UK: Free Speech Advocates Outraged After Man Jailed for 2 Years for ‘Far-Right’ Stickers 

UK: Sam Melia, 34, was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred with an online collection of about 200 downloadable stickers that contained anti-immigration messages for activists. The prosecution argued that the stickers were intended to stir up racial hatred. Melia claimed that they were intended to “start a conversation” and that he was unaware that the stickering would count as criminal damage. The stickers reportedly contained slogans such as “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “Intolerance is a virtue”, “They seek conquest not asylum.” “Diversity – designed to fail, built to replace”, “Reject white guilt”,  “It’s OK to be White”, “Stop anti-white rape gangs”, and “Love Your nation”.

Melia’s wife said that the judge gave Melia a harsh sentence to deter people with the same beliefs from spreading the message.

.

Sam Melia’s wife’s statement after he was convicted:

.

3,300 People in Britain were arrested for comments that they made on social media.

Watch full video here:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7GRx8Sl-s

.

Free speech concerns have been raised after a Leeds man was sentenced two years in prison after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred with a library of stickers.

Sam Melia, 34, was in charge of an online collection of downloadable stickers that contained anti-immigration messages for activists of the “Hundred Handers” group.

At Leeds Crown Court last month, Melia was also found guilty of encouraging racially aggravated criminal damage because his collection was involved in multiple “stickering” incidents.

During the trial, jurors were told that members of the group would access the downloadable stickers that they could download and stick around their communities.

The prosecution argued that the stickers were intended to stir up racial hatred.

The far-right organiser claimed that they were intended to “start a conversation” and that he was unaware that the stickering would count as criminal damage.

Melia was charged in December 2022 after evidence showed he established and maintained the database of around 200 stickers.

Counter Terrorism Policing North East said that many of the stickers were racist and antisemitic in nature.

They reportedly contained slogans such as “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue” and “they seek conquest not asylum.”

The force added that Melia administered an encrypted social media channel that had over 3,500 subscribers, where supporters were encouraged to place the stickers throughout their local areas.

Fraser Myers, deputy editor of spiked online, told GB News: “You do not have to agree with a single thing Sam Melia believes to find his two-year sentence utterly chilling. Many violent criminals have been punished with far less ferocity than Melia has been for the ‘crime’ of producing some stickers.

Read full article here…




Muslim Stanford Student Is Victim of a Hit-and-Run that May Be a Hate Crime

California: An Arab Muslim student at Stanford University, Abdul Omira, was hurt in a hit-and-run incident on campus, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office is opening a hate crime investigation. Omira said he recognized the suspect from an ongoing pro-Palestine sit-in protest on campus. The victim reported that the driver was a white man in his mid-20s. Omira’s injuries are non-life-threatening, but he is still in the hospital and is suffering pain, bruises on his side and loss of sensation in his foot. He said that Stanford University failed to protect him.

.

.

An Arab Muslim student at Stanford University was hurt in a hit-and-run on campus, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office is opening a hate crime investigation, authorities said.

The student, Abdul Omira, told ABC News he was in a crosswalk when he was struck Friday afternoon.

Omira said the driver “made eye contact with him,” accelerated and hit him, and then drove away and yelled “f— you and your people” out the car window, according to Stanford’s Department of Public Safety.

“I never imagined becoming the victim of a hate-driven attack,” Omira said in a statement. “His hateful screams … still echo in my ears.”

His injuries are non-life-threatening, the Department of Public Safety said. Omira told ABC News by phone on Monday that he remains in the hospital and is suffering pain, bruises on his side and loss of sensation in his foot.

The California Highway Patrol said it responded to the hit-and-run. The CHP said, based on its “preliminary investigation and the determination that the incident was a hate crime, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office is opening a hate crime investigation to look further into the incident.”

Read full article here…




Pronoun Lockdown: Almost Half of Millennials Want Jail Time for “Misgendering”

A recent survey found that 44% of millennials (between ages 25-34) favor criminal charges for people who use the wrong pronouns for others or so-called “misgendering.”  Misgendering is now a crime in countries like Great Britain. Misgendering has been referred to as an “act of violence” at some US universities. The millennial generation has been taught since a young age that speech is harmful and even violent rather than the fact that hate speech is protected in the United States.

