The Female Party
“Nearly two-thirds of all Democrats are women; here we see the much-discussed gender gap as less than half of the Republicans are female.” (Maisel, American Political Parties and Elections, 2016)
From same source: “In a Gallup poll conducted in June 2015, 31 percent [of Americans] identified themselves as Democrats, 25 percent as Republicans, and 41 percent as independents.”
Assuming the ratios for party membership stand also for people who “identify as” (as a matter of fact I see no reason, no explanatory factor why both ratios should be significantly different), we’ve got the highest proportion of males among “independents.” Independent, therefore, sounds a lot like males who cannot identify with party politics.
According to my calculations, the figures are (source says “nearly two third,” and “less than half” [meaning “not significantly less,” I believe, otherwise the source is saying nothing of quantitative value], so these figures are approximations [also because 31+25+41 doesn’t add up to 100 percent]):
20.6 percent of American population are female Dem;
12.5 female Rep;
13.6 female independent;
10.3 male Dem;
12.5 male Rep;
27.3 male independent.
By order of magnitude: male independent (27.3) > female Dem (20.6) > female independent (13.6) > male & female Rep (12.5 twice) > male Dem (10.3).
There are twice as many Democratic women as Democratic men in USA. This imbalance is in dire need of an explanation.
You can check my calculations are right in this quick way: 20.6=2(10.3) “there are twice as many Democratic women as Democratic men,” which is the same as “(Nearly) two-thirds of all Democrats are women,” since if you take 9, two thirds of 9 is 6, one third is 3, and 6=2(3).
There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti
Abstract: The claim that gun manufacturers are treated differently than other manufacturers is unsubstantiated, in contract, consumer protection, and tort law. Arguments for gun control often overlook a general principle of law that may be encapsulated in the words “There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti.”
“New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.” Cuomo was elected at the wrong election, in fact he wanted to be a judge. Now he is governor and he thinks he can tell courts what their decisions should be?
There already were trials against arms manufacturers, notably after Sandy Hook. But also there is the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Adoption of the act was obviously intended as a shield against the bad faith of Second Amendment opponents who want to hold arms manufacturers liable not for failing to deliver as stipulated but on the contrary for complying with business regulations and contract stipulations.
Example: “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose. With nearly every American industry and product, civil liability can be used as an important check on irresponsible manufacturers and sellers—but not the gun industry.” (Giffords Law Center: To prevent gun violence)
A gun manufacturer is liable if he sells a defective, hazardous gun, like any other manufacturer. What the opponents want is to make the manufacturers liable for weapons that function as stipulated in contracts and according to reasonable safety expectations, and under the rule of law there can be no such liability in this world.
Opponents talk of “dangerous products” as if the aim of a weapon were not, precisely, to be dangerous (in order to deter aggression and crime). The dangerous products of contract law are products which use is beneficial besides their dangerousness, so the category cannot as such apply to guns, which benefice lies in their very dangerousness, their purposeful dangerousness. Dangerous guns as to contract law are defective guns which use presents a danger to the user mainly; there is no liability regarding the gun’s normal danger to other people (to whom the gun is dangerous on purpose, in case they need to be deterred).
The trials that courts have examined and will continue to examine no matter what governor Cuomo says about it are cases of normal liability. But opponents want to create a new judicial category that cannot exist.
A gun is a deterrent and as such it is dangerous. It is dangerous as such.
You need explosives to drill tunnels. Explosives are “dangerous products” as to tort law because you need them to drill tunnels and at the same time their use is dangerous. Therefore liability might be involved when the danger turns out to cause injury. That is to say, when you use explosives, normally you don’t cause injury, you only open a tunnel.
On the other hand, when you use a gun, basically you harm or kill someone and–mind you–that’s the expected outcome of the lawful use of the gun (self-defense). Generally speaking you don’t need to use the guns you own because owning them is a sufficient deterrent most of the times.
Everyone (except a few “law centers”) thus sees that guns are not the usual dangerous products of tort law, as the danger guns pose is the very aim of their lawful ownership and use.
Since opponents to the right to bear arms wanted to remain blind to such crystal-clear distinctions, the legislator felt compelled to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in order to prevent complacent courts to call guns “dangerous” and hold manufacturers liable as if we were dealing with explosives needed to open tunnels, which would be a devious way to suppress the Second Amendment, emptying it out, without due constitutional amendment process.
