Canadian police target conspiracy theorists
By Kevin Barrett
Additional two startling articles within as well.
Edmonton, Alberta
The Edmonton Police Department’s Hate Speech Squad has launched an investigation of a scholarly book that questions the War on Terror.
On August 16th, two undercover EPD officers attended a book talk at the Rossdale Community League Hall in downtown Edmonton. The officers were investigating We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11, which has apparently elicited complaints from B’nai Brith Canada.
Out of uniform and posing as ordinary audience members, the Hate Police officers watched my book talk. During the intermission between my lecture and the subsequent presentation by University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall, the officers flashed their badges and identified themselves as members of the Hate Speech Squad. They said they had received a complaint referencing “conspiracy theories” and “anti-Semitism.” (How a scholarly book that includes essays by several highly accomplished and reputable Jewish contributors, as well as one by an even more Semitic Arab Muslim, can be called “anti-Semitic” is a mystery.)
The lead officer told me: “I didn’t see any problems with anything I heard during your lecture.” On behalf of the Department, he accepted an autographed copy of We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo dedicated “To the Edmonton Police Department Hate Speech Squad – thank you for thinking freely.” The officer said the book will be placed in the Departmental Library.
The Edmonton PD’s We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo investigation raises interesting questions. Are Canadian police departments now charged with giving a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to books and book talks? Are Hate Speech Squad officers getting training in literary criticism, investigative journalism and historiography so they can serve as competent peer reviewers and censors? Had the officers disapproved of the lecture, could they have arrested us? If they later read the book and dislike it, will it be banned in Canada? Conversely, if they like it, might they offer a blurb: “Terrific stuff! Certified 100% hate free by the Canadian hate police!”
But seriously, folks: Doesn’t the policing of books and book talks have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom? And how and why did this particular book draw the attention of the Hate Police?
“The person who stated you were involved in hate crimes is Amanda Hohmann” emailed Joanne David, the Edmonton event organizer, to Anthony Hall. Amanda Hohmann is the Coordinator of the B’nai Brith Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents.
Professor Hall was outraged: “They call themselves the B’nai Brith Audit of Anti-Semitism. Auditing! We live in an era of auditing fraud. The banksters are experts in disguising what’s going on through creative bookkeeping. It’s interesting that the concept of audit is now being applied to policing people’s ideas.”
So who was responsible for sending the Hate Police to our book talk? Anthony Hall was unable to get a straight answer:
“I called the B’nai Brith office but wasn’t able to speak to Amanda Hohmann. I asked to speak with CEO Michael Mofton and Senior Legal Counsel David Matas. I indicated it is a serious matter and that I have never been associated with a hate speech crime. So I want to know who complained, what is the nature of the complaint, is there a text involved? It seems that someone said that our speaking was going to somehow be a violation of some hate speech principles. I wanted to know what the rules are, if there are any rules. Are people just free to snitch anonymously? Can people turn in their partner because they’re mad at him or her? It gets to the whole essence of the Global War on Terror, that people are subject to these repressions. They don’t know what they’re accused of, who is doing the accusing. There’s no due process. It’s an authoritarian police state atmosphere, an East German Stasi type of worldview. And this is creating maximum dissension, distrust and suspicion of one another. And this seems to be the agenda of neocon tyranny. Here we are right in the midst of an election. These issues are front and center. Bill C-51, now the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015, is like the Canadian Patriot Act. (Bill C-51 was passed in the wake of Canada’s 9/11, the Ottawa shooting of 10/22/2014.)
“The Anti-Terrorism Act empowers CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to become a kind of Canadian gestapo. This raises the question: Is the B’nai Brith now an adjunct of CSIS? How are we to tell the difference between the B’nai Brith and the Harper government? And of course there’s so much irony, because the specious interpretations of 9/11, 10/22 (the Ottawa shooter event), the Charlie Hebdo event, and so on amount to hate speech! Their purpose is to generate hatred towards Muslims, and to whip up and instrumentalize and exploit Islamophobia for political gain to the neocons. So the agencies responsible for policing and arbitrating hate speech are deeply involved in generating a type of speech, and defending a type of speech, that creates great hatred towards Muslims.”
As of this writing, B’nai Brith has not returned Professor Hall’s phone calls asking for an explanation. Neither, for that matter, have the Edmonton Hate Police:
“I called the Edmonton Police Department. I couldn’t even find out the name of the officers. They gave me the phone number of the Hate Speech Unit. I called and left a message, but they haven’t gotten back to me.”
Richard Awid, manager of the Rossdale Community Center in Edmonton, said there had been several complaints asking him to cancel the event. The complaints were apparently vague and unsubstantiated. Awid, to his credit, stood his ground and allowed the book talk to proceed.
The Edmonton talk was the final episode of my five Canadian events with Anthony Hall. Two days earlier, our talk in Jasper was introduced by a forceful disclaimer disassociating the owner of the venue – the United Church of Canada – from the event.
Anthony Hall writes:
“This experience we went through in Jasper and especially in Edmonton seem to be a prelude to the kind of relationships we can expect with the police, the government, and one another. This kind of thing is going to make the university as we’ve known it impossible. I can foresee security clearances for classes and Hate Police officers sitting in.”
In today’s Orwellian world, it seems that critical inquiry is being redefined as hate speech, radicalization, or even terrorism.
