Tommy Robinson’s Oxford Union speech branded a ‘security risk’ - "Tommy Robinson’s appearance at the Oxford Union has been described as a potential security risk by the leader of the city’s council. The far-Right activist is set to take part in a debate on Wednesday in support of the motion “This house believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam”. The proposed event has led to an outcry from faith leaders, politicians and campaign groups. They have called on the 203-year-old student debating society, which is independent of Oxford University, to withdraw its invitation. Susan Brown, the leader of Oxford city council, said she was “deeply concerned” about Robinson’s appearance, which would require a security operation “involving extensive police resources and road closures”. In a statement, she said: “Oxford is a proudly diverse, multicultural city. Whilst we are committed to free speech and open debate, that must be balanced against ensuring all our residents can live free from hatred, intimidation and harm. “Faith leaders and members of our communities have already voiced their strong opposition to this invitation, and I stand with them. “I urge the Oxford Union to reflect seriously on the consequences of its choices – not only for its own reputation, but the message this event sends about Oxford and its values.”... In 2023, students tried to cancel a talk by Kathleen Stock, a gender-critical academic, claiming she was transphobic for her view that it was fiction to claim “trans women are women”. During her appearance, police were forced to remove protesters who infiltrated the chamber and chanted: “No more dead trans kids.” One protester was removed by five police officers after gluing their hand to the floor."
Of course, leaders supporting Hamas does not reflect on Oxford and its values
They're basically admitting either that people are so fragile that hearing things they disagree with causes them harm (while going on about 'white fragility') and/or that violent left wingers will cause trouble while "protesting" and/or that they are scared of ideas they disagree with
‘Why was my son’s killing in the Nottingham attack not treated as racist?’ - "“What we do need to do is be brave and have those really difficult discussions in this country,” she continues. “[Calocane] was a black man who killed three white people and tried to kill another three white people, and that was never part of the conversation. If it had been the other way round, it would have been.”... "I don’t think we discuss serious mental health issues enough, the kind that can make people dangerous [to others].” Calocane, who brutally killed Barnaby, Grace and Ian, was one of those people. One of the most shocking admissions from the inquiry was the discovery of a police file sent by a veteran detective in December 2023 that concluded that Calocane did, in fact, have capacity and awareness of his actions, despite suffering from psychosis. In the inquiry, it was revealed that this file had been placed in the MG6D file, a hidden folder for unused evidence that is usually reserved for the most sensitive material – evidence relating to terrorism operations or national security, for instance. The families of Calocane’s victims have concluded that this information was suppressed because it undermined the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) decision to accept a manslaughter plea."
The Right to Offend is the Heart of Free Speech - "Does being offended give you the right to silence people? Traditionally, the American left said no. Vietnam War protesters burned the American flag because it was a powerful symbolic statement. Lenny Bruce noted, “If you can’t say ‘fuck’ you can’t say, ‘Fuck the government.’” Because “offensive” subjects in the United States have included socialism, gay rights, atheism, pornography, and even pacifism (Eugene Debs is one of many who were arrested for opposing war), the left defended the right to offend. But today, leftish fans of censorship defend no-platforming and oppose “hate speech” even though there’s no evidence that speech laws and codes do anything to reduce hate. Commenting about countries with hate speech laws, Jonathan Turley noted, “None of this, mind you, has put a dent in the ranks of actual fascists and haters. Neo-Nazis are holding huge rallies by adopting new symbols and coded words while Germany arrested a man on a train because he had a Hitler ring tone on his phone.”... Censorship is the ultimate form of treating the symptoms. When something offends you, there are two possibilities:
1. You are in the right, and being offended is justified. Then you should work to change the circumstances that inspired someone to say the thing that offended you.
2. You are in the wrong, and being offended is only a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, an emotional response to prevent you from having to engage with ideas that don’t fit in your belief system...
'College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: “Verbal purity is not social change.” Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.'"
The ACLU's suggested 'cure' might be even worse than censorship, since it results in authoritarianism in what is in some sense a more profound level
Thread by @wokal_distance on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Leftists attack western knowledge as being a false universalism that presents itself as objective in order to privilege itself, then they demand academics adopt leftist social and moral values in their scholarship as if those were the metaphysical foundation of all knowledge. You can't say western claims to intellectual legitimacy are really expression of privilege and cultural chauvinism dressed up in the language of neutrality, while demanding that the adoption of your own political and social values become a necessary condition of all scholarship."
