Trudeau set to sign New Zealand PM’s pledge to tackle violent, extremist online content

 Salimah Shivji 

“In a press release announcing the Paris visit last week, Trudeau voiced his fear that social media platforms increasingly are being weaponized “as tools to incite, publish and broadcast extremist violence and hatred.”

Meantime, Trudeau uses the gov’t funded ( taxpayers) CBC ( liberal mouthpiece) and other Canadian MSM, ” as tools to incite, publish and broadcast propaganda, “liberalism”, division , hatred and identity politics. Make no mistake..the left are the instigators, masters at spin and deflection, though with very recent events, SNC-Lavalin and the Norman case, the curtain has been pulled back to expose the Liberals for what they truly are.

Let us not forget, Katie Telford’s( Trudeau’s chief of staff) words about using the MSM to prop up government course of action concerning the DPA for SNC-Lavalin.
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”

This gov’t hypocrisy and virtue signalling is beyond the pale. And I didn’t even touch on the “crickets” concerning the Sri Lankan massacre by Islamists or the ongoing genocide against Christians to which the globalist Trudeau et al ignore. Where are the meetings of all the globalist elites for those victims and people groups, to expose and combat Islam?

All the hand wringing and strong solidarity is for the Muslims and will be used to further silence any criticism of Islam and to give further licence to shut down speech on social media.

a man standing in front of a crowd: People comfort each other before the Friday prayers at Hagley Park outside Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand March 22, 2019.

© Edgar Su/Reuters People comfort each other before the Friday prayers at Hagley Park outside Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand March 22, 2019.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to sign a international pledge in Paris Wednesday aimed at getting governments and social media companies working together to curb the spread of violent and extremist content online.

Trudeau is attending the Christchurch Call meeting in Paris tomorrow. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who is co-chairing the meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, is expected to cite the massacre of 51 Muslim worshippers in two New Zealand mosques in March as she pushes for a sweeping agreement to combat terrorist content disseminated on social media.

In a press release announcing the Paris visit last week, Trudeau voiced his fear that social media platforms increasingly are being weaponized “as tools to incite, publish and broadcast extremist violence and hatred.”

He called for “a coordinated global response” to tackle the problem. And while the details of the non-binding pledge up for approval in Paris tomorrow are sketchy at this point, the New York Times reports it will call on social media firms to examine software that directs users to violent content and ask them to share more data with government authorities to find and eliminate violent, extremist material.

a man and a woman standing in front of a building: Frank Augstein/AP Photo

© Provided by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Frank Augstein/AP Photo

The summit came together in the wake of gun attacks on two Christchurch mosques in March that left 51 dead. Video of the attacks was live-streamed for nearly 17 minutes on social media and was subsequently uploaded thousands of times, as social media companies struggled to remove it.

The leaders of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, Indonesia and Senegal, and the president of the European Commission, will also be in Paris, along with high-level officials from Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft. All are expected to endorse the agreement.

The United States, which has been reluctant to regulate the internet due to concerns about limiting freedom of speech, was not invited to attend the Christchurch Call summit and is not expected to sign the pledge.

No right to ‘broadcast mass murder’

Ardern has long insisted her push to control the amplification of hate online is not about curbing freedom of expression.

“That right does not include the freedom to broadcast mass murder,” she wrote in a recent column.

“This is not about undermining or limiting freedom of speech. It is about these companies and how they operate.”

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May is expected to use her time in Paris to call on governments and social media companies to work together in blocking hateful content.

“The internet is global and online threats have no borders. Companies should be held to consistent international standards, so their customers enjoy the same level of protection wherever they live,” May said in a statement.

Trudeau spoke by phone with Microsoft president Brad Smith Monday night ahead of the Paris meeting. According to an account released by the Prime Minister’s Office, he spoke about how governments could work with social media platforms to “stop the internet being used as a tool to organize and promote terrorism and violent extremism.”

Zuckerberg a no-show

In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Saturday, Ardern called for a “voluntary framework that commits signatories to counter the drivers of terrorism and put in place specific measures to prevent the uploading of terrorist content.”

The word “voluntary” is key; the pledge is not expected to include enforcement measures, leaving it up to nations and the social media companies themselves to find ways to restrict the spread of terrorist content online.

While the largest tech companies will be at the table, some of those responsible for running anonymous internet forums known for extreme content — such as 8 Chan and 4 Chan — are not taking part in the summit.

Neither is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The social media giant is instead sending Nick Clegg, its vice-president for global affairs and a former deputy prime minister of the U.K.

As part of his visit to Paris, Trudeau also will speak about promoting trust in the online world at VivaTech, an annual technology conference focused on start-ups and innovation.

Students now run Harvard

Ronald S Sullivan Jr, an esteemed dean, has been sacked at the behest of a student mob.

14th May 2019

Students now run Harvard

Professor Ronald S Sullivan Jr has become the newest member of a select but growing group: academics disappeared from universities at the behest of students. Sullivan is director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute and he and his wife were the first African-Americans to become Harvard faculty deans – a position they held until being unceremoniously discharged from their posts last week by the dean of Harvard, Rakesh Khurana. Unusually, Sullivan’s ‘trauma-inducing’ sins against the sensibilities of undergraduates did not occur in the lecture theatre or indeed anywhere on campus. He neither misgendered students nor told them to sort out their own choice of Halloween costume. No, his crime has simply been to do his job.

Sullivan practices law; the knowledge and experience he gains from being at the forefront of his profession is passed on to students fortunate enough to be studying at Harvard’s elite law school. Over the course of an impressive career, he has advised Barack Obama, represented the family of Michael Brown in their suit against the city of Ferguson, Missouri, and overturned more than 6,000 wrongful convictions. Only it is the very business of the law, the need to defend people accused of crimes, the need to assume defendants are innocent until proven guilty, that has proved too much for students to stomach.

Earlier this year, it was announced that Sullivan would be joining the legal team defending disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein has been indicted on charges of rape and a criminal sexual act. Although, as the world now knows, he is also charged with numerous other allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The public denunciation of Weinstein ignited the #MeToomovement. For some of Harvard’s students – and staff – Sullivan’s decision to act in defence of Weinstein is not a legal duty and a professional responsibility, but a moral outrage that needs to be stopped. They have started petitions, held demonstrations and conducted rallies calling for his dismissal.

Danukshi Mudannayake, the student who has led the campaigning, argues that Sullivan’s decision to represent Weinstein is ‘not only upsetting, but deeply trauma-inducing’, and it shows he ‘does not value the safety of the students he lives with’. (Sullivan and his wife were faculty deans of Winthrop, a residential house for undergraduates.) Just before Sullivan was dumped as faculty dean, Mudannayake explained: ‘[H]e cannot simultaneously hold that role while still having a charade of saying that he can actually protect the integrity of his students.’ Kacey E Gill, president of the Association of Black Harvard Women, said she was relieved and happy to hear of Sullivan’s departure, but added ‘I wish that it hadn’t taken so long’ or that it ‘required so many students to put their mental health, wellbeing, and potentially even their futures on the line in order to get that change to occur’.

Students have come to accept a ludicrously wide definition of trauma. There is not the slightest suggestion that Sullivan poses any danger either to the students he comes into contact with or anyone else. Sullivan does not stand accused of rape or sexual assault. The threat students think he poses is not physical, but mental. Students have come to believe that ‘trauma’ occurs not as a result of something catastrophic happening to them, nor even from having hateful words directed at them, but from the mere presence of another person in their vicinity. Even this understates their bizarrely elastic understanding of trauma. Harvard is not offering a refuge to Weinstein, the rapacious folk monster of our times, but employing, in a professional capacity, his lawyer. Yet Sullivan’s presence is considered by the students to be sufficient to create a ‘toxic climate’.

All of this begs the question: where are the adults? These students need to be told to calm down and that their fear of trauma is groundless. Of course, this has not happened. Instead, we have the spectacle of dean Khurana acquiescing to student demands and firing faculty on the basis that the environment had become ‘untenable’. The message to students is that their feelings of trauma are legitimate and must be acted upon.

