Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Crime

Ireland vows to crack down on ‘hate speech’ after knife attack by Algerian immigrant

Published

2 years ago

6 minute read

Senator Pauline O’Reilly

From LifeSiteNews

By Paul Bennett

‘We are restricting freedom for the common good,’ Ireland’s Green Party Senator Pauline O’Reilly told the Irish Senate

The Irish government have blamed recent unrest on the “far-right” and vowed to fast track freedom-curbing “hate speech” legislation before Christmas.

The November 23 riots were in response to a barbaric knife attack on innocent children and a daycare employee in central Dublin by a 50-year-old Algerian immigrant earlier that day. Leanne Flynn and three children were wounded.

Addressing the nation at Dublin Castle after the stabbings, Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar crudely prioritized legislating hate speech laws to tackle the growing public unrest in Ireland over key issues such as mass immigration.

“It’s now obvious to anyone who might have doubted it that our incitement to hatred legislation is just not up to date for the social media age and we need that legislation through,” Varadkar said.

“And we need it through in a matter of weeks because it’s not just the platforms that have responsibility here, and they do, it’s also the individuals who past messages and images online that stir hatred and violence. We need to be able to use laws to go after them individually.”

As a result of a coordinated government response to tackle ‘hate speech’, the Republic of Ireland’s new Online Safety Media Commission have urged the Irish public to report any “hate speech” to the Gardai (Irish police) in the aftermath of last week’s unforeseen stabbings and riot in Dublin.

The newly established Irish online media regulator approved by the European Commission, Coimisiún na Meán, is currently overseeing what is being billed as online safety in Europe in a move to tackle hate speech and disinformation.

Immediately after the November 23 riot, the online regulators made Ireland the first EU member state to activate an alert under new Digital Services Act (DSA) rules. The activation alerted the European Commission to contact large social media companies within hours of the riot in Dublin, to remind them of their legal obligations regarding dissemination of illegal online content, threats, hate speech, and “disinformation.”

On November 28, Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media Catherine Martin told the Irish parliament that online regulators are “calling for those who see hate speech or other illegal content online to report it to platforms or to the Gardai.”

In the midst of growing tension and concern about mass immigration, housing, and crime in communities across the country, the Irish government are instead planning to pass legislation to curb freedom of speech. The new Hate Speech Bill is considered one of the strictest draconian hate speech legislations in the world.

The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 (the Hate Speech Bill) will criminalize any speech that is “likely to incite hatred, or violence” against so-called “protected groups.”

The legislation vaguely defines “hatred” as “hatred against a person or a group of persons in the [Irish] State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics.” The protected characteristics includes race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.

The radical bill outlines how merely possessing “hateful” content on your devices or having signs, posters and banners that could incite “hatred” could lead to criminal charges and upwards to five years of imprisonment.

Authorities will be allowed to seize all electronic devices, including phones, laptops, and tablets, and force individuals to hand over passwords, even if no crime has been committed.

Independent Irish Senator Sharon Keogan believes the main objective of the hate speech bill is “partly designed to keep political dissenters quiet.”

In a viral video that got international attention, a Green Party Senator called Pauline O’Reilly revealed the true nature of the radical hate speech laws during a discussion about the proposed legislation in the Irish Senate.

“When you think about it, all law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. That’s exactly what we are doing here,” she said. “We are restricting freedom, but we are doing it for the common good.”

On social media platform, X, Ohio Senator James David Vance reacted to the viral video of the Irish Senator by saying if this was in “Russia, or China or many other nations we would call it totalitarian and threaten economic sanctions.”

Elon Musk, owner of X has called the planned legislation a “massive attack against freedom of speech.”

The Hate Speech Bill was passed in the Irish Parliament in April 2023 and is currently now at a committee stage in the Senate.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Energy / 7 mins ago

B.C. premier’s pipeline protestations based in fallacy not fact

Business / 9 hours ago

A Middle Finger to Carney’s Elbows Up

Sports / 10 hours ago

‘We Follow The Money’: Kash Patel Says Alleged NBA Ties To Mafia Just ‘The Start’ Of FBI Investigation

Courageous Discourse

No Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears

Published on October 21, 2025

By

By John Leake

Turning Point Spokesman: “No Exit Wound a Miracle”

Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet repeats extremely dubious claim purportedly made by “the surgeon who operated on Kirk.”

Monday Blaze Media (relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey) reported the following:

Turning Point USA spokesman and executive producer of the “Charlie Kirk Show” Andrew Kolvet revealed new details about the shooting that even doctors are calling a miracle. According to Kolvet, the surgeon who operated on Kirk claimed that the high-velocity bullet was powerful enough to kill multiple large animals — and “should have gone through” his body. But for some reason, Kirk’s body was able to stop it.

“I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie,” Kolvet wrote in a post on X.

“The fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know,” Kolvet continued, explaining that he had spoken with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.

“He said the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc,’” he recalled.

