Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

“Once hate speech is recognized in law, government decides what counts as hate. And that definition shifts with whoever holds power. These laws are easily turned against dissenting voices, including women who speak plainly about sex.” Kara Dansky testifies against AB 1803, a CA Legislative Jewish Caucus priority bill...

WomenAreReals's profile picture

WomenAreReal

40,369 subscribers

20,964 views • 8 days ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!
2:16

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Praffulgarg

11,257 views • 6 months ago

A few weeks ago the Irish government informed the EU that they would not go along with demands to force hate speech laws on the people of Ireland. Today, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance has once again urged Ireland to implement hate speech laws. But even regime friendly media is reacting negatively to this news. There will never be hate speech laws in Ireland, it's time for the tyrants at the European Commission to accept that.
0:48

A few weeks ago the Irish government informed the EU that they would not go along with demands to force hate speech laws on the people of Ireland. Today, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance has once again urged Ireland to implement hate speech laws. But even regime friendly media is reacting negatively to this news. There will never be hate speech laws in Ireland, it's time for the tyrants at the European Commission to accept that.

MichaeloKeeffe

166,810 views • 7 months ago

💥Bill Maher SCHOOLS Canadian Comedian Tom Green on why Canada *DOESN'T* have free speech like America🇺🇸 GREEN: "We have freedom of speech … There are hate speech laws in Canada — so there are things you can't say ... Who would want to say that sh*t anyways?" MAHER: "That's not what free speech means … You don’t know what free speech is." "The Supreme Court ruled in our country that the Nazis could march in Skokie, Illinois — which they were marching in because it is a community of a lot of Holocaust survivors ... That is what free speech is about."
2:33

💥Bill Maher SCHOOLS Canadian Comedian Tom Green on why Canada *DOESN'T* have free speech like America🇺🇸 GREEN: "We have freedom of speech … There are hate speech laws in Canada — so there are things you can't say ... Who would want to say that sh*t anyways?" MAHER: "That's not what free speech means … You don’t know what free speech is." "The Supreme Court ruled in our country that the Nazis could march in Skokie, Illinois — which they were marching in because it is a community of a lot of Holocaust survivors ... That is what free speech is about."

Jason Cohen 🇺🇸

1,442,608 views • 8 months ago

ELON: WE NEED TO RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY “The current government [of Germany] is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” Source: AfD Meeting, January 2025
1:01

ELON: WE NEED TO RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY “The current government [of Germany] is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” Source: AfD Meeting, January 2025

Mario Nawfal

83,619 views • 9 months ago

Elon Musk: We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany! “The current government is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” AfD Meeting, January 30, 2025
1:01

Elon Musk: We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany! “The current government is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” AfD Meeting, January 30, 2025

ELON CLIPS

26,485 views • 9 months ago

Christianity is a National Security Threat: "We have a Bible mandate to be a comfort to the Jewish people because they have been through the hell of the Holocaust" "God has never called the Gentile people in the Old Testament his people. These are the Jewish people" "We are doing what we are doing in order to ensure that America continues to survive and thrive because the Bible says, "I will bless those who bless you, Israel. I will curse those who curse you, Israel." "History has shown us that both biblical and otherwise. And whether we like it or not, the modern state of Israel is proof positive that the Bible is true and that God is real." "And that is why we do what we do. If the nation of is Israel ceased to exist, then the Bible is a lie. And so we are not lobbying for a foreign nation. We are exercising what we believe is our biblical mandate to do what we can to bless the nation of Israel and its people"
4:06

Christianity is a National Security Threat: "We have a Bible mandate to be a comfort to the Jewish people because they have been through the hell of the Holocaust" "God has never called the Gentile people in the Old Testament his people. These are the Jewish people" "We are doing what we are doing in order to ensure that America continues to survive and thrive because the Bible says, "I will bless those who bless you, Israel. I will curse those who curse you, Israel." "History has shown us that both biblical and otherwise. And whether we like it or not, the modern state of Israel is proof positive that the Bible is true and that God is real." "And that is why we do what we do. If the nation of is Israel ceased to exist, then the Bible is a lie. And so we are not lobbying for a foreign nation. We are exercising what we believe is our biblical mandate to do what we can to bless the nation of Israel and its people"

