Police State Britain - Raid & Prison for Twitter Troll

POLICE STATE BRITAIN 3 YEARS PRISON - TWITTER TROLL Twitter troll has been jailed ... for three years Canterbury Crown Court Section 4 of the 1997 Protection Of Harassment Act Cowan was arrested after police launched an investigation when Mrs Fergus complained about 'trolls' on Twitter blaming her for the death ... The judge added: 'Your offence involved sending the most vile and degrading messages via Twitter to Denise Fergus. ... police raided Cowan's home at the time in Margate, they found pictures of dead and mutilated babies and a photograph of Jamie Bulger's grave on her computer.  [COMMENT:  PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEAD & THE MUTILATED (WHATEVER THE AGE OF THE CORPSE PHOTOGRAPHED) ARE NOT ILLEGAL TO POSSESS, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE.  THEREFORE, THIS IS IRRELEVANT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. ] By Darren Boyle for MailOnline Published: 04:42 EST, 15 July 2016 | Updated: 06:17 EST, 15 July 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3690775/Twitter-troll-taunted-James-Bulger-s-mother-sadistic-abuse-including-pretending-murdered-toddler-blaming-death-jailed-three-years.html#comments http://archive.is/b0AnZ Much online outrage about this ... or Daily Mail would have us believe.  Of course, Daily Mail controls the comments that get published (or not), so the corporate media also controls the perception of 'public response' in relation to this (and other issues and events). While I think this is unsavoury behaviour and somewhat sick to have a collection of mutilated baby photos, police raiding Twitter trolls with a taste for trolling and a taste for the macabre, and imprisoning Twitter trolls for several years for the 'hurt feelings' of those that may elect to block undesirable users/messages in the online public domain, is, in my view, taking things to police state extremes. Does anyone think that the state authorities will stop at raiding and prosecuting merely those with bizarre online pursuits, or will these same state authorities use their powers to harass and shut down freedom of speech in general, when it comes to political positions and opinions the state disapproves of? SAMPLE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED COMMENT [CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE] Watch the corporate media give its blessing and encouragement to hefty imprisonment and public vilification of a native British internet troll. Meanwhile, actual crimes (ie crimes in the physical realm, not acts leading to hurt feelings or moral outrage) committed by those in protected groups (and groups prone to violently riot) are handled with kid gloves by the media, that often shuts down public comments — entirely. These 'morally outraged' clowns that come out of the woodwork to attack the likes of this woman are nasty trolls themselves, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for vilifying (likely) mentally disturbed persons, who are already being targeted by state law-enforcement punitive overkill. What amounts to global media scapegoating and pillory of what you might call a 'differently abled' (or perhaps even psychologically disturbed) young white woman by this lot of Daily Mail reader sheep, reminds me of the Monty Python films, where the baying crowds demand stoning.  LOL  ... and the white working class is deemed fair game for this abuse and exploitation by the corporate media and the police state. Blasphemy More 'Blasphemy' Charges ... CHECK OUT THE HEADLINE "Vile Twitter troll who called young Celtic supporter 'disabled piece of s***' banned from football"       16:01, 6 Jan 2016     Updated 16:05, 6 Jan 2016     By Charlotte Thomson ... he was forced to shut down his account a few hours after the offence because his tweets caused outrage across the country. Gibson was later charged and admitted acting in a threatening and abusive manner by sending sectarian messages online   ... ...  offence was aggravated by prejudice of religion and disability. ... the AFC fan escaped jail when he was sentenced at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and was ordered to carry out a community payback order. ... offender had been drinking while watching the Aberdeen v Celtic game before posting the "poorly judged" messages on the social networking sit ... messages would have been on for a very short time, perhaps a period of 20 minutes. ...  court heard that one of the tweets referred to Celtic skipper Scott Brown's sister Fiona, who lost a battle with skin cancer in 2008 aged just 21. ... stated that she was "in hell" along with Celtic legend Tommy Burns, who passed away just two weeks before her death due to the same disease. ... ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and banned from attending football matches - both professional and junior games - for a year. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vile-twitter-troll-who-called-7127793 http://archive.is/cKW5E However unsavoury the drunk rantings of some guy on Twitter, that the British state is aggressively (and selectively) policing remarks that are merely unpleasant, 'offensive' or whatever, ostensibly on behalf of the 'offended' and 'morally indignant' (and the 'vulnerable' that the state exploits as a shield for ever-widening incursions upon individual liberties), is worse (in my opinion) than the remarks that are being policed. Look at the amount of state power that is being projected onto the realm of the individual who made a public utterance that was not approved of (be it by the state, by the football fans, the 'morally sound' public, the media or whoever):  there's what sounds like online mobbing and harassment of the indignant 'moral' Twitter crusaders that shalt not be 'offended'; there's police intervention and charges; there's a court case; there's 200 hours of ordered state slavery (yes, modern-day slavery is what this is); and there is a year's restriction on this blasphemer's activities imposed by the state. On top of that there is the publicity surrounding the drama that was made of some drunk guy's inconsequential remarks and the media and public condemnation, that have put this individual in the spotlight on a national and on a worldwide basis, as a result of the media hyping that would have taken place. Yes, More 'Blasphemy' Charges ... The drunk football fan Twitter 'outrage' scenario is much like the drama that recently ensued over some other British football fan wearing a t-shirt of an 'offensive' slogan related to the Hillsborough football deaths. First the offensive t-shirt guy was thrown out of a pub.  