“But it didn’t go through. Charlie’s body stopped it,” he added.

When he mentioned to the doctor that there were “dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie” when he was shot, the doctor reportedly replied, “It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed.”

“His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel,” Kolvet recalls the doctor saying.

This is not a credible statement, and it raises a number of concerns.

It strikes me as very perplexing that a “surgeon operated on Kirk,” because in the video of the shooting, Charlie reacted with a decorticate posture—that is, an abnormal body posture characterized by flexion of the upper limbs—caused by severe trauma to the central nervous system. This indicates that the bullet either directly struck his cervical spinal cord, or the shock wave of the supersonic bullet passing near his spinal cord traumatized it.

A 150-grain, .30-06 bullet’s energy at 150 yards from the muzzle varies by ammunition, but a common hunting cartridge has an estimated value of approximately 1,800-2,000 foot-pounds (with the bullet traveling at about 2500 feet per second). In other words, the .30 caliber (.30 inch diameter) metal projectile struck his neck with sufficient kinetic energy to move a 2,000 pound mass a linear distance of one foot.

If the bullet that struck Charlie’s cervical spinal cord was a .30-06 fired from 150 yards away, it would have:

1). Severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly.

2). Passed through his neck.

Note that the cervical vertebrae are supported by strong muscles and have high compressive strength, but are far too delicate to stop a .30-06 bullet traveling at 2,500 feet per second.

If ALL of the kinetic energy of the bullet was absorbed by Charlie’s neck, it would have done spectacular trauma to his neck, as distinct from producing the clean bullet hole visible in the video footage that ruptured his Carotid artery.

Though I appreciate that some may find a supernatural explanation to be consoling, it seems to me that the investigation should not rest on the this explanation.

As I wrote a few weeks ago: If I were investigating the murder, I would consider the hypothesis that Charlie was shot with a weapon equipped with a suppressor and loaded with a subsonic cartridge to further reduce the sound. I have seen footage of someone firing a rifle with this setup, and the shot was amazingly quiet. The effective range of such a weapon is about 100 yards or less, and the shooter must be very skilled.

However, such a setup could fire a subsonic projectile that would penetrate a human neck without passing through it. In this scenario, the actual assassin (firing the suppressed rifle) hypothetically coordinated the timing of his shot with someone else firing a normal (supersonic and loud) rifle cartridge into the air at the same time to create a distraction or red herring.

In a functioning society in which the people trust their authorities—including their medical examiners—it would be easy to discover what happened and to disclose at least a preliminary report that would satisfy most reasonable people. The trouble our Republic is facing now is that so many of us no longer trust our federal and state authorities to tell us the truth.

For example, we have strong grounds for suspecting that medical examiners are not diligently investigating (with the proper analytic methods) unexpected, fatal cardiac arrests in young people to determine if they were caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

Share

Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Quebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation

Published on October 21, 2025

By

By Nicolas Gagnon

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released new Leger polling showing that half of Quebecers say the most effective way to reduce gun crime is to crack down on illegal gun smuggling from the United States, not a federal gun ban and confiscation.

“Law enforcement experts say the best way to make Canada safer is to stop illegal gun smuggling and Quebecers say exactly the same thing,” said Nicolas Gagnon, CTF Quebec Director. “It makes no sense to pour hundreds of millions into a confiscation that only takes guns from lawfully licensed gun owners.”

In 2020, the federal government launched its policy to confiscate thousands of so-called “assault-style” firearms from licensed gun owners. Ottawa recently announced a pilot project in Cape Breton to start taking firearms from individual owners.

The Leger poll asked Quebecers what they think is the most effective way to reduce gun crime. Results of the poll show:

  • 51 per cent say introducing tougher measures to stop the illegal smuggling of guns into Canada from the United States
  • 37 per cent say banning the sale and ownership of many different makes and models of guns along with a government buyback program
  • Six per cent say neither of these options
  • Seven per cent do not know

The results of the polls arrived as recorded remarks from Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree made headlines in September.

In a leaked audio recording, the minister suggested the confiscation program is being pushed in part because of voters in Quebec, while also expressing doubt that local police services have the resources to enforce it.

Police organizations have long warned Ottawa’s confiscation program is misguided. The RCMP union says it “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

The program was first estimated to cost $200 million. Just providing compensation for the banned guns, not including administrative costs, could cost up to $756 million, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan have both publicly said that they would not cooperate with Ottawa’s gun ban. Premier François Legault has stayed silent on this issue.

“Quebecers have been clear: the real problem is illegal gun smuggling, not law-abiding firearms owners,” said Gagnon. “The police have also made it clear the gun confiscation will waste money that could be used to stop criminals from committing gun crimes.

“Legault needs to stand up for Quebec taxpayers and refuse to help implement Ottawa’s costly and ineffective confiscation scheme. The federal government needs to drop this plan and focus its resources on intercepting illegal guns at the border: that’s how you actually make communities safer.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X