Amy Mek
In a powerful speech delivered at the Canada Strong and Free conference in Ottawa, John Carpay, head of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, sounded the alarm on the erosion of individual rights in Canada. Carpay’s impassioned address highlighted two controversial pieces of legislation, the “Online Harms Act” (Bill C-63) and C-367, both of which, he argues, threaten the very foundation of Canadian freedoms.
The Online Harms Act: A Threat to Free Speech
Carpay described the Online Harms Act as “the most aggressive assault on freedom of expression in modern Canadian history.” Introduced in February, this bill aims to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the power to prosecute non-criminal hate speech, a move Carpay argues will stifle free expression. Under this new legislation, individuals found guilty could be fined up to $50,000, payable to the federal government, and an additional $20,000 to the complainant.
According to Carpay, one of the bill’s most alarming aspects is the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes “hate.” The Supreme Court of Canada’s previous attempts to define hate speech have been convoluted and unclear, leaving significant room for subjective interpretation by bureaucrats. Carpay warns that this lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary prosecutions and severe financial penalties for Canadians exercising their right to free speech.
Additionally, the bill introduces the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, which will enforce censorship regulations passed by the federal cabinet without parliamentary oversight. This concentration of power in the executive branch, Carpay asserts, undermines democratic accountability and poses a grave threat to the principle of government as a servant of the people.
Bill C-367: An Attack on Religious Freedom
Bill C-367, proposed by the Bloc Québécois, seeks to remove the exemption for religious texts from hate speech legislation. Carpay argues that this bill could criminalize religious teachings on topics like homosexuality, potentially leading to prosecutions of religious leaders for quoting or teaching from their sacred scriptures.
Currently, the Criminal Code allows defenses against charges of willfully promoting hatred if the statements in question are based on religious texts. Removing this defense, Carpay contends, would open the door to a wave of prosecutions against pastors, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders for simply expressing their faith-based beliefs.
A Call to Action
Throughout his speech, Carpay emphasized the need for Canadians to actively engage in the democratic process to counter these legislative threats. He urged citizens to contact their Members of Parliament and participate in political parties to influence policy decisions. Carpay’s message was clear: the preservation of a free society requires the courage and perseverance of its citizens.
In a poignant conclusion, Carpay reminded the audience of the historical importance of fighting for individual rights and freedoms. Drawing parallels between contemporary Canada and the totalitarian regimes of the past, he underscored the urgency of resisting any encroachments on liberty. “Truth will always vanquish the lie,” he declared, “justice will always triumph over injustice, and freedom will win out over tyranny.”
As Canadians face the implications of Bills C-63 and C-367, Carpay’s words serve as a rallying cry for those who cherish the fundamental rights and freedoms that define their nation.
Carpay’s presentation was followed by a robust Question and Answer (Q&A) session.
RAIR Foundation asked John Carpay about the selective enforcement typically applied to illiberal laws, shifting power to the state and away from the individual.
Q&A Part II:
Vlad Tepes
TRUDEAU aka Just-in Through-The-Ass AND STUBB aka Stupido ARE SCHWAB’s OWN FAVORITE COCK LICKERS.
Those bills must be inspired by WEF, Klausiepoo and his coven of sodomite male witches. Truth will be deemed hate speech, and political persecutions will follow. Truedope is a sodomite too, so he will be putting on his cheerleader outfit and prance along with his pom poms rooting for tyranny. Now you can watch for the Lord’s wrath. All sodomites will have fresh cases of buttmonkey-pox all over their faces and buttocks. That way, normal people can spot them to avoid and shun.
How in the hell can you calculate damages based upon “hurt wittle feewings?”
I use the avoid and shun method. If you irritate me, then you are on permanent ignore. I do not fraternize with enemies.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.
People need to develop a thicker skin. Whining and playing victim is a mental defect. People have been pussified by media and culture.
Tyrants fear rebellion and revolt. Their numbers are weak. That is why tyrants always disarm populations and stifle freedom of speech before the real horror show begins.
Now the plagued and tormented Germany also has to deal with “Lohombo’s” imported sick “mores” because there is obviously nothing else better to do. Since women are generally higher up in the victim hierarchy than men, there was no pardon this time, but only because black women are again higher up in the victim hierarchy than white women. The decision did not have to be thought through and did not take any courage. Translation:
The media called him the “boxing baker”: model refugee from the Congo sentenced for raping his mother
The Wiesbaden Regional Court has found a 30-year-old man from the Congo guilty of raping and brutally abusing his own mother.