Overall, only 19% of Americans want misgendering to be a criminal offense, whilst 65% disagree, 12% “neither agree nor disagree” and 4% answered “don’t know.”

.

A recent survey by Redfield & Wilton Strategies for Newsweek, found that 44 percent  of millennials (between ages 25-34) favor criminal charges for people who use the wrong pronouns for others or so-called “misgendering.”  We have previously discussed how misgendering is now a crime in countries like Great Britain. Misgendering has been referred to as an “act of violence” at some U.S. universities.

There has been a concern that we are seeing the rise of a generation of censors, who have been taught since a young age that speech is harmful and even violent.

Yet, hate speech is protected in the United States. Given that fact, it is astonishing to claim that a pronoun violation could lead to incarceration. Only 31 percent of the millennials disagreed with the proposition.

They are not alone.

Recently, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer, said that “if you espouse hate … you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Read full article here…

Gateway Pundit:       https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/survey-almost-half-millennials-think-misgendering-trans-person/




2023 World Economic Forum Planned Tyranny Exposed, Including “Slew of New Vaccines”

Video clips from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland expose the global elites’ plans for more tyranny, including a ‘slew of new vaccines’, a vaccine monitoring system and ‘hate speech’ laws to curb free speech in the US.

.

Investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger exposes the hypocrisy of elites who fly into Switzerland on their private jets while campaigning against fossil fuels and they promote replacing meat with eating insects for the public. He says that everyone is on the take: investors want inside information and politicians want jobs with the billionaire investors after they leave office.

•••

Excerpt from NewsWars about vaccines:

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair told World Economic Forum (WEF) attendees that a digital infrastructure should be created to identify which vaccines a person has taken as more jabs prepare to be rolled out. He said that a “slew of new vaccines, injectables that are going to deal with some of the worst diseases in the world that give us the opportunity to make big changes in the health of the world.”

NewsWars:   https://www.newswars.com/watch-digital-infrastructure-needed-to-monitor-whos-vaccinated-with-slew-of-vaccines-to-come-down-the-line-ex-uk-pm-tony-blair-tells-davos/

•••

Excerpt from NewsWars about ‘hate speech’:

European Commission VP Věra Jourová claimed that America will “soon” pass laws criminalizing so-called “hate speech” in spite of the First Amendment. She said: “For hate speech, we need the people who understand the language and the case law in the country, because what qualifies as hate speech, illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S., we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law.”

NewsWars:    https://www.newswars.com/video-davos-panelist-says-the-us-will-soon-have-illegal-hate-speech-laws/

•••

Tucker Carlson gives examples of how the WEF has had harmful policies that have killed people, including their advice to Sri Lanka to give up using fertizer on crops, which caused famine. The WEF also promoted Sam bankman-Fried who is accused of scamming billions from investors and funding the Democrat party. And the WEF predicted that the COVID lockdowns would “quietly improve cities”, but the result was they were turned into hellscapes of unemployment, drug addiction and crime. Carlson plays clips showing the wild global warming claims of John Kerry and Al Gore.




Elon Musk to Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’ with Help from the ADL and Other “Content Moderators”

Elon Musk purchased Twitter and immediately fired top executives. He calls himself a ‘free speech absolutist’, but under pressure from leftist groups including the Anti Defamation League (ADL), Color of Change, Free Press, the Asian American Foundation, the NAACP, and the George W. Bush Presidential Center, he has vowed to crack down on so-called “hate speech.” This coalition “civil society leaders” will be given tools to ban users and delete content that they deem to be “hateful.” The coalition requested Musk to continue the policy of prohibiting so-called election lies and denial, even after Election Day. Individuals such as Alex Jones and Donald Trump who were de-platformed for violating Twitter rules will not be allowed back until the coalition reviews their cases.

Elon Musk has vowed to crackdown more harshly than his predecessors on so-called “hate speech”, and will operate a “zero tolerance” policy on content deemed offensive by a select group of moderators.

On Tuesday, Musk revealed that a small group of far-left “civil society leaders,” including the ADL, will be given tools to ban users and delete content that they deem to be “hateful.”

