Free Speech

Trudeau pushes for more compelled speech


You can’t make this stuff up. The Trudeau government plans to ban front-line public service workers from saying Mr., Mrs., Mother, and Father. In what can only be seen as another push toward more compelled speech legislation,  the majority have to put up with more political correct nonsense for the benefit of peoplekind.

Seriously though, if someone is going to be so irreparably mentally damaged by the misuse of a pronoun that it requires legislation to protect he/she/xie, the victim has far bigger issues that require immediate help. How fragile can one be?

The beauty is that for the 99% of us that identity with our biological make-up must make way for the 1% of which it’s actually only 1% of that who would benefit from this legislation. Take the same sex marriage debate in Australia. The 2015 Census showed that only 0.03% of all couples identified as a traditional marriage and same sex. It isn’t questioning equal rights but most campaigners had next to no idea how many it truly impacted. Yet don’t step in the way, else be shot down as a bigot or homophobe.

To put the shoe on the other foot, shouldn’t our rights to be addressed Mr. or Mrs. be equal to that of those who don’t?  Like Bill C-16 the apparatchiks in charge of introducing these laws are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. What are civil rights if legislation only applies in favour of certain groups? Surely Canada’s social service systems can field and burn in requests on which people wish to be called what without having to blanket ban language.

The laughable fact with respect to Bill-16 (which is designed to protect gender identity and expression), is that the Trudeau government did not consult transgender people widely. The sheer fact that they clump all transgender people as “one” distinct group just shows how ignorant Trudeau’s cabinet is. There aren’t individuals within the trans community who think differently from other trans? Who’d had thought?

Yet the left see that such legislation is all about positive outcomes which judged by the complaints by the transgender community show the opposite. Many transgender people do not want to have their identity widely advertised. Yet this legislation seeks to disrupt others into compelled speech many trans people aren’t calling for.

Welcome to the slippery slope. At least one thing is for sure, if the polls are right and  Trudeau gets booted in the 2019 election, Qantas will happily put him in charge of the political correctness department so as to make sure all of the aircraft safety videos address gender equality over the more important safety aspects.

Alternative for Sweden (AfS) is established


It seems that several members of the conservative anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats (SD) have splintered to form the Alternative for Sweden (AfS) (video here). The party was founded a few weeks ago by Gustav Kasselstrand, a former member of the SD which saw its support slip to 14.8% in November 2017, compared to 18.4% percent in June, according to the Swedish Statistics Office. Although in March 2018, Sentio poll has the SD at 23% (from 21.9%), a Demoskop poll at 18.6% (15.4% in Feb) and SiFo poll at 15.9%.

The government, comprised of the Social Democrats and Greens, had a 36.4% approval rating, compared with 35.6% in the June poll. The AfS thinks that the SD has become too compromising and see the fall in the polls as reason to break away and follow in the footsteps of the rise and rise of Germany’s AfD.

SD party leader Jimmie Åkesson said in Feb 2018 that the party is its own worst enemy…“Our biggest problem is that we have not been able to build real credibility...”
going on to say it was uncertain whether SD would benefit from “…moving further to the right on immigration issues because parties like the Social Democrats and Moderates have snatched our politics within the area [just like Rutte in The Netherlands adopting policies of Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party at the Dutch election last year]…The next term of office will be crucial for us to establish ourselves as a government alternative…We must compromise and be pragmatic

Even at its current level of support, the Sweden Democrats would still have enough seats to block either the centre-left or centre-right blocs from forming government after the upcoming September 2018 election.

The SD saw surging support several years ago on what they saw was politically correct limp-wristed responses to growing migrant crime. In Malmo, Deputy Police Commissioner Mats Karlsson said in response to multiple explosions that occur in the city on a regular basis, “Our dilemma is that we can never guarantee anything for sure. Evidently there are individuals who have hand grenades and they often resort to violence over things that may seem very banal to you or I – a conflict over an ex-girlfriend or a little brother wanting to outperform his big brother…It’s bad enough when they use guns, because they’ve got such poor aim, but grenades are really worrying. They have a 360-degree reach.”

As CM has made the point for years, whether one likes the direction of right wing politics or not, yet more nationalist parties are feeling the seeds of discontent within their own constituencies and offering a platform to parties that don’t seem to be listening. On Sept 9th, Swedes will get their democratic say. Austria, Germany, Holland, Italy, The Netherlands and France have all seen large shifts toward anti-immigrant/eurosceptic parties in recent elections. It isn’t a coincidence with the EU at the helm.

Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

The unbiased ABC happily calls and treats us as c*nts

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) says it is strictly impartial when it comes to politics. No bias whatsoever. The point was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when it came to one of its comedy programmes calling conservative politicians c@nts. It is not a question of humour (if one can call it that) being like cartoons addressing political satire, it is a question of the organization flagrantly violating its own charter. Australian taxpayers deserve better. The financials of the ABC reveal how out of touch it is.

The ABC was originally established to make sure even rural communities could access news. Scroll forward c.90 years and we are able to stream radio programs from Berlin or TV shows from Canada right to our mobile handset, desktop or TV screen. Media choice is everywhere. Yet the Aussie taxpayer funds multiple ABC radio and TV stations to cater to markets well covered by the commercial sector. The ABC and the SBS get over A$1.5bn a year in funding.

Let’s dig a bit deeper in the stats of the ABC. Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 we see that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

Australia’s largest commercial terrestrial station, Nine Network, has 3,100 employees against revenues of $1.237bn. So to put that into context, Nine can generate c. A$400,000 per employee whereas the ABC generates A$217,236 in tax dollars per employee. In a sense the ABC could be shut down, and each employee paid $108,000 in redundancy costs annually for two years simply by selling off the land, buildings and infrastructure. The SBS generates A$281,000 in tax dollars per employee. The ABC will argue it deserves $400,000/employee revenues rather than a 46% headcount reduction to be on equal terms with the efficiency in the private sector.

On a global basis, the BBC generates GBP 4.954bn and employs 21,000 staff. 22.7% of those revenues are spent on salaries. Average salaries have grown 17% since 2007/8. Average income per employee at the BBC is now GBP236,852 (A$428,000) thanks to the generous mandatory licensing fees. Average salaries at the Beeb are now GBP 55,651 ($A100,728).

Imagine if the ABC was listed and forced to compete. If it is infinitely confident it has the right content which captures future audience trends (which by its own measures doesn’t) then it can call whoever it wants a c*nt and see whether the ratings stack up when it comes time to attract revenue and capital. Why not give the ABC staff a choice to list and say what it wants or stay government owned and tow the line of the charter? Of course the answer is stay under the protectorate of blind politicians and say what they please. The beauty of the private sector is that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Is it really our ABC? There is no balance in content and even less balance in its accounts. It should be massively defunded.

Truth in advertising?


Imagine if Delta released an ad like this today? 45 years ago it offered military personnel cheap tickets. In an era where sex, drugs and rock’n’roll ruled, such a risqué advert (torn asunder all the promiscuous women are seemingly white) was one can only guess “in step with the times” back then.  Then again the same Delta Airlines has just cut off its association with law abiding NRA members for simply flying to see the inlaws. CM noticed that National Geographic has just issued a formal apology for its racist and bigoted articles from 100 years ago. The editor wrote, “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.” One would imagine that all the editor did was raise an issue that a majority of its readers never thought about and hold present journalists and photographers to some sort of ‘Day One, Year Zero’ doctrine.

What is it with this “shaming” culture we live in today where corporates must make collective apologies for things that were done before people were born to people who are most likely dead on matters they had zero control over? Just spare the sanctimonious lectures and thought control. I can’t remember the last time I heard a wolf whistle but some want this made a ‘hate crime’. Not condoning it but a wolf whistle is generally viewed as a compliment not a slur. Just like those Hollywood actresses wearing three postage stamps held together by dental floss chanting #METOO all the while they kept quiet about mass sexual harassment because their careers were more important than principle. Spare us the hypocrisy.

Surely people’s sensitivities can’t be such that this should be a jailable offence? Even Qantas staff have been handed newspeak dictionaries on what they can and can’t say to customers to avoid the 0.00001% risk of offending someone. Where do we draw the line? Seems like the line is being drawn further to the point of endorsing a whole industry built on victim culture.