Just let me know if you have ever heard of a manufacturer held liable for damages caused by the unlawful use of his products. This is what opponents to the right to bear arms want for gun manufacturers.
They say: ‘’When products cause damages, manufacturers are liable. Guns kill people, so gun manufacturers must be held liable.’’ This is nonsense. It is when their products are used in a lawful expected way and yet causing damage, due to a defect, that manufacturers may be held liable. If on the other hand someone kills another one with say a screwdriver, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the loss of one’s life.
With guns the lawful and the unlawful uses both have the same outcome: injury or death of people (leaving aside such uses as hunting and shooting sports). When people kill others with guns unlawfully, the manufacturer is not liable. And when someone kills another lawfully, in self-defense, then his gun worked as expected. There can be no trial unless someone needed to fire a gun and it did not work as expected.
“I’ve heard of pharmaceutical companies being prosecuted for not making it hard enough to open their packages to keep the content from candy-seeking children.“
The suits my interlocutor talks about are normal liability cases, what one may expect, not necessarily what one may reasonably expect, it depends on the claims, but what one may expect within the boundaries of the rule of law. What the opponents to the right to bear arms are up to is quite different, it isn’t possible to give them reason without violating the consistency of legal principles.
Manufacturers, like the pharmaceutical companies in the example, are expected to deliver reasonably safe products–gun manufacturers too and guns have safety locks.
In the same way that you cannot sue (win a suit against) a pharmaceutical company when someone uses their medicines to deliberately poison another person to death, you cannot sue gun manufacturers for the unlawful shooting of innocent people. There’s no exception to the principle that I know or can think of.
A product turned tool of crime, a part of corpus delicti, shifts to quite another sphere. There is no “manufacturer” of that “new” object. There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti because crime is in criminal intention (mens rea) and there is nothing a manufacturer could do to prevent people from having criminal intentions. A manufacturer can improve the technicalities of his products as well as consumer information about the products’ potential hazards so that their use is as safe as possible, but his action cannot reach further than his products, that is, he has no control over people’s lives. (The impact of marketing and advertising is an entirely different issue and here we do not examine the prospects of suing manufacturers for their advertisements, only the prospects of suing them for “violence” as in the New York statute.)
Reminder: “The five elements of a crime. (1) Actus reus–The guilty act (2) Mens rea–The guilty mind (3) Concurrence–The coexistence of (i) an act in violation of the law and (ii) a culpable mental state (4) Causation–The concurrence of mind and act must produce (5) Harm.”
That leaves open tort litigation against gun manufacturers if the shooter is declared insane and criminally irresponsible. Perhaps, because then the shooting is not a crime. But then again, a manufacturer has no influence over people’s state of mind; here insanity cannot be distinguished from criminal intent. What could be argued is that gun manufacturers have an influence over the whole nation’s state of mind, making it violent, but this kind of reasoning cannot be used in judicial proceedings, which bear on individual cases, and may be food for the legislator’s thought qua legislator subject to the Constitution. (If such reasoning could be used in a court of law, that would excuse all violent criminals.)
One cannot sue (win a suit against) manufacturers for tort damages when a crime is committed with one of their products. This is what opponents to the right to bear arms push for. They push for their reform not by saying they want all manufacturers to be suable for damages when crimes are committed with their products but by saying they want the general law of torts applied to gun manufacturers as it is to any other manufacturer, but the truth is that gun manufacturers are already within the general law and if we were to give reason to the opponents to the right to bear arms we would make gun manufacturers liable in situations where the other manufacturers are not.
As to someone’s claim that “you can sue anyone for tort damages,” the opponents themselves are not so sure, as shown in the recent news “New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.” A bill–or whatever state or local act–is needed in their eyes.
Another bill is the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) “that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.” There was no need of such a bill because the described protection is a necessary consequence of foundational notions of law, is a general unwritten principle which we encapsulate in the words “There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti.”
As gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible in situations where other manufacturers are not without violating the general principle that there are no manufacturers of corpora delicti, no legislative body or court is granted the constitutional power to make such a move. If guns are to be treated in the overriding fashion that opponents want, it has to be through constitutional amendment, probably not only by removal of the Second Amendment but also by allowing expressly tort suits against manufacturers for the unlawful use of their products, or by forbidding individuals to carry guns.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Bishop of Stockholm. Complete with cassock, mitre and crosier.