Then his photo was taken and posted on Twitter.  Then he was mobbed by a Twitter 'campaign' of what amounts to mob abuse.  Then he was arrested for his 'offensive' behaviour, using broadly written, ridiculous laws that infringe upon individual liberty.   The Blasphemous T-Shirt Worcester man arrested on suspicion of public order offence A man from Worcester has been arrested by police today (Monday 30 May) after reports were received of a man wearing a t-shirt printed with offensive comments relating to the Hillsborough disaster. The man, aged 50, was arrested by officers this morning, under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986, on suspicion that with intent he displayed writing which was threatening, abusive, insulting and caused harassment, alarm or distress. Members of the public called police after the man was seen wearing the t-shirt at the Brewers Arms pub in the St Johns area of Worcester yesterday (Sunday 29 May) he was asked to leave by the landlord. Superintendent Kevin Purcell said: "I understand the alarm and distress the offensive language shown on this t-shirt will have caused to both the people in and around the pub and further afield. "I would like to thank the landlord of the pub for his support and all the members of the public who were in the pub at the time and came forward to report it. "Police acted very quickly to arrest the individual and he remains in police custody at this time." Issued: 11.50am Monday 30 May 2016 Helen Blake, Corporate Communications https://www.westmercia.police.uk/article/19213/Worcester-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-public-order-offence Once again, this is beyond absurd. The guy is wearing a t-shirt with a message people don't LIKE. He was asked to leave the pub by the landlord, which is fair enough if it is going to be a security problem on premises. That should have been the end of it. The way the police carry on about 'understanding' about the 'alarm and distress' at 'offensive language' comes across as comedy when you consider what is going on here:  it's a guy in a t-shirt that might be considered 'rude' or something, but it's merely a t-shirt.  Grow up, Britain. Are these the same people that defended Satanic Verses in the face of religious outrage and the same people that pay lip service to 'Western values', when feeling the blow-back from Western capitalist interventions in the affairs of the Middle East? Is 'offensive language' 'British Sharia's' very own 'Satanic Verses' or is it the 'blasphemy' of biblical times, or the heretic burning and witch-hunting of the Middle Ages, or something? I cannot believe what I am looking at here.  Is British society so fragile and are the British so spineless that they cannot withstand to hear or see expressions they simply do not approve of or consider 'civil'? It is beyond comprehension that the sheeple are so daft that they get on-board with the 'offence' and 'offended' melodrama and histrionics that are inflamed by the media, and that the sheeple let themselves live in an oppressive and absurd POLICE STATE, as a result of their 'offended' bleating and demand for a nanny state that is policed on behalf of wolves. Observation:  it looks like the dead have become yet another Western victim group.   At this rate, the West is going to run out of 'victims'. So that's two lots of incursions on civil liberties in the 'enlightened' and ostensibly 'secular' West, based on things that do not exist:  (1) 'god' (yet religion is granted special protections and privileges) and (2) the dead.  Wonder where that places my recent criticism of Boris Johnson (re The Spectator's Liverpool offending article)?  LOL ... this is getting complicated.  I still thing he's horrible for trying to dismiss a city's grief for a captive that had recently been barbarically slaughtered in Iraq (especially, as I believe the basis for that attempt to dismiss is political). The Spectator opens with a statement that is true in general of Western media influenced and manipulated society, in which there is an institutionally and otherwise entrenched victimhood (and accompanying state incursions on liberties) promoting agenda and propaganda: " ... mawkish sentimentality of a society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood..."  [2004] But then the article unfairly attempts to single out the Liverpudlians in an attempt to dismiss the mourning for the Liverpudlian captive murdered in Iraq, so as to push what I guess is the (1) 'kissing up' and (2) suppression establishment two-step political move.  Actually, that's the standard move.  But 2004 would have been a special time for the British political establishment and their media mouthpieces:  a time of making sure that illegal British military presence in Iraq continued undisrupted by public opinion (at British capitalist investment, by taxpayer slavery, of £9.24 billion).  So that would have been the agenda of the BRITISH CORPORATE PRESS, acting in the interests of an elite that is ripping off, enslaving, dispossessing and deliberately victimising the common man. Yet it is the politicians and media that have endorsed this culture of victimhood promotion and of political suppression, that's reached an absurd and institutionalised point, while members of their rank (such as The Spectator) have the audacity to seek to twist that around for immediate political ends, in an attempt to gain political advantage over the very people that are victims of the ideology of divestment and suppression that was promoted by them in the first place. Stepping back from the 2004 article, I think The Spectator definitely has a point in general terms about society (not related to the murder in Iraq) and that maybe it would be better to resist that mentality and the effects of that ideology in society, as it leads to nothing but political impotence, suppression and divestment of rights of European working classes. *Hoping this makes sense ... I've stayed up a ridiculous amount of time and I may not make any sense at all.  LOL British Police State Page

