by Democrats. Today the hot zones are overwhelmingly in red states.

The supporters of the administration long ago acquiesced to Trumps deviation from the norm that a president serves all the people and have allowed partisanship in power that has never risen to such levels. This must not be allowed to continue where basic freedoms are at stake.

In todays divided culture, the Constitution appears as a brilliant document, guiding us through these turbulent times. Its declaration of basic freedoms to speak, petition our government and assemble peaceably is precious. The absence of a federal police power, allowing states to police themselves, is wise and achieves a necessary balance against the erosion of democracy and the advance of an uncivil, authoritarian regime.

Martricia ODonnell McLaughlin is an attorney and mediator in Easton.

Original post:

Federalization of police threatens the rights of all Americans | Opinion - lehighvalleylive.com

Despite long being under a cloud of controversy for its human rights record from the treatment of ethnic minorities to the muzzling of critics, all of which was amplified in the past year China continues to climb the ranks as a human rights leader in the United Nations.

On April 1, it was no fool's trick that Chinascored a spot on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council panel, which is in charge of choosing human rights monitors globally. Then on April 27, in the throes of a controversy over its handling of the coronavirusand its questionable relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO), China was appointed chair for selecting the upcoming Special Rapporteur,or "U.N. expert on free speech."

That selection was announced this week the Chinese Communist Partynamed Bangladeshi-born attorney Irene Khan, who has become something of a controversial figure in recent years for her support of the Beijing leadership.

Allee des Nations (Avenue of Nations) of the United Nations Palace in Geneva, with the flags of the member countries.

Yet despite accusations of widespread humanrights violations, China continues to ascend in the international body founded on principles of justice, peace and accountability.

"The U.N. is often an upside-down parallel universe. The election process and governance structure of organizations like the Human Rights Council make it easily susceptible to exploitation by China and other U.S. adversaries," Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) told Fox News. "We need a proactive diplomatic campaign to delegitimize and degrade the organization while establishing credible, alternative mechanisms to hold human rights abusers accountable."

POMPEO SAYS UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HITS 'NEW LOW' WITH ANTI-US RESOLUTION ON RACE, POLICE

According to Hillel Neuer, the executive director of the Geneva-based, independent human rights organization U.N.Watch, Khan "enjoys close ties with the Communist regime" and has "showered praise for the Chinese regime" and its Belt and Road Initiative, which is considered one of the factors fueling the persecution of minorities like the Uighurs.

In addition, Khan is said to have lauded China's "contribution to global sustainable development" through a $1 trillion infrastructure program tailored to increase its reach and ownership of strategic places and organizations in at least 70 countries.

Khan whose appointment as Special Rapporteurwill go into effect next month served as Secretary-General of Amnesty International from 2001 to 2009, and left under unclear circumstances. Throughout her tenure, critics accused Khan of redirecting the human rights watchdog into fighting poverty and away from its original mandate centered on advocacy for prisoners of conscience. In 2011, she went on to become director-general of the Rome-based International Development Law Organization, which focuses on the rule of law and sustainable development, of which China is one of the eight state financiers.

"[Khan]has a record of being a supporter of economic and social rights over political and civil liberties," noted Sean Roberts, director and associate professor of International Development Studies at the George Washington University. "As such, it is likely that China is banking on the idea that she will continue this legacy at the U.N. and avoid highlighting freedom of speech issues related to the internal politics of any given country, including China."

As chair of the five-nation Human Rights Council, which the U.S. withdrew from in 2018 at the behest of then-Ambassador Nikki Haley, China vetted and picked Khan out of 48 applicants to serve as the United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, becoming the first woman to hold such a title.

"The Chinese government has been working hard to be a participant in as many of the U.N.'s initiatives as possible, both in terms of funding and engagement. At the same time, the United States is increasingly stepping back from the U.N., allowing China to take on an even greater role," Roberts underscored. "And China's soft power globally, especially in the developing world, is on the rise at the same time as that of the U.S. is on the wane. Thus, China is able to get support from a lot of other U.N. member states to achieve its goals of more authority in the U.N."

Roberts cautioned that while the U.N. "has never been effective enough to live up to its lofty mission," it remains a dominant force in global politics.

"If the U.S. continues to retreat from its role in the organization and allows China to expand its power there, China's position as a global leader will inevitably be enhanced regardless of its respect for human rights," he said. "Most of all, this threatens to deteriorate any power that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights still holds in the world."

But Chinese leadership and control of international organizations extend well beyond the scope of the United Nations.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) in April published an extensive list identifying "Chinese citizens serving in leadership positions in key international organizations: from U.N. principal organs, and U.N. funds and programs, to U.N. specialized agencies and international trade and financial institutions.

All the while, concerns are being raised by the United States and other allies with regardto the national security law that came into play inside the once autonomous Hong Kong this month.

A woman walks past a promotional banner of the national security law for Hong Kong, in Hong Kong, Tuesday, June 30, 2020. China has approved a contentious law that would allow authorities to crack down on subversive and secessionist activity in Hong Kong, sparking fears that it would be used to curb opposition voices in the semi-autonomous territory. (AP)

The new law pavesthe way for a national security committee to be formed in Hong Kong under the jurisdiction of Beijing, and it also means that those accused of anti-government offenses now can be triedon the mainland and subject to significantly more stringent punishments.

At the U.N. Human Rights Council, which was led this month by Cuba, 53 countries voted in support of China's heavy-handed clampdown with the justification that the people of Hong Kong could now "exercise their freedom in a safe environment."

Those who opposed the controversial law were considerably outnumbered, led by the U.K., but garnering the support of just 26 other countries.

"China is ascending in the U.N. because the U.N. provides an environment of corruption in which the Chinese Communist Party thrives. Consider that the World Health Organization, a part of the United Nations, praised the 'transparency' of the Chinese during the coronavirus when the Chinese government, in fact, censored and suppressed information," conjectured Will Coggin, managing director of the American Security Institute. "Much as the U.S. pulled out of funding the WHO, we should consider whether it's worth continuing to spend $10 billion a year to fund the U.N. What does that money get us?"

Furthermore, Beijing's treatment and forced disappearance of more than a million Chinese minority Muslims, known as Uighurs, is also coming under increasingly blistering limelight.

Uyghurs people demonstrate against China during the Universal Periodic Review of China by the Human Rights Council, on the place des Nations in front of the European headquarters of the United Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2018. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP)

The U.S. has long spoken out against reports of mass concentration camps, unjustified allegations of terrorism and subsequent imprisonmentand torture of the minority group, which is mostly present in the Xinjiang region. And this week U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab took a bold step in denouncing China for "gross and egregious" human rights abuses against its Uighur population and said sanctions against those responsible cannot be ruled out.

US SPEAKS UP FOR MINORITY MUSLIM UIGHURS IN CHINA - WHILE ISLAMIC COUNTRIES STAY MOSTLY SILENT

Two years ago, as evidence of such camps was first exposed, China vehemently denied their existence. The government later admitted to their existence, vowing that they were "reeducation" institutions and a pivotal tool against terrorism.

Nonetheless, even the United Nations' own independent human rights experts have conveyed outrage over the repression of "fundamental freedom" by the Chinese leadership as it continues to cement its place on the Council.

In a joint statement last month, some 50 experts bemoaned that they had "repeatedly communicated" their "grave concerns," ranging from "impunity for excessive use of force by police and the alleged use of chemical agents against protesters; to the alleged sexual harassment and assault of women protesters in police stations; together with the alleged harassment of health care workers" in Hong Kong, along with the collective repression of specific communities "especially religious and ethnic minorities, in Xinjiang and Tibet" to the disappearances of human rights advocates across the country.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The U.S. took matters into their own hands this week, imposing sanctions on 11 additionalChinese companies over human rights violations against the Uighurs. The fallout will have a direct impact on several suppliers to major international brands such as Google, Apple, HP, Ralph Laurenand Hugo Boss, whichhave financial liaisons with the newly sanctioned companies.

Whether there will be any change of course on China's part remains to be seen.

See the original post here:

Why China continues to gather sway on the UN Human Rights Council - Fox News

Thursday, July 23, 2020 6:31 a.m. EDT by Thomson Reuters

By Joseph Sipalan

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - A decades-old Malaysian law requiring video or film productions to be licensed before being broadcast extends to social media, a minister said on Thursday, prompting an outcry from the opposition over its implications for freedom of expression.

Communications and Multimedia Minister Saifuddin Abdullah told parliament that licences were needed "regardless of whether they are mainstream media agencies or personal media that broadcast films on social media or traditional channels".

Opposition lawmakers accused the government of trying to cast a wide regulatory net on social media content using a 1981 National Film Development Corporation (FINAS) Act, which predates the internet.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said the minister's interpretation was a "worrying development", saying: "This is unreasonable and backwards. At the same time, the government believes it will uphold freedom of speech."

"It is clear the government wants all parties, be it politicians, or social media users to face action for content that may not fit the government's view," Anwar added in the statement.

In a statement after the uproar, Saifuddin said he was only explaining the current status of the law and that the government was aware of the need to improve it to match present needs.

"It must be stressed that the PN government has never thought of using the act to stifle individual freedom on social media," he said, using the acronym for the ruling Perikatan Nasional coalition.

Over 80% of Malaysia's 32 million population are active social media users, according to the Digital 2020 report by We Are Social and Hootsuite.

Opposition lawmaker Wong Shu Qi said that according to the minister's interpretation, any privately uploaded video would be deemed illegal.

Individuals convicted under the act face penalties of up to 50,000 ringgit ($11,748.12), a maximum of two years in jail, or both.

"Will the government take action against all TikTok users? Will the government request every YouTuber to apply for licence?" Wong said, referring to two popular social media platforms.

(Editing by Martin Petty and Alison Williams)

The rest is here:

Malaysia opposition warns of 'chilling effect' of applying old law to social media - WTVB News

They continued to label YCT at UNTs actions as racist, homophobic, and transphobic. UNT Democrats didnt respond to our inquiry regarding what they will do to ensure the safety of all students exercising their freedom of speech on campus. Instead, they asked YCT at UNT what they will do on that front, and they asked YCT and UNT to accept and condemn their actions as racist, homophobic, and transphobic.

The Democrats original press release that didnt condemn threats of violence against YCT at UNT and Neidert is still on Twitter.

In a recent press release, Democrats at the University of North Texas (UNT) refused to condemn threats of violence leveled against conservative students, and instead announced a new strategy to silence these conservatives. This follows the College Democrats push to ban Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) from campus and a new biased article from the campus taxpayer-funded newspaper, favoring the Democrats position.

Recently, a coalition of extreme-left student organizations at UNT, led by UNT College Democrats, starteda petition to ban YCT at UNT.

This coalition alleges YCT at UNT has a pattern of racism, transphobia, and homophobia throughout the 2019 through 2020 school year. One of these allegations caught the attention of UNT President Neal Smatresk, who said, We are looking into this.

YCT at UNT replied in part:

We are not a perfect organization, but it is clear that some students just want us disbanded because we are conservatives. We are not going to bow down to the leftist mob that is filled with [vitriol] and hate.

Over the past few weeks, YCT at UNT has been threatened with violence and doxxing (attempts to publish private and identifying information on the internet). They also faced hexing from a witch, and they claim to have been hacked.

