Iresist on X - "Funny how I’m ‘hated’ for speaking my mind while others get praised for it. I get dragged for defending myself, but when Billie Eilish or Taylor Swift do it, it’s called empowerment. Same energy, different standards"
Woke agitators blocked a bridge and discovered Kentucky police do things differently. Breakdown here. - "They didn't just "cross the bridge." They blocked traffic while waving the flags of a foreign entity. 👇... Some of the protesters mistakenly thought they had the right to block a critical bridge between two states, and to threaten/ignore officers who arrived to reopen the bridge... This particular woke road takeover was organized by Ignite Peace, Ohio Poor People's Campaign, and Showing Up for Racial Justice in support of Ayman Soliman, a Muslim migrant who was detained by ICE. Okay, remember how I told you to remember the lady with the sign? Well, that 70-year-old Affluent White Female Liberal (AWFL) is my favorite lawbreaker. She cried to local media about getting a cut on her hand after she REPEATEDLY IGNORED POLICE ORDERS TO MOVE BACK AND KEPT APPROACHING THEM WHILE YELLING IN THEIR FACES... we should talk about Mr. Cincinnati Reds Hat Guy. The cop who punched him is on desk duty while the department investigates, and it seems like that officer isn't trained in proper takedowns, to say the least. But to see the full context, you have to see what happened 30 seconds before … this: Mr. Hat was mulling around several officers just moments prior. He could be seen approaching officers from the rear, then he ran away, prompting an immediate response from multiple cops. Could he have taken a weapon or landed a blow on a cop? SOMETHING bad enough happened for officers to swarm him with weapons drawn!"
Why George Zimmerman Was Found Not Guilty - "On his walk back to his car, Zimmerman was approached by Martin who punched Zimmerman in the nose and then climbed on top of him. Martin straddled Zimmerman and threw down a barrage of punches, including blows that slammed Zimmerman’s head into a concrete sidewalk. Fearing that he would be killed or seriously injured, Zimmerman reached for his concealed firearm and shot Martin in the chest."
Naturally, a left winger tried to pretend that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong
Colin Wright on X - "🚨ALERT: A new paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research advocates for "Queering Children's Rights."
It says children have a right to "gender and sexuality" and condemns the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child's view that children should be "desexualized" and seen as "innocent." It calls this a "protectionist approach to children" that seeks to "preserve [children's] innocence" by steering them away from discussions of "gender and sexuality." It says the protectionist approach "merely reproduces the binary system of sex/gender and heteronormativity, there by creating inequalities between boys and girls and making invisible and stigmatising children's non-conforming subjectivities and bodies." The authors want to "affirm children's right to...genital autonomy, bodily integrity, and sexual agency" so that they can "discover and live as their authentic selves, free from heteronormativity and binary definitions of gender, sexes, and sexuality." It calls for "projects, curricula, experiences and safe spaces where children can explore and express their [gender and sexuality] without facing inequality or discrimination." Ask yourself: Why do these people want to do away with viewing children as innocent and let them explore their sexuality?"
Damn right wing conspiracy theories about pedophilia!
Sean Fraser on X - "Freedom of religion is already fully and robustly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please see my statement:"
Ben Woodfinden on X - "In 2018 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision to not allow a private university, Trinity Western, to establish a law school because the school had a code of conduct that required students to uphold a conduct code in line with Christian beliefs. The SCC acknowledged that the law societies were violating religious freedom but allowed this decision to stand anyways. So no, I don't trust our courts to actually protect freedom of religion which is why I find this legislation so disturbing."
Meme - ""In nearly twenty years of this defence existing, we are not aware of a single case in which courts relied on section to acquit an accused. Reported cases turn on the legal threshold itself, and not on the presence of this defence. Removing this clause does not change that." @seanfraserMP's view is that, if the defence of religion has never been relied on, it's not necessary. I'd flip the question around: What's the urgent need to strip away a religious protection that, by the minister's own admission, has never caused a constitutionally cognisable harm?"