Moise Lohombo, who was praised in the media as “the boxing baker”, as a model refugee and integration miracle from Wiesbaden, has been conspicuous since his childhood for acts of violence and later for drug offenses, for which he was later sentenced to prison. However, his criminal career was always ignored by the media.
At the end of 2017, the German craft newspaper Deutsche Handwerkszeitung described Moise Lohombo with this scenario, which is reminiscent of a description text on a dating portal: “When you sit opposite Moise Lohombo over a coffee with milk, you see a charming, friendly young man who enthusiastically shows pictures of his bull terrier dog Betty on his cell phone.”
(Picture: The “friendly” Moise Lohombo with his bull terrier Betty)
Lohombo “fights his way through”
Moise Lohombo came to Germany at the age of eight, where his mother, who gave birth to him at the age of twelve, was being treated for a kidney condition. Even then, the boy was considered to have behavioral problems because he beat up other children. He was handed over to a care facility, where he completed an apprenticeship as a baker and turned to boxing.
The Deutsche Handwerkszeitung rounds off Lohombo’s portrait with his professional qualities as a journeyman baker, which must have convinced the trade journal: “When I bake a cake, for example a really good strawberry cake – the women are totally into that, I know that!”
The violent crimes that have accompanied Lohombo since his early youth are listed in the Deutsche Handwerkszeitung under “youthful sins”, because there are “ups and downs” in life. Sport, in particular boxing, has “stabilized” him. Lohombo “literally boxed his way through” is how the newspaper enthusiastically describes Lohombo’s career in Germany.
Barbaric crime of a supposed integration miracle
Shortly after Lohombo’s release from prison on August 25 last year, where he was serving time for drug offenses, he committed the crime in the apartment he shared with his mother. Lohombo darkens the apartment with blinds before the crime and locks all the windows and doors. Meanwhile, he threatens his mother with a knife and intimidates her, telling her that he will kill her if she refuses to have s*x with him. The mother offers him money for a prostitute so that he will spare her. To no avail.
During the rape, Lohombo abuses his mother by punching her in the face, leaving traces of blood all over the apartment. After the ordeal, Lohombo apologizes to his mother, removes the traces of blood, calls an ambulance and flees.
The mother is seriously injured and admitted to hospital, where she is treated for severe brain haemorrhages and the psychological consequences of the rape. At the hospital, she expresses concern that her son may have impregnated her.
Lohombo is capable of guilt
The defense argued in court with Lohombo’s consumption of psychogenic substances and alcohol. However, the court found Lohombo guilty and decided against committing her to a psychiatric institution.
“How can such a thing be?” the judge asked himself, explaining that due to the cruelty of the case, he initially assumed that he must have misread the case file. The only thing Lohombo said during the trial was: “I don’t know how this could have happened.”
Lohombo, who already had several previous convictions, was sentenced to nine years in prison.
https://www.nius.de/medien/die-medien-nannten-ihn-den-boxenden-baecker-vorzeige-fluechtling-aus-dem-kongo-verurteilt-weil-er-seine-mutter-vergewaltigte/686aa8a7-da1b-4682-b638-9af3697f5e8a
An attempt was made on the life of the Slovakian Mister President (Social Democrat), shot in the stomach. He is said to be out of danger, according to some sources. The perpetrator was a “man of letters” who has been criticizing “the increasing anti-liberal extremism and intolerance towards immigrants” since 2016. He is the author of a book about gypsies.
https://rmx.news/article/germany-after-afd-party-loses-major-court-case-the-party-can-now-be-legally-targeted-with-mass-surveillance-by-countrys-spy-agencies/
Will the AfD be banned? Mr. Stein is optimistic, this would take years. The system needs the AfD as a bogeyman to point the finger at in order to distract attention from itself. Malicious tongues even say that the AfD is a “controlled opposition” and therefore itself part of the system of fraud against the people. Mark Twain was right: “If Voting Made a Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It”.
Mr. Stein was (relatively) “far-right”, today I would describe this gentleman as “conservative” at best, even the word “national-liberal” would be an exaggeration. These people never talk about race or anything like that anyway, they wouldn’t even use the word in private.
And then there is this blatant uncritical partisanship towards Israel that his media, which has degenerated into a joke rag, has been practicing for years. Like the famous three monkeys from Japan, these people consistently and unscrupulously cover their eyes, ears and mouths about what is happening in Gaza.
https://rmx.news/article/exclusive-will-the-afd-party-be-banned-head-of-germanys-junge-freiheit-dieter-stein-reveals-the-establishments-strategy-to-make-the-party-toxic/
An SPD slogan back then – a criminal offense today
The SPD of the 1920s was suspected of being a gang of “patriotically insensitive fellows”. This was not only, but also opposed by the “Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold”, founded in Magdeburg in 1924, the most successful social democratic mass organization of the Weimar Republic with up to three million members at times.