Stuey Beef 🇬🇧🏴 on X - "The Telegraph has uncovered multiple NHS policy documents and mental health bodies explicitly calling for a reduction in the detention of black patients, because they are 3.5–4 times more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act than white patients. Nine current and former psychiatrists say they’ve been encouraged to limit the number of black patients they section, in order to cut this “over‑representation”, and they describe these policies as “scientific illiteracy” and “jumping on bandwagons”. In other words, doctors are being told to worry about the racial balance sheet as much as – or more than – the actual risk a psychotic patient poses to themselves or the public. That is not medicine, it’s ideology with a stethoscope. And when you put race politics ahead of clinical judgment, the inevitable result is more tragedies blamed on “systemic failures” rather than the one thing nobody is allowed to criticise: the anti‑racism framework itself."
Foreperson: 3 jurors unwilling to convict Resiles based on race, leading to mistrial - "The foreperson of the jury in the murder trial of Dayonte Resiles said three jurors were unwilling to convict Resiles based on his race... “[The three jurors] said, ‘I don’t want to send a young Black male to jail for the rest of their life or have him get the death sentence,'” said the foreperson."
Ben Woodfinden on X - "Really good and important paper here from Dave Snow and @MLInstitute on what's happened to Section 7 of the Charter and how it's been transformed into a tool for radical progressive judicially imposed policy making, especially in light of the decision last week on the Kitchener encampment. Snow built an original dataset of every Supreme Court Charter decision from 1984-2025 and the findings on Section 7. 21 different "principles of fundamental justice" invented across 151 cases. The Oakes test? Effectively dead for Sec 7 as the government has successfully justified a breach exactly once in forty years. Meanwhile, lower courts are using this framework to constitutionalise bike lanes, block encampment removals, and prevent bans on public drug use. Section 7 has become an open-ended invitation for judges to make policy, which it was never intended to be. The framers explicitly chose "principles of fundamental justice" over "due process" to prevent American-style judicial adventurism. The Supreme Court discarded that intent almost immediately"
Unprincipled - The Supreme Court’s expansion of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Charter - "Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms began as something modest: a procedural protection meant to ensure that when the state interferes with “life, liberty, and security of the person,” it does so in accordance with the “principles of fundamental justice.” It was not, at least on paper, designed to place courts at the centre of sweeping policy disputes. That understanding has not survived intact. Over the past four decades, the Supreme Court of Canada has steadily transformed section 7 into one of the Charter’s most powerful engines of constitutional change. It has been used to strike down or reshape major areas of public policy, including abortion, prostitution, assisted dying, and supervised drug consumption (R. v. Morgentaler 1988; PHS Community Services 2011; Canada v. Bedford 2013; Carter v. Canada 2015). More recently, lower courts have extended section 7 even further, issuing rulings that prevented governments from closing encampments, banning public drug use, and removing bike lanes (Harm Reduction Nurses Association v. British Columbia 2023; The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown and to be Ascertained 2023; Cycle Toronto v. Attorney General of Ontario 2025). Section 7 has unquestionably become the most important right in the Charter. Although there is growing scholarly and media attention to the expanding reach of section 7 (Fehr 2018; Stewart 2019; Hopper 2025; The Globe and Mail 2025), there has not yet been a data-driven analysis of how the Supreme Court has actually interpreted and applied the provision over time. This commentary fills the gap. It draws on an original dataset covering every Supreme Court decision between 1984 and 2025, offering a quantitative analysis of section 7 jurisprudence and its evolution over four decades. The findings point to three clear conclusions. First, since the Court’s early shift toward a substantive interpretation of section 7 in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985), the concept of the “principles of fundamental justice” has become increasingly amorphous. Rather than coalescing around a stable test, the Court has developed a sprawling set of more than 20 principles. The result is a doctrinal framework that is difficult to predict and even harder to define with precision. The data confirm former Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown’s description of section 7 jurisprudence as “the product of 40 years of accumulated judicial ad hoc-ery” (R. v. J.J. 2022, para. 213). Second, the data confirm that the Charter’s familiar two-step framework – first identifying a rights infringement, then asking