First American Cartoonist/Journalist Reportedly In Hiding From Radical Islam (4 Years) - Molly Norris

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17cartoon.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17cartoon.html?_r=0 Cartoonist in Hiding After Death Threats By BRIAN STELTERSEPT. 16, 2010 A cartoonist in Seattle who promoted an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” last spring is now in hiding after her life was threatened by Islamic extremists. The cartoonist, Molly Norris, has changed her name and has stopped producing work for a local alternative newspaper, Seattle Weekly, according to the newspaper’s editor, Mark D. Fefer. Mr. Fefer declined an interview request Thursday, citing “the sensitivity of the situation.” But in a letter to readers about Ms. Norris on Wednesday, he said that “on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I., she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.” The F.B.I. declined to comment on the case. Ms. Norris attracted attention after she published a poster on the Internet in April satirically proposing that people draw figures of the Prophet Muhammad on May 20. She indicated that the proposal was a protest of censorship by Comedy Central, which edited out references to Muhammad from an episode of “South Park” that month. That episode also triggered threats from extremists. Islam forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. In 2005, a Danish cartoonist named Kurt Westergaard published a depiction of Muhammad that led to multiple death threats and alleged assassination attempts. He was presented an award this month for freedom of speech by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. The poster by Ms. Norris spread on the Internet and spawned Facebook groups both for and against the idea. She quickly tried to tamp down the controversy, apologizing to Muslims and at one point joking that the event should be renamed “Everybody Draw Al Gore Day.” The protest movement continued in the spring largely without her involvement. In July, Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Yemeni-American cleric who is accused of ties to Al Qaeda, said in a document published on the Internet that Ms. Norris “should be taken as a prime target of assassination,” according to the NEFA Foundation, a private group that monitors extremist Web sites, which translated the document. Mr. Awlaki stated that Ms. Norris and other unnamed people in the United States and Europe “are expressing their hatred of the Messenger of Islam through ridicule.” In a controversial step, the Obama administration this year authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to kill Mr. Awlaki, who is in hiding. Seattle Weekly started to publish cartoons by Ms. Norris about two months ago. Her last cartoon appeared in the Sept. 8 issue. Ms. Norris did not respond to e-mail messages on Thursday. Her personal Web site has been taken offline. Michael Cavna, a writer for Comic Riffs, a Washington Post blog about comics, said that he contacted her on Thursday and that she verified Mr. Fefer’s version of events. Mr. Fefer wrote that Ms. Norris had likened her situation “to cancer — it might basically be nothing, it might be urgent and serious, it might go away and never return, or it might pop up again when she least expects it.” Correction: September 18, 2010 An article on Friday about a Seattle cartoonist who went into hiding after she was threatened by Islamic extremists for promoting an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” misstated the nationality of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist whose depictions of Muhammad in 2005 drew similar threats. He is Danish, not Dutch. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17cartoon.html?_r=0 Seattle cartoonist still in hiding four years after Islamic fatwa It’s been four years since Molly Norris left her cartoonist job at the Seattle Weekly and went underground in 2010 after an Islamic extremist put her on a hit list for creating ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.’ BY Nicole Hensley NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Saturday, January 10, 2015, 6:44 PM The horrific massacre of Charlie Hebdo staff is a somber reminder that an American cartoonist has fearfully been in hiding since 2010. Molly Norris, a former cartoonist with the Seattle Weekly, vanished on advice of the FBI after Islamic militant Anwar al-Awlaki put her on a hit list for creating “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” “She had to completely change her identity, disappear from her work,” Larry Kelley, the founder of the Free Molly Norris Foundation, told KOMO-TV this week. Kelley says Norris is the first American journalist working in the United States to be forced into hiding by “radical Islam.”   [ ... CONTINUES ... ] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cartoonist-hiding-islamic-death-threat-article-1.2073298 http://www.timesofisrael.com/decade-on-danish-mohammed-cartoonist-has-no-regrets/ Decade on, Danish Mohammed cartoonist has no regrets Kurt Westergaard, who lives under police protection to this day, says his ‘basic feeling has been and still is anger’ By AFP September 27, 2015, 7:54 am Ten years after a Danish newspaper triggered deadly protests by publishing 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, the man behind the most infamous drawing says he feels anger but no regret. Kurt Westergaard, 80, has received numerous death threats and lives under police protection since his caricature of a swarthy man with a bomb swaddled in his turban was published by daily Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. In 2010 an axe and knife-wielding man broke into his home, forcing him to take refuge in a panic room for 10 minutes as his attacker pounded on the door, while his five-year-old granddaughter was left alone in the living room. “My basic feeling has been and still is anger. If you are threatened I think anger is a good feeling because it is like you mentally strike back,” he told AFP in a telephone interview. [ ... CONTINUES ... ] http://www.timesofisrael.com/decade-on-danish-mohammed-cartoonist-has-no-regrets/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Angela Merkel's hypocrisy and European borders open to rape and terrorism stupidity knowns no bounds. Although Merkel is the focal point, this is a NATO-allied (official and unofficial -- eg Sweden) standard practice  in Western Europe and, to a lesser extent (I believe), also in the former British European colonies. Meanwhile, Germany's government has: 1.  harassed, politically persecuted and imprisoned a number of native Germans who question or otherwise challenge (even academically), state-enforced historical narrative of WWII events; 2.  harassed persons who otherwise seek to exercise freedom of expression and political freedom in Germany; 3. 'legally' denied the right of legal defence to right leaning thinkers; 4. harassed (and imprisoned) legal defence of those accused of 'constitutional crimes' ... which is pretty much state-made suppression laws of the defeated-in-war & still not a sovereign nation kind, I would say; 5. legally harasses Germans who do not even live in Germany, by seeking extradition to Germany for thought and speech POLITICAL SUPPRESSION targeted State 'crimes'. For a suppressive (& nominally sovereign) state such as Germany to hand out a 'freedom of speech' award is farcical.   In following policy in favour of ongoing and exponentially increasing influx of non-European immigration from regions prone to produce religious zealotry and political resistance of the terror attack kind, Germany (along with Western Europe and the West in general) is instrumental in SHUTTING DOWN freedom of speech and other Western freedoms in a variety of ways. The dismantling of Western freedoms and dismantling of European culture and society by Western states, even  as such states publicly praise Western 'freedoms' and ideology, while claiming to defend same from radical Islam, is as farcical as Germany handing out a freedom of speech award. Western Police State Imposing 'speech laws', imposing mass surveillance, imposing political police spy-infiltration of right-leaning activist political movements and/or parties, suppressing European nationalism and culture (while institutionally recognising alien/foreign identity, culture etc), imposing targeted state spying for censorship purposes (eg on social media) and censoring Germans who dissent on Facebook (with Facebook cooperation), for example, is just some of the surveillance, intrusion, political suppression, and violation of freedoms that routinely take place in the West, due, to a large extent, to a policy of permitting what amounts to hostile foreign invasion while simultaneously (a) exposing domestic populations to existential threat (of several types - displacement, ethnic dilution, political emasculation, and eventual genocide (slow or fast), along with more obvious and immediate dangers -- eg terror attacks, race riots etc); and (b) suppressing inevitable and legitimate complaint/dissent. Who in their right mind wants to live in a society where film-makers are butchered in the street, and artists/cartoonists are forced to go into hiding in their homelands because of threat from foreigners? The liberal 'left' universalist ideologically-possessed, saviour-fascist, rent-a-protest neocon colonialism shilling brigade is insane. Even so, I felt sorry for this guy getting extra-judicially droned by the CIA (and probably even more outraged) that he couldn't even buy sex in peace, without getting repeatedly harassed by the state and forced to submit to state punishments for it (in the 'free' West): 1996 al-Awlaki arrested in San Diego charged with soliciting prostitutes pled lesser fined $400 required to attend informational sessions on AIDS 1997 al-Awlaki arrested in San Diego charged with soliciting prostitutes pled guilty fined $240 ordered to perform 12 days of community service received x3 years' probation Nov 2001 to Jan 2002 FBI observed him visiting a number of prostitutes interviewed them established he had paid for sex acts No prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki  but when I read what he said about the cartoonist that reportedly went into hiding, basically encouraging religious extremists to kill her, I felt really angry and not at all sorry he'd been droned. But I can't help wondering whether the 'disappearing' cartoonist is real or maybe a limited hangout thingy, aimed to swing public opinion in favour of extra-judical drone attacks in the US?  Or is that too far-fetched?  lol Maybe the cartoon 'psyop' idea is too far-fetched, because there's footage of some religious extremist guy in the US carrying out an ambush shooting of a policeman the other day in Philadelphia - here. Whatever it was, there is definitely artists in hiding in Europe, where the negligent politicians have been pretending the last decade that this isn't happening. Of course, the threat is not limited to artists, but the Western European politicians, media and other intelligentsia refuse to recognise and name this threat.   And, no, it's not 'radicalisation':  it's non-European immigration. Obviously, the politicians serve transnational agendas, without a care for their own people:  their polices never shift to what is logical and beneficial for their own kind. ꕤ

Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia - Suppression of Multiple Freedoms, Including Intellectual Freedom