Sarah Fields on X - "As the journalist who reported on this case and paid a high price for it, I’ll tell you that Karmelo did not just k*ll an unarmed white kid. The family started a GiveSendGo, raising over half a million dollars. They did not even pay for bail; a friend of the advocates did. Their advocate threatened the school that he would hold public protests if they did not give Karmelo his diploma, and the school buckled. Karmelo was able to be at home on house arrest and is able to go to the barber and the library. He has been able to spend the holidays with his family, while the family he destroyed has spent the holidays mourning their son. The victim's parents have both been threatened, doxxed, and swatted. Both the Anthonys and their advocates have lied and targeted me and my family. I have been doxxed. My husband has been doxxed. I have been swatted. I have been targeted with CPS. My children’s lives have been threatened to the point that one Anthony supporter said that he was going to sl*t my child’s throat. A man who had to be investigated by the FBI and CID is currently sitting in my county jail because he was counting down the days until I gave birth to my child so that he could “end me.” This man was a social media friend of the advocate for the Anthony family. All because I dared to thoroughly report on a black 17-year-old who stabbed a white 17-year-old at a track meet. No one knows this case better than me. And I know just how dark and evil these people truly are. And yes, I am FULLY fatigued."
Melissa Chen on X - "Adorable watching all the privileged revolutionary LARPers in the West who've spent the last few years screaming about honoring the "lived experience" of the marginalized, now suddenly ignoring the actual lived experience of Venezuelans celebrating the downfall of their dictator and Iranians risking their lives to end murderous repression."
Laura Powell on X - "David Sedaris: “How did allowing dogs to bite people become a Democratic point of principle?” You can insert so many policies into that question. “How did letting men into women’s spaces become a Democratic point of principle?” “How did turning cities into open-air drug markets become a Democratic point of principle?” “How did forcing toddlers to mask for years become a Democratic point of principle?” “How did race-based gerrymandering become a Democratic point of principle?”"
"Empathy" means not saying no to any bit of the left wing agenda
Jerr on X - "If White men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-Whites openly hate White men while White men hold a collective majority, then they will be 1000x times more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over Whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive."
Left wingers openly call for white people to be killed, then when white people protest, they're the racist ones
Head of workplace rights agency urges white men to report discrimination - "The head of the U.S. agency for enforcing workplace civil rights posted a social media call-out urging white men to come forward if they have experienced race or sex discrimination at work. “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws," U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas, a vocal critic of DEI, wrote on X Wednesday evening. The post urged eligible workers to reach out to the agency “as soon as possible" and referred users to the agency's fact sheet on “DEI-related discrimination” for more information."... David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at the NYU School of Law... said he has not seen “any kind of systematic evidence that white men are being discriminated against.” He pointed out that Fortune 500 CEOs are overwhelmingly white men, and that relative to their share of the population, the demographic is overrepresented in corporate senior leadership, Congress, and beyond... Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair and now a partner at law firm Outten & Golden, said it is “unusual” and “problematic” for the head of the agency to single out a particular demographic group for civil rights enforcement. “It suggests some sort of priority treatment,” Yang said. “That’s not something that sounds to me like equal opportunity for all.”"
Naturally, left wingers were very upset, because they hate white men
When you don't understand lagging indicators, and fall for the apex fallacy
Statement of Jenny R. Yang, Chair U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - "across the country, we continue to see discrimination in many forms. I will highlight just a few:
Just last month the Commission held a meeting in Miami where we heard testimony on the persistent challenge of race and ethnicity discrimination in the 21st Century workplace. Also last month, we settled claims that a drilling company subjected African American, Native American, Hispanic and Asian American workers to racial and ethnic slurs, physical harassment, and exclusion from higher paying jobs. We obtained $14.5 million for over 1000 workers, as well as important changes to the employment practices.