whether it can be justified as a “reasonable limit” – does little real work in section 7 cases. In practice, section 1 is often bypassed entirely or applied superficially. When the Court does engage with reasonable limits on the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, the outcome is predetermined by the Court’s analysis of the principles of fundamental justice. Third, this combination of doctrinal fluidity and the collapse of section 1 has substantially expanded the scope of judicial intervention. By defining “fundamental justice” in broad and flexible terms, the Court has enabled section 7 to reach an ever-widening range of policy domains. The result is an expanded judicial role in constitutionalizing and resolving disputes that are intensely political and policy-laden. The implications are difficult to ignore: the most important right in the Charter operates without clear limits. This creates uncertainty for legislatures and litigants, expands the role of courts in major policy questions, and increases the temptation for judges to substitute their policy preferences under the guise of legal reasoning... With one fell swoop, the Court freed the Charter from any fidelity to framers’ intent, turning section 7 into a far more freestanding substantive right that has become “the single most fertile source for the discovery of new rights and the de facto constitutionalization of political and social issues” (Joyal 2024, 594). In the four decades since, the Court has invalidated countless high-profile policies for violating section 7 on the basis of their substantive content, including those related to abortion, prostitution, supervised drug consumption, medical assistance in dying, foreign policy, and corrections (R. v. Morgentaler 1988; Canada v. Bedford 2013; PHS Community Services 2011; Carter v. Canada 2015; Charkaoui v. Canada 2007; John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan 2025)... Because legal rights in section 7–14 of the Charter were intended to apply primarily to the criminal justice context, I sought to determine the extent to which the Court has strayed from that context in its section 7 jurisprudence. Table 2 shows the extent to which legal rights – including section 7 – were used to challenge a non-criminal statute (thus excluding laws such as the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act)... section 7 has been used to adjudicate and invalidate legislation well beyond the criminal justice realm. This shows that the “administration of justice threshold” has been stretched well beyond the core of the justice system... the Court is not always consistent with its terminology from case to case when invoking these principles... the Court’s decision to move forward with a substantive approach to section 7 has led to the absence of a consistent doctrinal framework... there has been no meaningful role for reasonable limits analysis under section 1 of the Charter... This collapsing of section 1 into section 7 is especially problematic for legal predictability... In the end, section 7 has emerged as the most important but least-structured right in the Charter. It has been defined in such a way that grants courts a wide and largely unconstrained role in resolving complex public policy questions. Unmoored from the intent of the framers, the right to “life, liberty, and security of the person” has become an open-ended invitation for Canadian judges to reshape public policy under the banner of constitutional interpretation."
Rothmus 🏴 on X - "Leftists call beauty fascist because it demands standards, effort, and unapologetic excellence. Their cult of enforced mediocrity cannot tolerate it. Body positivity is just fat acceptance rebranded to glorify obesity and shame discipline. Victoria’s Secret used to sell feminine perfection. Now they parade ugly trans models down the runway. This uglification is deliberate leftist policy to destroy aspiration, erase beauty, and drag everything down until resentment feels like justice. Disgusting. Reject it. (the Japanese get it though)"
Thread by @Noahpinion on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Canada seems like it tried to imitate American wokeness (as it imitates American everything), but wokeness didn't really fit Canadian society as well (because it has no large permanent-underclass minority), so it mutated into something very toxic and bizarre. I am not saying American wokeness was great, but it was clearly an outgrowth of a chain of previous social movements stretching back 250 years. In Canada it feels grafted on -- imported without understanding or context. So it's driving Canada crazier than it drove America. To be explicit about this: Wokeness was part of a long chain of American social movements designed to help Black America (abolition, Civil Rights, Black Power, etc.). Canada has nothing even remotely analogous to Black America. So Canadian wokeness is perpetually searching for an analogue to Black America (Indigenous Canadians? Trans people? Nonwhite immigrants?) -- and perpetually confused at its failure to find one. This is the inevitable result of trying to graft on an ideology imported from a very different country."