ꕤ Horst Mahler former German lawyer + activist b. Silesia 1936 2009 - at 73yrs old sentenced to 11 years ie, for old man:  amounts to DEATH SENTENCE Political Prisoner: German judge pronounced Horst Mahler: "not able to be re-educated" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler Horst Mahler -- 2000, joined National Democratic Party of Germany -- (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) -- 2001 German govt began process attempting to ban NPD -- Mahler acted as attorney for party -- govt uses of Volksverhetzung (incitement) accusations v. party -- petitions court to seize Mahler's computer assets -- Mahler successfully defeated effort -- Mahler later left party (2003) Horst Mahler -- charges re 9-11 statements -  Volksverhetzung (incitement)  -- for claiming 9-11 "concocted conspiracy" & not al-Qaeda -- 2004 'Holocaust denial' under  Volksverhetzung (incitement) -- this is in connection to his role in VRBHV -- Society for the Rehabilitation of Those Persecuted -- for Refutation of the Holocaust (VRBHV) -- 2006, passport revoked to prevent Teheran conference -- 2007, Volksverhetzung (incitement) -- re Vanity Fair interview with Michel Friedman (CDU) -- Friedman, former VP of the 'Central Council of Jews' in Germany -- Friedman brought charges against Mahler alleging:     1 -- Hitler salute; &     2 -- shout of "Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman!" -- Mahler told Friedman that:  "the systematic extermination of Jews in Auschwitz is a lie" -- 2006:  9-mth sentence -- 2007:  6-mth sentence without parole for Hitler salute -- when reporting to prison for a 9-mth term THE PREVIOUS YEAR -- 2009, Feb:  6-YEARS prison, no reduction or bail -- 2009, Mar:  5-YEARS ADDITIONAL prison 'holocaust denial' & 'banalisation' -- thus, a total of 11-YEARS prison to a 73 year old -- effectively, DEATH SENTENCE Horst Mahler -- was defended by Sylvia Stolz -- Stolz repeatedly convicted & imprisoned Sylvia Stolz lawyer political prisoner: repeatedly imprisoned by Germany / Merkel for thought crime Feb 2015: imprisoned for 20 months by a court in Munich for a speech she delivered in 2012 Stolz  3.5 years imprisonment  + prof. exclusion (5 yrs) --> for defending client in court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Stolz Stolz *referred to as Mahler's wife on other site. *not sure if this is correct or not. Article re British Bishop Richard Williamson ... mentions Germans Bishop Williamson wins appeal against conviction in Germany Posted on February 23, 2012 "... Indeed in March 2009 the German lawyer Horst Mahler received the maximum five year prison sentence for such offences, as did the German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel in 2007 after being expelled from Canada under an unconstitutional “national security certificate”.  German lawyer Sylvia Stoltz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2008, and banned from practising her profession." A criminal investigation of Bishop Williamson was launched by the German authorities within weeks of the broadcast, and in October 2009 he was fined €12,000 under the German system of “order of punishment”, which initially involves no trial but is sometimes accepted by defendants in straightforward cases, such as traffic offences and the like. The Bishop’s initial lawyer Matthias Lossmann had been appointed via the SSPX, and pursued a defeatist strategy which led to his client being convicted following a trial in Regensburg in April 2010, though the fine was reduced to €10,000. A first appeal was heard in July 2011, again in Regensburg, by which time Bishop Williamson had taken on new lawyers – first Wolfram Nahrath, and later Prof. Edgar Weiler, who represented him at the appeal hearing which I attended. The outcome of this appeal was to reduce the fine again to €6,500, but the legal arguments introduced by Prof. Weiler have now resulted in the complete throwing out of the charges. A reading of the documents suggests that Prof. Weiler was successful in challenging the very basis of the charges – namely the essential question of at what point Bishop Williamson had committed an offence.  Was it illegal simply to make these statements in Germany, even behind closed doors, to the Swedish journalist?  Surely this was not a “publication”. Were the prosecutors arguing that Bishop Williamson had intended the comments to be broadcast in Germany, bearing in mind that he was speaking to a Swedish journalist for a Swedish programme?  Or that he had not done enough to prevent that publication?  If so, in what sense?  The broadcast clearly shows Bishop Williamson warning the journalist that such comments are illegal in Germany and that they should not be published there. The higher court has now agreed that the prosecutors’ charges against Bishop Williamson failed to make these matters clear, and that his conviction should therefore be thrown out. [ ... ] ... dangerous ambiguity of a German legal system which operates by very different standards of free expression from many of its European partners. Dr Fredrick Toben with Lady Michele Renouf following the defeat of a European Arrest Warrant in the London courts, allowing Dr Toben to return to Australia a free man rather than be extradited to Germany. Such contradictions led of course to the historic victory in the London courts in 2008, when a European Arrest Warrant against the Australian academic Dr Fredrick Toben, drawn up by German prosecutors was similarly thrown out for reflecting the very vagueness of the law it is based upon, which fails to define terms such as “holocaust” or its unique alleged mass murder weapon.  On that occasion too, the German authorities and their partners in the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that they would appeal and continue to seek Dr Toben’s extradition, but they quickly abandoned their flimsy case. CONTINUES http://jailingopinions.com/blog/?p=22 SMH Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis' plans for discrimination law May 13, 2014 Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has strongly backed the Abbott government's plans to water down race hate laws, describing them as a welcome challenge to "Jewish supremacism" in Australia. In an explosive submission to Attorney-General George Brandis' review of the Racial Discrimination Act, obtained by Fairfax Media, Mr Toben congratulated the government for its attempt to rectify what he describes as a "flawed law, which only benefits Jewish-Zionist-Israeli interests". His comments drew immediate anger in the Jewish community, which has warned that the government's plans for Section 18C of the act will open the door to "vilification on a massive scale". Mr Toben said Senator Brandis – who famously defended people's "right to be a bigot" – had incorrectly claimed the need for reform of the Racial Discrimination Act was about free speech and the conviction of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt under 18C. "The essence of what the RDA Section 18C is all about and why it needs to be repealed is that the so-called 'Bolt law' is in effect a 'Holocaust' protection law," Mr Toben wrote. "The 'Bolt law' case was used in an attempt to hide this Holocaust matter and to make it a free expression issue. The trap set for the multiculturalists in Australia by Jewish interests, who designed Section 18C, is that the sole aim of this section has always been to legally protect ... the Holocaust-Shoah narrative." Senator Brandis distanced the government from Mr Toben's support on Tuesday, describing him as a "nutter".  "I've never read anything that Mr Toben has said but I'm aware of his views from press reports and views I've heard attributed to Mr Toben are absolute rubbish," he said. "I don't agree with Mr Toben but I do agree with President Barack Obama who said last week in relation to the Donald Sterling case: 'when people, when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let them talk'." The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, and the Zionist Federation condemned Mr Toben but said it was the government's proposal that would allow him to freely peddle his views. Mr Toben, a German-born Australian, was found to be in breach of discrimination laws in 2003. He went to jail in 2009 for defying Federal Court orders to remove material from his website that claimed there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and describing the murder of millions of Jews during World War II as the "Holocaust myth''. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said: "I am sure the government will derive no joy at all from Fredrick Toben's endorsement of its proposals to water down section 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. "Toben has spent a large part of his life vainly attempting to rehabilitate the disgraced record of Nazi Germany. If the government's proposed changes to the law are enacted, racist rants of this kind will be given a free pass on the basis that they are part of a public discussion. "Worse still, overtly racist discourse will be given the accolade of freedom of expression. It's time for the government to abandon its ideologically-driven attempt to emasculate laws that have worked well for nearly 20 years." Tsvi Fleischer of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council said the changes proposed by the government were a licence to vilify on a massive scale. "Toben's submission is more evidence of that," he said. "If the changes go through according to the government's model for comment, we do fear that people like Toben will be able to say whatever he wants – which is usually how evil the Jews are all the time." Labor senator Lisa Singh said: "Mr Toben is wrong in almost everything he says, except in his claim that the Abbott government's changes would give him licence to continue his racist tirades. "George Brandis has offended the vast majority of communities and organisations across Australia with his proposals to license racism. The only people still supporting him unequivocally are extremists like Holocaust denier Frederick Toben." SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/holocaust-denier-frederick-toben-backs-george-brandis-plans-for-discrimination-law-20140513-zrbnx.html One man's 'race hate laws' are another man's political (and potentially ethno-political) suppression laws. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Sylvia Stolz lawyer politically persecuted political prisoner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Stolz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCuwbbNQcZI ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Those that think Germany is some pinnacle of 'European values' and the embodiment of 'justice', 'freedom',  Western 'democracy' and Superhero goodness-and-light, might want to take a look at some of this material. Germany is a totalitarian state and Germans are political prisoners not only for challenging official political and historical narratives, but also for seeking to defend themselves in court (which is next to impossible, if you listen to what Syliva Stolz has to say on the matter in the video above). Germany is a totalitarian state of the worst order:  a state that is forcibly 're-educating' citizens, & denying, suppressing, extinguishing various freedoms, defences and academic facts etc.  I'm not sure what that is, but I think Mahler and various others targeted by the German state are (or have in the past been) political prisoners and/or targets of political persecution. This is a bigger revelation to me than the Snowden leaks confirming that we are under the intrusive gaze and supervision of a coterie of Western totalitarian powers conducting mass-surveillance upon multiple unsuspecting entire nations across the world (including their own). This is absolute proof that the 'freedoms' we are given to believe we have in Western democracies are a lie. Why would anyone dream that whistleblowers or defenders of any civil freedoms whatsoever belong in brave new fascist Germany? And who knew that there's Canadian-German and British-German collusion to prosecute people for apparently speaking their minds?  Wow. And it doesn't end there.  Apparently, Australia was also instrumental in suppression of thought/opinion of a German-Australian academic, Dr Fredrick Toben (given the Federal authorities website take-down order) -- an academic the Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has labelled a 'nutter', in what is most likely a desperate attempt to distance himself from the said academic's approval.  