We have represented many women who are paid less than men, even when they are doing the same job and are equally if not more qualified. In addition, in 70% of the pregnancy discrimination charges filed with EEOC, women say they were fired because they were pregnant. We recently resolved a case on behalf a woman who had a miscarriage. She requested five days off to obtain medical treatment, and she was fired for taking this time.
We continue to see harassment in many forms, including sexual harassment and assault, which is particularly endemic for farm worker women. Often, EEOC has been the last hope as criminal prosecutions are rare.
Despite a generation of young people who have grown up with the ADA, many qualified people with disabilities still can't find a job or advance."
Guess she forgot that she singled out particular demographic groups for civil rights enforcement.
Remarks of EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - "We have received many reports of employment discrimination since September 11th against people who are, or are perceived to be, Arab, Muslim, Sikh, Middle Eastern, or South Asian"
A Message from EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows for Pride Month and the Anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - "This June we honor national Pride month, and most significantly this year, we celebrate the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which affirmed – as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or the Commission) had held several years earlier – that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. We could only reach this point through the struggle, sacrifice, and vision of the many brave LGBTQ+ individuals and allies who had the courage to champion civil rights for LGBTQ+ communities"
Clearly, this is equal opportunity for all
British baker’s criticism of Mexican 'ugly' bread triggers social media outrage - "A blunt critique of Mexican bread by a British baker sparked a cascade of social media outrage, ultimately leading to a public apology. In an interview for a food-themed podcast that resurfaced online, Richard Hart, the co-founder of Green Rhino bakery in Mexico City and a well-known figure in international baking circles, said Mexicans “don’t really have much of a bread culture,” adding that “They make sandwiches on these white, ugly rolls that are pretty cheap and industrially made.”... Mexican bread has long been criticized domestically for its industrialization and reliance on white flour and sugar. But many like Martínez say those conversations are different and more nuanced when led by Mexicans themselves rather than by a foreign entrepreneur."
You're only allowed to disparage "white" people, like Americans and Wonder Bread, even if you say the exact same thing as other people. The genetic fallacy is good when it pushes the left wing agenda
Jamie Sarkonak: Alberta court has abused the Charter to declare loyalty to Canada optional - "One of the most basic expectations of citizenship is loyalty to the Canadian state. Well, unless you’re an orthodox Sikh. This is the broader principle you can draw from a recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision , which concluded that requiring individuals to swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign is an infringement upon religious freedom and a violation of the right to racial and religious equality. Until Tuesday, it was the rule in Alberta that new lawyers swear such an oath — which made sense, considering that being called to the bar makes one an officer of the court in a constitutional monarchy. Courts, it must be remembered, aren’t freestanding entities that came from nothing. They were created by the King when the number of disputes in his realm became personally unmanageable. He created courts and appointed judges to decide matters that came before them in his stead. Courts serve, and are an outgrowth of, the Crown. It’s completely reasonable to expect officers of the court to swear loyalty to the entity at the heart of the system. This became a problem when Prabjot Singh Wirring, an orthodox Sikh, decided that the Alberta oath would interfere with his religion. In 2022, he wanted a licence to practice in the province, but he took issue with the wording of the requisite oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law.” Despite being born in Edmonton, and having lived his life in Canada, he wouldn’t swear that he would “bear true allegiance” to the Crown and thus the Canadian state. As an orthodox Sikh, he had sworn an oath to