Seethroughitall

23,627 views • 4 months ago

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN CANADA A Western government is now openly talking about restricting access to foreign platforms because citizens are speaking in ways the authorities don’t like. When governments decide which opinions are acceptable… when they label dissent as “harm”… when they frame speech itself as a security threat… That is not protection. That is control. The moment a state claims the power to decide what its population is allowed to hear, read, or say — democracy itself is weakened. Citizens raising concerns about immigration, culture, or national identity are not criminals. They are participants in public debate. Free societies do not silence disagreement. They tolerate it — even when it is uncomfortable. Because once censorship begins, it never stays limited to one issue. The real question now is simple: Who decides what is “acceptable speech” — the people, or the government?
0:27

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN CANADA A Western government is now openly talking about restricting access to foreign platforms because citizens are speaking in ways the authorities don’t like. When governments decide which opinions are acceptable… when they label dissent as “harm”… when they frame speech itself as a security threat… That is not protection. That is control. The moment a state claims the power to decide what its population is allowed to hear, read, or say — democracy itself is weakened. Citizens raising concerns about immigration, culture, or national identity are not criminals. They are participants in public debate. Free societies do not silence disagreement. They tolerate it — even when it is uncomfortable. Because once censorship begins, it never stays limited to one issue. The real question now is simple: Who decides what is “acceptable speech” — the people, or the government?

Jim Ferguson

146,996 views • 4 months ago

ELON: SOCIAL MEDIA AND FREE SPEECH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE NAZIS TO HIDE THEIR ACTIONS “One of the first things the Nazis did when they came in, is to shut down all the press and any means of conveying information. If there had been social media, I think it would have been impossible to hide, if there'd been freedom of speech as well. It's worth noting that the First Amendment in the United States was freedom of speech because the people that came to the United States from other countries did not have freedom of speech. If they had said something, they could be imprisoned or killed. That's why the first correction to the Constitution was the ability to say what you want to say and not be thrown in prison or killed.” Source: European Jewish Association, January 2024
0:43

ELON: SOCIAL MEDIA AND FREE SPEECH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE NAZIS TO HIDE THEIR ACTIONS “One of the first things the Nazis did when they came in, is to shut down all the press and any means of conveying information. If there had been social media, I think it would have been impossible to hide, if there'd been freedom of speech as well. It's worth noting that the First Amendment in the United States was freedom of speech because the people that came to the United States from other countries did not have freedom of speech. If they had said something, they could be imprisoned or killed. That's why the first correction to the Constitution was the ability to say what you want to say and not be thrown in prison or killed.” Source: European Jewish Association, January 2024

Mario Nawfal

6,410,940 views • 1 year ago

Justice Antonin Scalia: Flag burning = 'a form of expression' "I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn’t just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. And burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea – “I hate the government,” “the government is unjust,” whatever." “That’s just saying we dislike the government. It’s not urging people to take up arms against the government. That’s something quite different,”
1:24

Justice Antonin Scalia: Flag burning = 'a form of expression' "I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn’t just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. And burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea – “I hate the government,” “the government is unjust,” whatever." “That’s just saying we dislike the government. It’s not urging people to take up arms against the government. That’s something quite different,”

Judge Napolitano

20,879 views • 9 months ago

We will never stop fighting for the injured and oppressed. This is a speech I gave a few years back where I spoke to an amendment to an IR bill that would have prevented people being discriminated against on the basis of their vaccine status. As you can tell I was pretty fired up because I knew we didn’t have the numbers. This amendment would have allowed unvaxxed people in the private sector to go back to work. What was despicable however was that while I was speaking I was being heckled by Greens Senators Larissa Waters and Sarah Hanson-Young. To mock people who have been injured by the vaccine is the lowest of the low and tells you everything you need to know about the Greens party. The motion of course never passed and indeed the debate was gagged by the Greens who have relentlessly mocked the vaccine injured and people who refuse to allow the government to tell them what to do. Unfortunately people are still being discriminated against in the workforce, universities and voluntary organisations because of their COVID vaccine status despite COVID itself becoming a non event. It really does highlight how the government and politicians are drunk with power and need to be reined in. At People First we will never stop fighting to protect the people from Government tyranny. It has to stop.
10:56

We will never stop fighting for the injured and oppressed. This is a speech I gave a few years back where I spoke to an amendment to an IR bill that would have prevented people being discriminated against on the basis of their vaccine status. As you can tell I was pretty fired up because I knew we didn’t have the numbers. This amendment would have allowed unvaxxed people in the private sector to go back to work. What was despicable however was that while I was speaking I was being heckled by Greens Senators Larissa Waters and Sarah Hanson-Young. To mock people who have been injured by the vaccine is the lowest of the low and tells you everything you need to know about the Greens party. The motion of course never passed and indeed the debate was gagged by the Greens who have relentlessly mocked the vaccine injured and people who refuse to allow the government to tell them what to do. Unfortunately people are still being discriminated against in the workforce, universities and voluntary organisations because of their COVID vaccine status despite COVID itself becoming a non event. It really does highlight how the government and politicians are drunk with power and need to be reined in. At People First we will never stop fighting to protect the people from Government tyranny. It has to stop.