These actions, along with Smatresks tweet, have garnered nationwide concern about free speech at UNT. State Rep. Briscoe Cain (RDeer Park) announced he would gladly represent them if they are banned.

Saturday morning, the UNT College Democrats published a press release where they condemned the attempt to doxx members of YCT at UNT, but the group did not condemn the other threats leveled at the conservative student organization.

YCT at UNT Chairwoman Kelly Neidert told Texas Scorecard the release was definitely not satisfactory.

They should have condemned the actual threats of violence and overall harassment, not to mention the witches, she said.

Mentioning recent interactions with the UNT administration, the College Democrats admitted their ban petition has failed. But they are not backing down, adding YCT wont be banned unless UNT is liable for the groups actionsactions UNT Democrats have labeled as bigoted and hate speech.

They have since announced a new strategy. Labeling YCT at UNT as a right-wing hate group, the Democrats plan to raise the volume of those they claim are the most vulnerable to right-wing hate groups such as YCT. UNT Democrats hope this strategy virtually silences the conservative student organization, and their new approach appears to already be underway.

On July 16, two days earlier, North Texas DailyUNTs taxpayer-funded student newspaperpublished a biased article about the petition to ban YCT at UNT. Nowhere in the article did it mention the threats of violence leveled at YCT or Neidert, and it frames the extreme-left coalition as the victims.

In the article, one coalition member said:

I believe that YCT should be removed from campus because Im a queer person that goes to a minority-serving university, GLAD President Ryan Semegran said. There are students that specifically go to UNT because theyre branded as a liberal college that takes everybody and accepts everybody.

Leftist organizations like GLAD use sexual identity as a Trojan horse to push leftist political agendas such as silencing freedom of speech.

Texas Scorecard sent an inquiry to Smatresk, asking if this article was sanctioned by UNT and if it is indicative of moves coming against YCT from the university. No response was received by publication time, and Smatresk has issued no new statement on this.

In a clear attempt to isolate YCT at UNT, the coalition is also pushing for other student organizations on campus to have a no-contact order with the conservative student organization.

Inquiries sent to the UNT Democrats were not replied to by publication time.

Texas Senate Bill 18, also called the campus free speech bill, became state law last September and prohibits UNT from banning YCT on campus.

Concerned Texans may contacttheir state representative, state senator, andGov. Greg Abbott. They may alsocontact UNT President Neal Smatresk.

Link:

College Democrats Don't Condemn Threats of Violence Against Conservatives - Texas Scorecard

Our constitutional freedoms are under attack. We must unmask the perpetrators. And fight back.

Those plotters seek to undermine our right to free speech. They cite what some old judge once wrote about limiting what we can say: That you cant shout fire! in a crowded theater. You can. The First Amendment gives you the absolute right. Exercise it when the Morris is open again for plays.

An example of trampling on individual freedoms is the investigation right here in Michiana of a patriotic celebration by a few dozen exemplary young people at Diamond Lake on the Fourth of July.

Fake News television and newspapers tell you there were many hundreds of those people packed tightly together at a sandbar, flaunting their contempt for concerns about that virus thing. You know, the alleged threat the discredited Dr. Anthony Fauci blabbers about to scare us.

Just another Fake News hoax.

Doctored visuals portrayed those young people as irresponsible, bumping, bouncing and breathing heavily in what one silly critic called a COVID-19 Petri dish. Youd think Diamond is a COVIDs best friend.

Doctored visuals made it appear that nobody was wearing a mask. Many were because of deep concern for parents, grandparents and classmates when some of them return to college. As they scatter to spread their freedoms, they will help to determine whether there is teaching in classrooms and college football this fall. They are important. But Fake News even pretended that Diamond Lake residents didnt want them being patriotic at their pretty lake.

Duplicate imaging made it appear that the area was crowded, packed. Fake bikini images made it appear to be a beach party. Diamond in the buff.

It was a patriotic event. With patriotic music. Nobody took a knee during the national anthem.

As one self-identified organizer told The Tribune, the party was constitutionally protected by the U.S., Indiana and Michigan constitutions. Hes right, even if he couldnt tell the snoopy reporter the exact constitutional wording.

Its in there, the young constitutional expert declared. I dont know specifically, but playing music in a public space is constitutionally protected activity.

True, its part of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to play music in a public space shall not be infringed.

So, play music as loud as you want at 3 a.m. in a public street outside a hospital, nursing home or residence of any person with whom you disagree. Its constitutionally protected.

The Indiana Constitution also applies, even though Diamond Lake is in Michigan. Indianas Article 7, Section 18, says: There shall be no criminal prosecution in Cass County, Mich., for any playing of music or other activities at a July Fourth celebration.

The Michigan Constitution declares that Indiana will have that power. Neighborliness.

Its remarkable that the event organizer knew of this rare constitutional provision one state giving away jurisdiction in a county to a neighboring state. He could someday be appointed to the Supreme Court in both states.

Dont let anyone infringe on your constitutional rights. They are absolute.

Shout Fire! in a crowded theater if you want. You have freedom of speech.

If some police officer tells you to drop your gun, dont do it. Cite your Second Amendment rights and point the gun at the cop. You have a right to aim anywhere you want.

Dont let any mayor, governor or health officer tell you what to do. You have a constitutional right to go in any store, restaurant or nursing home without a mask, even if you have a 103-degree temperature. You dont have to wear shoes, shirt or pants.

Be like the proud July Fourth celebrants at Diamond Lake. Flaunt your contempt for those weeping about the welfare of others. Its all about you. About your rights. Your absolute freedom.

Jack Colwell is a columnist for The Tribune. Write to him in care of The Tribune or by email at jcolwell@comcast.net.

The rest is here:

Colwell: Unmask the perpetrators trying to trample on your constitutional freedoms - South Bend Tribune

It has not been a particularly good couple of weeks for the US Army's esports teamand yes, in case you weren't aware, the US Army has it's own esports team. The Army recently launched its own Twitch channel for livestreaming games, but it ran into grief when viewers began ignoring the gameplay and asking about war crimes committed by the Army instead.

Channel moderators aggressively deleted the questions as they arrived, and those who persisted found themselves banned from the channel. But as the Washington Post reported, that could open the door to even more trouble for the Army, because such bans could violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]

Judge Mark Kearney ruled earlier this year that being muted in a game does not violate your constitutional rights. "The First Amendment and its constitutional free speech guarantees restrict government actors, not private entities," he wrote. "Defendants, who are not alleged to be state actors, are not subject to constitutional free speech guarantees."

But because the Army is an agency of the US government, Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute, said that it is forbidden from suppressing speech it finds uncomfortable or objectionable.

"The government cant try to engineer the conversation of the public by saying only people who agree with us can respond," Fallow told the site. "The First Amendment means the government cant kick someone out or preclude them based on their viewpoint."

It might seem like a stretch, but the position isn't without precedent: A judge ruled in a 2018 case, also filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute, that Donald Trump, the president of the United States, cannot block users on Twitter for essentially the same reason.

"We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump accountthe 'interactive space' where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President's tweetsare properly analyzed under the 'public forum' doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment," Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote, as reported by CNN. The ruling was upheld a year later.

The Army defended its actions by saying that the banned users were violating Twitch terms of service against harassment and abuse. A rep also said that the Army Esports Team "does not regulate the viewpoints of participants on its social media forums," but added that the Army may "regulate the time, place and manner of discussions on its recruiting social media sites. Army Esports social media sites are nonpolitical forums for sharing information about joining the Army."

I'm really not sure how to wrap my head around the suggestion that the Army's Twitch channel is "non-political," but it's at least refreshing to see it referred to openly as a recruiting channel. But the Army may also be hedging its bets: When its Twitch channel first came to light, the "About" page described it as a place to "share the Army's passion for gaming, showcase competitions, and connect with our viewers."

It's been edited since then, however, and now say that it's dedicated to "our member's passion for gaming," a distinction that may make it easier (legally, at least) for the Army to regulate what goes on in its channel.

The Army's Twitch channel hasn't been live since the questions about war crimes first started rolling in, as the esports team is now reviewing "internal policies and procedures, as well as all platform-specific policies." The Army also acknowledged problems with a giveaway offer that actually led to a recruiting page, saying that it is now looking into giveaway options "that will provide more external clarity."

Link:

The US Army's Twitch bans may violate the First Amendment - PC Gamer

[Editors note: The following article contains excerpts from an hour-long message delivered by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as Part 22 of his 52-week Lecture Series The Time and What Must Be Done. This message originally aired on Saturday, June 8, 2013. To order this message in its entirety on MP3, DVD and CD, call 1.866.602.1230, ext. 200, or visit store.finalcall.com. We urge readers to visit The Final Call Channel on http://www.youtube.com and view the full lecture, Part 22 of the The Time and What Must Be Done series.]

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

During this critical time, when The Old World is going out, and The New World is coming in, we must beacquaintedwith the ruler of the old world thats going out, and we must get acquainted with The New Ruler of The World that is coming in. The world that is going out is a world that God gave Divine privilege to, to rule the people of our planet for 6,000 years. And, the 6,000 years of the rule of thiscontraryworld and people is now up. And The New Ruler is in the world: He is The God of The New World; and He comes to make Himself known, and to manifest Satan so that the people of the Earth may fall away from Satan and get ready to prepare themselves to become a part of that which God makes new.

Synagogue of Satans schemes to destroy the First Amendment right to free speech

We want to focus again on that Synagogue of Satan. I want to speak about the charge of anti-Semitism, and what that charge leads to.

The First Amendment ofThe United States Constitution reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.And so, I would like to put before you the following questions:

How does one go from engaging infree speechthat we assume is protected by The First Amendment of The Constitution, to finding ones self facing possiblycriminal penalties?

How does sucha wicked claim of anti-Semitismmovethe accused onefrom speaking or writing the truth, and then to legal jeopardy?

What isa legal mechanismby which theseattack dogs ofThe Synagogue of Satanactivate the governmental apparatus toseek out, punishanddestroythose that are labeled as an anti-Semite or as a hate groupand destroy their right to free speech in the process?

We want to look at the criminal effect of being labeled anti-Semitic. We want to look at how these private Jewish organizations who do the labeling, like theAnti-Defamation LeagueandThe Southern Poverty Law Center, manipulate the government law enforcement agencies like theFBIand theIRSto target and harass those who are so labeled. Then, we want to see how they work to effect their scheming, with the disproportionate number of members of the Jewish community working as DAs (or district attorneys) or federal and state prosecutors and judges, in the United States court system where these cases will ultimately be tried.

It begins with someone,anyone, who holds a controversial view, and speaks or writes about it in public.Controversialmeans contrary to the popular version of the truth.

However, instead of engaging in honest and open public dialogue and debate about the issue that the spokesperson raises, as is called for and encouraged by the United States Constitution,private interest groups start with the labeling:Hes a hate teacher, with a hateful message.And then the group he belongs to: If they dont repudiate the spokesperson fast enough, they also get called a hate group that promotes intolerance.They dont have to prove it, they just have to say it over and over againand then the drumbeats get amplified by their brethren who controlthe media.And if that person does not apologize quick enough after that, they start to pick away at his supporters. And those who would defend that person: If they are not strong enough to stand up to the slander, they begin to fall away and distance themselves; and some may even start repudiating and apologizing for their former friend and ally.

