Censorship Industrial Complex
Australian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.
Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”
Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.
Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.
The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”
The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.
A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.
The problem here is that, if you cannot define a word, then how can you use it properly in a court of law? For example, if you do not know what a “woman” is, then how can you be said to have transitioned from a man to a woman, as Buckley is claiming?
This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.
That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.
In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.
Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.
In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.
On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill
From LifeSiteNews
Senator Kristopher Wells and other senators are ‘interested’ in reviving the controversial Online Harms Act legislation that was abandoned after the election call.
A recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
Kristopher Wells, appointed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last year as a senator from Alberta, made the comments about reviving an internet censorship bill recently in the Senate.
“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” he said of Bill C-63 that lapsed earlier this year after the federal election was called.
Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online.
While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.
The Online Harms Act would have in essence censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.
Wells said that “Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place and in the dying days of the last Parliament the government signaled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.”
“I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said.
Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.
Before the April 28 election call, the Liberals were pushing Bill C-63.
Wells asked if the current Carney government remains “committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code as proposed in the previous Bill C-63 and will it commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?”
Seasoned Senator Marc Gold replied that he is not in “a position to speculate” on whether a new bill would be brought forward.
Before Bill C-63, a similar law, Bill C-36, lapsed in 2021 due to that year’s general election.
As noted by LifeSiteNews, Wells has in the past advocated for closing Christian schools that refuse to violate their religious principles by accepting so-called Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and spearheaded so-called “conversion therapy bans.”
Other internet censorship bills that have become law have yet to be fully implemented.
Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Conservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail
From LifeSiteNews
Conservatives are warning that the Liberals’ new border bill will allow police to search Canadians’ mail.
During a June 5 debate in the House of Commons, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Frank Caputo voiced concerns over Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which will permit police and government officials to open and examine Canadians’ mail.
“This is something I know I am going to get mail about,” Caputo said. “We are now talking about language in the Charter, what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.”
Bill C-2, introduced by the Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney, is framed as legislation to combat drugs making their way across the border. However, many have pointed out that it severely infringes on Canadians’ Charter rights.
The Liberals have failed to address this concern in their 130-page legislation, leading Conservatives to demand accountability.
“If they can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four or five-page Charter statement,” he said. “Certainly, somebody in the government asked if it was Charter compliant — but they won’t say.”
Under Bill C-2, Canada would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to “remove barriers that prevent police from searching mail, where authorized to do so in accordance with an Act of Parliament, to carry out a criminal investigation.”
It also seeks to “expand Canada Post inspection authority to open mail.”
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, legal organizations have warned that the legislation could lead to a cashless economy as it would ban cash payments over $10,000.
“Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more,” the legislation proposes.
In a June 4 X post, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) warned that “If Bill C-2 passes, it will become a Criminal Code offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash donations, deposits, or payments of $10,000 or more. Even if the $10,000 payment or donation is broken down into several smaller cash transactions, it will still be a crime for a business or charity to receive it.”
The JCCF pointed out that while cash payments of $10,000 are not common for Canadians, the government can easily reduce “the legal amount to $5,000, then $1,000, then $100, and eventually nothing.”
“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,” the organization warned. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks, credit card companies, and other corporations.”
Similarly, Carney’s move to restrict Canadians is hardly surprising considering his close ties to the World Economic Forum and push for digital currency.
In a 2021 article, the National Post noted that “since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the ‘Great Reset,’ or the ‘Green New Deal,’ or ‘Building Back Better.’
“Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty,” the outlet continued.
In light of Carney’s new leadership over Canadians, many are sounding alarm over his distinctly anti-freedom ideas.
Carney, who as reported by LifeSiteNews, has admitted he is an “elitist” and a “globalist.” Just recently, he criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for targeting woke ideology and has vowed to promote “inclusiveness” in Canada.
Carney also said that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan.
The Best US Hopes for Wimbledon 2025: Who Could Break the Curse at SW19?
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Crime11 hours ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions12 hours ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation13 hours ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business10 hours agoNatural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Courageous Discourse8 hours agoHealthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Health4 hours agoRFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex7 hours ago
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill
-
Censorship Industrial Complex9 hours ago
Conservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail