Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Elon Musk pledges support to doctor fighting sanctions for opposing COVID vaccine mandate

Published

4 months ago

7 minute read

Dr. Kulvinder Gill

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Tesla billionaire said X will help Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for her anti-COVID views.

A Canadian physician who became well known for speaking out against draconian COVID mandates in her home province on social media and then was sanctioned by her medical college and forced into costly legal battles, has received the support of billionaire Tesla owner Elon Musk.

Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views, last Thursday asked Musk for help.

“As one of the first Canadian MDs to oppose lockdowns on Twitter in 2020 … I’ve been persecuted for four years solely due to my tweets. Please help a fellow Canadian! ~$300k in court-ordered costs due in four days,” Gill wrote on X (formerly Twitter) on March 21.

Gill included an image of a screenshot from an August 2023 X post from Musk in which he vowed to support anyone facing hardships from anything they said on X and were then censored or attacked for it.

“If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. No limit. Please let us know,” Musk wrote in August 2023.

A short while after Gill’s Thursday post, Musk replied, writing, “We will help.”

Gill thanked Musk after his post, writing, “Thank you @elonmusk@X! Welcome to #TeamHumanity I hope your team reaches out very soon.”

Gill’s X post also linked to a recent interview she had with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who created the Great Barrington Declaration, about her ordeal with the CPSO.

“I was starting to read about the devastating, catastrophic harms of the actual lockdowns. All of this compelled me to speak out in the summer of 2020 about everything that was being ignored, both in the media’s coverage and in the daily conversations that Canadians were having. I didn’t anticipate the response that I received,” Gill said.

Gill is a specialist practicing in the Greater Toronto area, and has extensive experience and training in “pediatrics, and allergy and clinical immunology, including scientific research in microbiology, virology and vaccinology.”

Last September, disciplinary proceedings against her were withdrawn by the CPSO. However, last year, Gill was ordered to pay $1 million in legal costs after her libel suit was struck down, and she has now been told she must pay ordered to pay $300,000 by the end of March.

The CPSO began disciplinary investigations against Gill in August 2020, with The Democracy Fund (TDF) noting she was the target of “an online campaign by other doctors, media and members of the public to generate complaints against her.”

Gill has a large following on X (formerly Twitter) and since mid-2020 has been active on the platform criticizing COVID mandates. She was one of the few Canadian doctors who spoke out strongly against the COVID dictates early on and would take to X regularly to share her views.

Due to Gill’s social media posts, she has faced continued investigations as well as disciplinary actions by the CPSO. There have also been public complaints made against her, which the CPSO investigated.

The Democracy Fund has full details of those proceedings against Gill.

In late 2020, she took legal action against a group of some 23 doctors, academics, reporters and even the former president of the Ontario Medical Association, who she claimed had allegedly damaged her reputation as a “medical professional for unfairly attacking her anti-lockdown stance.”

Physician confirms Musk’s offer to her all set to go

On March 24, X News posted that X it “is proud to help defend Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill against the government-supported efforts to cancel her speech.”

Musk also wrote to Gill that he is in full “support of your right to speak.”

On the same day, Gill confirmed that X reached out to her “directly” about their offer to help her appeal her three CPSO cautions relating to her 2020 tweets.

“@elonmusk’s @X contacted me directly confirming Elon’s commitment to pay remainder of campaign to reach $300K AND Elon has committed to assisting my appeal of 3 CPSO cautions, for my 2020 tweets opposing lockdowns, to the very end (ONCA & SCC if needed). May Waheguru bless you,” she wrote.

Gill also launched a fundraiser of her own to help her pay her legal costs. Thus far, Gill has raised close to $200,000 of her $300,000 goal.

Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections have been censured by their medical boards.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews at its annual general meeting in July 2023 near Toronto, canceled doctors Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi, Chris Shoemaker, and Byram Bridle were asked to state their messages to the medical community regarding how they have had to fight censure because they have opinions contrary to the COVID mainstream narrative.

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
Economy / 4 hours ago

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 4 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Censorship Industrial Complex

New federal legislation should remind Canadians of Orwell’s 1984

Published on July 24, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 (and it’s been 40 years since the actual year 1984). In the novel, Orwell explains the dangers of totalitarianism by exploring what happens when government exercises extreme levels of control over citizens including censoring and controlling language. While Canada is a relatively free country in 2024, there are aspects of Orwell’s world reflected in government policy today.

