Category: Free Speech

Posted on

Poynter: Self Claimed “Factchecking Group” Funded By Media Giants

Ever get the impression that all major media is controlled by a few people? Well, meet Poynter, the factchecking group that is financed by media conglomerates. There’s no conflict of interest here.

In short, these groups act as a form of counterintelligence groups. Their mission being to discredit and deflect from real truth, in order to promote what Governments and corporations are saying. This is little more than propaganda in today’s society.

By supporting the Poynter Institute, you fortify journalism’s role in a free society. Poynter champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism that helps citizens participate in healthy democracies. We prepare journalists worldwide to hold powerful people accountable and promote honest information in the marketplace of ideas.

Founded in 1975, Poynter is an inspirational place but also a practical one, connecting the varied crafts of journalism to its higher mission and purpose. From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

We bring together Poynter faculty and industry experts to explore the intersection of journalism, technology and the public interest. Poynter specializes in:
-Ethics and fact-checking
-Reporting and storytelling
-Developing journalism’s leaders
-Advancing newsroom diversity
-Strengthening local news companies

Poynter claims it prepares journalists to hold powerful people accountable. That’s interesting, considering who their donors are. Also, if truth is important, why the focus on storytelling? This group is noticeably silent on the topic of media and social media censorship. As an example, Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged about removing 16 million pieces of information in 2020.

This group is part of the Coronavirus Facts Alliance, whose mission it is to route out “misinformation”, which is pretty much anything that contradicts the official narrative.

As for their major donors, at least they are open about it:

BIGGEST FUNDERS

  • Charles Koch Foundation
  • Democracy Fund
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Facebook
  • Foundation to Promote Open Society
  • Gill Foundation
  • Google News Initiative
  • Institute for War and Peace Reporting
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • Lumina Foundation
  • MacArthur Foundation
  • Miami Foundation
  • National Endowment for Democracy
  • Newmark Philanthropies
  • Newton & Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
  • Omidyar Network | Luminate
  • Rita Allen Foundation
  • Robert R. McCormick Foundation

LARGEST CUSTOM TRAINING PARTNERS IN 2019-2021

  • American Society of Business Publication Editors
  • Charles Koch Institute
  • ESPN
  • Facebook
  • Huffington Post
  • Marketplace
  • MRC Media
  • Middle East Broadcasting Networks
  • National Public Radio
  • Newsweek
  • New York Times
  • Pinellas County School District
  • Southern Newspapers Publishers Association
  • The Washington Post
  • TikTok
  • USA Today Network
  • Vice
  • Voice of America – Broadcasting Board of Governors

Do you get it now? This is just another group of fact checkers doing what they can to ensure that the “correct” opinions and points of view are promoted. These aren’t independents, or even quasi independents.

(1) ttps://www.poynter.org/
(2) https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
(3) https://www.poynter.org/about/

Posted on

Alberta Activist Collective: Selling Merchandise At PRO-Lockdown Protests

Over the last 18 months or so, protest in Canada have typically been over restrictions to civil liberties. People quite reasonably were angry over arbitrary and heavy handed crackdowns on basic freedoms. However, something new has arrived, standing that idea on its head.

There are protests in Alberta demanding that Jason Kenney, Deena Hinshaw and Tyler Shandro MAINTAIN restrictions on people’s rights. This isn’t trolling or satire. These people are quite serious, and they want your freedoms eroded on an indefinite basis.

That being said, there are things about these protests that seem off, things that the paid off media in Canada will never address. Things just aren’t quite right with these people.

There is a new group around, called the Alberta Activist Collective. It states that it’s here to support non-violent activism and engagement. Well, who could disagree with that? Of course, the Commie fist in the logo is an odd choice.

It would be nice to know if these same people showed such outrage when places like Nova Scotia banned public gatherings. Did they speak up then rights to free (peaceful) assembly were trampled on all across the country? Have they protested about the incoming vaccine passports and mandatory shots that are creeping in?

By new, it’s very new. In fact, its Twitter account was set up earlier this month. Strange that they are only now considered with the freedom to assemble and protest. They claim to be a non-profit organization, although that seems unlikely. Given their lack of any presence or infrastructure, it seems doubtful they’ve taken to filing the appropriate paperwork.

Currently, there is a Go Fund Me page active to raise money for the AAC. There is also merchandise (shirts, coffee mugs….) being sold, with the proceeds going to that Go Fund Me account.

Vladislav Sobolev, the founder of Hugs Over Masks, seemed to be shameless when he used the freedom movement to open up his own fashion line in 2020. AAC outdoes him, using calls for tyranny to sell their products. Just 2 sides of the same grifting coin.

It’s hard to tell what the AAC actually does, since their website isn’t operational. However, it promises to be ready in the next 8 or 9 days, or so. Seriously, this group claims to be a non-profit, even though its site doesn’t work, and its social media is all very new.