The SPD “Reichsbanner” campaigned under a very specific slogan. Following internal changes within the association, SPD politician Otto Hörsing, who was also the founder and long-standing federal chairman of the “Reichsbanner”, explained what this was in an open letter to the organization’s federal executive committee:
“This internal organizational measure does not mean a change in the objective of our federation. Our old slogan remains: Nothing for us – everything for Germany!” [Note: strongly reminiscent of the Nazi slogan “You are nothing, your people are everything”]
The SA actually copied the slogan and had it engraved on their daggers.
The “Reichsbanner” still exists today as a registered association, in which mainly conservative social democrats are organized. The organization has good contacts with the Bundeswehr. The association that exists today has not yet distanced itself from the historical slogans of the “Reichsbanner”.
The lawyer and publicist Ansgar Neuhof writes with reference to the “Reichsbanner”:
“The contemporary sources prove that the slogan ‘Alles für Deutschland’ was a social democratic one. What is significant here is that the sources show that the slogan was one of the organizations themselves. It was therefore not simply ‘just’ the users’ own words. This contradicts the frequently made assertion that it had been an SA slogan since the early or mid-1920s. There is not the slightest reason to assume that the Social Democrats Hörsing and Höltermann and the SPD or SPD-affiliated organizations and their newspapers could have used an SA slogan of all things.”
https://www.pi-news.net/2024/05/damals-eine-spd-parole-heute-strafbar/
That may be all well and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that the SA made the slogan popular and Höcke could therefore only refer to them. At any rate, this is how the system judges will always argue, and not without good reason. The crucial question is whether a meaningful and correct sentence can be declared a crime just because the Nazis used it. The Nazis also hijacked the motto of the Frisians “Better dead than a slave” and also “Better dead than red”, which the Americans also used against communism.
The word “autobahn” should also be banned; after all, the Nazis built it, even if the idea was conceived before they came to power. Adidas and Puma should also be banned as Nazi brands. Anyone who refers to Adidas is in principle a Nazi, as is every VW driver and user of the term “Volkswagen”. And so on and on. This is roughly the “logic” of the left-liberal corrupters of the people. The question for these people is not which word is used, but who uses it.
Helmut Schmidt said that there were too many foreigners in the country who were far removed from the culture (mainly Turks at the time), and that this would ultimately lead to major problems if immigration of this ethnic group continued unchecked. But Helmut Schmidt, as the second-largest Social Democrat in post-war Germany after Willy Brandt, was allowed to say this, and it should be considered today “in the context of the zeitgeist of the time”.
Even Merkel, who has just published her “political memoirs” under the book title “Freedom” [sic!], was still propagandizing against migration from Islamic countries before 2010. A few years later, this lousy lunatic made the exact opposite come true. I only say “Goodbye Europe”… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa2yC_Vgeuk
https://www.amren.com/podcasts/2024/05/joe-biden-goofier-by-the-hour/
The astonishing – no, downright shocking – thing about Biden’s presidency is, despite all the more than justified criticism from patriotic forces, the general approval of the US population for this kind of almost caricature-like, embarrassing “leadership”. A leader should reflect the average and the majority of a country. What does the choice of a country’s leader say about the general state of a society? He is the supreme representative of an over-aged, rotten, senile, calcified and demented liberal affluent population. Even the gerontocrats of the communist Eastern bloc were more worth taking seriously than Biden. We are a kakistocracy, the opposite of rule by the most capable.
While JFK was a respectable politician, the former cowboy actor Reagan was at least an acceptable one. The blustering, ill-considered troublemaker Trump is a populist in the most proverbial sense, who “looks the people in the mouth” (Luther) and carves out his phrase-mongering that is not followed by action. After all, he is the prototype of an American capitalist in the form of a building speculator who probably owes much of his wealth to his good connections and an inheritance from his father. He is seen as a provocateur and divider, idolized and hated at the same time, who endangers world peace with his almost grotesquely demonstrative infatuation with Israel.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dem_Volk_aufs_Maul_schauen
The American nationalist right says that the values that really define America are not free enterprise, limitless trade, excessive consumerism, playing the world’s policeman, military-economic global empire, democratic role model, consistent freedom of expression, racial diversity and ethnic-religious tolerance, i.e. not a bourgeois pseudo-identity as a mere façade, but a shared cultural-genetic heritage of their European ancestors. The more white people in America are increasingly under attack and distress, the more urgent it is to point this out and bring it to the fore.