It seems that a group of activist students are now in charge at Harvard and the magic word ‘trauma’ will ensure all their demands are met. This is disastrous not just for faculty and for other students, but for the future of the university as an institution. It has been accepted that the purpose of higher education today is emotional safety rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

But acquiescing to students campaigning against Sullivan has consequences beyond the university. It also calls into question our understanding of fundamental principles of justice, most especially the idea that those accused are innocent until proven guilty and so, in order for justice to be best served, require a rigorous defence. Students crying trauma at Sullivan first assume Weinstein’s guilt, then mistake a defence of Weinstein for a defence of his alleged crimes. They assume defending an alleged rapist is a defence of rape. Again, where are the adults to tell them they are wrong?

It is in the interests of everyone to have justice done, and that means a trial with a proper legal defence. Harvard’s decision comes just a day after Sullivan announced that he would be leaving Weinstein’s defence team. Yet the better the defence, the more secure a conviction. If due process cannot take place, then we risk criminals going unpunished and the innocent being incarcerated. Cries of trauma must not be allowed to undermine the legal system.

Richmond Hill dad, son arrested over explosive device, materials

Brad Hunter

Published:May 14, 2019

Hazardous and explosive materials and a detonator to be used for what sort of father and son activity? Nothing to see here.

York Regional Police cruiser.

A Richmond Hill father and son have been arrested after cops allegedly confiscated hazardous, explosive materials, along with an explosive device from a local residence.

Last Thursday, York Regional Police began an investigation after receiving information regarding a suspect who was being investigated by United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

Detectives executed a search warrant Friday at a residence on Larratt Lane and located a quantity of hazardous, explosive materials as well as a detonator device.

Ontario Provincial Police and the YRP Explosives Detection Unit officers attended the residence to ensure the safe removal of the materials.

The hazardous materials have been removed and neighbours were temporarily evacuated as a precaution.

Charged with possession of an explosive device are Mayhar Mohammadiasl, 18, and Reza Mohammadiasl, 47.

According to Global News, so far the feds have not been called in. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the investigation is not related to national security.

Members of the public are asked to report any suspicious activity, chemical odours, unusual storage or stockpiling of chemicals and take the following precautions when they come across suspicious materials. Police advise the public to never drink, eat, touch or inhale materials that are believed to be hazardous chemicals. Even slightly inhaling a chemical can cause serious injury.

Investigators are asking anyone who knows the accused or who has any information to call 1-866-876-5423, ext. 6075 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS.

The Canadian Government Is Now a Dangerous Big Brother

Arwen~ Dr. Jordan Peterson was raising the alarm about passing Justin Trudeau’s Liberal gov’t, BillC-16 and where that dangerous legislation would lead. It led to compelled speech, and punishment for not addressing someone as they dictate. BillC-16 passed on May 17, 2016, received royal assent on June 19, 2017, which then became fully enforceable.

This case is proof positive of the veracity of Dr. Peterson’s warnings. The Liberals have a majority gov’ on sheer numbers alone, they can pass bills. What was incredibly frustrating to many Conservatives, myself included, was that many Conservative MP’s supported this legislation..either because of fear of reprisal and being labeled or they had no clue of the ramifications of such a bill…neither reason is acceptable.

And every time Conservatives cave to political correctness…they become increasingly more irrelevant. A standard has to be raised against political correctness, and it takes a stiffened spine to do so.. for those political leaders who dare push back against PC, there will be a ground- swell of support.

Posted May 03, 2019 by Michael L. Brown

This important story has been out for some days now, but I waited before writing. Why? It’s because I did not want to write yet another article on transanity. Another article on extreme transgender activism. Another article on the world being turned upside down.

But this is too urgent. Too disturbing.

In a totalitarian regime, it’s a parents’ worst nightmare.