Gerard Rennick

36,172 views • 1 year ago

ELON: WE NEED A PUBLIC SQUARE WITH TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH “I just bought Twitter because I thought it was having a negative effect on civilization and pushed ideas that were anti-civilizational. It was captured by the far-left—I'd say it's fair to say the radical left. That meant it wasn't a good forum for debate because they suspended many people on the right, including the president, as you may recall, a sitting president, which is really unprecedented. I think we need to have a public square where there's true freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. If there's not freedom of speech, people cannot make an informed vote. The purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to bring it more to the center. No left-wing voices have been banned or anything like that or suppressed. What we're trying to do is give equal weight to all parts of the country so that there can be a public town square where people can exchange ideas and hopefully not resort to violence. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. It's why it's the First Amendment, because people came from countries where they could be killed or imprisoned for what they said. In fact, this is happening all around the world as we speak, even in places like Britain. I did it because I felt like the civilizational risk had to be addressed. If America is not strong, then what do businesses matter? America is the central pillar that holds up Western civilization, and if that pillar falls, everything falls.” Source: Elon Musk at Barron Investment Conference, November 2025
1:50

ELON: WE NEED A PUBLIC SQUARE WITH TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH “I just bought Twitter because I thought it was having a negative effect on civilization and pushed ideas that were anti-civilizational. It was captured by the far-left—I'd say it's fair to say the radical left. That meant it wasn't a good forum for debate because they suspended many people on the right, including the president, as you may recall, a sitting president, which is really unprecedented. I think we need to have a public square where there's true freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. If there's not freedom of speech, people cannot make an informed vote. The purpose of acquiring Twitter was to try to bring it more to the center. No left-wing voices have been banned or anything like that or suppressed. What we're trying to do is give equal weight to all parts of the country so that there can be a public town square where people can exchange ideas and hopefully not resort to violence. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. It's why it's the First Amendment, because people came from countries where they could be killed or imprisoned for what they said. In fact, this is happening all around the world as we speak, even in places like Britain. I did it because I felt like the civilizational risk had to be addressed. If America is not strong, then what do businesses matter? America is the central pillar that holds up Western civilization, and if that pillar falls, everything falls.” Source: Elon Musk at Barron Investment Conference, November 2025

Mario Nawfal

53,878 views • 4 months ago

ELON MUSK: "I would prefer not to be in politics. I stepped into the arena because I think the stakes are extremely fundamental. I fear if Trump does not win, we are going to have a single-party state that is going to be worse than California. The one thing that keeps California from going even further is that people can move out of California and still be in America. But if you've got no place to move, then it's going to be much worse than California, and that's the danger that we face. An oppressive totalitarian state that has extreme restrictions on freedom of speech that continues extreme over-regulation that makes government even bigger than it is today and takes away the liberty of the people. It's not something I wanted to do, but I thought it was critical to do it, or America is not going to be America." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
1:27

ELON MUSK: "I would prefer not to be in politics. I stepped into the arena because I think the stakes are extremely fundamental. I fear if Trump does not win, we are going to have a single-party state that is going to be worse than California. The one thing that keeps California from going even further is that people can move out of California and still be in America. But if you've got no place to move, then it's going to be much worse than California, and that's the danger that we face. An oppressive totalitarian state that has extreme restrictions on freedom of speech that continues extreme over-regulation that makes government even bigger than it is today and takes away the liberty of the people. It's not something I wanted to do, but I thought it was critical to do it, or America is not going to be America." 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

KanekoaTheGreat

25,732,148 views • 1 year ago

Kamala Harris: We cannot despair. We cannot despair. The nature of a democracy is such that I think there's a duality. On the one hand, there's an incredible strength when our democracy is intact. An incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people. Oh, there's great strength in that. And it is very fragile. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And so that's the moment we're in. And I say do not despair because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it, in our democracy the people, every individual has the power to make a decision about what this will be. And so let's not feel powerless. Because then we have been defeated. And that's not our character as the American people. We are not one to be defeated. We rise to a moment and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country. And in many ways let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it. The baton is now in our hands, to fight for, not against, but for this country we love.
2:12

Kamala Harris: We cannot despair. We cannot despair. The nature of a democracy is such that I think there's a duality. On the one hand, there's an incredible strength when our democracy is intact. An incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people. Oh, there's great strength in that. And it is very fragile. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And so that's the moment we're in. And I say do not despair because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it, in our democracy the people, every individual has the power to make a decision about what this will be. And so let's not feel powerless. Because then we have been defeated. And that's not our character as the American people. We are not one to be defeated. We rise to a moment and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country. And in many ways let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it. The baton is now in our hands, to fight for, not against, but for this country we love.