The Human Freedom Index, published annually by the Fraser Institute and Cato Institute, defines freedom as a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals by the absence of coercive constraint. In a free society, citizens are free to do, say or think almost anything they want, provided it does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

Canada currently fares relatively well compared to other countries on the Human Freedom Index, placing 13th out of 165 countries. However, our score has dropped six spots on the index since 2008 when Canada recorded its highest ever rank.

This is not surprising given the Trudeau government’s recent efforts to control and manage the free exchange of ideas. The recent Online Streaming Act imposes various content rules on major streaming services such as Netflix, and requirements to extract funds to be redirected toward favoured groups. The Act seemingly seeks to bring the entire Internet under the regulation of a government body.

In another piece of recent legislation, the Online News Act, the government attempted to force certain social media platforms to pay other legacy news outlets for carrying content. In response, the social media platforms chose simply not to allow content from those news providers on their platforms, resulting in a dramatic reduction of Canadians’ access to news.

Now, a new piece of federal legislation—Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act—seeks to control language and grant government power to punish citizens for what the government deems to be unfavourable speech.

The government has sold Bill C-63 as a way to promote the online safety of Canadians, reduce harms, and ensure the operators of social media services are held accountable. In reality, however, the bill is Orwell’s Big Brother concept brought to life, where government controls information and limits free exchange. The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future. Not surprisingly, many have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill, which will surely be tested in court.

Put differently, the Bill dictates that citizens may not only be punished for speech crimes, but also punished when another person or group of individuals believes they are likely to commit such a crime. The legislation outlines punishment mechanisms at the government’s disposal, including electronic monitoring devices, house arrest or jail time. Frighteningly, if the government doesn’t like what you say or even suspects they won’t like what you might say, then you could face serious repercussions.

That sounds eerily similar to Orwell’s concept of the Thought Police. In 1984, a secret police force investigates and punishes “thoughtcrimes,” which are personal and political thoughts unapproved by the state. The Thought Police monitor citizens and arrest anyone who engages in such crimes, to prevent personal autonomy and freedom of thought, thus providing the state with immense power and control over the populace.

The big government approach inherent in the Online Harms Act and others is antithetical to the idea of personal freedom. Famed English philosopher J.S. Mill was particularly observant in recognizing the perils of controlling and punishing speech government officials deem “dangerous.” In his book On Liberty, Mill stated “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general of prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.”

Orwell’s famous novel provides a guidebook for what governments should avoid doing at all costs. Unfortunately, hints of 1984 have seeped into government policy in Canada today. The erosion of personal freedom is not something we should take for granted anymore.

Authors: 

 

Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

‘We are in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history’

Published on July 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tom Olohan

“It’s hard to get a free people to give up freedom, you have to make them afraid, you have to make them very afraid. And that’s why you hear this echo chamber that its free speech that’s endangering us”

Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and George Washington University law professor, issued some stark warnings on the future of free speech.

During the July 12 episode of MRC UnCensored, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider spoke with Turley about his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, and his observations about free speech and the media from a long and successful career.

Turley warned that journalism schools have abandoned long-held standards and young Americans have been indoctrinated against free speech. He made clear that a dangerous public-private partnership between powerful institutions threatened the future of the First Amendment.

“We are now in what the book refers to as the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history, and the reason is indeed this alliance that has never formed before, of the government, corporations, academia [and] the media, all aligned against free speech,” he said.

 

Turley followed with a description of this alliance’s twisted rationale. “You now have on college campuses and in many media outlets, the unrelenting mantra that free speech is dangerous, that it is threatening us, threatening jobs, even threatening lives,” Turley said. “And the idea here is very simple, it’s hard to get a free people to give up freedom, you have to make them afraid, you have to make them very afraid. And that’s why you hear this echo chamber that its free speech that’s endangering us and if you just give the government more power over your speech you’ll be happy and safer.”

When Turley warned that the “wave” of censorship arriving in America “began in Europe,” Schneider lamented that American free speech had once inspired advocates of freedom in Europe and the world, such as Lech Wałęsa and Václav Havel. “And something has changed again, in Europe, in here, where people now see free speech as a threat to democracy, as a pose to the most important central element of democracy.”

Turley dug deep from his experience and observations to explain this state of affairs. He mentioned that he had poured 30 years of work into his book and observed the media make a massive turn for the worse during that period.

The Fox News contributor also noted that journalism schools have officially abandoned objectivity and neutrality. Turley made the point that the media had abandoned its principles in part because new graduates had been taught to abandon them: “J-schools now teach that, that objectivity and neutrality get in the way of social and political agendas. That’s what we’re producing from J-schools and its having an impact.”

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters.

Continue Reading

Trending

X