Instead of acknowledging humans have flaws, celebrating differences and accepting it we are being cornered into smaller and smaller ‘legal’ boxes of what is deemed ‘with the times’ and straying outside that risks an innocent person being labeled a bigot, racist, sexist or homophobe. Worse, more laws (like Canada’s M-103 or Australia’s 18-C) risk jail or massive fines for anyone that makes a factual statement. The worst part about it is that lives have been ruined based on trumped up charges willingly egged on by groups like the heavily biased Australian Human Rights Commission, a group that encourages people to lodge complaints but gladly tweets justices it self-serves on its own side  no impartiality

We can all look at the above advert from Delta 45 years later and see it doesn’t really fly (no pun intended) but most of us do not need some sort of state sanctioned manual to ensure we all are indoctrinated to know it is bad form with a law laced on top. Yet this is exactly the type of thing we are seeing day in and day out.

NRA membership searches up 4900%


At the time media outlets went all guns blazing on the National Rifle Association (NRA), CM warned that it most likely would cause a knee jerk reaction in the opposite direction. We speculated that the hike in membership fee likely reflected a surge in members. As tragic as the Parkland shooting massacre was, CM said that ‘shaming’ NRA members en masse would only make them dig in deeper. As it turns out searches for NRA membership has surged 4900% since Feb 14. People are sick and tired of being bullied into feeling guilty about things they haven’t caused.

CM also mentioned that FedEx had the right approach by not giving in to open threats by student David Hogg calling people to boycott brands who supported the NRA. FedEx openly made their position on guns known but said they aren’t in the business of ramming their politics down the throats of others. Allowing individuals to make personal choices is always better than beating them into submission on any issue.

Many other corporates looked utterly hypocritical in cowtowing to this social pressure. The NRA members to date have undoubtedly served corporate interests well for all the right reasons of profitability. Is it any wonder honest members are upset to have sanctimonious corporate apparatchiks give them unsolicited lectures on responsibility?

Moves by sporting goods stores like Dick’s to ban AR sales and raise the age limit to 21yo looked sensible from the outside. However they had multiple massacres over decades to make that call. The current CEO has been in charge since 1984. Why the u-turn in his conscience? Indeed the company did temporarily suspend sales of ARs after Sandy Hook in 2012 but kept retailing them at the company’s Field & Stream outlets before selling them again at Dick’s. If one looks at its website one can still buy a pump-action shotgun. Not very consistent.

Surely  if Dick’s feels so strongly about gun control perhaps it should stop selling them period. 95% of firearm related murders are committed with handguns. Statistically they’d be better off banning sales of pistols.  There are 50,000 (mostly individual) gun stores in the US who will gladly sell ARs to customers. One seriously doubts that Bob’s Guns in West Virginia will cut off his nose to spite his face until the law forces him too!

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, murders in US appear to be very concentrated: 54% of US counties (representing 11% of the population) in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties made up 51% of the murders, ironically in states with the strictest gun controls – Illinois, NY and California.

The failure to communicate is obvious. Progressives believe that pointing fingers will win the day. Shaming, boycotting and vilifying the very people they wish to convince to put in place more common sense gun laws are given no voice. So the deplorables exercise their voice by doing the exact opposite and signing up in droves to protect what they perceive is the open theft of their freedoms.

As mentioned in earlier posts, ignoring the state of kids growing up in broken homes, surging drug abuse and onerous political correctness being driven through the school system by creating a scapegoat in the NRA only reinforces the rift to reaching any workable solution.

So more hearty congratulations to the left. Until they begin to engage in the debate rather than shut it down look forward to yet further failures in pushing their agenda. God gave us two ears and one mouth so we would listen more and talk less. By thinking the gun debate would be a bullseye for control, they’ve inadvertently turned the weapon on themselves.

FedEx gives a lesson in corporate communications over the NRA


CM wrote earlier in the week on the hypocrisy of corporates disassociating themselves from the NRA after the Parkland, Florida school shooting despite having decades of similar incidences to have done it. Yet their conscience never got the better of them because targeting  5,000,000 members was good for business. FedEx on the other hand has made it clear on its position with respect to gun control. Despite that it will continue to provide a service and will not be bullied, coerced or cave into activism to target members who did not commit a crime. Good on FedEx for making it clear where they stand rather than cower to social media pressure.

The adolescent media spokesman of choice, David Hogg, made very clear that he wants to hold a proverbial gun to the head of every corporate to ditch the NRA. FedEx and Amazon were also singled out as targets by the Florida student for continuing to offer discounts to the NRA. He even threatened to cancel his Amazon TV subscription because it broadcast NRATV. It is absolutely his choice to make. By all means Mr Hogg can vote however he chooses with his wallet. He should extend the same courtesy.