Still, if he refuses to bow down: They connect certain inflammatory terms that are intended to generate real hatred, and even retribution, against the person who is speaking these controversial points. They start with:He hates! Hes intolerant!and that escalates to,Hes threatening, and he incites hatred in others!And then the wordviolencegets thrown in, and thenhate crimesare mentioned; and ultimately, you hear the wordsdomestic terrorism.This is all calculated to get the public to put so much pressure on that individual; that they, and their supporters, relent, apologize and retreat.

And this is why I say to my great brothers and sisters in The Twitter Army:No matter what vile speech comes at you, no matter what threats are made against my life by those who hate The Truth that we are speaking, never ever get down in the gutter, or threaten anyone with violence, because they are building a record of what we are saying! So, if you threaten anyone with violence, or you act like you wish to do them evil because they desire to domeevil, then one day you might hear this again in a court of law.

The Synagogues efforts to modernize government persecution of individuals and groups

If we continue to stand on our principles and exercise our freedom of speech, these members of The Synagogue of Satan then get their brethren in The Judicial Branch of government, in the IRS, and their brethren in the Congress and the Senate, and even up to the White House or the Justice Department, and they begin to act in a conspiratorial manner to charge, condemn, try and punishand even killthose who are so charged. This government persecution of individuals and groups who speak boldly about the wrongs in American society was started underJ. Edgar HooversF.B.I. Counterintelligence Program [COINTELPRO].

Although that Program was exposed, and it was said that certain controls were ultimately put on the activity of the FBI; but yet, those wicked policies still continue even up to this very momentof courseThe Synagogue of Satanstepped in tore-establish the worst of Hoovers illegal operations.In August of 1999, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, federal surveillance of those labeled hate groups was restricted to those who committed, or were linked to, actual crimes. According to published reports, hisAttorney General Janet Reno said: It is important that you not focus on a group unless you have a reasonable indication that they are engaged in criminal conduct.But then 29 Jewish leaders led by the Anti-Defamation Leagues Abraham Foxman went to the Justice Department, and told them this is too timid an approach. It was reported that Foxman stated:We want better surveillance and infiltration if necessary the concern, Mr. Foxman said, wasmodernizing the regulations, so federal authoritiescan deal not only with getting the man, but with preventing the crime.

So now, they have their way: A position was created inside the Justice Dept. which they say is to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. [Based uponThe Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004] Secretary of State John Kerry appointed a man namedIra Formanas the newSpecial Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

What will happen with these positions, except to coordinate the government surveillance and infiltration of those who have been labeled anti-Semitic?There are real anti-Semites in this country that hate the Jewish people, and there is nothing wrong with monitoring arealanti-Semitic hate group.But when you have that intention formeandThe Nation of Islam, then we have tocharge youandchallenge youto prove your claim.

You have a long history of lying on The Nation of Islam. And it is time that we throw down the gauntlet now, and make you come before the American people and the world, and prove your charge. And if you cannot,and you cannot, then youre going to have to pay for all these years that you have poisoned the minds of the American people; destroyed progress of tens of hundreds and thousands of peopleand you thought you got away with it.

Not today

In The Preface ofThe Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 2, The Historical Research Department provides us with historical proof on how Jews at the highest organizational levels havealwayslabeled The Nation of Islam as anti-Semitic. For example, they write that in 1942, a secret Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith file titledTemple of Islam Infiltrationstates:A Negro employed byusus here is The Anti- Defamation Leagueprovedquite instrumental in a F.B.I. raid on the Chicago mosque resulting in 82 arrests.So, this has been going on a long time.

And what did you mean,Mr. Abraham Foxman, when you said,Louis Farrakhan is the only African-American leader?Your words exactly, sir, as they appear in aHaaretznews article published in April 2013:The last time an African-American leader stood up to anti-Semitism was Martin Luther King Jr., who said its a sin. The only leadership that now exists inthat community the African American communityisLouis Farrakhan. Farrakhan can assemble 20,000 people several times a year, and he flaunts his anti-Semitism. Whats worse, they deny it exists, so theres no one to talk to.

I interpret that as meaningThe Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan are the only ones we dont control;I interpret that to mean thatLouis FarrakhanandThe Nation of Islammay very well beThe Last Man Standingin the way ofyour successful capture of Black leaders, your successful capture of Black professionals and Black businessmen, your capture of Black artists, and your capture of heads of state and government that bow to your commands!Then ifweare The Last Man Standing, then you are calling on all of your forces to concentrate their attention on Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam.

Well, concentrate with everything youve got, because The God that we serve will answereffectivelyandefficiently, and will ultimately destroy your power.

A party from amongThe Synagogue of Satanthat designs to ruin Gods Warner among us

Look at whats written in theHoly Quran, Surah4 Al-Nisa(The Women), verses 111-112:And whoever commits a sin, commits it only against himself. And Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. And whoever commits a fault or a sin, then accuses of it one innocent, he indeed takes upon himself the burden of acalumnyand amanifest sin.

Now, what is acalumny? A calumny is the making of a false and defamatory statement in order to damage someones reputation. It is slander, it is character assassination, and it is vilification.

ToThe Anti-Defamation League, The Southern Poverty Law Center, a.k.a. The Synagogue of Satan:You are the sinner! You want to put your evil onan innocent man; you say I am the hateryoure wrong! We can prove that you are the hater, and youve been the hater of us ever since youve been onour planet. You are the liar; you are the one that is creating violence and hatredit is you. You manipulate your media brethren, turning them into tools of your wicked ideas and policies.

Well now your day has come.In the Holy Quran, Surah 104is calledAl-Humazah(The Slanderer):Woe to every slanderer, defamer! Who amasses wealth and counts itHe thinks that his wealth will make him abide. Nay, he will certainly be hurled into the crushing disaster; And what will make thee realize what the crushing disaster is? It is the Fire kindled by Allah, Which rises over the hearts. Surely it is closed in on them, In extended columns.

What will make thee know what the great and utter destruction is? It is The Fire, inthe heart of the slanderer; that leads that slanderer to The Fire of Hell.

Inverse 113ofSurah 4, The Holy Quransays:And were it not for Allahs grace on thee and His mercy,a party of themhad certainly designed to ruinthee. And they ruin only themselves, and they cannot harm thee in any way. And Allah has revealed to thee the Book and the Wisdom, and taught thee what thou knewest not, and Allahs grace on thee is very great.

I rely on The Wisdom of that scripture, because as I said: This Synagogue of Satan is comprised not only of members of the Jewish community, but you have Gentiles, you have Blacks, you have AsiansYour Synagogue is big. And a lot of the people that are members of The Synagogue are unwitting pawns in The Wicked Game of this Satanic group.

Remember these words of The Quran:a partyand thats you, Synagoguefrom among themcertainly designed to ruinthee.Thee here meansMuhammad; thee, here, means what he represents. And if you dont think that I am a part of Muhammad, then watch and see. Your evil is designed to ruin me, and to ruin The Nation of Islam. But you ruin only yourself. So keep on planning and watch what happens to you, and what you represent.

A Who is Anti-Semitic? roll call

Let us take a look at all the Black leaders that have been charged with anti-Semitic behavior because they dared to utter a word of criticism against Jewish misbehavior and mislabeling. Lets take a look at Who is anti-Semitic?I bet you wont even believe this:Booker T. Washington, the founder of Tuskegee University;W.E.B. DuBois; Marcus Mosiah Garvey;and, yes:The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.the man that said, anti-Semitism is a sin, yet you all referred to him, at one point, as an anti-Semite!Malcolm X, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, President Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Julian Bond; Kwame Ture, formerly known as Stokely Carmichael;Andrew Young; Kweisi Mfume, former member of Congress, and former leader of the N.A.A.C.P.; The ReverendsAl Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery; The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee called SNCC; The Black Panthers; The Universal Negro Improvement Association, which was Mr. Garveys movement; and,The Nation of Islam.

But it doesnt stop there! They accusedMahatma Gandhi[a leader for Indias independence], of being an anti-Semite. Also: HistoriansJohn Hope FranklinandJ. A. Rogers; WritersJames Baldwin, Richard Wright, Julius LesterandAlice Walker; and entertainersMichael Jackson, Spike Lee, Ice Cube, Arsenio Hall, Muhammad Ali, Public Enemy, Oprah Winfreythis is just a few. Look at the great company that Louis Farrakhan is in.

You meaneverybodyis a hater of the Jewish people? Stop It!

Now lets call the roll of those White people that you have called anti-Semiticbeginning with U.S. presidents: President Harry Truman, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President Richard M. Nixon,President Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford, President George H. W. Bushand PresidentBarack Obama. Also, a listing of White leaders, historians, inventors, writers, clergymen, philosophers, etc.:H. L. Mencken, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Adams, H. G. Wells, Edgar Degas, T. S. Eliot, Immanuel Kant, Tacitus, Philostratus, Cicero, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Hitler, Edward VIII, Aleksander Pushkin, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Richard Wagner, Bobby Fischer, and The Reverend Billy Graham.

These members ofThe Synagogue of Satan have always known that a Day of Reckoning was coming; and so over time, they put themselves in positions of power in every nation of the Western Hemisphere. This was done to monitor The Awakening ofThe Gentilesthe masses of so-called heathens, savages andgoyim; as well as the masses of Blacks. So anyone that rises and criticizes: They put fear in them by charging them with being anti-Semitic. Even if theyknewthat what we were saying is the truth, most would be afraid and would not stand up under the heat of Jewish power.

Well, today we are calling you out, and asking you to use your inordinate power, because The God that we represent wants to crush you and your power. Hes here to bring in a Brand New Worldand Hes chosen the despised and the rejected, unloved and unwantedBlack man and woman of Americato be The Cornerstone of a Brand New Reality.

The trick of anti-Semitic labeling confirmed

During an August 14, 2002 interview on her showDemocracy Now! (democracynow.org), host and executive producer AmyGoodmaninterviewed former Israeli MinisterShulamit Aloni. Pay attention to Miss Goodmans words introducing her guest:Yours is a voice of criticism we dont often hear in the United States. Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti-Semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?AndMinister Shulamit Alonianswered:Well, its a trick, we always use it.When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK. They are talented people, and they have power and money, and the media and other things; and their attitude isIsrael my country, right or wrong,identificationand they are not ready to hear criticism. And its very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is [to] justify everything we do to the Palestinians.

This anti-Semitic labeling is atrickthat they use! But look at how many people have been destroyed on account of such a trick!

Where did you learn such tricks? Did you not learn this from your FatherYakub, who taught you a System of Tricks and Lies? Look at howeasyit is for you to lie, and put your wickedness on innocent persons. What is the meaning of atrick? Atrickisa cunning, or skillful, act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone; a mischievous practical joke; a skillful act performed for entertainment or amusement; an illusion; a clever or particular way of doing something.

Its really amusing to Satan when he can tell a lie, and we operate on that lie, and act in a manner that we would never act if we had only knownThe Truth. They are entertained by playing tricks on unsuspecting, ignorant people. And this is why it isanimperativethat The Synagogue of Satan must be called out, and Satan and his Synagogue must be made known.

(A partial listing)

Link:

The Synagogue of Satan And Destroying The Right To 'Free Speech' - Final Call News - FinalCall.com News

TROY John Koletas has been testing this city's First Amendment resolve for a very long time.

Three decades ago, the controversial pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Lansingburgh was best known as a street preacher who tried to save the souls of passersby in downtown Troy. In a not-quiet voice, he'd demand that they repent for their sins.

The shouting wasn't always appreciated, unsurprisingly, and Koletas was repeatedly charged with disorderly conduct. Eventually, Koletas filed a lawsuit arguing that he had a First Amendment right to preach on the street and that his repeated arrests amounted to unconstitutional harassment. Two national TV shows Fox's "A Current Affair" and NBC's "Inside Edition" even came to Troy to report on the controversy.

Koletas ultimately lost in court, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that police did nothing wrong by arresting him.

Had I been a columnist for this newspaper back then, I generally would have been on Koletas' side. I would have argued, in other words, that he did in fact have a free speech right to preach outside, at least within reason.

No, a person shouldn't be allowed to holler on the street at, say, midnight. People do need to sleep, after all. Laws against unreasonable noise are justified.

But certainly, the city needed to accommodate the preacher's free speech rights without needless harassment. Koletas had the right to preach, even if few passersby wanted to hear it.

Fast forward three decades, and Koletas is again attracting attention. AR-15 rifle giveaways at Grace Baptist and Koletas' consistently hateful rhetoric toward Blacks, Jews, Muslims and Catholics have attracted Black Lives Matter protesters to the Fourth Street church in recent weeks.

As I noted in a column published Sunday that focused on Koletas' attacks on Catholicism, protesters aren't coming to Grace Baptist to attack Christianity or religion, as some in conservative media would have you believe. They're protesting what Koletas says, and justifiably so.

As has been well documented by bloggers and others, Koletas has referred to Blacks as "termites" and "savages." He has described himself as a racist who "believes the races should be kept separate as much as possible." Koletas says Catholicism, like the Muslim faith, is incompatible with democracy and the Bill of Rights.

In response to Sunday's column, a few supporters of Grace Baptist claimed I was attempting to silence or "cancel" Koletas' freedom of religion or speech. But I suggested no such thing.

I believe strongly that Koletas has the First Amendment right to pray and preach as he wants, assuming he stops short of advocating violence. Likewise, his followers have a First Amendment right to listen. And yes, protesters, columnists and Facebook commenters all have a First Amendment right to object to what Koletas says.

Free speech for everybody! What a concept.

Freedom of speech seems to be falling out of fashion, though. We increasingly hear that some words are too harmful to be spoken or that listeners have the right not to be offended. On college campuses, even relatively dull speakers such as economist Art Laffer can find themselves "deplatformed" for supposedly offensive views.

The shift, if widely accepted, will redefine free speech rights as we've long understood them. Actually, it would all but eliminate true freedom of speech. After all, if you can't say something that somebody might find offensive, you can hardly say anything provocative. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of expression.

The result would be a stifling monoculture of thought, devoid of intellectual diversity or compelling debate. And as any good gardener can tell you, there's nothing interesting about a monoculture.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, wrote George Orwell in an essay planned as the introduction to "Animal Farm" that also included this gem of a line: "People don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."

Had I been walking down a street in Troy in the early 1990s, I suppose I wouldn't have wanted to hear Koletas' call that I repent for my sins. I wouldn't want to sit through one of his sermons today. (Happily, I don't have to.)

But we allow Koletas to speak so that we all may speak. We counter his words with our own words.

Freedom of speech for everybody! It's a crucial concept.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Go here to read the rest:

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Times Union

For Marshfield (OnFocus) There is a recent development in the US that concerns me about the future of our country. No, its not the handling of COVID-19, nor is it the upcoming Presidential election. This development is the attack against one of the fundamental freedoms provided to us in the first amendment of the US Constitution: the freedom of speech.

The first amendment reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

While Congress has not explicitly introduced any bills that would limit this freedom of speech, there is a movement in public opinion as to what is and is not acceptable that could lead us to a watershed moment in the future.

Back in 2016, Canadian lawmakers were debating a proposed law, known as Bill C-16, that would provide protections towards transgender and gender-diverse citizens, or individuals who identify with a non-traditional or non-stereotypical concept of gender. However, the main controversy over the bill was the authority given to Government to determine whether using the incorrect pronoun to identify an individual was constituted a hate crime and was deemed illegal by this bill.

The bill was infamously opposed by Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto. In Dr. Petersons view, the issue wasnt whether the use of preferred pronouns was right or wrong; rather, it was centered around the Governments regulation of free speech. Dr. Peterson reasoned the passing of this bill as written could open Pandoras box for the Government to determine acceptable speech in all facets of our lives, which could be a dangerous proposition.

For the regulation of freedom of speech, the power to determine what is and is not acceptable falls on other humans. The ones calling for restriction in speech through cancel culture and public shaming believe this regulation will be done by those who are like-minded and share the same viewpoints. What happens when your opinion is the one disallowed or deleted because moderators disagree with your opinion? This is the slippery slope society runs by implementing restrictions on freedom of speech. The world isnt filled with like-minded individuals who share 100% of your opinions. Its what makes humans human. We have our own thoughts and opinions based on our knowledge and experience. I doubt youll ever find another person who shares 100% of your thoughts. Shaming someone because they disagree with you dehumanizes every one victimized by public shaming.

Please understand Im not advocating for the use of hate speech, racial slurs, or blatant lies. There are comments that nearly everyone would agree is egregious and inappropriate, and those people should get called out for saying it. The argument isnt whether certain words should be spoken at all. It lies with who should be responsible for making the final determination of what is and is not allowed.

Recently, public social media outlets, like Twitter and YouTube, have been accused of removing tweets and videos from certain viewpoints. On political or controversial topics, only allowing one side of the argument to be published creates an echo chamber that keeps conversation stagnant and further divides the different sides to the argument.

Twitter recently announced President Trumps account will be fact-checked. You may think, Well this is a good thing. The President shouldnt be tweeting false information, especially from a position of power. While I agree he shouldnt be blatantly spreading lies and false information, 1) there is a difference between sharing facts and opinions and 2) theres a societal expectation to formulate and share an opinion on a topic before we have the full set of facts.

Have you ever voiced an opinion on a topic, only to learn more facts later to change your position? What if you were publicly shamed for holding your original viewpoint? If people are afraid to share their opinions for fear of public scrutiny, youll create a society where the citizens dare not think for themselves. When you stop thinking for yourself, you stop determining right from wrong. You become nihilistic. Ultimately, you open the door for regimes like communism and Marxism, or the rise in satanic leaders, like Stalin or Hitler.

The New York Times recently came under heavy scrutiny because they published an op-ed piece from Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, voicing his opinion on the use of the military to manage the riots and public protests arising from the death of George Floyd. Instead of listening to the Senators views to better understand his position, some pushed back to whether the piece should have posted at all. The public outcry towards the editor of the NYT for even publishing the piece points towards the cancel culture some in our society are pushing.

What can we do to combat this issue? First, accept that others will hold and share differing opinions. Whether its religion, abortion, climate control, the Presidential election, or if the earth is round or flat, you will find others who disagree with you. Second, remember opinions are not facts. Facts are available to support your opinion, but ultimately, your opinion is your own viewpoint. You may think Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback of all time, but youll be hard-pressed to convince someone thats factually true. Its merely your opinion on his career. Third, and most importantly, listen to each other with open minds. Social media has harvested a culture of disregarding differing opinions and undermining someones character when they disagree with you.

You cant squash someones differing viewpoint by disallowing them to speak. Not only will they harden their stance, but they will lose respect for you. The great divide in this country is a direct result of the inability to hear others viewpoints and to understand why they hold their position. If youre on the left, you can listen to the echo chamber created by MSNBC and CNN, or on the right, Fox News, and youll only hear points that support your current position and further the divide with those on the other side of the political spectrum.

It falls on each of us to hold freedom of speech to a higher standard, even if it means allowing others to voice opinions differing from our own. I encourage you to listen to different opinions and talking to others about controversial topics, not with the goal to teach, but with the goal to listen and learn. Only when we place an emphasis on listening to learn do we truly understand the value of freedom of speech.

We welcome your stories! Contact us at [emailprotected]!

View post:

Opinion: The Future of Free Speech - OnFocus

[Editors note: The following article contains excerpts from an hour-long message delivered by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as Part 22 of his 52-week Lecture Series The Time and What Must Be Done. This message originally aired on Saturday, June 8, 2013. To order this message in its entirety on MP3, DVD and CD, call 1.866.602.1230, ext. 200, or visit store.finalcall.com. We urge readers to visit The Final Call Channel on http://www.youtube.com and view the full lecture, Part 22 of the The Time and What Must Be Done series.]

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

During this critical time, when The Old World is going out, and The New World is coming in, we must beacquaintedwith the ruler of the old world thats going out, and we must get acquainted with The New Ruler of The World that is coming in. The world that is going out is a world that God gave Divine privilege to, to rule the people of our planet for 6,000 years. And, the 6,000 years of the rule of thiscontraryworld and people is now up. And The New Ruler is in the world: He is The God of The New World; and He comes to make Himself known, and to manifest Satan so that the people of the Earth may fall away from Satan and get ready to prepare themselves to become a part of that which God makes new.

Synagogue of Satans schemes to destroy the First Amendment right to free speech

We want to focus again on that Synagogue of Satan. I want to speak about the charge of anti-Semitism, and what that charge leads to.

The First Amendment ofThe United States Constitution reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.And so, I would like to put before you the following questions:

How does one go from engaging infree speechthat we assume is protected by The First Amendment of The Constitution, to finding ones self facing possiblycriminal penalties?

How does sucha wicked claim of anti-Semitismmovethe accused onefrom speaking or writing the truth, and then to legal jeopardy?

What isa legal mechanismby which theseattack dogs ofThe Synagogue of Satanactivate the governmental apparatus toseek out, punishanddestroythose that are labeled as an anti-Semite or as a hate groupand destroy their right to free speech in the process?

We want to look at the criminal effect of being labeled anti-Semitic. We want to look at how these private Jewish organizations who do the labeling, like theAnti-Defamation LeagueandThe Southern Poverty Law Center, manipulate the government law enforcement agencies like theFBIand theIRSto target and harass those who are so labeled. Then, we want to see how they work to effect their scheming, with the disproportionate number of members of the Jewish community working as DAs (or district attorneys) or federal and state prosecutors and judges, in the United States court system where these cases will ultimately be tried.

It begins with someone,anyone, who holds a controversial view, and speaks or writes about it in public.Controversialmeans contrary to the popular version of the truth.

However, instead of engaging in honest and open public dialogue and debate about the issue that the spokesperson raises, as is called for and encouraged by the United States Constitution,private interest groups start with the labeling:Hes a hate teacher, with a hateful message.And then the group he belongs to: If they dont repudiate the spokesperson fast enough, they also get called a hate group that promotes intolerance.They dont have to prove it, they just have to say it over and over againand then the drumbeats get amplified by their brethren who controlthe media.And if that person does not apologize quick enough after that, they start to pick away at his supporters. And those who would defend that person: If they are not strong enough to stand up to the slander, they begin to fall away and distance themselves; and some may even start repudiating and apologizing for their former friend and ally.