Wesley Yang on X - "Canada explicitly advertises for university and other jobs that are restricted by race and gender. Its judges openly and explicitly give lighter sentences to Indigenous murderers in according with legal doctrine permitting such allowances (including male indigenous murderers of their own wives and girlfriends even as the state elsewhere refers to the elevated murder rates of Indigenous women as "genocide".) Its judges have openly and explicitly prevented the deportation of foreign rapists to protect the human rights of the rapists. Critical Race Theory was invented by US academics in the 1980's but is being implemented as intended in other parts of the Anglosphere. All that prevents it from obtaining power in its birthplace is right-wing political power that may prove temporary and fleeting."
Dr Strangetweet or How I Learned to Love the RT on X - "“Conservatives don’t have empathy for the out-group.” Swing and a miss, Skippy. I’ll lay a dollar to a donut that conservatives as a whole are more effectually empathetic than liberals.
1. More conservatives are law enforcement, fire fighters, and military than liberals. While you’re patting yourself on the back for acknowledging some mentally anguished child’s pronouns of the day, these people are willingly stepping in harms way for someone that they’re not related to, or even know.
2. Conservatives give more to charities than liberals. Now, I’m talking actual charities, not government funded NGOs that make cash disappear like the Statue of Liberty on a David Copperfield special. From pregnancy care and foster/adoption services to homeless programs, food banks, and helping the community, conservatives do more than vote for higher taxes and more government spending.
3. Conservatives act out their empathy by doing what is right versus what feels good. What feels good is spending millions on SNAP; you voted for it so you can check off “I have empathy”. What is right is helping with limits so that people have a chance to get back on their feet while balancing concern for those people who are paying into the program and don’t want to watch their hard earned money be wasted on fraud. Liberals say the right things. They scream the loudest. They chant the hardest. But all their solutions come down to laying the burden of the solution on the shoulders of other people. That’s not empathy.
Conservatives don’t often voice what we do. We don’t address both sides of the SNAP conversation because we’re focused on the fraud. We don’t talk about the homeless issues except to point out government’s failure to fix the issue. Yet we donate money and time. You’re not more empathetic. You’re just more narcissistic in trying to show off how empathetic you are."
Paul Embery on X - "Labour MP Kim Leadbeater on Radio 4 this morning bemoaning the polarisation in Britain and arguing that the "forces" trying to "divide us" need to be "challenged more". I'd pay a bit more attention if she had spoken out a bit more forcefully against the extremist forces in her own constituency who hounded the Batley schoolteacher and sent him into hiding. Instead, she released a statement (a year later) which included the line: "The reason I am not discussing this matter publicly is that I have specifically been asked not to by the family involved." How brave."
Left wingers try to divide people all the time, but as usual they project
Meme - "r/SingaporeRaw
Just 4 tokens right here"
"LEFTENAN KOLONEL (LTC) MUHAMMAD ISKANDAR DZULFADHLI ABDUL RAHMAN
PEGAWAI KOMAND SKUADRON 142 ANGKATAN UDARA REPUBLIK SINGAPURA (RSAF)"
"BRIGEDIER JENERAL (BG) FAIROZ HASSAN. Komander, Divisyen Singapura Kesembilan Ketua Infantri"
*CWO Zulkarnaen Hussain*
*4th person, who's a commando*
"Got Malays complain, no Malays also complain. What do you want? What's your agenda? You're the racist here if everything is a race issue"
Meme - Smash JT @SmashJT: "I asked ChatGPT to make her beautiful Maybe this is all studios need to start doing if they want sales and avoid layoffs!?" *Hazel in South of Midnight*
InPassing @InPassing222: "It's like when you put Fable into ai upscale.. 'WITHOUT PROMPTS ' it upscale the protagonist as a man lol. @SmashJT"
Microsoft Doesn't Want Curvy Women In Video Games, Warns Developers Against Certain Body Proportions - "One X (formerly Twitter) user took the time to put Microsoft on blast for their “Gaming for Everyone Product Inclusion Framework,” saying “This is the song that doesn’t end. It’s been like 10 years and they’re STILL complaining about video game boobs.” The exact terminology on the Microsoft page asks, “Are you reinforcing any negative gender stereotypes? Are your female characters equipped with the clothing and armor that fits their tasks? Do they have exaggerated body proportions?”... Is Ellie from Borderlands considered a character with “exaggerated proportions?” She doesn’t carry a mainstream desirable figure around, but she’s huge and definitely has big boobs. Why is her character not even on the radar for Microsoft and those who are up in arms about how game developers are portraying women?... Women come in all shapes and sizes, and a lot of today’s video games allow players to modify the shapes of their chosen characters, eradicating the need for any argument over size. Getting picky about acceptable proportions could be seen as a setback for Microsoft in a progressive and diverse gaming world."