Acyn

343,172 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk: It's not up to 𝕏 to push for free speech in countries that don't have free speech laws. It's up to the people in these countries. “Our policy at this point is to follow the law. Now, the laws are obviously different in different countries. So, sometimes I get criticized for, why don't I push free speech in XYZ country that doesn't have free speech laws? I'm like, because that's not the law there. And if we don't obey the law, we'll simply be blocked in that country. So, the policy is really just to adhere to the laws in any given country. It is not up to us to agree or disagree with those laws. And if the people of that country want laws to be different, then they should, you know, ask their leaders to change the laws.” From: All-In Podcast, October 31, 2025
0:35

Elon Musk: It's not up to 𝕏 to push for free speech in countries that don't have free speech laws. It's up to the people in these countries. “Our policy at this point is to follow the law. Now, the laws are obviously different in different countries. So, sometimes I get criticized for, why don't I push free speech in XYZ country that doesn't have free speech laws? I'm like, because that's not the law there. And if we don't obey the law, we'll simply be blocked in that country. So, the policy is really just to adhere to the laws in any given country. It is not up to us to agree or disagree with those laws. And if the people of that country want laws to be different, then they should, you know, ask their leaders to change the laws.” From: All-In Podcast, October 31, 2025

ELON CLIPS

40,880 views • 6 months ago

Let’s just get this straight. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Antisemitism is not just racism or hatred. It’s a shape-shifting conspiracy theory. And every few generations it changes into something different. Now people are literally saying, oh, we’ll just get rid of Israel and everything will be fine. It shifts into something different, in which takes everything bad that was said about the Jews, everything that you attributed to the Jews as the worst thing in history, instead of on the Jews, onto Israel. And they attribute the same bloodthirstiness, the same untrustworthiness, the same desire to control and power. Literally take the word Jew and swap it with IDF. They’re standing on the footsteps of colleges in America and they are rehashing. They think they have this new, they found this new cause and unbeknown to them, first of all, they’re rehashing antisemitic tropes from like the 1500s, right? And that obsession that they aren’t even aware of is what allowed for October 7th and October 8th to happen. And that is something that we need to be very careful about, because they’re after taking Israel down. And that would be if they will succeed, and they won’t. But they’re after that. And that is the possible new Holocaust. That would be the calamity of the Jewish people of our generation. And it’s masked as this like, I’m not antisemitic, I’m just an anti-Zionist. No. Antisemitism in a new face. We have to be very careful of it.
2:05

Let’s just get this straight. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Antisemitism is not just racism or hatred. It’s a shape-shifting conspiracy theory. And every few generations it changes into something different. Now people are literally saying, oh, we’ll just get rid of Israel and everything will be fine. It shifts into something different, in which takes everything bad that was said about the Jews, everything that you attributed to the Jews as the worst thing in history, instead of on the Jews, onto Israel. And they attribute the same bloodthirstiness, the same untrustworthiness, the same desire to control and power. Literally take the word Jew and swap it with IDF. They’re standing on the footsteps of colleges in America and they are rehashing. They think they have this new, they found this new cause and unbeknown to them, first of all, they’re rehashing antisemitic tropes from like the 1500s, right? And that obsession that they aren’t even aware of is what allowed for October 7th and October 8th to happen. And that is something that we need to be very careful about, because they’re after taking Israel down. And that would be if they will succeed, and they won’t. But they’re after that. And that is the possible new Holocaust. That would be the calamity of the Jewish people of our generation. And it’s masked as this like, I’m not antisemitic, I’m just an anti-Zionist. No. Antisemitism in a new face. We have to be very careful of it.