I’m talking about government intervention. About hostile, outside forces coming right into your home and usurping your authority. About the courts forbidding you from parenting your child. And, worse still, threatening to punish you if you dare try.

Allow me to jar you with a totally accurate, non-exaggerated headline: “Orwellian Attack on Parental Rights: Court Warns Father He’ll Be Arrested if He Calls His Daughter a Girl.”

Had I made this story up, you would not believe it.

Had I predicted it 10 (or even 5) years ago, you would have told me I was crazy.

But the story is true, straight from our northern neighbor, Canada, a country that is becoming more Orwellian by the day. (That is, if you’re an outspoken conservative Christian.)

As reported by Tyler O’Neil on PJ Media, “Last month, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an order that a father (referred to by the pseudonym ‘Clark’) may not refer to his 14-year-old daughter (pseudonym ‘Maxine’) as a girl or by her original name, whether in public or in private. Doing so has been ruled to constitute ‘family violence’ because Maxine identifies as a boy. According to a separate protection order, police may immediately arrest Clark if they suspect he violated this Orwellian order.”

Specifically, the court ordered that Clark “shall be restrained from: attempting to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing [Maxine] by his birth name; and referring to [Maxine] as a girl or with female pronouns whether to [Maxine] directly or to third parties.” (This court order “will last for one year.”)

Not only so, but the court order “prohibits Clark from ‘directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to [Maxine]’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies,’ besides the Court, legal counsel, medical professionals, or any person authorized by Maxine or the Court.”

O’Neil shares further details in his article, but you’ve already read more than enough, especially if you’re a parent.

But if you are a parent, can you imagine this happening to you? Can you imagine being told – as a parent, by the court – that you cannot call your 14-year-old daughter by her birth name, even in the sanctuary of your own home? That you cannot refer to her as a girl, in public or in private?

Regardless of what you think about trans-identified children, who gave the courts this kind of power? Since when did they have the authority to tell a parent what words he or she could say in their own homes? If this is not overreach, what is?

And should this concerned father dare to challenge the court’s order, he can be arrested on the spot.

I doubt that Orwell himself could have imagine a scenario like this. Arrested for calling your daughter by her name. Arrested for referring to your daughter as a girl. What kind of madness is this?

Since when did the courts have the right to tell parents how to raise their own teenagers? Since when did the courts – not the parents – know best?

It would be one thing if a child was being starved or abused.

It is another thing when parents do not affirm a child’s gender-identity. Another thing when they do affirm biological realities. Another thing when they believe they know what’s best for their child. It is, after all, their child.

Again, regardless of your view of transgender issues, do the courts dictate the speech of racist parents whose teen child is dating someone from another race? Or, if the teen child of atheists becomes a devout Christian, can the court order the parents to cease mocking that child’s faith? Or conversely, can the court order Christian parents not to warn their atheist teenager about hell?

Put another way, if a father referring to his male-identifying daughter as a girl is “family violence,” why aren’t these other examples instances of family violence?

And in the case of Maxine, what empirical, scientific evidence tells us she is not Maxine? There’s a growing number of terribly disturbing stories about teens who have been deeply confused about their gender identity, only to make tragic, irreversible personal choices.

Now, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has forbidden a concerned parent from helping his daughter through the most difficult period of her life. The justices are forbidding him, under penalty of arrest, from potentially saving her from a lifetime of regret.

This is absolutely chilling, and it really is a parents’ worst nightmare under a totalitarian regime. (The other, related nightmare is for the courts to take the children out of the parents’ home entirely. That, too, is already happening with trans-identified children, even here in the United States.)

Big Brother is flexing his muscles, and no one is standing in his way.

America, are you watching? Parents, are you listening?

As Orwell’s 1984 Turns 70 It Predicted Much Of Today’s Surveillance Society

Arwen~ Nailed it!

Kalev Leetaru Contributor
May 6, 2019,

George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) GETTY

George Orwell’s famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four turns 70 years old next month. Looking back on its predictions and the state of the world today, how much did it get right in its predictions of a dystopian surveillance state where every word is monitored, unacceptable speech is deleted, history is rewritten or deleted altogether and individuals can become “unpersons” for holding views disliked by those in power? It turns out Orwell’s predictions were frighteningly accurate.