The merchandise lists 2 people as promoting it. One is Albert Nobbs, the head of AAC. The other is Darrin Thompson, who founded the Gamechangers Canada Online Network. The site is pretty bare, so it’s unclear that exactly it’s supposed to be doing.

It’s interesting that both men have Palestinian flags in their Twitter bios. They also promote the same Black Lives Matter and gay rights talking points. Strange how people can virtue signal about the non-existent oppression of minority groups in Canada, yet support the overall erosion of basic rights. But this is what the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism, and similar institutions, have led to.

These protests included people like Muna Saleh, a “curriculum studies and Muslim motherhood researcher, social studies teacher educator.” She identifies as Palestinian, suggesting a lack of attachment to this country. She demands that the Kenney Government maintain such violations in the name of safety. Interestingly, if she were still in Palestine, she wouldn’t enjoy anywhere near the freedoms and rights that she enjoys today. Oh, the joys of multiculturalism.

These protests are anything but organic and natural. However, the media that was so quick to vilify other gatherings turns a blind eye to this. It looks like a combination of grifting, injected with other political movements. Sure, there are legitimate doctors, but their movement is already co-opted.

Of course, how much of these funds raised will end up going to the pro-Palestinian groups? The main players all seem to be on their side. Hell, if they hate freedom so much, then go home, or at least to Toronto.

Seriously, this information wasn’t difficult to find.

(1) https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/rally-against-lifting-of-covid-19-restrictions-hosted-outside-alberta-legislature-saturday-1.5530764
(2) https://albertaactivistcollective.ca/progress/
(3) https://twitter.com/ActivistAlberta
(4) https://twitter.com/BallerGearCA/status/1415731518727548928
(5) https://archive.is/pajOZ
(6) https://ballergear.ca/collections/aac
(7) https://archive.is/i035m
(8) https://www.gofundme.com/f/LaunchAAC?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer
(9) https://archive.is/NoJc6
(10) https://www.gamechangerscanada.com/
(11) https://twitter.com/Albert_Nobbs
(12) https://twitter.com/darrinthompson6
(13) https://hugsovermasks.ca/

Posted on

Melissa Lantsman’s Real Record As A Lobbyist, After Installing Doug Ford

Melissa Lantsman is just one of many people who helped put Ford into the Premier’s Office, and later lobbied him. Given the amount of money that can be at stake, transparency is needed. Then again, outlets like Rebel Media need to be honest with their coverage.

AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL STORY


Strangely, this clip never made it into footage that Ezra Levant shared. It’s like he didn’t want people to see the whole story. While not necessary homophobic, it’s a cheap shot. Booting him from the event actually wouldn’t seem that bad, although being a politician, she should probably grow a thicker skin.

Yes, Rebel did ask her repeatedly about her time as a Walmart lobbyist, and that is certainly reasonable. She is officially listed as having done so, and the report is from December 9, 2020. However, Rebel plays fast and loose with the truth. Her statement calling Menzies a homophobe makes a bit more sense now, (in context), if being offended equates to bigotry. In the world of tokenism, it’s not that much out of line. But really, is this really worth having a reporter arrested over? Unless, of course, there’s more to that that isn’t being told.

It’s fair to ask why certain stores remained open while others were shut as “non-essential”. Her other influence peddling needs to be looked at. While often legal, the revolving door between politicians and lobbyists is sickening.

All of this came after Doug Ford was elected in June 2018. Considering Lantsman helped put him into power, we have to ask if Ford now owes her any favours. The entire point of hiring lobbyists is because of their connections (or at least apparent connections) to the people in power. As for what happened with the Ontario Pharmacists Association, perhaps this will shed some light.

This also raises the question of whether Lantsman (as an M.P.) would be hit up by lobbyists from the companies she used to represent. Also, will Hill + Knowlton Strategies, or Enterprise Canada, be approaching her at some future point on behalf of their clients?

Lantsman was the “War Room Director and Spokesperson” for Doug Ford when he was campaigning in 2018? That sounds like she was pretty close to him. Also, her years working in Conservative Party of Canada can’t be ignored. Interesting how David Menzies only asked about Walmart. Could be nothing, or it could be that he didn’t want to completely throw her under the bus. Still, mainstream outlets wouldn’t even have approached the issue of Walmart, so this is progress.

In any event, Rebel got the “Save Menzies” site up pretty darn quick, and they are already asking for donations. But that’s probably just to ensure his rights are protected from here on in.

While working as a staffer in Federal politics, Lantsman was lobbied 23 times by various groups, according to the Ottawa Registry. A few of those might raise some eyebrows.

Granted, people can vote for whoever they wish to. However, it would be nice if members of the public did some due diligence and looked into the candidates running for office. These things aren’t all that hard to find.

(1) https://twitter.com/MelissaLantsman/status/1419494169341534222
(2) https://archive.is/CS3zz
(3) https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1419504088249683969
(4) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissalantsman/
(6) https://archive.is/VsG0V
(7) https://www.rebelnews.com/david_menzies_arrested_melissa_lantsman_conservative
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch

Posted on

Rockefeller Spends $13.5 Million To Combat “Misinformation” In U.S., Elsewhere

Think that it’s only taxpayers who are funding efforts to stop so-called “misinformation”? Turns out, the Rockefeller Foundation is financing it as well, and this is quite the contribution.

