‘Following Politico’s report of a leaked draft opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization indicating that a majority of justices seem inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, multiple churches and pro-life advocacy organizations have been burned, looted and vandalized by abortion extremists.’https://www.christianpost.com/news/churches-pro-life-offices-burned-vandalized-since-supreme-court-leak-list.html?uid=*%7CUNIQID%7C*&vgo_ee=FHunWZOlcI1UzNC2%2Fz2RaNSYFmrMikCwlKFARSZoYAo%3D
Laws
All posts tagged Laws
‘The Online Safety Bill, the most far-reaching online censorship law to ever be proposed in the UK, has been presented to Parliament.
UK Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Nadine Dorries, said her aim with the bill was to “make the internet, in the UK, the safest place in the world for children and vulnerable young people to go online.”
However, as with many bills that are positioned as a way to keep children safe, this Online Safety Bill contains sweeping speech restrictions that will affect all UK internet users.
The bill requires Big Tech companies to take action against “priority legal but harmful” content which will be decided by the government. The DCMS Secretary of State has the power to add more categories of priority legal but harmful content via secondary legislation in the future.
According to the Financial Times, this secondary legislation “requires less scrutiny from MPs [Members of Parliament] than the original bill.”
Companies are also required to report “emerging harms” to the UK’s communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
Additionally, the Online Safety Bill outlaws sending “knowingly false” communications that are sent “with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm,” requires large social media companies to introduce identity verification tools, gives Ofcom the power to force companies to use “better and more effective” proactive content moderation technology, tasks Big Tech with determining which of its advertisers are pushing scams, mandates that any website hosting pornography put “robust checks in place to ensure that users are 18 years old or over,” and more.
UK citizens who are found guilty of offenses under the Online Safety Bill can be imprisoned or fined.
Not only does the Online Safety Bill contain numerous provisions that can be used to silence UK citizens and punish them for their online speech but powerful “recognised media outlets” are exempt from any regulation in the bill. Some of the outlets that will be getting special carveouts under this bill have even been praised by politicians for pushing for stronger “online safety” laws.
Tech platforms already remove millions of “harmful” posts each quarter and if this bill becomes law, they’ll have an even stronger incentive to censor.
The punishments for companies that fail to censor enough under the Online Safety Bill include having their sites blocked and being hit with multi-billion dollar fines worth up to 10% of their annual turnover. Tech company executives can also be jailed if they fail to cooperate with Ofcom’s information requests.
Despite introducing strong punishments for tech companies that don’t remove enough harmful content, the Online Safety Bill has yet to reveal the categories of legal the harmful content that tech companies will have to target under this bill.
Earlier this week, Dorries said large platforms will be required to remove legal but harmful content “if it is already banned in their own terms and conditions.”
Yet today’s UK government press release for the Online Safety Bill says that the categories of legal but harmful content will be “set by the government and approved by Parliament.” The press release also lists “exposure to self-harm, harassment and eating disorders” as examples of harmful content that online platforms will be required to remove.
The introduction of the Online Safety Bill to Parliament is the first stage of its legislative journey.

Numerous UK rights groups have blasted the Online Safety Bill and warned that it will restrict free speech.
“The Online Safety Bill is set to rip up the rule book as far as traditional British free speech standards are concerned,” Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said. “This is a censor’s charter that will give state backing to big tech censorship on a scale that we have never seen before.”
Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned that the bill will have a “chilling effect on free speech.”
“We are particularly concerned that the government has said it will force social media platforms to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content, including ‘harassment,’” Young added. “That will enable political activists and interest groups claiming to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups to silence their opponents by branding any views they disagree with as ‘harassment.’”
Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the think tank Institute of Economic Affairs said: “The UK threatening tech executives with jail time is eerily similar to how Russia and other authoritarian countries are currently behaving. It is an attack on free speech and entrepreneurialism.”
Before the bill was presented to Parliament, the UK’s main opposition party, the Labour Party, suggested that it would offer little obstruction to the Online Safety Bill and complained that it hadn’t been introduced fast enough.