Nice one.  lol I don't know anything about Toben, but all these academics around the world cannot be 'nuts'. Recall from earlier reading of related material that there's also been a New Zealand academic that's fallen prey to what I guess is suppression of dissenting opinion or thought -- but in an academic setting (and in empirical terms, I guess), which is probably far worse than suppressing the voices of the great unwashed (academia requires integrity and grounding in reality, and academia is a thought-leader, a thought shaper, a voice of reason,  and an authority 'defining' that which is -- but that vital voice of reason is silenced by the state). Below are some notes I did back when I first came across this New Zealand academic.  I've left out the parts that might be considered controversial (yeah, I know, what a chicken ... lol).  Anyone that's interested can link and read the article.  Note:   page 2 is not linked.  It's a two-instalments deal, & the source has not correctly linked the second instalment.  The article's written by an academic, Thomas Fudge, who resigned in protest at Canterbury University's refusal to publish an article defending NZ academic, Joel Hayward.  Thomas Fudge sounds like a really cool and decent guy.  History's his field so he'd also have some amazing things to share. Thomas Fudge's article in defence of Joel Hayward is one of the most mind-blowing things I've ever read. ------- PS -- It's a sad day when you have to rely on the Liberal party to defend vital freedoms, while the pathetic waste of space that is the Labour party lobbies to rob you of freedom. What passes as the 'left' of politics disgusts me.  And all this time I fancied myself a 'socialist'.  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Summary Holocaust, history and free speech 11:04 AM Thursday Jul 24, 2003 by Thomas Fudge, History Lecturer Canterbury University history lecturer THOMAS FUDGE has resigned in protest at the university's refusal to publish this article defending a young academic against the charge of holocaust denial. It appears in two instalments, today and tomorrow. [note:  page 2 of article/letter, link broken.  No.  It's a two-instalments deal.  Not linked.] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3514153 Article also available at:   https://archive.is/e8Q2A  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- In Summary Subject:  MA Thesis Joel Hayward 1993 Hayward awarded master of arts degree first class honours in history University of Canterbury thesis on the historiography of the Holocaust later wrote a PhD thesis 1996  -  appointed to a lectureship at Massey University late 1999 -- MA thesis publicly denounced -- New Zealand Jewish Council: -- alleged thesis historical revisionism constituting Holocaust denial -- Hayward -- repeatedly apologised -- agreed to the extraordinary step of including an appendix to thesis -- modifying his findings, co-operated with subsequent investigation -- university appointed an independent working party to investigate -- claims against the thesis -- committee consisted of: -- retired High Court judge Sir Ian Barker -- Professor Ann Trotter -- Professor Stuart MacIntyre -- lengthy report concluded that the thesis was seriously flawed -- & Hayward should not have essayed a judgement in such a controversial area -- report did not recommend withdrawal of the thesis by the university -- & did not agree with the allegations -- that Hayward's argument was racist or motivated by malice -- opinion:  thesis did not deserve high marks received widely publicised in media -- no fewer than 6 serving or retired members of history dept -- persisted in own judgement that thesis was a first-class effort -- notwithstanding finality of report & qualified exoneration of Howard -- during 2000, 2001, and 2002 Hayward received hundreds -- of pieces of hate mail -- abusive phone calls, threats against himself, his wife & small children -- harassment at Massey University -- & continued negative media attention -- livelihood affected: -- attempts to publish, unsuccessful -- efforts to find employment, unsuccessful -- issue is beyond concern over allegedly flawed (but unpublished) research -- is this issue re academic values & freedom? -- is this issue of academic freedom and intellectual fashions? -- Hayward's detractors claim that he is wrong in terms of both -- censure attempts several years prior to 1999, before thesis written -- due to this, Hayward embargoed thesis for 3 years as soon as it was examined -- on 3-yr expiration, Hayward notified university library -- to make thesis available to researchers -- library replied it had restricted thesis, so it could only be consulted w/ -- Hayward's permission until 1999 -- almost immediate allegations published re holocaust denial -- was outrage over thesis a device for attacking Hayward? -- one critic stated academic freedom could exist without academic responsibility -- LEGAL OPINION: -- interpretation re Hayward thesis -- permitted very limited right to academic freedom -- those for academic freedom argue: -- universities should be great storehouses of wisdom & learning -- & students should be able to learn & choose -- Academic freedom implies -- no taboo subjects, no off-limits topics -- official statements re NZ academic libraries -- that no materials & authors should be restricted or removed due -- to doctrinal disapproval or pressure -- senior academics, however, steer students from controversial subjects Holocaust -- IRRESPECTIVE of intellectual considerations -- those wishing to question received notions re holocaust in NZ -- are controlled by accepted 'truth standards' -- danger lies in ambiguity of 'truth standards' Howard rejected well-established 'facts' -- re holocaust -- thesis examined writings of those who questioned holocaust industry -- a significant number have done so over last 30 years -- Is it not the duty of universities & researchers to question -- conventional understandings? MA Thesis 'The Fate of Jews in German Hands:  