“Eva Brunne is the first openly lesbian bishop of a mainstream church in the world and the first bishop of the Church of Sweden to be in a registered same-sex partnership.” (Wikipedia) (2009-2019)
Archbishop Antje Jackelén, primate of the Church of Sweden. “The first female archbishop,” since 2014 strongly dedicated to apparel tradition.
They blame Chief Justice Taney (Scott v. Sandford, 1857) for “seeing slavery in the Constitution” but if slavery was not in the Constitution, why did slaveowners and the Southern States ratify it? You had to convince them that slavery was in the Constitution to obtain their ratification, and if you turned out to be convincing then it probably is because it is true that slavery was in the Constitution, even if you did not believe it yourself and thought you were lying to slaveowners.
I disagree with late (conservative failed nominee to the Supreme Court) Robert Bork: A constitutional amendment was indeed necessary to end slavery in the United States, and Taney was a correct interpret of the Constitution.
Picture: Taney statue removed from Maryland state house (Aug 2017).
(For a discussion of Bork’s views, see Law 8.)
Charged For (Name a Crime)
Former highschool student charged for putting Hitler quote in yearbook. (New York Post, July 13, 2021)
New York Post‘s headline is sheer disinformation, of which their own article gives ample evidence. The kid is charged for “computer crimes for accessing a database used by students to alter two classmates’ entries.”
The so-called “Hitler quote” are the words “It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them,” which the kid “incorrectly attributed” to George Floyd. To detect that these were actually Hitler’s words requires a level of specialization far beyond the average and if, to boot, as the paper seems to say, the kid did not know they were Hitler’s words (obviously, if the kid “incorrectly” attributed the words to George Floyd, it means he did not change the author’s name on purpose, knowingly), you may not talk of a Hitler quote at all.
The second quote is thus described by NYP: “Tryon, 18, also reportedly inserted a quote in a second student’s yearbook entry referencing drugs and Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted in the April 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others.” There’s not a jot of information in that, it could mean anything, the quote could either be apology of terrorism or indictment of terrorism or something entirely different for all we know. Obviously NYP doesn’t care what the content of this quote is, they had their headline with the “Hitler quote” and that was good enough for these muckrakers.
But, again, the case is not at all about a Hitler quote. The headline should not read “charged for putting Hitler quote in yearbook” because under the rule of law you charge people for crimes and a Hitler quote, even in a yearbook, is not a crime.
Libel Law and Political Cartel 2
Trust in US mainstream media hits rock bottom. (Reclaim the Net)
This is why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch’s view that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be reversed must not be heeded to. Libel law must remain favorable to the messenger when the message deals with public officials and public figures. Smear campaigns by disreputable media do little harm. On the other hand giving public officials (read, mainly, politicians) a convenient weapon in libel law woud Canadize U.S.A. (see Law 18: Libel Law and Political Cartel). I go as far as saying that current U.S. libel law is what has made U.S. mainstream media fall into general disrepute, as media felt unbound and that has been their fall because they lack integrity.
Taxes and Irresponsible Police
‘’Defund the police’’ is the logical sequel to Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (SCOTUS 2005). No one needs (as no one should rely on) an irresponsible police. To pay taxes for this is madness plain and simple.
‘’Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.’’ (Wikipedia)
« On n’est pas en Turquie »
Rappelez-vous. Macron réfute toute dérive autoritaire : « On n’est pas en Turquie. » (Huffington Post, 4/12/20)
Or quel pays figure avec la Turquie parmi les États « sous surveillance » (under watch) en matière de censure internet ? La France, seul État occidental dans cette catégorie avec l’Australie (et la Norvège mais seulement pour les métadonnées transnationales : « only the metadata on traffic that crosses Norwegian borders »). (Wikipédia : Internet Censorship)
A noter que parmi les « ennemis d’internet », donc la catégorie encore en-dessous dans cette classification de Reporters sans frontières, à côté des dictatures auxquelles on s’attend (Chine…), on trouve les U.S. et le Royaume-Uni. Depuis Trump, les U.S. ne cherchent même pas à garantir un principe de « neutralité du Net », donc rien d’étonnant puisque les acteurs privés font alors ce qu’ils veulent.
En résumé, 4 États occidentaux censurent internet : U.S. (libre censure privée), Royaume-Uni, Australie et France. Parmi ces quatre, seul un, la France, est membre de l’Union européenne (UE).
Si la Turquie n’a pas le droit d’entrer dans l’UE, je ne vois pas ce que la France y fait.
On n’est pas en Turquie, on est en Franquie.
Des mots inacceptables
Rappelez-vous. Macron : « On ne peut pas parler de violences policières dans un Etat de droit. » (« Ne parlez pas de “répression” ou de “violences policières”, ces mots sont inacceptables dans un Etat de droit. »)
Non, c’est en dictature qu’on ne peut pas parler de violences policières.
A military occupation of a foreign country allegedly “for the oil fields” means you want to convince people it is in order to pay top dollar for oil, when it would be much less expensive to just buy it.
Vaccination in an Age of Opioid Crisis
DC AG subpoenas Facebook for data on ALL users that have spread “COVID-19 misinformation.”–Unmasking people for wrongthink. (Reclaim the Net)
“The subpoena is part of a previously undisclosed investigation into whether Facebook is violating consumer protection laws.”
The story is quite hazy. It isn’t clear to me on what legal grounds the subpoena is issued. Consumer protection? When someone opposes vaccination, he certainly is no consumer of vaccines. ‘’Consumer’’ protection for vax dealers from their market then?
That they still have the effrontery to tell people what is information and misinformation on health issues while in the middle of an opioid crisis that has claimed more than half a million lives is mind-blowing.
In the middle of an opioid crisis that has claimed more than half a million lives† the ‘’administrative state’’ (John Marini) is in no position to tell citizens what is information and what is misinformation (for instance on vaccines).
‘’The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices.’’ (FDA’s Website) No, the FDA is not responsible for that since in the middle of an opioid crisis of such magnitude no accountability claim is raised against the FDA.
†« La crise des opaciés ayant fait plus d’un demi-million de morts depuis vingt ans » (Le Figaro newspaper, June 28, 2021)
Compulsory Love: State Rape of Consciences
Supreme Court Refuses To Decide If Floral Artist Loses Her Religious Liberty At Shop Door. (The Federalist, July 2, 2021)
Soon no one will know what to expect.
“In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court noted the ‘public aspects’ of a restaurant charged with racial discrimination, primarily attributable to the fact that it was a lessee in a publicly owned building. However, the ruling made it clear that not every lease of public property would be considered a sufficient entanglement to justify a finding of state action.” (Kennedy & Schultz, American Public Service, 2011).
This means there can be no charge of racial discrimination against restaurants that have no ‘public aspect’ about them (not in the sense of public accommodation but in the sense for example of being a lessee in a publicly owned building).
And this while “Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of ‘race, color, religion, or national origin’” (since the Civil Rights Acts – the case cited above predates the 1964 federal act but, as you know, a federal statute does not empty out a Supreme Court’s decision and, on the contrary, if it were argued that the federal statute runs into the decision that would mean the statute is unconstitutional.)
The case discussed by The Federalist is about derogations to anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations such as cakeshops or flower shops. Why even talk of derogations? If a restaurant with no ‘public aspect’ about it is immune from charges of discrimination under federal law, you bet a flower shop is immune from a whacky state law (unconstitutional to begin with).
The Supreme Cour of the United States (SCOTUS) declined to hear the case because, I’m sure, they know they would have to uphold the florist’s rights against Washington state’s anti-discrimination law and… they didn’t want to.
The Court had the clear duty to protect the florist’s right because this was expected by everyone from 1/ the Court’s case law (Masterpiece Cakeshop, 2018) and 2/ the Court’s action in the present case: “The Washington Supreme Court upheld the ban, even after SCOTUS asked the state’s court to keep the landmark Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling into account.” (The Federalist) 1+2=hear the case, not dismiss it.
One responsible for the declinal and contempt of an American citizen’s freedom is Justice Amy Coney Barrett… It seems it always works: she was so vilified and demonized as an extremist during the hearings that she might become a liberal swamp creature now in everything she does as Justice, if she has freaked out.
There are enough community-friendly businesses around with the little flags, leave people alone.
As Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen is currently prosecuted for hate speech in Finland after having expressed her Christian views about homosexuality (see Law 11), let us remember a case in Finland’s neighboring Sweden, where Pentecostal Pastor Åke Green was acquitted by the Swedish Supreme Court applying Articles 9 (freedom of conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of speech) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against the Swedish criminal code.
For having in a sermon ‘’described ‘sexual perversions’ (referencing homosexuality) as ‘abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society’ [and] said that a person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time’’ (Wikipedia), Pastor Green was prosecuted for group libel (hets mot folksgrupp, ‘’incitement against a group’’) and sentenced to one month in prison. The court of appeals overturned the sentence, leading the attorney general, unsatisfied that Pastor Green could get off scot-free for expressing his views, to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
In 2005 the Supreme Court, invoking the ECHR that applies to all party states (among them Finland too), upheld Pastor Green’s right to express his views.
‘’Responding to the sentence, Sören Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL), said that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to persecute people.’’ (Wikipedia) This is a testimony of this person’s blatantly muddled notions since, even though there were no separation of Church and State in Sweden (there is a national Lutheran church), expressing one’s negative views about homosexuality from outside the national church and state in no way can be construed (contrived) as persecution of homosexuals, and on the contrary it was Pastor Green’s conviction for his speech that was persecution – state persecution (endorsed by RFSL) until the Supreme Court overturned the conviction.
I ask the Finnish courts regarding Päivi Räsänen to uphold Sweden’s interpretation of the ECHR and not to make an empty nutshell of the Convention.
On New Definitions as Hot Air
A new definition of antisemitism by the U.S. State Department is not a matter of law and can have no judicial effect on American citizens since antisemitism is nonexistent as a legal object to begin with (there is no constitutional hate speech law in the U.S. thanks to the First Amendment).
As I see it they intend the move as an international policy pressure tool: since anti-Zionism is now, by this new definition, antisemitism, they can object to anti-Zionist standpoints from other countries as antisemitic and presumably they believe it will give the American administration more self-willfulness in their unconditional (and therefore, in my opinion, unconstitutional) alignment with Israel (aligned no matter what the latter’s policies are).
Probably mainstream media will talk a good deal about it? Governor Greg Abbott led the way by having the definition adopted already in Texas (see Law 17). I don’t know what it is in Texas, whether a statute, an executive act, or a sheet of paper signed by Abbott and flaunted to cameras. No idea, but neither this Texan nor the U.S. State Department’s definition is a normative act. They’re using their constitutional powers for non-normative activity: HOT AIR. Symbolically you might resent it, and symbolically mainstream media might make a lot of fuss about it as if it were lawmaking, but legally speaking this hot air is showing us some people at the end of their tether if anything.
(“At the end of their tether” means that if the hot air becomes too visibly pathetic they are going to resort to illegality in broad daylight.)
To be sure, antisemitism might be considered a legal object through the dubious category of hate crime (a crime against an individual is thought more egregious when the alleged motivation is hate towards a group). I call the category dubious but so far it has not been declared unconstitutional, so I make the present qualification. However, this does not change one jot to what I wrote, as neither the State Department nor Abbott’s definition binds courts, which will continue to use their own sovereign definitions.
Given that the new administration’s barefaced hostility to the First Amendment can only lead to their blowing hot air and never to legitimate lawmaking, the greatest threat of illegal violence at this juncture in the USA is poised against law-abiding dissenters. There is something pathetic about blowing hot air which cannot escape them (the administration, the government) long.
On the Individual Right to Own Nuclear Weapons
‘’If you wanted to take on the governement, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.’’ (Joe Biden)
Defenders of the Second Amendment have memed about the F-15s, with pictures of jet planes displayed on private lawns and such like.
The Second Amendment, I argue, allows one to own nuclear weapons.
Here’s the story: ‘’The only instance where a court has permitted the prior restraint of a newspaper was in United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), where a federal court enjoined a magazine from publishing the directions on how to make a hydrogen bomb. The government feared that publishing the recipe for the bomb would threaten the United States. Eventually a federal court of appeals decision lifted the injunction on publication of the directions and the Progressive Magazine published the hydrogen bomb recipe in an article.’’ (Encyclopedia of American Law, Schultz ed., 2002: prior restraint)
The recipe for the H bomb was published in a magazine around 1979 (after the restraint on publication was lifted by a court of appeals). The prior restraint was lifted because the court of appeals did not agree with the government that publishing the recipe would threaten the United States. Therefore, as publishing the recipe for a nuclear weapon is not a threat such as prior restraint would be warranted, similarly owning a nuclear weapon is not, since publishing is only a step to making and owning the weapon and not an end in itself. As a consequence, any statute prohibiting the making and owning of nuclear weapons violates the Constitution.