Last October, Labour Leader Keir Starmer lamented that it has been “three years since the government promised an Online Safety Bill. Starmer also claimed that “the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever” and promised to support the bill if its second reading was brought forward to the end of 2021.
More recently, Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell said that Labour supports “the principles of the bill that is finally being published” and claimed that “delay up to this point has come with significant cost.”’https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-censorship-parliament/
Psalm 10:8 He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor.
Illegitimate ‘President Biden says he opposes a high-profile Florida bill that would prohibit late-term abortions after 15 weeks and ban a procedure pro-lifers call “barbaric.”
The bill, HB 5, is modeled after a similar law in Mississippi and bans abortions “if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 15 weeks.” It passed the Florida House and Senate and is headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who says he will sign it.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Mississippi’s law. A decision in that case is expected by July.
“The Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed a dangerous bill that will severely restrict women’s access to reproductive health care,” Biden said in a tweet. “My Administration will not stand for the continued erosion of women’s constitutional rights.”’https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/biden-denounces-floridas-15-week-abortion-ban-my-administration-will-not-stand-for-this.html
This is FREEDOM the Trudeau way. You either go along with me and my rules or else! This guy is a chip off the ole block!! ‘Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says truckers will have criminal records if they continue protesting.’https://rumble.com/vupd2d-canadian-prime-minister-says-truckers-protesting-mandates-will-have-crimina.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Daily+Caller&ep=2
‘Every time I hear some middling news reporter parrot ‘for the greater good’ in reference to whatever the next absurd Covid health order is, I am reminded of that famous scene in Hot Fuzz.
A circle of people are discovered in a secret underground lair by the protagonist – torches held beneath their chins and black hoods covering half their faces. They nod at each other chanting ‘the greater good!’ over and over after confessing to murdering half the village to win the coveted ‘Village of the Year’ award. Their addiction to perfection and rules created a superficially idyllic, but ultimately violent hell.
The black comedy is meant to depict a very real ideological horror story where the pursuit of utopia justifies terror.
When civilisation gives up on moral principle and decides to try out ‘moral outcomes’ it leads the government to view individuals as subservient to the collective. Their rights and safety can be ignored so long as the ‘greater good’ is being served. Once the individual is no longer sovereign, any group desire can justify the abuse of rights until citizens become nothing more than depersoned identities. This is the idea that sits at the heart of every collectivist regime and we have seen it quietly gaining popularity within a range of activist movements.
Want to starve a few hundred million people to death? That’s fine, because the regime will survive through their ‘sacrifice’. Want to annihilate an entire race? It has to be done to protect the purity of the collective. Want to reduce an entire nation to slaves? All good. Their misery means that the collective has achieved its promised ‘equality’.
There is no measure to say how much atrocity must be survived before the collective admits failure. Usually, collectivist regimes are overthrown only after shocking levels of violence have been endured.
For thousands of years, Western Civilisation has rejected the ‘greater good’ in favour of individual supremacy. It is only through enshrining the safety and liberty of each member of society – rich or poor – that society has flourished. Respecting the individual, by proxy, creates respect for society at large. While it is not a perfect solution, it has proven enticing enough that people run from collectivist regimes toward the safety of Western democracy. Even liberty’s critics must admit that whatever is going on here is desirable when compared to alternative systems.
Human beings have a general understanding that life isn’t fair. It is, after all, the basis of evolution and the foundation of necessary competition. What humans require is confirmation that life’s rules have some kind of justice to them. Collectivism is a betrayal of this basic need, which is why it facilitates enormous harm no matter what sort of ‘collective’ is being serviced.
The Age of Covid is increasingly being referred to as ‘medical fascism’ because it embraced collectivist thinking.
All manner of civil abuses were permitted in pursuit of puritanical health orders while the messaging put out by the government was fundamentally collectivist. ‘Do this to save others.’ ‘You’re selfish if you refuse vaccination.’ ‘We’re all in this together.’ Their Covid mandates were equally skewed in favour of the collective. Segregation, state-sanctioned discrimination, stalking apps, vaccine passports, state vaccine employment policies – all of these things violated what Australians understood to be their individual rights. This abuse against the population was rationalised by premiers and Chief Health Officers insisting that it was ‘necessary’ to protect Australia as a whole.
