China Cancelling Christians On The Web

Pravmir.com

Christian websites in China have been suspended as new digital content regulations take effect.

The measures, which require internet users who wish to post religious content to obtain a permit, were introduced in March in an attempt to regulate religious content posted online. The Christian charity Open Doors says the move is “tightening the screws on China’s churches and Christian media.”

A licence is only available for state-approved religious institutions such as the Three Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.

Open Doors says: “The goal is to further limit the scope of public sharing of faith and to force all religions to align with Chinese socialism.”

Youtube Bans All Russian State- Owned Media World-Wide

NDTV reports:

Our Community Guidelines prohibit content denying, minimizing or trivializing well-documented violent events, and we remove content about Russia’s invasion in Ukraine that violates this policy,” spokesman Farshad Shadloo said. “In line with that, effective immediately, we are also blocking YouTube channels associated with Russian state-funded media, globally.”

Such are the hypocrites, cowards, and liars that rule us.

It is perfectly alright for them to adopt as their military policy such a thing as TOTAL INFORMATIONAL WAR and consider the entirety of civilian life here and abroad part of the battlefield, but if some nation shuts down a propaganda station from a foreign agent on its soil, the global policeman is on the scene to lecture it on its assault on FREE EXPRESSION AND THE FREE PRESS.

 

 

India Claims SARS-CoV-2 Came From Lab

In its first official statement about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the Indian government, in the person of Union minister Nitin Gadkari, has called the virus man-made. Gadkari is both the Minister for Road Transport & Highways of India and the Minister of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises He made the claim in an interview with NDTV on May 13, 2020.

Although  the larger number of scientists making public statements claim that SARSCoV-2 is natural, there are several important exceptions. Those exceptions warrant revisiting now that the Chinese government has retracted its original narrative of how the disease originated and is trying to  regulate investigation into that topic.

The first charges of a synthetic virus origin began with a non peer-reviewed preprint paper, “Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp 120 and Gag,” written by a group of Indian scientists from IIT, Delhi.

The paper claimed that the virus might have been engineered using the AIDS virus, the HIV virus. Published on January 31 on preprint server bioRxiv, the paper was withdrawn on Feb 2, after vociferous  criticism from a number of scientists around the world.

UK’s Cinderella Law: Jail for “Emotionally Abusive” Parents

The United Kingdom, already one of the most heavily surveilled states on earth, has decided that spying on its citizens with street cameras, shop cameras, cell-phone software, GPS tracking, email snooping, financial audits, welfare agency monitoring, and neighborhood snitches is simply not enough.

It wants to poke its nose into family life.

As usual, the pretext is a humanitarian one – the protection of children from abuse at home.

But child protection laws already punish physical/sexual violence and neglect of any kind severely.

So what’s left?

Now, parents face jail-time for convictions for emotional abuse, which can be anything from fighting in front of their children, blaming their children, being cold to them, or not paying enough attention to them.

Emotional abuse is real. And it is damaging.

But it’s also dynamic, complex and definitely not something a government official should meddle in.

Imagine the thousands of decent, loving families that are going to be ripped apart and destroyed by this malign law, as The Independent rightly points out:

“These days, parents who smoke or drink alcohol in front of children risk being characterised as child-abusers. Opponents of the tradition of male circumcision condemn Jewish and Muslim parents as abusers of children. Health activists denounce parents of overweight children for the same offence. Mothers and fathers who educate their children to embrace the family’s religion have been characterised as child abusers by anti-faith campaigners.”

Educating people about family interaction is one thing.

But there’s  already plenty of that going on.

What this law does is empower yet another empire-building department to pile up parental scalps in its quest for budgets, clout, and public profile.

Meanwhile, kids who tattle on their parents are losers too. They face the trauma of losing their parents to jail; losing their family life to endless days in court; and losing their own selves to a web of foster homes and government offices.

This isn’t a Cinderella law.

It’s a Cruel Step-mother (government) Law.

Telegraph.co:

“Changes to the child neglect laws will make “emotional cruelty” a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse.

The Government will introduce the change in the Queen’s Speech in early June to enforce the protection of children’s emotional, social and behavioural well-being.

Parents found guilty under the law change could face up to 10 years in prison, the maximum term in child neglect cases.

The change will update existing laws in England and Wales which only allow an adult responsible for a child to be prosecuted if they have deliberately assaulted, abandoned or exposed a child to suffering or injury to their health.”

Once again, this is not about protecting children.

It is about giving the government the tools to intervene on behalf of  the “politically correct” agenda, which is the mask under which censorship of potentially disruptive political speech takes place.

It’s not about protecting a child who has sexual identity (or other) problems from harassment and cruelty.

Laws against physical abuse already do that.

It’s about using the accusation of “bigot,” “homophobe,” or “sexist” to jail human beings who are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

It takes no great imagination to see how universal surveillance plays into this.

Surveillance allows the government to surreptitiously target the people it wants to harass through analysis of their online activity, cell phone conversations, purchases, and social networks.

The guidelines for what constitutes a public threat have already been drawn up.

Provocateurs, agents, and civilian snitches, embedded in schools and welfare agencies, will then monitor the child of the  targeted person for investigation, coercive interviews, and direct threats.  Few children can stand up to such tactics.

Whatever they admit under pressure  then becomes the platform for a full-scale intervention into the targeted family.  Then follows jail-time, shrink sessions, and re-education camp  for the unlucky parent/s, whose entire private life now becomes public criminal record.

Criminalizing ordinary behavior and intimidating law-abiding citizens with an amorphous and expansive law is as good a way as any of politically gelding a large chunk of the population, hitherto beyond the reach of the criminal justice system.

Freedom For What?

Via the  Independent Institute:

Freedom for What? (April 30, 2010)

by
Carlos Alberto Montaner

The following is based on a speech given by the author, upon
receiving the “Juan de Mariana Award for an Exemplary Trajectory in the
Defense of Freedom,” Madrid, Spain, April 30, 2010.
© Firmas Press.

In 1980, shortly after making a dramatic exit from Cuba, the
magnificent writer Reinaldo Arenas collected in a book his more
combative articles and essays and titled it The Need for Freedom.

It was a shout. Reinaldo felt the need to be free. Human beings
need to be free. He was asphyxiating in Cuba. He lived in sadness, fear
and indignation.
None of those three emotions is pleasant, and sometimes
they twisted in his heart to the point of desperation.
Continue reading

UK Passes Digital Economy Bill – Could Block Websites Over “Intent”

The Guardian reports the passage of the “digital economy bill” in the UK:

“The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading – which means it will get royal assent and become law – after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: “The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed,” said the site set up to oppose the proposals.

But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed.

Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister who resigned in mid-2009, voted against the government for the first time in the final vote to take the bill to a third reading. However the vote was overwhelmingly in the government’s favour, which it won by 189 votes to 47.

Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: “it could apply to Google,” he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about “likely to be used” meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

The Lib Dem opposition to that amendment prompted the first vote – known as a division – on the bill, but the Labour and Conservative whips pushed it through, winning it by 197 votes to 40. The next 42 clauses of the bill were then considered in five minutes.

Numerous MPs complained that the bill was too important and its ramifications too great for it to be pushed through in this “wash-up” period in which bills are not given the usual detailed examination.

However the government declined to yield – although it had already done a deal with the Tories which meant that a number of its provisions, including clause 43 and the creation of independent local news consortia, would not be part of the bill.”