Musk also back-pedalled on his promise to unban controversial users such as Alex Jones, Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos, and said that he no longer believes that individuals who were de-platformed for violating Twitter rules should be allowed back until the ADL has reviewed their case.

One of Musk’s senior employees tasked with overseeing moderation on Twitter, Yoel Roth, has a history of calling Republicans “Nazis” and posting anti-Trump content on the platform…

Read full article here…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Pe7YkAtJk

Information Liberation:   http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63432

Protocol:   https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/civil-rights-meeting-elon-musk




Canada Proposes Bill to Ban Suspected Intent to Commit “Hate Speech” Online

New Canadian bill would allow courts to punish Canadians for things they have not even done yet – or might not even do. Bill C-36 would “allow a person to appear before a provincial court” if the person “fears” (as in suspects) that another will commit a “hate” offense, which includes speech online. Free speech hangs in the balance.

A proposed bill would penalize Canadians if they are simply suspected of intending to post “hate speech” online.

In other words, the bill would allow courts to punish Canadians for things they hadn’t even done yet – or might not even do.

The bill was noticed by a tech insider who also pointed out the bill’s “fuzzy and circular definition” of “hate speech.”

In fact, Canadian media outlets first reported on the bill last June, but the bill is not under further scrutiny after the Canadian government’s heavy-handed response to the recent Ottawa trucker protest.

The Global News of Canada reported that Bill C-36 would “allow a person to appear before a provincial court” if the person “fears” (as in suspects) that another will commit a “hate” offense, which includes speech online.

Read full article here…




UK: Christian Pastor Arrested For Saying Marriage is Between Man and Woman

London: Christian pastor John Sherwood was arrested by police after a member of the public reported him for the “homophobic” comment of saying, while preaching, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Sherwood was arrested under the Public Order Act for using “abusive or insulting words” that cause “harm” to another person. Although the pastor was released without charge after spending a night in jail, he is still under investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service and could be charged at a later date. The UK is notorious for hate-crime laws where authorities will investigate supposed “hate incidents” if the “victim” perceives themselves to have been victimized. -GEG

A Christian pastor in the UK was arrested by police after a member of the public reported him for the “homophobic” comment of saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yes, really.

The incident occurred outside Uxbridge Station in west London. A video clip shows the elderly pastor being confronted by police and forcefully handcuffed before being led away.

“I wasn’t making any homophobic comments, I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence,” said John Sherwood, who has been a pastor for 35 years.

“I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building,” he added.

Read full article here…




Scottish Hate Crime Bill Would Lead to Arrests for ‘Offensive’ Conversations Inside the Home


Scotland’s proposed hate crime bill would go so far as to criminalize dinner table conversations if their ‘offensive’ content is reported to police. The new bill would add an additional crime of “stirring up hate” against a protected group by “behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person.” The law has dire implications for free speech, comedy, journalists, writers and theater directors. When rules are unequally applied to people based on physical characteristics, it creates resentment by the group that is excluded, and it is divisive. The mandate creates a hierarchy, with the rule makers at the top, consolidating power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lyGB1rubVo

Scotland’s new odious hate crime bill would go so far as to criminalize dinner table conversations if their ‘offensive’ content is reported to police.

“Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law,” reports the Times.

Such conversations were previously protected under the Public Order Act 1986, which includes a “dwelling defense” that shields conversations that take place in private homes from being prosecuted, however that would be removed under the new law.

The new bill would add an additional crime of “stirring up hate” against a protected group by “behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person,” as well as the crime of possessing “inflammatory material.”

Critics have argued that the vague term “stirring up hate” could be broadly interpreted and could lead to people like JK Rowling facing criminal charges and up to seven years in prison for expressing views about transgender issues.

It also has dire implications for comedy and freedom of speech, given that anyone could choose to take offense to anything and complain that they have experienced “hate.”