Not only was this claim always demonstrably false – it ran contrary to every law and ethical obligation that the Australian nation was built on.
The government’s only role in a respiratory pandemic (where it was known almost immediately that the spread could not be contained) was to offer medical intervention for those that wanted it and to funnel public resources into offering protective equipment and necessary aid.
While organisations like the World Economic Forum were off brainwashing our leaders into collectivist responses at their yearly pandemic simulation events – this is not the reason Australia wound up as a medical fascist state.
At the outset, all levels of the Australian government made the crucial political error of assuming personal responsibility for the pandemic. They came out and promised that they could ‘keep Australians safe’ – hoping, no doubt, that their pledge to protect would translate into a winning election strategy.
Predictably and dangerously, this made government actively responsible for the progress of Covid.
As the virus did what it was always going to do – work its way through society in waves – governments saw increasing cases as a reflection on their performance. Public backlash blamed the government for the spread of the virus instead of the understanding that it was an unavoidable biological reality. This is the fault of the government for inviting the comparison.
In order for governments to protect themselves from public backlash, they drafted and implemented ever-more tyrannical health orders to bring the pandemic (and their reputation) under control.
Suddenly, the rights of citizens to make informed and free choices about their health were treated as ‘selfish acts’ by a government desperate to enforce mass compliance to their public health plans. Any form of contrary debate or conversation that challenged the ‘science’ sprouted by the Department of Health had to be erased – not discussed.
There was nothing scientific about how Covid unfolded. Australia played host to a landscape of dogma and entry-level propaganda that manipulated public responses. Society was dangerously incited to hate dissenters to the point where actual harm was caused not only by police, but by members of the public.
The government’s desperation to protect itself in the face of an uncontrollable crisis is how we ended up with civil liberty being defined as ‘terrorism’.
What is less clear is why the media, tasked with holding governments to account, decided to assist in the erosion of civil rights. Generally speaking, it seems that this was done willingly by a class of journalists terrified into collectivist behaviour by personal fear. They believed the propaganda put out by their publications and were happy to silence the public, hide information, mislead, and outright lie about protesters.
Truth has a way of surviving. With every week that passes, the narrative peddled by the government sheds more armour. It is becoming easy to hurl pitchforks into the open policy wounds and watch ministers relinquish their unlawful control one health mandate at a time.
This collapse of Covid will probably result in the return of our liberties (eventually), but it is doubtful that the wider public will recognise the dangers of collectivist thinking and how easily they were led into supporting ruthless authority.
The unvaccinated, and those that were coerced into vaccination, will remember what it felt like to watch family and lifelong friends turn on them overnight to the point that they were perfectly happy to report them to government authorities. Strangers assaulted people over masks and lamented on social media that police didn’t shoot Freedom protesters with real bullets. Many continue to cheer premiers like Mark McGowan for using sick children to emotionally bully their parents, and how many rejoiced in the sacking of unvaccinated colleagues or sneered at those left standing outside businesses with a big red ‘X’ on their phones? We fell so far as a civilisation that we allowed pharmaceutical companies to endanger children to make adults ‘feel safe’ while denying them access to a normal education and social life.
As with every collectivist regime in history, most of the terror was perpetuated by ordinary people against each other.
Australians lost their humanity during Covid after being led easily astray by fear. If we fail to acknowledge this failure in ourselves, it will happen again. The climate change cult is already moving in to replace Covid with the same collectivist message. ‘We’re all in this together.’ ‘Individuals have to make sacrifices to save the planet.’ On and on it goes. The poor will freeze in their homes. Millions will starve. Citizens will own nothing while the rich collect more super yachts. The fear of apocalypse will be used to justify the removal of rights and this time the pandemic of fear won’t end because there is no apocalypse. It is a dateless bargain with a global collective.