his god, Akal Purakh, which he said took precedence over all other loyalties in his life — to the exclusion of the monarch. Another way of looking at it? He’s above being Canadian. This isn’t the case for all Sikhs, to be clear: plenty enough have been called to the bar in Alberta and have taken oaths of citizenship. Wirring ultimately went to Saskatchewan to be called to the bar, where new lawyers are not required to swear an oath, and from there transferred his licence into Alberta, a process that also has no oath requirement (a loophole that the province should consider closing). Nevertheless, he followed through on his challenge to Alberta’s oath in court on Charter grounds. He lost at trial in 2023 — but on Tuesday, he won the appeal ... the Court of Appeal agreed that his religious beliefs were sincere... As for the lawyers’ oath of allegiance, the court decided that it conflicted with that of an orthodox Sikh, characterizing it as an “overriding commitment to the rule of law and constitutional government” that “supersedes the taker’s personal and religious commitments.” This, the court said, unconstitutionally infringed Wirring’s Charter rights. And while the very first clause of the Charter allows rights to be infringed with good reason, Alberta didn’t present any evidence to that effect. “Alberta adduced no evidence of the beneficial effects of the requirement of the Oath of Allegiance,” wrote the court. “In the absence of supporting evidence, the contribution made by the Oath of Allegiance to maintaining the rule of law and constitutional government in Canada cannot be given significant weight.” Unfortunately, the province didn’t give a full fight. There is a valid argument that the Alberta government shouldn’t have had to present evidence on something so fundamental to the Canadian state, but considering how the courts were expecting it, it would have been good to have on hand. (Perhaps this is something that will be hammered out in an appeal.) Alas, the oath was struck down. The court recommended removing it, making it optional, or neutering the wording by removing the loyalty element. Take a step back and the absurdity of the court’s chain of logic becomes very clear. Loyalty to Canada — loyalty to the Crown — is a fundamental part of our nation-state. We require new citizens , lieutenant governors , as well as senators and members of the House of Commons to pledge “true allegiance.” The latter three are mandated in the text of the 1867 Constitution, and the first was ruled to be acceptable for that reason. The oaths can’t be unconstitutional because they’re part of the Constitution . The Alberta Court of Appeal tried to weasel around this obstacle by claiming that the “legal context” might somehow be different for lawyers — but didn’t explain how that could be. Probably because there is no good explanation: Alberta’s lawyer oath, Canada’s citizenship oath, and all of the oaths required in the Constitution all use the same phrases and mean the same things. Here, the court has enabled the continued degradation of the Canadian state, and through that, the court itself. The expectation of loyalty on the part of citizens is a core aspect of sovereignty, one of the fortress walls within which individual freedoms can be exercised. If the courts settle on the conclusion that the basic responsibility of a citizen — loyalty — is an oppressive limit on individual freedom, then we no longer have a nation with sovereign power. We have an economic zone of people with mixed allegiances to be judged by courts that have the philosophical weight of a Facebook group’s moderation team. This is an attack that naturally comes with being in a post-colonial age. Land-back activists will push the false notion that Canada owes infinite rent and veto capabilities to the sovereign Indigenous people of Turtle Island. Anti-imperialists will attack Canada’s bond to the Crown on the basis that it violates the precepts of obscure religious sects, particularly those that come from former colonized lands. Some constituent groups are going to look to devour the old structures of the state out of historical spite — which is why they must be met with firm resistance... It should be an easy call: if the province’s top court is going to abuse the Charter to attack Canadian sovereignty, then it should be met with the notwithstanding clause and a prompt appeal. Alberta must respond with a show of force."
If you talk about dual loyalty, you're racist
Do left wingers hate religions that aren't Christianity more or do they hate monarchy more?