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said journalists, writers and theater directors could

Read full article here…




UK: High Court Rules Against Police Investigation into Man’s Tweets about Transgenderism

UK: The High Court ruled that it was unlawful when police visited Henry Miller at his work place, and later spoke with him on the phone and implied that he could be prosecuted for his tweets about transgenderism. Miller was told he had not committed a crime, but it would be recorded as a non-crime “hate incident”. The court found the actions of the police were a “disproportionate interference” with Miller’s right to freedom of expression. While this was a victory for free speech, the court did reject Miller’s wider challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes that allows investigation and recording of any incident that is perceived to be hostile or prejudice against a transgender person. Permission has been granted for Miller’s complaint against the policing guidelines to go straight to the Supreme Court.

The police response to an ex-officer’s allegedly transphobic tweets was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Harry Miller was visited by Humberside Police at work in January last year after a complaint about his tweets.

He was told he had not committed a crime, but it would be recorded as a non-crime “hate incident”.

The court found the force’s actions were a “disproportionate interference” with his right to freedom of expression.

Officers visited Mr Miller’s workplace and then spoke with him on the phone, and he was left with the impression “that he might be prosecuted if he continued to tweet”, according to a judge.

Speaking after the ruling, Mr Miller, from Lincolnshire, said: “This is a watershed moment for liberty – the police were wrong to visit my workplace, wrong to ‘check my thinking’.”

His solicitor Paul Conrathe added: “It is a strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people’s free speech rights on matters of significant controversy.”

‘Orwellian society’

Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller’s place of work “because of his political opinions must not be underestimated”.

He added: “To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.

“In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

Responding to the ruling, Helen Belcher, who co-founded Trans Media Watch, said: “I think trans people will be worried it could become open season on us because the court didn’t really define what the threshold for acceptable speech was.

“I think it will reinforce an opinion that courts don’t understand trans lives and aren’t there to protect trans people.”

Mr Miller, 54, also launched a wider challenge against the lawfulness of College of Policing guidelines on hate crimes, which was rejected.

Mr Justice Knowles ruled they “serve legitimate purposes and [are] not disproportionate”.

The guidelines define a hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.

Mr Miller posted a number of tweets between November 2018 and January 2019 about transgender issues as part of the debate about reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

In one tweet Mr Miller wrote: “I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me.”

This tweet was among several others which were reported to Humberside Police as being allegedly transphobic.

Mr Miller’s barrister, Ian Wise QC, argued the force’s response had sought to “dissuade him from expressing himself on such issues in the future” and had a “substantial chilling effect” on his right to free speech.

Mr Justice Knowles said Mr Miller “strongly denies being prejudiced against transgender people” and had regarded himself as a participant in a public debate.

He said only one person, known in court as Mrs B, had complained about the tweets and they had been recorded as a hate incident “without any critical scrutiny…or any assessment of whether what she was saying was accurate”.

The judge said: “The claimants’ tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.

“I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect.”

Read full article here…




Two Students From the University of Connecticut Arrested on Hate-Speech Charges

Two men walking through a parking lot were recorded on a security camera making racial insults. This led to their arrest under a Connecticut statute that makes it a crime to “ridicule” anyone because of their creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality, or race. If convicted, the students could face 30 days in prison. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, says the statute under which the men were charged is “obviously unconstitutional, because … there’s no First Amendment exception for speech that insults based on race or religion.” -GEG

  • Two University of Connecticut students were arrested Monday after video allegedly showed them using racial slurs.
  • The school confirmed to Campus Reform that the men were charged under a Connecticut statute that makes it a crime to “ridicule” certain people.

University of Connecticut Police arrested Monday two men who were allegedly seen in a viral video reciting a racial slur. 

The incident occurred on Oct. 11 in the parking lot of an off-campus apartment complex. In the video, there are three men walking through the lot. An individual took the video from the window of an apartment building, according to local media reports. 

“there’s no First Amendment exception for speech that insults based on race or religion”   

The video prompted the UConn NAACP chapter to pen a letter to the editor of the campus newspaper, The Daily Campus, calling on officials “to fully investigate this incident and apply the proper justice.” Following those calls, the university confirmed to Campus Reform Monday that two of the three men allegedly seen in the video were arrested under a Connecticut state statute that makes it a crime to “ridicule” certain persons. 

“Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor,” the statute states.

UConn spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz confirmed in a statement to Campus Reform the arrests of the men who were “heard shouting a racial slur.”