In serving ‘the greater good’, you are constructing a grander evil. One that, once established, will become inescapable.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/02/the-greater-good-or-a-grander-evil/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FLAT%20%2020220211%20%20SG&utm_content=FLAT%20%2020220211%20%20SG+CID_d9f9fea3798d992c6b19b0e8d40ce03c&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=The%20greater%20good%20-%20or%20a%20grander%20evil
‘Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion
Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law
‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
We, a group of international lawyers and a judge, hereby are conducting criminal investigation modelled after the United States Grand Jury proceedings.
This Grand Jury Investigation serves as a model legal proceeding to present to a jury (consisting of the citizens of the world) all available evidence of COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against “leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices” who aided, abetted or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic.
Crimes to be investigated include all acts performed or omitted by a person in pursuance of a common design to commit Crimes Against Humanity, and all such criminal acts condemned in the various communities of jurors around the world.
This investigation is of the people, by the people and for the people and shall be referred to as the ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion.
Having been unable to find a court to hear the actual evidence in the current system´s courts of law, we are undertaking this proceeding outside of the current system and based on natural law.
This, in turn is founded on the firm belief that every person can easily distinguish between good and evil, and between right and wrong.
The allegation is that the world’s governments have come under the controlling influence of corrupt and criminal power structures.
They colluded to stage a pandemic that they had been planning for years. To this end they deliberately created mass panic through false statements of fact and a socially engineered psychological operation whose messages they conveyed through the corporate media.
The purpose of this mass panic was to persuade the population to agree to the so-called “vaccinations” which have in the meantime be proven to be neither effective, nor safe, but extremely dangerous, even lethal.
The economic, social, and health damage that these Crimes Against Humanity have caused to the world’s population can be measured in quadrillions of dollars.
The lawyers listed below, with the assistance of a number of highly respected scientists and experts from around the globe and under the auspices of a judge from Portugal,
will conduct this Grand Jury Investigation and thereby provide the jury (the citizens of the world) with a complete picture of these Crimes Against Humanity.
The ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion´s investigation´s purpose is twofold: On the one hand it is to serve as a model proceeding and get indictments against some of the criminally and civilly responsible figure heads of these Crimes against Humanity.
And on the other hand it is – through showing a complete picture of what we are facing, including the geopolitical and historical backdrop – to create awareness about
the factual collapse of the current, hijacked system and its institutions, and, as a consequence
the necessity for the people themselves retaking their sovereignty, and
the necessity to first stop this plandemic´s measures by refusing to comply, and
the necessity to jump-start their own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary, so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be reestablished.
The Peoples ‘Court of Public Opinion works independent of any government and any non-governmental organization’https://odysee.com/@GrandJury:f?view=about
‘Australia has a renowned and glorious history in immunological science. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if there is an immunological “city on the hill,” it was Australia.
From the storied Walter and Eliza Hall Institute to the Garvan Institute, to prominent Australian Nobel laureates and founding fathers of immunological science (Sir Macfarlane Burnett, Jacques F.P. Miller and Peter Doherty) to contemporary leaders of immunological science (Jonathan Sprent, Christopher Goodnow and Jason Cyster), Australia has been known as the mecca of immunological thinking and science.
So it is simply shocking to see the nation’s government behaving in such an immunologically ill-informed and authoritarian fashion when it comes to its handling of COVID immunity.
The recent deportation of the world’s top-ranked men’s tennis player, Novak Djokovic, from Australia for refusing a mandated vaccine he did not need and could be harmed by, was shocking to me as an immunologist.
Why? Because I know with definitive certainty Djokovic, who recovered from a COVID infection in December 2021, has quite powerful and robust acquired natural immunity to COVID — equivalent, if not more powerful than that attained from full vaccination and boosters.
In other words, the recently COVID-recovered Djokovic posed almost zero risk to himself or anyone in Australia — yet that liberal western democratic government condescended itself into terrible authoritarianism, irrationally and unethically excluding an international champion from one of tennis’ most prestigious events — the Australian Open. How deplorable!
Any immunologist worth his or her salt knows the most unusual aspect of the global COVID vaccine campaign is that the vaccine is being deployed on a mass scale in the midst of a pandemic outbreak, when many are already infected — either recently or at the time of their vaccination.