We're still told that left wingers don't hate their countries
Chris Selley: The Crown is Canada. Tell the lawyers refusing to swear allegiance to it - "The whole thing is preposterous, all the way down. In essence, the Alberta Court of Appeal has excused a lawyer from pledging allegiance to Canada. When new lawyers, new citizens or anyone else pledges allegiance to the monarch, they’re not pledging allegiance to the man or woman currently wearing the Crown. That’s why we don’t have to redo everyone’s oaths when a monarch dies. Rather they are pledging allegiance to the Crown itself, which is the embodiment of Canada, including its legal system. Wirring’s challenge to the oath failed in the lower court on precisely these grounds. “I have found that (Wirring’s) inability to take the oath of allegiance is caused by (his) misunderstanding of the oath of allegiance, not his religious beliefs,” ruled Justice B.B. Johnston of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta . “Thus, I cannot reasonably infer that the oath of allegiance causes or contributes to a disparate impact on Amritdhari Sikhs generally based on their religion.” In this, Johnston relied on Wirring’s own affidavit: “I do not and cannot view the (oath of allegiance) as a symbolic commitment to the constitution of Canada and its system of democratic governance,” he averred. Well, too bad, Johnston essentially ruled, because that’s what it is. This is not a controversial view of the Crown; in fact, the appeal court judges say as much in the ruling: “We agree with the chambers judge that, correctly interpreted, the oath of allegiance is not directed at the Queen as a person; its object is the rule of law and the Canadian system of constitutional government.” And then they let him off the hook anyway. There’s an argument to be made that this doesn’t really matter . Wirring is already a member of the Alberta bar via an automatic licence-transfer process for those called to the Saskatchewan bar, which Wirring was in 2023 (although he didn’t practise in Saskatchewan). Saskatchewan is one of the provinces where you don’t have to swear allegiance to the monarch. The matter was therefore “moot,” the Alberta Court of Appeal observed, but then it decided to rule on it anyway. (It’s brilliant, being a judge: The mootness of a proceeding can justify either abandoning it or pursuing it, whichever feels best!)... Canadian lawyers aren’t just advocates for their clients, but officers of the court , duty bound (don’t laugh! It’s not funny!) to “ constantly reflect on what they are doing, and why, and (to) appreciate how their actions affect the client, the legal system, and the public at large,” David Layton and Michel Proulx write in Ethics and Criminal Law. It’s a good general principle that courts shouldn’t try to judge the sincerity of religious beliefs, but rather take people at their word unless there’s compelling reason not to. But few rights in Canada are absolute, for better or worse. And again, in vouchsafing Wirring’s misapprehension about what the oath means, the Alberta Court of Appeal has essentially excused a lawyer from pledging allegiance to the law. It may be “symbolic,” but “symbolic” is by no means a synonym for “worthless.” Our fairly robust constitutional monarchy is proof enough of that."
A transit blunder in the name of equity - The Globe and Mail - "Many readers will have heard by now about Toronto’s latest public transit debacle: the Finch West light-rail line, on which the cars move slower than a person can run. What they might not know is that the debacle had its roots in a desire to serve the disadvantaged. Seldom has the road to hell been so well-paved. To understand how this happened, we need to go back two decades to the mid-aughts. David Miller, a left-leaning former Bay Street lawyer, was mayor. Toronto was booming, spreading in all directions and adding throngs of new residents from every corner of the globe. Its transit system had failed to keep up. While other cities from Madrid to Shanghai were building vast transit networks to carry their commuting millions, Toronto had stood still. The only new subway line that had been built for years was on Sheppard Avenue, a five-stop spur line justly nicknamed the Sheppard stub-way. In 1995, the cash-strapped provincial government even cancelled a subway on Eglinton Avenue that was already under construction. Mr. Miller proposed a solution: Transit City, a network of light-rail lines travelling mostly above ground instead of in tunnels. It would give the city its first comprehensive rapid-transit network, binding east and west, north and south. As an added benefit, it would reach into some of the least prosperous parts of town: its inner suburbs, where many striving newcomers were settling. The plight of those suburbs was much on the city’s mind. An influential 2007 report by University of Toronto housing professor David Hulchanski said Toronto was becoming more polarized, both economically and geographically. As The Globe and Mail put it around the same time, the city was “increasingly comprised of downtown-centred, high-income residents – most living near subway lines – and a concentration of low-income families in less