Still, if he refuses to bow down: They connect certain inflammatory terms that are intended to generate real hatred, and even retribution, against the person who is speaking these controversial points. They start with:He hates! Hes intolerant!and that escalates to,Hes threatening, and he incites hatred in others!And then the wordviolencegets thrown in, and thenhate crimesare mentioned; and ultimately, you hear the wordsdomestic terrorism.This is all calculated to get the public to put so much pressure on that individual; that they, and their supporters, relent, apologize and retreat.

And this is why I say to my great brothers and sisters in The Twitter Army:No matter what vile speech comes at you, no matter what threats are made against my life by those who hate The Truth that we are speaking, never ever get down in the gutter, or threaten anyone with violence, because they are building a record of what we are saying! So, if you threaten anyone with violence, or you act like you wish to do them evil because they desire to domeevil, then one day you might hear this again in a court of law.

The Synagogues efforts to modernize government persecution of individuals and groups

If we continue to stand on our principles and exercise our freedom of speech, these members of The Synagogue of Satan then get their brethren in The Judicial Branch of government, in the IRS, and their brethren in the Congress and the Senate, and even up to the White House or the Justice Department, and they begin to act in a conspiratorial manner to charge, condemn, try and punishand even killthose who are so charged. This government persecution of individuals and groups who speak boldly about the wrongs in American society was started underJ. Edgar HooversF.B.I. Counterintelligence Program [COINTELPRO].

Although that Program was exposed, and it was said that certain controls were ultimately put on the activity of the FBI; but yet, those wicked policies still continue even up to this very momentof courseThe Synagogue of Satanstepped in tore-establish the worst of Hoovers illegal operations.In August of 1999, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, federal surveillance of those labeled hate groups was restricted to those who committed, or were linked to, actual crimes. According to published reports, hisAttorney General Janet Reno said: It is important that you not focus on a group unless you have a reasonable indication that they are engaged in criminal conduct.But then 29 Jewish leaders led by the Anti-Defamation Leagues Abraham Foxman went to the Justice Department, and told them this is too timid an approach. It was reported that Foxman stated:We want better surveillance and infiltration if necessary the concern, Mr. Foxman said, wasmodernizing the regulations, so federal authoritiescan deal not only with getting the man, but with preventing the crime.

So now, they have their way: A position was created inside the Justice Dept. which they say is to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. [Based uponThe Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004] Secretary of State John Kerry appointed a man namedIra Formanas the newSpecial Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

What will happen with these positions, except to coordinate the government surveillance and infiltration of those who have been labeled anti-Semitic?There are real anti-Semites in this country that hate the Jewish people, and there is nothing wrong with monitoring arealanti-Semitic hate group.But when you have that intention formeandThe Nation of Islam, then we have tocharge youandchallenge youto prove your claim.

You have a long history of lying on The Nation of Islam. And it is time that we throw down the gauntlet now, and make you come before the American people and the world, and prove your charge. And if you cannot,and you cannot, then youre going to have to pay for all these years that you have poisoned the minds of the American people; destroyed progress of tens of hundreds and thousands of peopleand you thought you got away with it.

Not today

In The Preface ofThe Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 2, The Historical Research Department provides us with historical proof on how Jews at the highest organizational levels havealwayslabeled The Nation of Islam as anti-Semitic. For example, they write that in 1942, a secret Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith file titledTemple of Islam Infiltrationstates:A Negro employed byusus here is The Anti- Defamation Leagueprovedquite instrumental in a F.B.I. raid on the Chicago mosque resulting in 82 arrests.So, this has been going on a long time.

And what did you mean,Mr. Abraham Foxman, when you said,Louis Farrakhan is the only African-American leader?Your words exactly, sir, as they appear in aHaaretznews article published in April 2013:The last time an African-American leader stood up to anti-Semitism was Martin Luther King Jr., who said its a sin. The only leadership that now exists inthat community the African American communityisLouis Farrakhan. Farrakhan can assemble 20,000 people several times a year, and he flaunts his anti-Semitism. Whats worse, they deny it exists, so theres no one to talk to.

I interpret that as meaningThe Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan are the only ones we dont control;I interpret that to mean thatLouis FarrakhanandThe Nation of Islammay very well beThe Last Man Standingin the way ofyour successful capture of Black leaders, your successful capture of Black professionals and Black businessmen, your capture of Black artists, and your capture of heads of state and government that bow to your commands!Then ifweare The Last Man Standing, then you are calling on all of your forces to concentrate their attention on Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam.

Well, concentrate with everything youve got, because The God that we serve will answereffectivelyandefficiently, and will ultimately destroy your power.

A party from amongThe Synagogue of Satanthat designs to ruin Gods Warner among us

Look at whats written in theHoly Quran, Surah4 Al-Nisa(The Women), verses 111-112:And whoever commits a sin, commits it only against himself. And Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. And whoever commits a fault or a sin, then accuses of it one innocent, he indeed takes upon himself the burden of acalumnyand amanifest sin.

Now, what is acalumny? A calumny is the making of a false and defamatory statement in order to damage someones reputation. It is slander, it is character assassination, and it is vilification.

ToThe Anti-Defamation League, The Southern Poverty Law Center, a.k.a. The Synagogue of Satan:You are the sinner! You want to put your evil onan innocent man; you say I am the hateryoure wrong! We can prove that you are the hater, and youve been the hater of us ever since youve been onour planet. You are the liar; you are the one that is creating violence and hatredit is you. You manipulate your media brethren, turning them into tools of your wicked ideas and policies.

Well now your day has come.In the Holy Quran, Surah 104is calledAl-Humazah(The Slanderer):Woe to every slanderer, defamer! Who amasses wealth and counts itHe thinks that his wealth will make him abide. Nay, he will certainly be hurled into the crushing disaster; And what will make thee realize what the crushing disaster is? It is the Fire kindled by Allah, Which rises over the hearts. Surely it is closed in on them, In extended columns.

What will make thee know what the great and utter destruction is? It is The Fire, inthe heart of the slanderer; that leads that slanderer to The Fire of Hell.

Inverse 113ofSurah 4, The Holy Quransays:And were it not for Allahs grace on thee and His mercy,a party of themhad certainly designed to ruinthee. And they ruin only themselves, and they cannot harm thee in any way. And Allah has revealed to thee the Book and the Wisdom, and taught thee what thou knewest not, and Allahs grace on thee is very great.

I rely on The Wisdom of that scripture, because as I said: This Synagogue of Satan is comprised not only of members of the Jewish community, but you have Gentiles, you have Blacks, you have AsiansYour Synagogue is big. And a lot of the people that are members of The Synagogue are unwitting pawns in The Wicked Game of this Satanic group.

Remember these words of The Quran:a partyand thats you, Synagoguefrom among themcertainly designed to ruinthee.Thee here meansMuhammad; thee, here, means what he represents. And if you dont think that I am a part of Muhammad, then watch and see. Your evil is designed to ruin me, and to ruin The Nation of Islam. But you ruin only yourself. So keep on planning and watch what happens to you, and what you represent.

A Who is Anti-Semitic? roll call

Let us take a look at all the Black leaders that have been charged with anti-Semitic behavior because they dared to utter a word of criticism against Jewish misbehavior and mislabeling. Lets take a look at Who is anti-Semitic?I bet you wont even believe this:Booker T. Washington, the founder of Tuskegee University;W.E.B. DuBois; Marcus Mosiah Garvey;and, yes:The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.the man that said, anti-Semitism is a sin, yet you all referred to him, at one point, as an anti-Semite!Malcolm X, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, President Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Julian Bond; Kwame Ture, formerly known as Stokely Carmichael;Andrew Young; Kweisi Mfume, former member of Congress, and former leader of the N.A.A.C.P.; The ReverendsAl Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery; The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee called SNCC; The Black Panthers; The Universal Negro Improvement Association, which was Mr. Garveys movement; and,The Nation of Islam.

But it doesnt stop there! They accusedMahatma Gandhi[a leader for Indias independence], of being an anti-Semite. Also: HistoriansJohn Hope FranklinandJ. A. Rogers; WritersJames Baldwin, Richard Wright, Julius LesterandAlice Walker; and entertainersMichael Jackson, Spike Lee, Ice Cube, Arsenio Hall, Muhammad Ali, Public Enemy, Oprah Winfreythis is just a few. Look at the great company that Louis Farrakhan is in.

You meaneverybodyis a hater of the Jewish people? Stop It!

Now lets call the roll of those White people that you have called anti-Semiticbeginning with U.S. presidents: President Harry Truman, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President Richard M. Nixon,President Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford, President George H. W. Bushand PresidentBarack Obama. Also, a listing of White leaders, historians, inventors, writers, clergymen, philosophers, etc.:H. L. Mencken, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Adams, H. G. Wells, Edgar Degas, T. S. Eliot, Immanuel Kant, Tacitus, Philostratus, Cicero, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Hitler, Edward VIII, Aleksander Pushkin, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Richard Wagner, Bobby Fischer, and The Reverend Billy Graham.

These members ofThe Synagogue of Satan have always known that a Day of Reckoning was coming; and so over time, they put themselves in positions of power in every nation of the Western Hemisphere. This was done to monitor The Awakening ofThe Gentilesthe masses of so-called heathens, savages andgoyim; as well as the masses of Blacks. So anyone that rises and criticizes: They put fear in them by charging them with being anti-Semitic. Even if theyknewthat what we were saying is the truth, most would be afraid and would not stand up under the heat of Jewish power.

Well, today we are calling you out, and asking you to use your inordinate power, because The God that we represent wants to crush you and your power. Hes here to bring in a Brand New Worldand Hes chosen the despised and the rejected, unloved and unwantedBlack man and woman of Americato be The Cornerstone of a Brand New Reality.

The trick of anti-Semitic labeling confirmed

During an August 14, 2002 interview on her showDemocracy Now! (democracynow.org), host and executive producer AmyGoodmaninterviewed former Israeli MinisterShulamit Aloni. Pay attention to Miss Goodmans words introducing her guest:Yours is a voice of criticism we dont often hear in the United States. Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti-Semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?AndMinister Shulamit Alonianswered:Well, its a trick, we always use it.When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK. They are talented people, and they have power and money, and the media and other things; and their attitude isIsrael my country, right or wrong,identificationand they are not ready to hear criticism. And its very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is [to] justify everything we do to the Palestinians.

This anti-Semitic labeling is atrickthat they use! But look at how many people have been destroyed on account of such a trick!

Where did you learn such tricks? Did you not learn this from your FatherYakub, who taught you a System of Tricks and Lies? Look at howeasyit is for you to lie, and put your wickedness on innocent persons. What is the meaning of atrick? Atrickisa cunning, or skillful, act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone; a mischievous practical joke; a skillful act performed for entertainment or amusement; an illusion; a clever or particular way of doing something.

Its really amusing to Satan when he can tell a lie, and we operate on that lie, and act in a manner that we would never act if we had only knownThe Truth. They are entertained by playing tricks on unsuspecting, ignorant people. And this is why it isanimperativethat The Synagogue of Satan must be called out, and Satan and his Synagogue must be made known.