Meme - Shy Guy's Vault @shyguys_vault: ""Evie looks too young" Meanwhile Asians irl:"
"53yo Grandma Often Gets Mistaken As Sons' Girlfriend On The Internet"
Meme - *Swimming pool full of pee*
*People in urine pointing at one person* "HE THINKS BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST" "HE BELIEVES IN MERITOCRACY" "HE THINKS MEN DON'T GET PREGNANT." "HE THINKS ILLEGALS SHOULD BE DEPORTED" "HE THINKS MEN
SHOULDN'T BE IN WOMEN'S BATHROOMS" "HE THINKS VIOLENT CRIMINALS SHOULD BE IN JAIL" "HE THINKS A 6YO SHOULDN'T BE SEXUALIZED"
*Miserable person in clean water*
Tom Morello reserves "hot layer of hell" for apolitical artists
If you don't actively push the left wing agenda, you are a terrible, hateful person
Sadiq Khan shuns England flag – and embraces Pride instead - "Sir Sadiq Khan has flown flags promoting Pride and minority communities from City Hall more times than he has flown the St George’s Cross, The Telegraph can reveal. The mayor of London has flown seven separate flags for inclusivity since moving from a location by Tower Bridge into new official offices by the Royal Docks in east London in 2022. They have included five different flags for LGBT groups to celebrate bisexuals, lesbians, Pride, transgender pride, and intersex inclusive pride. Sir Sadiq has also flown the Windrush flag, typically used to mark Windrush Day in honour of Caribbean migrants and their descendants, as well as the flag of the Romani people, official records show. In addition to these, he has flown the flags of Jamaica, Wales, Scotland and Ukraine. The English flag has been flown on six occasions, five of which have been to mark St George’s Day on April 23, The Telegraph understands. The other was to celebrate the England men’s team reaching the final of the 2024 European Championship, but it was only flown following a request from the Department for Sport. This is despite government guidance issued in 2021 encouraging local authorities to fly more flags, in particular the Union flag and national flags, to boost civic pride, explicitly pointing out that councils and mayors do not need consent to do so. Sir Sadiq is now under pressure to fly the English flag, having failed to do so before England’s first match against Croatia on Wednesday, with political opponents accusing him of “siding” with those who view the St George’s Cross as “a far-Right symbol”. It is part of an increasing debate over what the national colours represent, with councils across the country removing England flags erected as part of the Raise the Colours campaign, which took off online last summer... Oxfordshire county council launched a legal battle to ban raising Union flags in the street, saying they “created safety risks, caused distress within communities, and led to abuse and intimidation”... The mayor was previously questioned on why he had not flown the England flag in celebration of the Red Roses women’s England rugby team winning the World Cup last year, replying that while it was “a proud moment”, he was not officially invited to raise the flag. In 2023, the transgender pride flag was flown twice, but the St George’s Cross only once."
We're still told that left wingers don't hate their countries
The Seattle Times on X - "Some Seattle soccer fans have mixed feelings about patriotically backing the U.S. team during the FIFA Men's World Cup, given the actions of President Donald Trump."
Paul Anleitner on X - "I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood in the 1990s. Most people were Democrats and they loved America. Union workers with big American flags. When I went to college, it was the first time I had ever met people that hated our history and culture. They were my professors. In their mind, it wasn’t just that America needed reforming. Everyone already believed we could improve, regardless of political persuasion. No, they believed America ITSELF was illegitimate. In fact, civilization was inherently oppressive. The term for this view is “conflict theory.” This view—and its ideological relatives— brainwashed an entire generation into thinking that even cheering for your country in sports was evil."