An ideologically healthy country, one whose core values were in agreement with both leaders and those being led, with voters and those being elected, would by and large represent and defend the same values and interests. The weakness and ambivalence of the word “democracy”, which is carried around like a monstrance, lies precisely in the fact that the same system that can function reasonably smoothly for a certain limited period of time in an ethnically and religiously homogeneous society in order to indulge in the illusion of freedom, must lead to absolutely catastrophic consequences if circumstances change, such as the demographic shift of entire social strata.
Although or precisely because America is an oligarchy (formerly “plutocracy”) and so-called Germany is a particracy installed and dependent on it, the same symptoms can be found everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particracy#Examples
Was the “Federal Republic” a people’s government or a multi-party dictatorship?
Looking back on the “Federal Republic”, the question of whether this state was actually a “democracy”, i.e. a “rule of the people”, is discussed time and again. The counter-thesis, as is well known, takes the view that the “Federal Republic” was in fact a multi-party dictatorship in which elections were permitted but a party cartel prevented any significant opposition work by all means. From this perspective, the state of the “Federal Republic” was never a true rule of the people, but only a special kind of dictatorship.
The distinction between popular rule and dictatorship and thus also the historical judgment of the “Federal Republic” is simple in theory, but much more difficult in practice.
The argument that is heard time and again that the multi-party system of the “Federal Republic” and the elections are already sufficient proof of popular rule (“democracy”) is easy to refute. The GDR was also a multi-party system with elections and yet it was indisputably a dictatorship. Countless other countries in the world today also allow different parties to stand in elections, but know how to limit the power of the opposition so skillfully that in practice they actually resemble dictatorships. The possibility of choosing between several parties alone is therefore no indication of whether a country is governed in the sense of popular rule or not.
So what is the really decisive characteristic of popular rule as opposed to dictatorship?
In the theory of popular rule, all political decisions correspond to the will of the people, so it is impossible for political decisions to be made that run counter to the will of the people. However, as the will of the people can only be ascertained through direct voting, and as this is technically feasible today but would be costly, all so-called popular governments of the present day use parliaments made up of so-called “representatives of the people” to pass their laws. However, these representatives of the people do not know the will of the people in each individual case either, or perhaps do not want to take note of it at all out of self-interest. In the actual practice of these “indirect governments of the people”, there will therefore always be decisions that do not coincide with the will of the people. All parliamentary popular governments therefore inevitably have a dictatorial component.
Due to this dictatorial component, which is always present in any indirect popular rule, there is no clear demarcation between popular rule and dictatorship in political practice; the transition is fluid. The key question in distinguishing between popular rule and dictatorship must therefore correctly be: To what extent has the respective system succeeded in actually implementing the will of the people, more or less?
The more the will of the people is implemented, the more popular rule (“democracy”) is exercised in a system, and the less importance the will of the people has for practical politics, the more the component of dictatorship, which is also always present in all parliamentary systems, predominates.
If we now look back at the history of the “Federal Republic”, it is undeniable that the gap between the will of the people and political decisions has widened noticeably over the last 25 years or so. Very important policy decisions of the last 25 years have never been supported by a majority of the people. If the people had been asked about their will in direct votes, they would almost certainly have decided differently on issues such as the repopulation policy, energy policy, debt policy, school policy, but also on the lockdown policy during the coronavirus period, the citizens’ income policy or, most recently, the release of drugs.
Of course, all these decisions by the people would have led to many losers – illegally invading foreigners, wind power lobbyists, banks, educational ideologues, vaccine manufacturers, social freeloaders and drug dealers. But that’s not the point, there are losers in every decision. In the rule of the people, it is not a question of who is the loser or winner of a decision, but solely of exercising the majority will of the people.
Looking back on the history of the “Federal Republic”, the following view should therefore be taken: yes, the Federal Republic was a form of popular rule until around the end of Helmut Kohl’s government, albeit with some reservations, although in practice any popular rule can only ever be an approximation of this ideal. After all, in the years from 1949 to 1998, there was no fundamental divergence between the majority will of the people and the actions of the state comparable to that of today, apart perhaps from the questionable policy on foreigners even back then.
In the last 25 years or so, however, there has been a steadily increasing predominance of the dictatorial component. What the people really thought and wanted became almost irrelevant for the political leadership from the Gerhard Schröder/Joschka Fischer government onwards. Instead of taking an interest in the opinion and will of the people, the party program of the Greens from the 1980s has since been implemented sentence by sentence without regard for losses. In the author’s opinion, the last 25 years of the “Federal Republic” can therefore only be described as “popular rule” to a very limited extent, if at all, despite the multi-party system and free elections, and the concept of “dictatorship” is becoming more and more prevalent.