“The two students both were charged under CGS 53-37, ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race,” Reitz said. “A third person had accompanied them as they walked outside of the apartments, but the police investigation determined that individual had not participated in the behavior.”

Read full article here…




New Law Proposes to Prohibit Gun Ownership from People Convicted of Misdemeanor “Hate Crimes”


Democrats introduced the Disarm Hate Act that would use hate crime laws to curb gun ownership. The measure would prohibit people convicted of certain hate-crime misdemeanors from possessing a gun. Currently, federal law bars only those convicted of more serious felony offenses from having guns. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, the co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, says the misdemeanors that would prevent someone from owning a gun include threats and harassment. [There is no doubt where this is headed. According to a new law in New York City, it is hate speech to report someone to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or to use the words “illegal alien”. If this trend continues, the Second Amendment is history – and so is a free America.] -GEG

Last week, New York City approved a new directive making it illegal to threaten someone with a call to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or to use phrases like “go back to your own country” or “illegal alien” when motivated by hate.

The 29-page directive released by the New York City Commission on Human Rights includes numerous examples of acts or comments that would be prohibited under the law. Violators of so-called hate speech can be punished by fines up to $250,000 per offense.

According to one passage included in the directive, “The use of certain language, including ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals,’ with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.”

The Commission openly admits that the directive is intended to be a rebuke of attempts by the federal government to crack down on illegal immigration, although as Daniel Horowitz repeatedly points out, no such crackdown by the Trump Administration exists. And while it’s tempting to dismiss the NYC directive as just the latest episode of “Leftists Gone Wild,” I think this could have long-term consequences on our liberty.

Right up front, the NYC directive is a clear violation of free speech rights. As recently as 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that so-called hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. But putting free speech aside for a moment, the growing movement by the Far-Left to ban hate speech — and even criminalize it — could give them a foot-in-the-door toward dismantling the Second Amendment as well.

Before the impeachment circus began, Democrats — with assistance from Trump and the GOP — were pushing a batch of new legislation that would chip away at the right to keep and bear arms in response to recent gun violence. Included in Pelosi’s bucket list of “sensible gun control” measures is a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines and red flag laws.

But there’s been another piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation flying under the radar.

Named the Disarm Hate Act (DHA), this little-noticed bill would use hate crime laws to deny gun rights. Using similar laws already on the books in a few states as a template, the DHA would prohibit people convicted of certain “violent” hate crime misdemeanors from possessing a weapon. Currently, federal law only bans people convicted of felony hate crimes from gun ownership.

What is a violent misdemeanor hate crime? Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), co-sponsor of the Senate version of the DHA, describes it this way:

“Most commonly this category includes low-level assault, threats, harassment, and property damage.”

Read full article here…

Additional sources:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2708/text

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shooting-congress/u-s-house-targets-convergence-of-mass-shootings-hate-crimes-idUSKCN1VK12A

 




Sweden: Police Initiate “Hate Speech” Probe of Politician Who Supports Deporting Migrants Who Commit Crime



Gustav Kasselstrand, the leader of the right-wing Alternative For Sweden party, was reported by police for “hate speech” after he gave a speech about deporting migrants who have committed crimes in his country. Kasselstrand said that the police, by reporting him, have engaged in political harassment as he simply advocated for the deportation removal of migrants who have committed crimes.

Swedish politician reported by police for “hate speech” for wanting to deport criminal migrants.

Leader of the right-wing Alternative For Sweden party Gustav
Kasselstrand has been reported by the police for “hate speech”. This
after he held a speech talking about deporting migrants who have
committed crimes in Sweden.

Although the police have not given any details as to exactly what it
was in the speech that was offensive, it is clear to party leader Gustav
Kasselstrand that this is “political harassment”, pointing out that it
is the police themselves who have reported him for “hate speech” while
he was merely holding a political speech.

“We are going to investigate further whether what was said in the speech was hate speech”, says Carina Skagerlind, press spokesperson at the police to Expressen.

This happened in Almedalen, a place where every year all major
political parties and politicians gather for a week having speeches, an
important event in the political calendar.

Read full article here…