We are housing a male sex offender who was deemed a Dangerous Offender in a prison with women. And, worse, on a floor that has a mother-baby program. He was imprisoned for raping a 3 month old baby boy who needed reparative surgery. We lie to children and youth telling they can change sex, which they cannot. We tell those same kids that anyone who doesn't play along with their dissociative state, that that person hates them and wants them dead. Then wonder why they act out violently, muderously? No duh, fools. Then we prevent clinicians from providing meaningful exploration due to poorly worded federal legislation. Now, a retiree is facing an impossible fine for speaking up. Beware! Your views, too, may one day fall outside the main. No room for dissent in Canada. And, where are our politicians? Crickets. Here, have a date with an alleged self-confessed murderer and convicted baby rapist: #BeKind

The same happened again with @Glinner . He was targeted with such ferocity that it silenced all the other comedy writers across the globe. By the time the public tried to catch up the story became “what happened to Graham?” Just like the story became “what happened to jk?”

And me in dance/ the arts.

Thank you to everyone who reposted and amplified my request. I have been given some good ideas on how to escalate. I would still love any advice from any lawyers or anyone who is familiar with the legal requirements. I hate that this isn’t automatically respected in Ontario.

Tommy Robinson has just walked out of court with a victory that is already being called one of the most explosive free-speech moments in Britain. The terrorism-related case against him — linked to his refusal to hand over his phone PIN to UK police — was thrown out after the judge ruled the stop unlawful and reportedly said Robinson had been targeted because of his political views. This was not just about a phone. This was about power, politics, journalism, and whether the state can treat someone like a national security threat simply because it dislikes what they say. Robinson says he refused to unlock his phone to protect journalistic sources. The state treated it as a terrorism matter. The court, according to Robinson’s reaction, saw something far more disturbing: political targeting. Then came the detail that made the story explode worldwide: **Elon Musk reportedly helped finance Robinson’s legal defense**, stepping in where others stayed silent and turning the case into a global battle over free expression. Robinson thanked Musk publicly, asking why it had taken an American businessman to fight for justice in Britain. “First of all, thank you, Elon Musk,” Robinson said, before adding that he was targeted because of his political beliefs and that counterterrorism police were allegedly used to get access to his phone as a journalist. For supporters, this ruling is a brutal warning to the establishment: if terrorism powers can be used against controversial speech today, who will be next tomorrow? Critics will still call Robinson divisive, but this case has forced a bigger question onto the table — do rights only apply to people the government likes?

“She pretends to be a daring truth teller but never mentions her most obvious problem: food” - Camille Paglia on Andrea Dworkin

They’ll just go to some other site, or figure out a workaround. If the government wants to ban something for kids, they should start with the hell that is online porn.

I am proud to be teaming up with Karen Bass' brother in suing his sister for her reckless negligence that led to the destruction of our homes. I hope their Thanksgiving dinner isn't too awks. I know ours hasn't been the same since last year...

Meanwhile in Tobleronistan

Is this you in this photo, doctor?

Is there an Ontario Lawyer, or someone who can refer her to one, that can help Liz with this important issue?

In @MarkJCarney's Canada, a 15 year old is welcome to inject fentanyl in a taxpayer funded facility, but can't have a Facebook account. More evidence that Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder.

See our full conversation about comedy, cancel culture, and why a world that can’t take a joke usually can’t take criticism either. youtube.com/watch?v=lfDBTpAz…

Everyone has a right to pretend to be something they are not. It does not impose a duty on any other person to pretend with them. Elliott Page changed her name and is dosing herself with steroids but remains the woman today that she was before she began harming her endocrine system with wrong sex hormones and no one has to pretend to believe otherwise.

Here is @burnyourbinder respectfully explaining how children are being harmed by #GenderIdeology. Very well done! ✔️ Bicycle woman seems like she wants to be a very nice person yet her cultish mindset is way too programmed at this stage. There’s a real chance, though, that she will walk away from this authentic encounter and start a journey towards questioning the dogma. A MYSTERY: 👉🏼How is it possible that Western society pivoted towards medical child abuse all at once but the way back takes immense effort and has to happen one conversation at a time? The delusion has been so strong. It’s fascinating in a horrifying way. 😵‍💫 x.com/Sidewalk_Steve/status/…

Reminder: it's ok to be exclusively same-sex oriented. Gender non-conformity does NOT equate to trans-identity. We don't hate people who identify as trans but we stand firm that trans-identity doesn't override our sexualities. Sexuality is based on sex, not gender.

Not a member yet? Join FIRE today to get access to members-only conversations like this and help fuel the fight for free expression. fire.org/donate/membership

Free speech isn’t a spectator sport. @theFIREorg members can join our monthly member call on June 18 at noon ET, hosted by @NicoPerrino and featuring legal pros including my friend and co-author Nadine Strossen. All members can email events@fire.org for the link!

And who exactly conducted this peer review of clinical standards that contains an entire chapter on Eunuch as a valid gender identity requiring eunuch-affirming castration? What team of neutral trustworthy experts peer-reviewed the non-binary chapter that says people should have the right to customize their bodies in whatever way they choose — such as nullification surgeries so the body has no external sex characteristics or bigenital surgeries if a person wants both sets of genitals? And who peer-reviewed the hasty post-publication removal of almost all the lower age limits from the adolescent chapter because Admiral Rachel Levine demanded it purely for political purposes? The very idea that WPATH's SOC8 is peer-reviewed is absolutely hilarious. Of course the truth is, when the guidelines in this field were actually examined in a peer-reviewed systematic review as part of the Cass Report, the conclusion was that WPATH and the Endocrine Society had engaged in a process of circular citations to manufacture the illusion of consensus when their recommendations are built upon nothing but ideology and the flimsiest of evidence. This led Cass to conclude that WPATH's standards, and all built upon them, "lack developmental rigour." These fanatics are fully deserving of all the language I used in the podcast. And much much worse.

I've said this before, but Mark Carney is a pitch-perfect Third World political leader. Randomly parachuting into the top job in his home country despite no prior political experience. Spending disproportionate amounts of time in Europe. Grand, unrealistic schemes with no chance of success.

I apparently understated the power of the Commission. The new privacy bill strips the Privacy Commissioner of Canada of private-sector authority, transferring it to a newly constituted Commissioner who is a government appointed member of the Commission, now called the Digital Safety and Data Protection Commission with a new Privacy and Consumer Data Commissioner. Full digital regulator in Canada.