This indiscriminate public health campaign is dangerous. Not only does it expose many millions of already immune people to the risk of unnecessary medical treatment, but it also poses a serious risk of harm to recently infected or convalescent persons, in whom viral antigenic epitopes still persist, and in whom an unnecessary vaccination could induce a hyper-inflammatory response.
That prominent immunologists — especially the contemporary Australian pioneers in immunology — are either unaware of or silent about how our scientific discipline of immunology is being corrupted and abused by governments around the world so they can impose draconian mass mandates upon millions of persons with acquired “natural” or “hybrid” immunity has been frankly disappointing and shocking to me.
But I suppose all heroes have clay feet — and even careful thinkers can think carelessly sometimes.
Still, it is shocking to hear crickets from the giants of the world of immunology — especially those from Australia, which truly is the birthplace of modern immunology — when it comes to the topic of mandated vaccination of the already well immune and recently infected.
What a terrible sign of our time — when neither science and reason nor ethics and the western defense of individuality matter any longer in the face of irrational fear and government edicts.
Djokovic’s irrational and unethical deportation from Australia is a stain on the reputation of the many prominent Aussie immunologists and storied immunological institutes in that country.
The government override of the principles of immunological science and medical ethics, in order to achieve population-level compliance, while the western heroes of immunological science stay silent spells disaster for the integrity of western civilizations and self-governing democracies.
Shame on the Australian government for irrationally deporting Djokovic. And woe onto those prominent expert Australians and Aussie institutions, who actually know better but have chosen not to speak up for the sake of political expediency or personal comfort.
It is, indeed, easier not to rock the boat and not to speak up, than it is to stand in the way of unethical authoritarian conduct by a powerful democratic government gone astray.
But that slope is a slippery one and we are all sliding down it. All it takes for a great evil to take hold is for a few good men to remain silent and not speak their truth.’https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/australian-open-novak-djokovic-immune-covid/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1674b2e3-2312-478b-af9f-9f656b7c3407
‘NSW COVID-19 update – Friday 7 January 2022
In the 24-hour reporting period to 8pm last night:
– 95.1% of people aged 16+ have had one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine
– 93.6% of people aged 16+ have had two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine pic.twitter.com/1numkPfLYu— NSW Health (@NSWHealth) January 6, 2022
Boosters included in mandatory vaccination for frontline workers
Frontline workers including teachers, nurses, and health and disability workers are already subject to mandatory vaccinations because they work in high-risk settings, however, under the latest restrictions, these mandatory vaccinations will now include booster shots.
“Where New South Wales Health has previously required mandatory vaccination for certain front-line staff we will move to boosters being included as part of that fully vaccinated determination,” Mr Perrottet said.
Singing and dancing in hospitality venues banned
In further changes, singing and dancing in hospitality venues will be banned – but this does not include “weddings or performers or classes that people may be conducting”.
Major events will be allowed to proceed under the new rules, but if a event venue is deemed to be “high-risk” NSW Health and the Department of Premier and Cabinet will work alongside event organisers to develop a COVID-safe plan.
The Premier also doubled down on his pleas that people “minimise mingling” and requested that, where possible, people “sit down while drinking”.
“As well today, we are saying as we have in the past, we’ll continue to encourage people to minimise mingling where possible.
“If you’re in a hospitality venue, if you can sit down while drinking, please do so.
“Minimising mingling during this period of time obviously provides greater assistance across the board.
“And with household visitations, please where you can, minimise those household visitations and when you’re having events inside, if you can have those events outdoors, we highly recommend it.”‘https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/coronavirus/watch-live-nsw-premier-holds-press-conference-as-nsw-prepares-to-reintroduce-safety-measures-amid-a-record-38625-new-covid19-cases/news-story/45f9d112ca1876fc576421482104c39a?utm_source=SkyNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=SN_DAILY_PM_01&net_sub_id=282058248&type=curated&position=1&overallPos=1
WILL THIS EVER BE OVER?