No one is questioning or trivializing the trauma of such a tragic event but the constant hunt to ‘shame’ people (who’ve done nothing illegal) always ends up causing those ‘shamed’ to do the opposite of the intended strategy. Many corporates could have followed FedEx’s lead. Shouldn’t it be up to individuals to freely consider whether they want to fly United, rent a Hertz car or send packages via FedEx? It is absolutely their choice to do. Most people are thinking of the function of the service at the time, not conduct pre-flight checks on whether the company has an affiliation with the NRA or any other group disliked by others.

If people are honestly abhorred by any corporate that offers discounts to the NRA then they will naturally adjust consumption patterns. 19 years since Columbine would suggest most corporates didn’t care and saw no appreciable impact to revenues by staying with the NRA. Consumers do not require people bashing them over the head to swallow a message they may already agree with or not. Surely observing the actions of those exercising unbridled volition is a superior barometer of mood over issues rather than force feeding.

Does David Hogg think he will win over NRA members by slapping them on his Twitter feed? Does Hogg seriously believe that slamming the president by branding him a coward and a draft dodger on social media will turn him, especially given his track record? If he wished to gain traction he would go far further asking to meet with Trump in the White House with his school mates and lay out a comprehensive plan to try get some leverage on the NRA. It may be a futile exercise but if he wants to show the moral high ground and win over the masses (the mainstream media would only be too happy to oblige) then acting in a manner which shows that he embodies that spirit will have a far better chance of converting others.

It will be interesting to see whether the NRA sees a surge in membership on the back of being attacked in this way. Earlier this week, a yearly membership was $30, Today it is $40. Could it be the hike is on the back of overwhelming support? Surely a club that is hemorrhaging members would be cutting prices to stay afloat.

The group published a membership recruitment drive which was viewed over 10 million times this week. The idea that all of the members at the NRA are deranged gun-toting lunatics incapable of listening to sensible suggestions is quite an accusation but often made. This was its response to those corporates that dumped it:


(FAIRFAX, VA) – The more than five million law-abiding members of the National Rifle Association have enjoyed discounts and cost-saving programs from many American corporations that have partnered with the NRA to expand member benefits.

Since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida, a number of companies have decided to sever their relationship with the NRA, in an effort to punish our members who are doctors, farmers, law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nurses, shop owners and school teachers that live in every American community. We are men and women who represent every American ethnic group, every one of the world’s religions and every form of political commitment.

The law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school’s security preparedness, the failure of America’s mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement.

Despite that, some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice. In time, these brands will be replaced by others who recognize that patriotism and determined commitment to Constitutional freedoms are characteristics of a marketplace they very much want to serve.

Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.

Having said all of the above, the voting down of a tax break for Delta Airlines by the Senate in the State of  Georgia which openly admitted that it was punishment for cutting sponsorship ties with the NRA was no less juvenile. No doubt many might view this as the NRA cashing in on favours for all those donations. Whether they played a direct hand is not determined. This is the political class trivializing sensitive matters. Cut Delta’s support for the right reasons but not because it made a commercial decision, no matter how daft the reasoning.

While we should be reflecting on the memories of 17 students that died from senseless gun violence and how to ensure it doesn’t happen again, we see that Mr Hogg and others believe that holding a metaphorical gun to peoples’ heads is the way to fix the problem. It is a sad lesson for society today. Sensible debate can’t be had with threats of coercion or aggression. Introducing ‘common sense’ gun laws requires compromise and the freedom to express opinions, no matter how absurd. All this threatening behaviour sends either party to the debate to the opposite side of the room.

Ridding the country of guns and taking homicides to zero would be a Utopian dream. That is a matter for voters to get the law changed. The irony is that tighter gun laws could have been pushed through under the Obama administration, which had majorities in the lower and upper houses. It didn’t. Clearly Democrats didn’t view it as a priority at the time.

N.B. CM is not debating the rights and wrongs of the NRA’s activity or their positions. None-the-less the fact it has 5 million members shows that it has a following and is well organized. Were it a complete crackpot organization then people would be leaving it in droves. Seems like the opposite is occurring. That would probably be a factor for so many corporates signing up in the first place. FedEx hasn’t forgotten that. It is hard not to agree with the way it handled the debate – We dislike your views on guns but we observe the legal rights surrounding them. CM congratulates FedEx for its candor on the matter.