Noa Tishby

309,471 views • 1 year ago

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol
2:19

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

177,742 views • 1 year ago

California women are being trained to be quiet. Yesterday, Kara Dansky testified against AB 1803, a bill that would mandate so-called “anti-hate speech” training in California workplaces. And sitting on the committee was Senator John Laird, the man who authored the 2005 bill that stripped California women of female-only public bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. When women object to these trainings, we are not talking about “sexual transmission,” as Laird bizarrely suggested. (And we all know anyone making a Nazi salute will not swayed by an HR training.) We are talking about women being scared out of reporting a man in the bathroom, locker room, or changing room at work. California’s sexual harassment trainings already push this message. (see evidence in thread). AB 1803 will only make it worse.
1:03

California women are being trained to be quiet. Yesterday, Kara Dansky testified against AB 1803, a bill that would mandate so-called “anti-hate speech” training in California workplaces. And sitting on the committee was Senator John Laird, the man who authored the 2005 bill that stripped California women of female-only public bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. When women object to these trainings, we are not talking about “sexual transmission,” as Laird bizarrely suggested. (And we all know anyone making a Nazi salute will not swayed by an HR training.) We are talking about women being scared out of reporting a man in the bathroom, locker room, or changing room at work. California’s sexual harassment trainings already push this message. (see evidence in thread). AB 1803 will only make it worse.

WomenAreReal

14,292 views • 8 days ago

"I will not comply with any legislation that seeks to control or compel my speech, and there is no law or government on earth that can change that." From my speech at the weekend about the threat to civil rights in the West, and Ireland's upcoming "hate speech" legislation.
4:27

"I will not comply with any legislation that seeks to control or compel my speech, and there is no law or government on earth that can change that." From my speech at the weekend about the threat to civil rights in the West, and Ireland's upcoming "hate speech" legislation.

Ben Scallan 🇮🇪

145,383 views • 2 years ago

Laura Kuenssberg, "Do you agree with Prime Minister that chanting globalise the intifada is racist?" Zack Polanski, "No, I don't think that is correct" "It's important we have freedom of speech and freedom of protest" "We've seen a genocide going on for years in Israel now, in which our Labour government is not just complicit but actually selling arms and intelligence" "I don't believe policing people's language is going to make Jewish safety any better in this country" Laura Kuenssberg, "But that phrase is considered by many Jews and non-Jews to inciting violence, as we were discussing with Labour's Heidi Alexander" Zack Polanski, "First, the occupation is still ongoing, these are people talking about ending the occupation" "Second, there are already laws for hate crimes against antisemitism. When people are committing a hate crime, they should be arrested for that" "I don't think we need to create new laws" "I think we should have freedom to protest in the appropriate way, that is a cornerstone of our democracy" "And that when people are protesting they make sure they are not antisemitic, and that they are very clear that they are protesting the actions of the Israeli government" Laura Kuenssberg, "Zohran Mamdani said he would discourage the use of that phrase, would you?" Zack Polanski, "It's not a phrase that I would use personally, because you can make your point a lot more effectively in other ways" "But the point is that if people are traumatised and they're really passionate about the injustices they're seeing, I don't think the conversation should be about the language people are using" "It should be about the people who are dying" Laura Kuenssberg, "Words matter" Zack Polanski, "Words matter, but the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been murdered, the people in Lebanon who has been killed, these people matter too" "And if people want to protest that, it's important we defend their right to protest" "I'm not interested in policing people's language"
2:51

Laura Kuenssberg, "Do you agree with Prime Minister that chanting globalise the intifada is racist?" Zack Polanski, "No, I don't think that is correct" "It's important we have freedom of speech and freedom of protest" "We've seen a genocide going on for years in Israel now, in which our Labour government is not just complicit but actually selling arms and intelligence" "I don't believe policing people's language is going to make Jewish safety any better in this country" Laura Kuenssberg, "But that phrase is considered by many Jews and non-Jews to inciting violence, as we were discussing with Labour's Heidi Alexander" Zack Polanski, "First, the occupation is still ongoing, these are people talking about ending the occupation" "Second, there are already laws for hate crimes against antisemitism. When people are committing a hate crime, they should be arrested for that" "I don't think we need to create new laws" "I think we should have freedom to protest in the appropriate way, that is a cornerstone of our democracy" "And that when people are protesting they make sure they are not antisemitic, and that they are very clear that they are protesting the actions of the Israeli government" Laura Kuenssberg, "Zohran Mamdani said he would discourage the use of that phrase, would you?" Zack Polanski, "It's not a phrase that I would use personally, because you can make your point a lot more effectively in other ways" "But the point is that if people are traumatised and they're really passionate about the injustices they're seeing, I don't think the conversation should be about the language people are using" "It should be about the people who are dying" Laura Kuenssberg, "Words matter" Zack Polanski, "Words matter, but the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been murdered, the people in Lebanon who has been killed, these people matter too" "And if people want to protest that, it's important we defend their right to protest" "I'm not interested in policing people's language"

Farrukh

178,760 views • 1 month ago