dense, service- and transit-starved inner suburbs.” Transit City was meant to help fix the problem. If not all of the inner suburbs would get subways, given the huge costs of digging tunnels, they would have something nearly as good: reliable, fast, modern “high-order” transit. After much back and forth about the shape and extent of the network, government leaders approved two lines. The Eglinton Crosstown would span the middle of the city from east to west, with a tunnelled section where the city was most dense. This famously delayed and grotesquely overpriced project – with a price tag of $13-billion, when future maintenance is figured in – is due to start running … who knows when? Transit authorities have put off its opening over and over since 2020, as they work to fix its many glitches. The second project, the 18-stop, 10-kilometre Finch line, would reach all the way into the Jane-Finch neighbourhood, one of the city’s poorest. That fit well with the city’s policy of applying an “equity lens” to many of its spending decisions. As a 2024 staff report on the “Prioritization of Planned Higher-Order Transit Projects” puts it: “The City uses a Transportation Equity Lens and a Transportation Equity Opportunity Zones [TEOZ] index to identify and prioritize projects that benefit equity-deserving communities. This ensures that new transit planning considers the impacts on marginalized populations.” The intention was noble. A caring city tries to make sure everyone gets their fair share. City Hall had long decided to invest in education, health and other community services in areas with many low-income residents, among them Jane and Finch. But do the chosen transit projects actually work for those places? Do they work at all? The equity lens blurred instead of sharpened the city’s vision. The result was to plunk a sluggish rail line on a broad suburban avenue, a poor second-best to the fast subway service some areas enjoy. When the city was considering the Finch project, skeptics pointed out that light-rail line would be complicated and expensive to build, with all those new tracks, overhead electric lines and traffic signals. Worse, it might not in fact improve travel time much, because it would have to cross so many intersections and stop so often. It would be smarter, some suggested, to build a dedicated lane for buses – a system known as bus rapid transit, which works well in places from Istanbul to Mexico City, and might well have worked for the Finch and Eglinton areas, at a fraction of the cost. But, no, it was light-rail or bust. The hard-pressed people of the inner suburbs deserved no less. Construction on the Finch West line began in 2019. Six years and nearly $4-billion later, it is finally open, its sleek cars lumbering along at a pace that it would be charitable to call stately. Toronto runner Mac Bauer set out to test that pace after it started operating last month. He beat the train by 18 minutes."
Meme - "IT'S CALLED "PER CAPITA". Your daily reminder that people with an IQ below 85 are incapable of understanding the concept of "per capita." Or deferred gratification, enlightened self interest, moral hazard, compound interest and other concepts required for civilization."
Jake Shields on X - "From the 1970’s through the early 2000’s Germany ran the Kentler project They took young homeless boys and made them live with gay men with the intent for them to be raped They theorized it was good for older men to have sex with children Not a single person has been jailed or held accountable Germany is a failed state"
Matt Goodwin on X - "Here are just 5 things that happened in the UK this week:
-we discovered police in our second city, Birmingham, are doing the bidding of Islamist extremists while scapegoating Jews who were targeted for Muslim violence
-we learn child rapists & criminals have been allowed to become police officers partly because of woke DEI “diversity” recruitment drives
-the United Arab Emirates is so concerned about the risk of Islamist radicalisation in the UK they have just restricted support for UAE students to study at UK universities
-supposedly neutral civil servants told journalists they will either quit their job or work to block policies if the British people dare to elect a Reform government that actually wants to tackle much of this by slashing immigration, ending DEI & banning Muslim Brotherhood
-and the Labour government is so scared of the British people and open debate it is moving to both postpone local elections in areas where Reform is forecast to surge and ban Elon Musk’s X platform
All these things happened. In just a few days. We are quite obviously destroying our country."
The Noticer on X - "The National Socialist Network, along with co-projects White Australia and the European Australian Movement, has disbanded in response to impending new "hate groups" legislation. The laws are retroactive and define past non-criminal conduct as "hate crimes" in order to allow the government to ban groups that previously operated legally, and were tailor-made to outlaw the NSN. Membership and support will be punishable with jail terms of up to 15 years."
You're only allowed to be an activist if you push the left wing agenda