The deep abyss that today separates the state and the people in large parts of German society, the hostility with which the state looks at the people and vice versa – all these internal divisions characteristic of the late phase of the Federal Republic are ultimately the result of a drift of the state towards a multi-party dictatorship that has already lasted for over 25 years; the state has long since lost its democratic compass. The people and the state no longer recognize each other because the will of the people can no longer be seen in the actions of the state.
https://www.pi-news.net/2024/05/war-die-bundesrepublik-eine-volksherrschaft-oder-eine-mehrparteiendiktatur/
https://rumble.com/v4vk6io-eurovision-a-festival-of-degeneracy.html
These creatures belong in a straitjacket. If you think it
can’t get any sicker and more perverted, you’re wrong.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/disgusting-german-politician-martin-neumaier-films-himself-licking/
https://nypost.com/2024/05/11/us-news/texas-trans-woman-runs-over-man-kisses-his-body-stabs-him-police/
Only Cinderella can intervene here to limit the damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UrC2my2XRc
Some of these Jewish names are so absurd that they lack any logic. Let’s stick with “Copperfield”: What in the world does a field have to do with copper? I don’t see any direct connection. Copper cave yes, copper grave, for all I care.
Unless you forge the copper in the field, but what logical connection does that make? The Kupferfeld actually exists, only once as a street name in the municipality of Neunkirchen-Seelscheid. The Copper Stone Age (before the Bronze Age) was between 5500 and 5000 BC.
There is evidence that neither the Jews nor their (still devastating) influence in Europe existed at that time. Why do these people think they can get away with this fraudulent nonsense?
Obviously because none of those deceived have been asking serious logical questions for years. Why they chose “German”-sounding names of all things must be an irony of fate that prompts us to take a closer look.
The Halle-Saale District Court, a place normally synonymous with the enforcement of law and justice, has recently been thrust into the center of a debate that highlights the depths of German history and the limits of free speech. The defendant in this case is Björn Höcke, a controversial politician known for his controversial statements.
Höcke was put on trial for his statement “Everything for Germany”, which was seen by some as glorifying nationalist ideologies. This phrase, which has historical significance, brings back unpleasant memories of dark times in the past for many people in Germany.
Interestingly, another phrase is also emblazoned above the Halle-Saale District Court: “To each his own”. This phrase is not just a common saying, but has a particularly dark past. – It was placed above the entrance gate to the Buchenwald concentration camp – a place of horror and suffering during the Holocaust. – The fact that this phrase now stands above a courthouse dealing with a case like Höcke’s raises questions about the meaning of history, memory and justice.
In a commentary on this unusual constellation, Robert Habeck, also known as Robbie or humorously referred to as “Bahnhofsalkoholiker”, commented – bringing a certain irony and at the same time seriousness to the debate. Habeck is perhaps implying that history is alive and that its symbols, even when presented in different places, are connected and remind us to remain vigilant against ideologies that lead to injustice and suffering, as in the case – of Björn Höcke!
The Halle-Saale Regional Court and the trial against Björn Höcke thus offer not only a legal confrontation, but also an opportunity for a broader discussion about the importance of the culture of remembrance, the alleged limits of freedom of expression and the responsibility of political leadership in today’s society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft14RU-YPcU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Nazi_Germany#J
In Texas, gigantic LNG terminals are currently being built with German money
A young German reporter has set off on a journey to follow the trail of LNG gas, which has been touted as the primary fossil fuel source for Germany since the end of the energy partnership with Russia: “The worst deal ever?”
A gigantic LNG terminal is being built in Port Arthur/Texas with many German billions. Landesbank Baden-Württemberg alone is contributing 6 billion euros.
Germany has committed to buying LNG from the USA for a very long time.
After spending billions on Nordstream I + II, Germany is currently investing even more money in additional infrastructure for LNG – in addition to expanding LNG capacities in Texas, it is also building LNG ships and LNG terminals on the German coast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVU-jF6fUtE
(Wait a few seconds until the PDF appears)
https://www.hostize.com/r/Tkv56-FGsN/lng-pdf
Brandenburg: “Die Linke” party advertises with Nazi slogan. How similar the slogans are: “Common good before self-interest” medal 1933 (left) and “Common good instead of self-interest” poster advertising 2024 (right). https://www.pi-news.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/linke.jpg