July 15, 2021—The Rockefeller Foundation is announcing $13.5 million in new funding to strengthen Covid-19 response efforts in the U.S., Africa, India, and Latin America to counter health mis- and disinformation – confusing, inaccurate, and harmful information that spreads at an unprecedented speed and scale and threatens the health and wellbeing of communities around the world. The announcement responds immediately to Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment, which calls for a “whole-of-society” effort so that people around the world know what to do—and trust the sources they hear from—during a public health emergency.

“By identifying mis- and disinformation as a challenge to our collective health, the Surgeon General’s guidance reinforces The Rockefeller Foundation’s role in investing in data-driven public health interventions to meet the unique challenges of today’s media environment,” said Bruce Gellin, Chief of Global Public Health Strategy at The Rockefeller Foundation.

The funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools, and methods to build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts and counter inaccurate information, and research to understand how inaccurate health information impacts online and offline behaviors, the true cost of mis- and disinformation on health and economic outcomes, and what strategies might be most effective to counter and manage inaccurate and harmful information from malicious sources. Funded projects will provide a foundation for modern information and communication networks that better serve people and are better prepared to encourage actions and behaviors essential to public health response efforts. Detailed information is slated to be released by the end of 2021.

“Science alone is not sufficient to drive action: the best data analysis in the world will not stop an outbreak if people at risk are not aware of the problem, do not think it is a real threat, do not trust the messenger, or do not know what actions to take to protect themselves and their loves ones,” said Estelle Willie, Director of Health Policy and Communications at The Rockefeller Foundation. “The Rockefeller Foundation’s $13.5 million commitment is a direct acknowledgment that effective public health begins with effective communication that cuts through the noise and confusion stemming from mis- and disinformation.”

Today’s announcement marks another step in The Rockefeller Foundation’s commitment to reinvigorate public health for the 21st century so that the world can effectively prevent, detect, and respond to health threats to avert future pandemics. This investment builds on the Foundation’s U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative, which supports community-based organizations serving people of color with the expertise and resources to own and drive evidence-based, misinformation-resilient conversations about vaccines in their communities. Launched in April 2021, the year-long initiative will identify effective strategies to increase vaccine confidence in diverse communities, and assess, to the extent possible, the role misinformation plays in shaping knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about Covid-19 vaccines.

“Vaccine equity” is a term that’s based on the assumption that racism and structural inequalities are the reasons that certain minorities are unable to get vaccines in high enough numbers.

Of course, Rockefeller is also the same organization who brought the “Lockstep Narrative” back in 2010. It was also a partner in the 2016 project, ID2020.

Don’t worry, nothing to see here.

(1) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(2) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/covid-19-response/achieving-vaccine-equity/
(3) Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010
(4) https://id2020.org/alliance

Posted on

San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus Claims Video Was Satire, Makes It Public Again

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus recently put out a video, where very creepy men sing about “coming for your children”. They claim it’s about teaching kids not to hate, although the entire atmosphere gives off pedo vibes.

At a minimum, this was an incredibly tone-deaf stunt. Sensible parents, even open minded ones, are not going to want to subject their children to this. Is this how tolerance is taught?

But if this was just a joke, what exactly is the punch line? What were they aiming for? Or was this a way to manufacture victimhood? Did they never once stop to think how unsettling this is?

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.”

“We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor.

“We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats.

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.”

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus performed a tongue-in-cheek song commissioned by an external arts organization which ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate. The Chorus sings in harmony, ‘Someone’s got to teach them not to hate.’ As a result of manipulation from anti-LGBTQ media figures, the Chorus is now facing uncalled-for and disgusting threats of violence, as well as hate and harassment, across social media. As GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index reported, hate and harassment too often goes unchecked on social media and the platforms need to act swiftly to address the hateful content directed at the Chorus, especially the threats of violence. The ugly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric just reinforces the need for LGBTQ visibility, community, and advocacy, all of which the SFGMC has exemplified in its 40+ year history.”

Now, a series of responses had compared some of the names against the California sex offender registry. While there were several matches, keep in mind, California has some 40 million residents. Therefore, it’s quite possible for many people to have the same names. While the video above is disgusting, these weirdos shouldn’t be mistaken for those — if the names are coincidental.

If this performance was just tone deaf, it would make sense to take it down. However, the Chorus seems to thing that this “should” be thrown in the faces of everyone.

Yes, tolerance for gays is declining. And antics like this are directly responsible for it happening. Say what you will about the Muslims, but they would never stand for such degeneracy.

(1) https://www.sfgmc.org/
(2) https://www.sfgmc.org/press-releases-1/2021/7/9/statement-from-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-july-9-2021
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INfxtSbh6Do

Posted on

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977