(A partial listing)

Read more from the original source:

The Synagogue of Satan And Destroying The Right To 'Free Speech' - FinalCall.com News

Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot. (PTI File)

Sacked deputy chief minister of Rajasthan Sachin Pilot has submitted in the Rajasthan High Court that expressions of "dissatisfaction and disillusionment" against the party leadership cannot make a MLA amenable for disqualification.

In the amendments carried out in his original petition, Pilot emphasised on freedom of speech and expression, and the right to dissent.

This petition will be heard in the afternoon on Friday. The Speaker has assured the Rajasthan High Court that the proceedings against Pilot and others shall remain in abeyance till 5pm on Friday in the wake of the prosper hearing.

The petition, filed jointly by Pilot along with 18 other MLAs, has challenged the validity of clause 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India.

This provision and the interpretations given to it by a body of judgments by the Supreme Court have held that indulging in any anti-party activity tantamount to voluntarily giving up the membership of the party.

The petition has maintained that this provision cannot be so widely construed that the very same fundamental freedom of speech and expression of a member of the House is jeopardised.

Pilot and others said: "Mere expression of dissatisfaction or even disillusionment against the party leadership cannot be treated to be conduct falling within the clause 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India."

The plea added that even if expression of views and opinions, howsoever strongly worded, are treated to be a part of clause 2(1)(a), the said clause would not stand the scrutiny and will have to be declared ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution of India in general and that of right of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) in particular.

It said that since the basis of the disqualification notices by the Speaker was expressions of dissent by some MLAs, it is necessary that the high court examines the validity of the impugned provision under the 10th Schedule.

The amended petition, apart from annulment of the disqualification notices, has also sought for declaring clause 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule ultra vires since it impinges upon the fundamental right of free speech.

View post:

'Disillusionment With Leadership is About Free Speech, Can't Disqualify for it': Sachin Pilot's Amended H... - News18

[Editors note: The following article contains excerpts from an hour-long message delivered by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as Part 22 of his 52-week Lecture Series The Time and What Must Be Done. This message originally aired on Saturday, June 8, 2013. To order this message in its entirety on MP3, DVD and CD, call 1.866.602.1230, ext. 200, or visit store.finalcall.com. We urge readers to visit The Final Call Channel on http://www.youtube.com and view the full lecture, Part 22 of the The Time and What Must Be Done series.]

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

During this critical time, when The Old World is going out, and The New World is coming in, we must beacquaintedwith the ruler of the old world thats going out, and we must get acquainted with The New Ruler of The World that is coming in. The world that is going out is a world that God gave Divine privilege to, to rule the people of our planet for 6,000 years. And, the 6,000 years of the rule of thiscontraryworld and people is now up. And The New Ruler is in the world: He is The God of The New World; and He comes to make Himself known, and to manifest Satan so that the people of the Earth may fall away from Satan and get ready to prepare themselves to become a part of that which God makes new.

Synagogue of Satans schemes to destroy the First Amendment right to free speech

We want to focus again on that Synagogue of Satan. I want to speak about the charge of anti-Semitism, and what that charge leads to.

The First Amendment ofThe United States Constitution reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.And so, I would like to put before you the following questions:

How does one go from engaging infree speechthat we assume is protected by The First Amendment of The Constitution, to finding ones self facing possiblycriminal penalties?

How does sucha wicked claim of anti-Semitismmovethe accused onefrom speaking or writing the truth, and then to legal jeopardy?

What isa legal mechanismby which theseattack dogs ofThe Synagogue of Satanactivate the governmental apparatus toseek out, punishanddestroythose that are labeled as an anti-Semite or as a hate groupand destroy their right to free speech in the process?

We want to look at the criminal effect of being labeled anti-Semitic. We want to look at how these private Jewish organizations who do the labeling, like theAnti-Defamation LeagueandThe Southern Poverty Law Center, manipulate the government law enforcement agencies like theFBIand theIRSto target and harass those who are so labeled. Then, we want to see how they work to effect their scheming, with the disproportionate number of members of the Jewish community working as DAs (or district attorneys) or federal and state prosecutors and judges, in the United States court system where these cases will ultimately be tried.

It begins with someone,anyone, who holds a controversial view, and speaks or writes about it in public.Controversialmeans contrary to the popular version of the truth.

However, instead of engaging in honest and open public dialogue and debate about the issue that the spokesperson raises, as is called for and encouraged by the United States Constitution,private interest groups start with the labeling:Hes a hate teacher, with a hateful message.And then the group he belongs to: If they dont repudiate the spokesperson fast enough, they also get called a hate group that promotes intolerance.They dont have to prove it, they just have to say it over and over againand then the drumbeats get amplified by their brethren who controlthe media.And if that person does not apologize quick enough after that, they start to pick away at his supporters. And those who would defend that person: If they are not strong enough to stand up to the slander, they begin to fall away and distance themselves; and some may even start repudiating and apologizing for their former friend and ally.

Still, if he refuses to bow down: They connect certain inflammatory terms that are intended to generate real hatred, and even retribution, against the person who is speaking these controversial points. They start with:He hates! Hes intolerant!and that escalates to,Hes threatening, and he incites hatred in others!And then the wordviolencegets thrown in, and thenhate crimesare mentioned; and ultimately, you hear the wordsdomestic terrorism.This is all calculated to get the public to put so much pressure on that individual; that they, and their supporters, relent, apologize and retreat.

And this is why I say to my great brothers and sisters in The Twitter Army:No matter what vile speech comes at you, no matter what threats are made against my life by those who hate The Truth that we are speaking, never ever get down in the gutter, or threaten anyone with violence, because they are building a record of what we are saying! So, if you threaten anyone with violence, or you act like you wish to do them evil because they desire to domeevil, then one day you might hear this again in a court of law.

The Synagogues efforts to modernize government persecution of individuals and groups

If we continue to stand on our principles and exercise our freedom of speech, these members of The Synagogue of Satan then get their brethren in The Judicial Branch of government, in the IRS, and their brethren in the Congress and the Senate, and even up to the White House or the Justice Department, and they begin to act in a conspiratorial manner to charge, condemn, try and punishand even killthose who are so charged. This government persecution of individuals and groups who speak boldly about the wrongs in American society was started underJ. Edgar HooversF.B.I. Counterintelligence Program [COINTELPRO].

Although that Program was exposed, and it was said that certain controls were ultimately put on the activity of the FBI; but yet, those wicked policies still continue even up to this very momentof courseThe Synagogue of Satanstepped in tore-establish the worst of Hoovers illegal operations.In August of 1999, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, federal surveillance of those labeled hate groups was restricted to those who committed, or were linked to, actual crimes. According to published reports, hisAttorney General Janet Reno said: It is important that you not focus on a group unless you have a reasonable indication that they are engaged in criminal conduct.But then 29 Jewish leaders led by the Anti-Defamation Leagues Abraham Foxman went to the Justice Department, and told them this is too timid an approach. It was reported that Foxman stated:We want better surveillance and infiltration if necessary the concern, Mr. Foxman said, wasmodernizing the regulations, so federal authoritiescan deal not only with getting the man, but with preventing the crime.

So now, they have their way: A position was created inside the Justice Dept. which they say is to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. [Based uponThe Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004] Secretary of State John Kerry appointed a man namedIra Formanas the newSpecial Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

What will happen with these positions, except to coordinate the government surveillance and infiltration of those who have been labeled anti-Semitic?There are real anti-Semites in this country that hate the Jewish people, and there is nothing wrong with monitoring arealanti-Semitic hate group.But when you have that intention formeandThe Nation of Islam, then we have tocharge youandchallenge youto prove your claim.

You have a long history of lying on The Nation of Islam. And it is time that we throw down the gauntlet now, and make you come before the American people and the world, and prove your charge. And if you cannot,and you cannot, then youre going to have to pay for all these years that you have poisoned the minds of the American people; destroyed progress of tens of hundreds and thousands of peopleand you thought you got away with it.

Not today

In The Preface ofThe Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 2, The Historical Research Department provides us with historical proof on how Jews at the highest organizational levels havealwayslabeled The Nation of Islam as anti-Semitic. For example, they write that in 1942, a secret Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith file titledTemple of Islam Infiltrationstates:A Negro employed byusus here is The Anti- Defamation Leagueprovedquite instrumental in a F.B.I. raid on the Chicago mosque resulting in 82 arrests.So, this has been going on a long time.

And what did you mean,Mr. Abraham Foxman, when you said,Louis Farrakhan is the only African-American leader?Your words exactly, sir, as they appear in aHaaretznews article published in April 2013:The last time an African-American leader stood up to anti-Semitism was Martin Luther King Jr., who said its a sin. The only leadership that now exists inthat community the African American communityisLouis Farrakhan. Farrakhan can assemble 20,000 people several times a year, and he flaunts his anti-Semitism. Whats worse, they deny it exists, so theres no one to talk to.

I interpret that as meaningThe Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan are the only ones we dont control;I interpret that to mean thatLouis FarrakhanandThe Nation of Islammay very well beThe Last Man Standingin the way ofyour successful capture of Black leaders, your successful capture of Black professionals and Black businessmen, your capture of Black artists, and your capture of heads of state and government that bow to your commands!Then ifweare The Last Man Standing, then you are calling on all of your forces to concentrate their attention on Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam.

Well, concentrate with everything youve got, because The God that we serve will answereffectivelyandefficiently, and will ultimately destroy your power.

A party from amongThe Synagogue of Satanthat designs to ruin Gods Warner among us

Look at whats written in theHoly Quran, Surah4 Al-Nisa(The Women), verses 111-112:And whoever commits a sin, commits it only against himself. And Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. And whoever commits a fault or a sin, then accuses of it one innocent, he indeed takes upon himself the burden of acalumnyand amanifest sin.

Now, what is acalumny? A calumny is the making of a false and defamatory statement in order to damage someones reputation. It is slander, it is character assassination, and it is vilification.

ToThe Anti-Defamation League, The Southern Poverty Law Center, a.k.a. The Synagogue of Satan:You are the sinner! You want to put your evil onan innocent man; you say I am the hateryoure wrong! We can prove that you are the hater, and youve been the hater of us ever since youve been onour planet. You are the liar; you are the one that is creating violence and hatredit is you. You manipulate your media brethren, turning them into tools of your wicked ideas and policies.

Well now your day has come.In the Holy Quran, Surah 104is calledAl-Humazah(The Slanderer):Woe to every slanderer, defamer! Who amasses wealth and counts itHe thinks that his wealth will make him abide. Nay, he will certainly be hurled into the crushing disaster; And what will make thee realize what the crushing disaster is? It is the Fire kindled by Allah, Which rises over the hearts. Surely it is closed in on them, In extended columns.

What will make thee know what the great and utter destruction is? It is The Fire, inthe heart of the slanderer; that leads that slanderer to The Fire of Hell.

Inverse 113ofSurah 4, The Holy Quransays:And were it not for Allahs grace on thee and His mercy,a party of themhad certainly designed to ruinthee. And they ruin only themselves, and they cannot harm thee in any way. And Allah has revealed to thee the Book and the Wisdom, and taught thee what thou knewest not, and Allahs grace on thee is very great.