Health Official [Nova Scotia, Canada]: Banning Public Gatherings Stops “Misinformation” Spread.
Every piece of information about Canada should appear with a mandatory warning: ‘’Canada.’’ You can’t go on freaking people out like this.
Libel Law and Political Cartel
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch call for a revisiting of 1964 case that prevented public figures suing for defamation. (Reclaim the Net)
Well, public figures are not “prevented” from suing, only they must show actual malice when the statements are untrue, that is, the onus of the proof is on them. – Let these two (Justices) have their way and soon you’ll have nothing to envy to beloved Canada.
Of course public figures can sue, only claimants have to demonstrate defendants’ actual malice and this is what Justices Gorsuch and Thomas disagree with. They want politicians to be censors through gag trials as politicians do in other countries like Canada.
Reclaim the Net wrote a rather supportive paper on Justices Thomas and Gorsuch’s opinion that libel law should be changed regarding public officials (read: politicians), that is, that NYT v. Sullivan should be reversed. Therefore they endorsed a view contrary to free speech, they defend politicians’ so-called personality rights against free speech, supporting the two Justices’ view that the line should be drawn as it is in Canada, for instance, which is to pave the way to a political class forming a protected political cartel.
This, in my opinion, betrays Reclaim the Net’s conservative militancy, that is, their alignment with party politics. As it is observed that the media environment is biased towards the Democratic party and against the Republican party, the two Justices think that to align libel law with all other western democracies’ practice (with their political cartels) will allow Republican politicians to respond to smear campaigns (as if such campaigns were really detrimental to them, to begin with, rather than the opposite).
To make a long story short: this will Canadize (Canada-ize) the USA. (But as I said already time and again hostility to free speech is universal among professional politicians: this statement is my contribution to political SCIENCE.)
(One more thing: When you will have Canadize USA through libel law, it will only be a matter a time before USA adopts hate speech laws Canada-wise and alternative social platforms will be no more.)
Canada marching towards tyranny as move to criminalize dissenting speech moves closer to reality. (Natural News)
Hate speech is already a crime in Canada and has been for decades. Therefore Canada is not “moving to criminalize dissenting speech,” as if it did not exist already in the country.
“The proposed legislation by the Justice Department of Canada would tamp down on hate speech by adding language to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canadian criminal code to try to clarify the definition of hate speech.”
We’re talking of a mere “clarification” of the definition of hate speech. – Opponents to this “clarification” are not opposed to hate speech legislation, quite the contrary: “This bill will not target hate speech – just ensure bureaucrats in Ottawa are bogged down with frivolous complaints about tweets,” Rob Moore, the Conservative Party’s Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, noted.” Canadian conservative opposition feels the clarification of the definition of hate speech will not target hate speech and therefore it is bad. For them criminalization of hate speech is GOOD. And they’re the opposition!
Two ‘’Western Democracies’’ Worlds Apart
Tennessee mayor powerless to remove ‘vile’ anti-Biden flag.
The flag, which says, “(expletive) Biden and (expletive) you for voting for him,” was propped up at least a month ago at a home in Munford.
Mayor Dwayne Cole said the city attorney looked into the matter and, despite the wave of complaints, determined that the homeowner is within his rights to fly the flag. (Washington Examiner, July 4, 2021)
Une jeune femme interpellée à Toulouse pour une banderole “Macronavirus” dans son jardin. La police l’a placée en garde à vue pour « outrage », avant de la relâcher, indique son avocate. Mediapart fait état de plusieurs interventions policières en France pour des affaires de ce genre.
Les résidents ont obtempéré à la demande de décrochage, mais les policiers sont revenus le lendemain remettre une convocation à l’une d’entre eux. (Sud Ouest, April 24, 2020)
‘’If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither the judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is his victim.’’ (Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper USMC [United States Marine Corps])
« Réduire la criminalité, seule la victime potentielle peut le faire. Le criminel n’a pas peur de la police, du juge ni d’un jury. Aussi, ce dont il doit apprendre à avoir peur, c’est de sa victime. » (Lieut. col. Jeff Cooper [1920-2006])
Tout le reste est État policier.