The B’nai Brith Canada website states: “In the future, the League will explore further use of legal means to halt or disrupt the operations of known terrorist organizations with representatives in Canada. The B’nai Brith legal department will play a key role in this effort.”
Are scholarly books now considered a form of terrorism?
Anthony Hall adds: “I find it very troubling that there is this notion of ‘radicalization,’ that everyone just nods their heads assuming it means something. Are universities being defined as agents of radicalization, and professors considered their representatives?”
Hall adds: “The most extreme agent of radicalization in Canada right now is Stephen Harper and the cabal he represents. Imagine having a hate speech hotline when the Prime Minister is running on hate speech! The term he always uses (to incite hatred of Muslims) is ‘jihadism’.”
Fascism Comes to Canada: Stephen Harper One-Ups Leni Riefenstahl (watch this unbelievable video if you dare!)
Ohio Judicial Board: Judges Must Officiate Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Despite Religious Beliefs
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio has released its formal opinion regarding whether judges must officiate same-sex “weddings” despite their religious convictions, declaring that homosexuals must be accommodated no matter what.
“Ohio judges who perform civil marriages may not ethically refuse to perform civil marriages involving same-sex couples while continuing to perform marriages involving opposite-sex couples,” the board wrote on Friday. “Ohio judges may not ethically decline to perform all marriages in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on their personal, moral, or religious beliefs.”
The board had received requests for guidance on the matter after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in June in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring that all states must legalize same-sex “marriage.” An unspecified number of judges and a judicial association had inquired of the board whether judges are permitted to decline to officiate same-sex nuptials or bow out of officiating over weddings altogether.
In its opinion, the board pointed to the judicial oath of office, in which justices must promise to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as a judge according to the best of my ability and understanding.” However, the oath concludes with the phrase, “This I do as I shall answer unto God.”
It further asserted that “[p]ublic confidence in the independence of the judiciary is undermined when a judge allows his or her beliefs concerning the societal or religious acceptance or validity of same-sex marriage to affect the performance of a judicial function or duty.”
The board then contended that judges who seek to cease officiation over all marriage ceremonies to avoid performing same-sex nuptials may be considered “prejudice.”
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE!
http://christiannews.net/2015/08/11/ohio-judicial-board-judges-must-officiate-same-sex-marriages-despite-religious-beliefs/
Those who speak out against "same sex marriage" are labeled as hateful and extremist. There are laws now where individuals can even marry animals BUT what is next?
Humans should be able to marry robots.
The Supreme Court’s recent 5–4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage across the United States has already spawned speculation
about “what will be next” in expanding marital rights. As the Supreme
Court noted, “[t]he history of marriage is one of both continuity and
change. That institution … has evolved over time.” Interracial marriage,
equality between husband and wife, and same-sex marriage were all
excluded for long periods of time under our Constitution but now have
been sanctioned and protected by the courts. While these changes have
come slowly, and courts are unlikely to take the next step in expanding
marital rights for some time, the courts are probably not finished
expanding the legal definition of marital rights.
A New York Times op-ed
published shortly after the Supreme Court’s same-sex decision said that
the court’s logic could eventually lead to recognition of polygamy or
plural marriages, an argument also made by Chief Justice John Roberts in
his dissenting opinion. This slippery-slope argument has also been used to contend that the court’s decision will open the door to legal recognition of bestiality or incest.
Robot-human marriages might be next on the list. Probably not soon, admittedly, but it nevertheless will be an inevitable part of our future. Indeed, some critics of same-sex marriage, including some conservative Christian opponents
of gay marriage, have argued that the court’s recognition of same-sex
marriage would inevitably lead to robotic-human marriages. There has
recently been a burst of cogent accounts of human-robot sex and love in
popular culture: Her and Ex Machina, the AMC drama series Humans, and the novel Love in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.
These fictional accounts of human-robot romantic relationships follow
David Levy’s compelling, even if reluctant, argument for the
inevitability of human-robot love and sex in his 2007 work Love and Sex With Robots.
If you don’t think human-robot sex and love will be a growing reality
of the future, read Levy’s book, and you will be convinced.
Or just look at the marketplace. Sex “dolls”
have become more and more realistic in appearance and touch, and one
company recently announced that it was developing a sexbot with
artificial intelligence that can talk back and express emotions.
As Levy points out, the first to explore and benefit from robot-human
sexual relationships may be individuals with physical or psychological
impairments that limit their ability to have sex with other people.
Read the whole diabolical article here...
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/08/humans_should_be_able_to_marry_robots.single.html
Related:
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-equality-myth-founding-legend.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/11/sister-melone-equality-between-men-and.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/07/u-scream-i-scream-we-all-scream-for.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/05/sisters-indoctrinating-girls-with.html
The
Official ORDER of the EAGLE Page
TradCatKnight Radio (MP3) orderoftheeagle.wordpress.com/mp3/
Please share blogs and help spread information Crusaders!
TradCatKnight is the most viewed
& followed traditional catholic page worldwide.
This is the HOME of the New Crusade
keeping you up to date on the latest Endtime
News stories worldwide as we head closer to the GREAT CHASTISEMENTS foretold by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima.
Please Help Keep TradCatKnight Alive
& Growing:
Donate below for a chance to win a
gift via TradCatKnight’s
Monthly raffle. Minimum contribution
is 20$ for the raffle.
Winner announced on every last radio
show of the month!
I was rather amused by the turn of this phrase—even though David Icke was the author:
ReplyDelete"coincidence theorist"