I rely on The Wisdom of that scripture, because as I said: This Synagogue of Satan is comprised not only of members of the Jewish community, but you have Gentiles, you have Blacks, you have AsiansYour Synagogue is big. And a lot of the people that are members of The Synagogue are unwitting pawns in The Wicked Game of this Satanic group.

Remember these words of The Quran:a partyand thats you, Synagoguefrom among themcertainly designed to ruinthee.Thee here meansMuhammad; thee, here, means what he represents. And if you dont think that I am a part of Muhammad, then watch and see. Your evil is designed to ruin me, and to ruin The Nation of Islam. But you ruin only yourself. So keep on planning and watch what happens to you, and what you represent.

A Who is Anti-Semitic? roll call

Let us take a look at all the Black leaders that have been charged with anti-Semitic behavior because they dared to utter a word of criticism against Jewish misbehavior and mislabeling. Lets take a look at Who is anti-Semitic?I bet you wont even believe this:Booker T. Washington, the founder of Tuskegee University;W.E.B. DuBois; Marcus Mosiah Garvey;and, yes:The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.the man that said, anti-Semitism is a sin, yet you all referred to him, at one point, as an anti-Semite!Malcolm X, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, President Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Julian Bond; Kwame Ture, formerly known as Stokely Carmichael;Andrew Young; Kweisi Mfume, former member of Congress, and former leader of the N.A.A.C.P.; The ReverendsAl Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery; The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee called SNCC; The Black Panthers; The Universal Negro Improvement Association, which was Mr. Garveys movement; and,The Nation of Islam.

But it doesnt stop there! They accusedMahatma Gandhi[a leader for Indias independence], of being an anti-Semite. Also: HistoriansJohn Hope FranklinandJ. A. Rogers; WritersJames Baldwin, Richard Wright, Julius LesterandAlice Walker; and entertainersMichael Jackson, Spike Lee, Ice Cube, Arsenio Hall, Muhammad Ali, Public Enemy, Oprah Winfreythis is just a few. Look at the great company that Louis Farrakhan is in.

You meaneverybodyis a hater of the Jewish people? Stop It!

Now lets call the roll of those White people that you have called anti-Semiticbeginning with U.S. presidents: President Harry Truman, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President Richard M. Nixon,President Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford, President George H. W. Bushand PresidentBarack Obama. Also, a listing of White leaders, historians, inventors, writers, clergymen, philosophers, etc.:H. L. Mencken, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Adams, H. G. Wells, Edgar Degas, T. S. Eliot, Immanuel Kant, Tacitus, Philostratus, Cicero, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Hitler, Edward VIII, Aleksander Pushkin, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Richard Wagner, Bobby Fischer, and The Reverend Billy Graham.

These members ofThe Synagogue of Satan have always known that a Day of Reckoning was coming; and so over time, they put themselves in positions of power in every nation of the Western Hemisphere. This was done to monitor The Awakening ofThe Gentilesthe masses of so-called heathens, savages andgoyim; as well as the masses of Blacks. So anyone that rises and criticizes: They put fear in them by charging them with being anti-Semitic. Even if theyknewthat what we were saying is the truth, most would be afraid and would not stand up under the heat of Jewish power.

Well, today we are calling you out, and asking you to use your inordinate power, because The God that we represent wants to crush you and your power. Hes here to bring in a Brand New Worldand Hes chosen the despised and the rejected, unloved and unwantedBlack man and woman of Americato be The Cornerstone of a Brand New Reality.

The trick of anti-Semitic labeling confirmed

During an August 14, 2002 interview on her showDemocracy Now! (democracynow.org), host and executive producer AmyGoodmaninterviewed former Israeli MinisterShulamit Aloni. Pay attention to Miss Goodmans words introducing her guest:Yours is a voice of criticism we dont often hear in the United States. Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti-Semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?AndMinister Shulamit Alonianswered:Well, its a trick, we always use it.When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK. They are talented people, and they have power and money, and the media and other things; and their attitude isIsrael my country, right or wrong,identificationand they are not ready to hear criticism. And its very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is [to] justify everything we do to the Palestinians.

This anti-Semitic labeling is atrickthat they use! But look at how many people have been destroyed on account of such a trick!

Where did you learn such tricks? Did you not learn this from your FatherYakub, who taught you a System of Tricks and Lies? Look at howeasyit is for you to lie, and put your wickedness on innocent persons. What is the meaning of atrick? Atrickisa cunning, or skillful, act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone; a mischievous practical joke; a skillful act performed for entertainment or amusement; an illusion; a clever or particular way of doing something.

Its really amusing to Satan when he can tell a lie, and we operate on that lie, and act in a manner that we would never act if we had only knownThe Truth. They are entertained by playing tricks on unsuspecting, ignorant people. And this is why it isanimperativethat The Synagogue of Satan must be called out, and Satan and his Synagogue must be made known.

(A partial listing)

View original post here:

The Synagogue of Satan And Destroying The Right To 'Free Speech' | Final Call News - FinalCall.com News

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Photo: Arnold LeFevre, Times Union Historic Images

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend

TROY John Koletas has been testing this city's First Amendment resolve for a very long time.

Three decades ago, the controversial pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Lansingburgh was best known as a street preacher who tried to save the souls of passersby in downtown Troy. In a not-quiet voice, he'd demand that they repent for their sins.

The shouting wasn't always appreciated, unsurprisingly, and Koletas was repeatedly charged with disorderly conduct. Eventually, Koletas filed a lawsuit arguing that he had a First Amendment right to preach on the street and that his repeated arrests amounted to unconstitutional harassment. Two national TV shows Fox's "A Current Affair" and NBC's "Inside Edition" even came to Troy to report on the controversy.

Koletas ultimately lost in court, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that police did nothing wrong by arresting him.

Had I been a columnist for this newspaper back then, I generally would have been on Koletas' side. I would have argued, in other words, that he did in fact have a free speech right to preach outside, at least within reason.

No, a person shouldn't be allowed to holler on the street at, say, midnight. People do need to sleep, after all. Laws against unreasonable noise are justified.

But certainly, the city needed to accommodate the preacher's free speech rights without needless harassment. Koletas had the right to preach, even if few passersby wanted to hear it.

Fast forward three decades, and Koletas is again attracting attention. AR-15 rifle giveaways at Grace Baptist and Koletas' consistently hateful rhetoric toward Blacks, Jews, Muslims and Catholics have attracted Black Lives Matter protesters to the Fourth Street church in recent weeks.

As I noted in a column published Sunday that focused on Koletas' attacks on Catholicism, protesters aren't coming to Grace Baptist to attack Christianity or religion, as some in conservative media would have you believe. They're protesting what Koletas says, and justifiably so.

As has been well documented by bloggers and others, Koletas has referred to Blacks as "termites" and "savages." He has described himself as a racist who "believes the races should be kept separate as much as possible." Koletas says Catholicism, like the Muslim faith, is incompatible with democracy and the Bill of Rights.

In response to Sunday's column, a few supporters of Grace Baptist claimed I was attempting to silence or "cancel" Koletas' freedom of religion or speech. But I suggested no such thing.

I believe strongly that Koletas has the First Amendment right to pray and preach as he wants, assuming he stops short of advocating violence. Likewise, his followers have a First Amendment right to listen. And yes, protesters, columnists and Facebook commenters all have a First Amendment right to object to what Koletas says.

Free speech for everybody! What a concept.

Freedom of speech seems to be falling out of fashion, though. We increasingly hear that some words are too harmful to be spoken or that listeners have the right not to be offended. On college campuses, even relatively dull speakers such as economist Art Laffer can find themselves "deplatformed" for supposedly offensive views.

The shift, if widely accepted, will redefine free speech rights as we've long understood them. Actually, it would all but eliminate true freedom of speech. After all, if you can't say something that somebody might find offensive, you can hardly say anything provocative. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of expression.

The result would be a stifling monoculture of thought, devoid of intellectual diversity or compelling debate. And as any good gardener can tell you, there's nothing interesting about a monoculture.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, wrote George Orwell in an essay planned as the introduction to "Animal Farm" that also included this gem of a line: "People don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."

Had I been walking down a street in Troy in the early 1990s, I suppose I wouldn't have wanted to hear Koletas' call that I repent for my sins. I wouldn't want to sit through one of his sermons today. (Happily, I don't have to.)

But we allow Koletas to speak so that we all may speak. We counter his words with our own words.

Freedom of speech for everybody! It's a crucial concept.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Read this article:

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Beaumont Enterprise

Amid claims of social media platforms stifling free speech, a new challenger called Parler is drawing attention for its anti-censorship stance.

Last week, Harpers Magazine published an open letter signed by 150 academics, writers and activists concerning perceived threats to the future of free speech.

The letter, signed by Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Gloria Steinem and J.K. Rowling, among others, reads:

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.

Debates surroundings free speech and censorship have taken centre stage in recent months. In May, Twitter started adding fact-check labels to tweets from Donald Trump.

More recently, Reddit permanently removed its largest community of Trump supporters.

In this climate, Parler presents itself as a non-biased, free speech driven alternative to Twitter. Heres what you should know about the US-based startup.

Read more: Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with

Parler reports more than 1.5 million users and is growing in popularity, especially as Twitter and other social media giants crackdown on misinformation and violent content.

Parler is very similar to Twitter in appearance and function, albeit clunkier. Like Twitter, Parler users can follow others and engage with public figures, news sources and other users.

Public posts are called parleys rather than tweets and can contain up to 1,000 characters.

Users can search for hashtags, make comments, echo posts (similar to a retweet) and vote (similar to a like) on posts. Theres also a direct private messaging feature, just like Twitter.

Given this likeness, what actually is unique about Parler?

Parlers main selling point is its claim it embraces freedom of speech and has minimal moderation. If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler, founder John Matze explains.

This branding effort capitalises on allegations competitors such as Twitter and Facebook unfairly censor content and discriminate against right-wing political speech.

While other platforms often employ fact checkers, or third-party editorial boards, Parler claims to moderate content based on American Federal Communications Commission guidelines and Supreme Court rulings.

So if someone shared demonstrably false information on Parler, Matze said it would be up to other users to fact-check them organically.

And although Parler is still dwarfed by Twitter (330 million users) and Facebook (2.6 billion users) the platforms anti-censorship stance continues to attract users turned off by the regulations of larger social media platforms.

When Twitter recently hid tweets from Trump for glorifying violence, this partly prompted the Trump campaign to consider moving to a platform such as Parler.

Matze also claims Parler protects users privacy by not tracking or sharing their data.

Companies such as Twitter and Facebook have denied they are silencing conservative voices, pointing to blanket policies against hate speech and content inciting violence.

Parlers free speech has resulted in various American Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz, promoting the platform.

Many conservative influencers such as Katie Hopkins, Lara Loomer and Alex Jones have sought refuge on Parler after being banned from other platforms.

Although it brands itself as a bipartisan safe space, Parler is mostly used by right-wing media, politicians and commentators.

Moreover, a closer look at its user agreement suggests it moderates content the same way as any platform, maybe even more.

The company states:

Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason.

Parlers community guidelines prohibit a range of content including spam, terrorism, unsolicited ads, defamation, blackmail, bribery and criminal behaviour.