An Historical Enquiry into the Development & Significance of Holocaust Revisionism -- Joel Hayward -- investigation of holocaust histriography -- esp. branch regarded as 'revisionist' -- concluded some of the revisionist literature unworthy of -- in-depth scholarly consideration -- other material found to be significant & noteworthy -- Hayward arrived at 3 principal conclusions based on historiography -- & weight of historical evidence: DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE FACTORS AVAILABLE AT SOURCE -- working party investigating Hayward thesis -- FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY of:  racism, anti-Semitism or falsifying data SOURCE http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3514153 --------------------------------------------------------------- LINK TO THESIS http://ipac.canterbury.ac.nz/ipac20/ipac.jsp?index=BIB&term=373451 Thesis not available online - must request a copy. --------------------------------------------------------------- ꕤ

Milo Yiannopoulos: ' UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings'

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ CENSORSHIP The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings BroadbandCommissionReportLaunch September2015_RLB_4011_400x267 UN Women/Ryan Brown by Milo Yiannopoulos 25 Sep 20150 In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.” In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public. So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women. Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday. According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work. In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.  [lol  Milo's always so funny.] Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are. Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers. The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements. The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.) Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind. Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney. Ridicule and criticism are not harassment. What your guests have done on the internet is harassment. @googleideas — Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) September 23, 2015 The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.” It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy? Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues. Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha — Tyler, The Creator (@fucktyler) December 31, 2012 Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.” Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.” The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why? The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.” As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters. The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines. Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention. You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit. It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists. The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What, in my view, amounts to Western social and political oppression, driven by a melange of exploitative politicians and their parties, supranational organisations, non-government organisations, interest groups, various media darlings, the complicit corporate media, and leftist independent media, is suffocating. Social media 'victimhood' lobbying culture has a parallel industry of 'victimhood' professional media messaging, sensationalising, and delivering a Chinese water torture of incessant dripping of subjective and agenda-driven complaint and sermon of one kind or another, posing as 'universal truth', delivered from a position of moral 'authority,' insisting the world is not as it ideally 'should' be, according to these self-appointed 'authorities' and their 'victim' ego identified exhibits, various 'supporters,' and other professional beneficiaries of 'victimhood' of some kind or other. Self-interested and/or agenda-pushing parties receive rewards of a personal, professional and/or political nature, while pushing for a state-mandated emotional and social 'nirvana', that defies reality. What they have in common is exploitation of what they portray as the 'need' to 'protect' some group or other (the designated 'victim', portrayed as 'helpless' etc), and calling for measures that ultimately put at risk important civil (and therefore political) liberties of all people.  And when dealing with the internet, any incursion on freedom of speech is not merely confined to the nations of specific agenda-pushers; detrimental impact is amplified:  internationally. Taking a 'protective' path concerning freedom of expression and freedom of speech, will not deliver the blissful conditions sought. Instead, we can expect:  state-serving, and  state enforced, social and political oppression and sterility. Milo's right about the UN being a joke.  On top of publicly severing heads in the hundreds per annum, Western ally, Saudi Arabia has recently sentenced a teenager to crucifixion. As well as benefiting politicians that wish to stifle dissent and criticism (and abusers of power the world over that wish to silence critical voices), the path of censorship also benefits heavy-duty oppressors such as Saudi Arabia, when censorship is used (as it will be) to stifle criticism and information. Freedom of speech (and therefore personal and political freedom) should be vigorously defended, first and foremost. As a measure of where we are heading, check out the following item. An Oxford educated libertarian described the item as 'beyond parody' and an example of politically correct student union suppression of free speech: http://home.warwickpride.org/welfare/safe-space-policy/ Read ... and, once you've stopped laughing:  weep.  But do it quietly.  lol [*Had to take a second look at that, as I thought that maybe he was mistaken and that this had nothing to do with students.  Nope, he's not mistaken.] Other Source | here Source | here Source | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