Although there are no explicit rules against hate speech, there are policies against fighting words and threats of harm. This includes a threat of or advocating for violation against an individual or group.

There are rules against content that is obscene, sexual or lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value. For example, visuals of genitalia, female nipples, or faecal matter are barred from Parler.

Meanwhile, Twitter allows consensually produced adult content if its marked as sensitive. It also has no policy against the visual display of excrement.

As a private company, Parler can remove whatever content it wants. Some users have already been banned for breaking rules.

Whats more, in spite of claims it does not share user data, Parlers privacy policy states data collected can be used for advertising and marketing.

Read more: Friday essay: Twitter and the way of the hashtag

Given its limited user base, Parler has yet to become the open town square it aspires to be.

The platform is in its infancy and its user base is much less representative than larger social media platforms.

Despite Matze saying left-leaning users tied to the Black Lives Matter movement were joining Parler to challenge conservatives, Parler lacks the diverse audience needed for any real debate.

Matze also said he doesnt want Parler to be an echo chamber for conservative voices. In fact, he is offering a US$20,000 progressive bounty for an openly liberal pundit with 50,000 followers on Twitter or Facebook to join.

Clearly, the platform has a long way to go before it bursts its conservative bubble.

Read more: Don't (just) blame echo chambers. Conspiracy theorists actively seek out their online communities

See the article here:

Parler: what you need to know about the 'free speech' Twitter alternative - The Conversation AU

3News Legal Analyst Stephanie Haney breaks down what the states can and can't do when it comes to restricting display of the Confederate flag

CLEVELAND Legal Analysis:Right now, people are calling for government officials and private organizations to ban the display of the Confederate flag because of its tie to slavery, but those two groups aren't created equal when it comes to who can make that happen.

People are asking these groups to prohibit the display and sale of the symbol in what we think of as public places, like county fairs.

Here in Ohio, there was even a bill proposed in the House of Representatives to do it. That bill didn't pass, but if it had, the results would have been questionable, because display of the Confederate flag is considered a form a speech.

Our freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

The start of that sentence is the important part, because the First Amendment protects our speech from Congress, also known as "the government" or "the state."

Legally speaking, our county fairs can do whatever they want when it comes to banning the Confederate flag, because theyre not run by the government.

The First Amendment only stops the government from restricting our speech, except for in certain cases.

Exceptions that are not protected include when someone says something thats meant to provoke someone to break the law (also referred to as speech that is intended and likely to lead to "imminent lawless action"), speech used to intimidate, or legitimately threaten someone else.

You may be surprised to know that both hate speech, and speech that promotes the idea of violence are protected from being restricted by the state.

The government can limit where and when speech is expressed, but it has to be across the board (or "content neutral"), because restricting only a specific point of view is unconstitutional.

The closing speech in the 1995 film, "The American President," sums it up well, delivered by the character of President Andrew Shepherd, played by Michael Douglas.

"You want free speech?" he asks of the crowd in the press briefing room and the fictional Americans watching at home.

"Lets see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, whos standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Then the character brings up another controversial topic when it comes to free speech and flags.

"You want to claim this land as the land of the free?"he asks.

"Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

To sum it up, if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldnt need the first amendment.

Stephanie Haney is licensed to practice law in both Ohio and California.

The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only. None of the information in this article is offered, nor should it be construed, as legal advice on any matter.

See more here:

Watch | Can states ban the display of the Confederate flag? in 'Legally Speaking' - WKYC.com

A sinister new cult of dogmatic intolerance casts its shadow across our land, silencing debate, imposing conformity, whipping up hysteria, and crushing dissent.

In the wholly un-British climate of intimidation, opinions are ruthlessly censored and careers destroyed.

On a terrifying scale, the ingredients of alien despotism are now creeping into our public life.

There is an echo of the Soviet eastern bloc in the demand for absolute submission to the ruling orthodoxy, while the vicious mood of 1950s McCarthyism is mirrored in endless character assassinations and witch-hunts.

Similarly, the kind of determination to root out heresy that once drove the Spanish Inquisition can now be found in corporate Britain, from workplaces to Whitehall.

All this is the very antithesis of a free society, which should value openness, compromise and pluralism.

That great patriot George Orwell famously wrote, If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Tragically, instead of being guided by those wise words, the cultural commissars seem to be inspired by Orwells most famous novel, 1984, which painted a dark picture of Britain under totalitarian rule, complete with thought crimes, hate sessions, group think and hectoring propaganda.

Orwell meant his book to be a warning, but the new ideologues see it as a blueprint.

The vanguard of this revolution hails from the authoritarian Left, which uses the bogus language of compassion to justify its oppression.

In their doctrinal obsessions and frenzied divisiveness, these bullies are utterly divorced from the mainstream British public, yet they are able to wield excessive power through their stranglehold on the internet and civic institutions.

In their brutish hands, social media is both an instrument of fear and an arena for show trials.

Nothing illustrates the nastiness of the online lynch mob more graphically thanthe transformation of the best-selling author JK Rowling from cherished icon into enemy of the people.

Her thought crime is her willingness to challenge the fashionable transgender ideology, which she sees as a threat both to womens rights and childhood innocence.

For her courage, she has been subjected to horrendous misogynistic abuse.

Staff at her publishing house have tried to boycott her work.

Authors have left the literary agency that represents her.

A sculptural tribute to her in Edinburgh, comprising the imprints of her hands, was daubed with blood-red paint.

Ms Rowling is such a global figure that she can withstand a battering from the advocates of the cancel culture, as it has become known because its impulse is to cancel out dissenters.

Others have been less lucky.

The Scottish childrens author Gillian Philip says she was fired from her post by her publishers after she tweeted: I stand with JK Rowling.

As Ms Philip commented, her professionalism counted for nothing in the face of an abusive mob of anonymous Twitter trolls. The same hardline trans lobby also recently hounded out Baroness Nicholson from her position as the patron of the Booker Literary prize for showing insufficientobeisance to the new creed, a fate thatalso happened to tax expert Maya Forstater who was dismissed from her job at an anti-poverty think tank after she tweeted that men cannot change into women.

Left-wingers used to campaign to protect jobs.

Now they campaign to get people removed from them, simply for having unacceptable opinions.

Typical is the case of Nick Buckley, who set up a highly successful charity for vulnerable young people in Manchester. But in the eyes of the new zealots he committed the sin of criticising the aims of the radical Black Lives Matter protest group.

We will do everything in our power to have you removed from your position, said one activist.The warning was prophetic, as Buckley was kicked out of the charity he established.

Disturbingly, this is just part of a wider trend.

At Cambridge University, which has regularly made empty noises about its commitment to academic freedom, the philosopher Jordan Peterson had his offer of a visiting fellowship withdrawn after protests from the Students Union about the politically incorrect nature of his work.

In the same cowardly vein, Cambridge sacked sociologist Noah Carl over the unsubstantiated claims that he might use his position as a researcher to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred. So pathetically supine was the university that it even apologised to its students for appointing him in the first place, an appointment that supposedly caused hurt, betrayal, anger and disbelief.

That is so characteristic of our enfeebled establishment.

Instead of standing up for essential liberties, officialdom now cowers before the mob and colludes with the agitators.

In another outrageous case, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Professor Sir Tim Hunt was forced out of his posts at University College London, the Royal Society and the European Research Council after he was accused of making a joke about female colleagues at an event in Seoulin 2015, even though he strongly deniedthe charge.

Sir Tim was crucified by ideological fanatics, said his fellow scientist Sir Andre Geim of the University of Manchester.

No one is safe from this destructive form of socialist puritanism.

Last year, disabled Asda worker Brian Leach was sacked for sharing an online clip of a Billy Connolly routine that mocked religion, though Leach was later reinstated after a public outcry. In yet another indicator of the authorities submission to the new doctrine, the police are estimated to have investigated no fewer than 120,000 non-crime hate incidents over the past five years, an incredible rate of 66 a day.

The Free Speech Union, recently founded by the energetic journalist Toby Young to uphold Britains tattered traditions, says that it now receives half a dozen requests for help every day.

The fact that such an organisation is required represents a severe indictment of the growing institutional disdain for freedom of expression.

The autocratic impulse has always existed on the Left, as shown by this passage written in 1999 by the broadcaster Andrew Marr, a key member of the metropolitan elite: I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain natural beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off.

That outlook has become even stronger over the subsequent two decades.

In progressive circles, free speech is seen, not as a pillar of democracy, but as a vehicle for spreading dangerously reactionary arguments. In the warped mentality of the witch-hunters, the problem with the cancel culture is that it is insufficiently expansive or effective.

This narrow attitude was perfectly captured last week by the singer Billy Bragg, who wrote that whenever he hears Orwells defence of liberty, he wants to cringe because the words are a defence of licence, allowing those in power to abuse and marginalise others.

When he was asked on social media if he supported the dismissal of people simply for an opinion, he declared, If their opinion amounts to delegitimising the rights of a minority, I believe that employers have the right to act in such circumstances.

In effect, Bragg appears to believe in the thought police and ideological purity tests, a shameful stance from a man who once pretended to be democrat.

But his outlook is a common one.

One of the performers on the deeply unfunny BBC satire The Mash Report even stated that free speech is basically a way adult people can say racist stuff without consequences.

Left-wingers love to trumpet the joys of diversity, yet they loathe diversity of thought.

All their apparatus of repression, such as safe spaces and wails about micro-aggressions, are geared towards the enforcement of their code.

Even when people are not directly threatened with losing their livelihoods, they become scared to express their views on any controversial topic.

The atmosphere of self-censorship is thereby strengthened. The absurdity of this approach is that free speech is the ally, not the enemy, of progress, enlightenment and human rights.

Without such a liberty, discussion and protest are impossible, while power becomes entrenched, as the Soviet Union proved.

An irrefutable case for free speech was made in 2009, when the BBC invited the BNP leader Nick Griffin to participate in an edition of the flagship show Question Time.

The BNP was riding high at that moment, having won almost one million votes in the European elections and secured two seats in the European Parliament.

There was tremendous outrage at the BBCs invitation, yet Griffins disastrous appearance turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened to the BNP.

Sweating, nervous and incoherent, he was exposed as a fantasising conspiracy theorist with some very unpleasant views, in the words of his fellow panelist, the distinguished Labour politician Jack Straw.

Even BNP activists were dismayed.

Maybe some coaching should have been done, said one.

Question Time triggered a chain of events that soon led to the collapse of the BNP, amid debts and plummeting popularity.

The cancel culture would have worked in Griffins favour.

As it was, he choked on the oxygen of publicity.

That is the lesson we have to learn today. Fortunately there are the glimmers of a fightback against the authoritarians. JK Rowling has stood firm.

Comedy star Ricky Gervais has stood up for free speech, denouncing its opponents as weird.

Only last week, a letter was sent to Harpers Magazine by 153 mainly liberal philosophers, writers and intellectuals among them giants su Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky who denounced the intolerant climate of public discourse.

The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away, they wrote.

That is absolutely correct and has long been the British way.

For the sake of our future, the extremists must not be allowed to prevail.

Read more here:

Freedom of speech is under threat like never before and we must fight back, LEO McKINSTRY - Express