In 1984, it was the state that determined what constituted acceptable speech in keeping society orderly.

In 2019, it is a small cadre of private companies in Silicon Valley and their executives that wield absolute power over what we are permitted to see and say online.

In 1984, there were just a few countries to which most of the world’s citizens belonged.

In 2019, there are just a few social media empires to which most of the world’s netizens belong.

In 1984, it was the state that conducted surveillance and censored speech.

In 2019, social media companies deploy vast armies of human and algorithmic moderators that surveil their users 24/7, flagging those that commit thoughtcrimes and deleting their violations from existence. Those that commit too many thoughtcrimes are banished to “unperson” status by these same private companies, without any intervention or even in contradiction with the will of the state and without any right to appeal.

In 1984, those who committed particularly egregious thoughtcrimes or had histories of them were banished into nonexistence, all traces of them deleted.

In 2019, social media companies can ban anyone at any time for any reason. Those banished from social’s walled gardens can have every post they’ve ever written wiped away, every record of their existence banished into the memory hole. Those that dare to mention the name of the digitally departed or criticize their banishment can themselves face being banished and their concerns deleted, ensuring the “unperson” truly ceases to exist.

In 1984, the government constantly rewrites and deletes history that has become inconvenient.

In 2019, governments quietly rewrite press releases to remove past statements that proved wrong or to add statements to support their present assertions. Meanwhile the European Union’s “Right to be Forgotten” grants ordinary citizens the ability to wipe clean society’s memories of their past, allowing them to be “reborn” without the burden of their past transgressions.

In 1984, ever-present “telescreens” act as both information conveyor and surveillance device and saturate both public and private spaces with cameras and microphones monitored by the government.

In 2019, smartphones take on this roll, acting as both our window to the digital world and the means through which myriad private companies from data brokers to social media companies themselves surveil our every action. Yet, our world goes far beyond the one imagined by Orwell in which every device from our watches to our refrigerators, our thermostats to our toasters, are increasingly Internet-connected and streaming a realtime documentary of our lives back to these private surveillance empires.

In 1984, it was the state that made use of its vast surveillance empire to maintain order.

In 2019, a landscape of private companies so large it is almost uncountable, monitors, monetizes and manipulates us.

In 1984, the government uses its surveillance state to nudge each member of its citizenry towards a desired state.

In 2019, private companies do the same, building up vast behavioral and interest profiles on each individual user that they then use to nudge them towards the most monetizable behaviors.

In 1984, the government funded the vast empire of equipment and personnel needed to maintain constant surveillance of its citizens.

In 2019, the public themselves fund the great surveillance empire that monitors, monetizes and manipulates them. Citizens purchase the latest digital devices, upgrade and maintain them at regular intervals, pay for the power and internet services needed to connect them and grant unlimited rights to their most intimate information to private companies.

In 1984, the ultimate goal of the massive surveillance empire is to sustain and entrench the power of the state.

In 2019, the ultimate goal of the online world’s massive surveillance empire is to sustain and entrench the power of social media companies.

Indeed, the similarities are nearly as endless as the words of the book.

Putting this all together, 70 years after 1984’s publication, it seems nearly every aspect of Orwell’s commentary on the surveillance state has come true. The only difference is that Orwell saw surveillance and control as the domain of the state, whereas in reality the surveillance world we have come to know is one of private companies monitoring, monetizing and manipulating society for nothing more than commercial gain.

In the end, as we rush towards an ever more Orwellian world of surveillance and censorship, perhaps we might all take the time to reread 1984 in order to better understand the world we are rushing towards.

‘You idiots … The planet’s on f–ing fire!’: Bill Nye’s message to leaders stalling on climate change

Grow the f–k up. You’re not children anymore. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now’

Arwen~ LOL..right.
Nye is without any credentials and is quite irrelevant.

A screenshot of Bill Nye’s segment.The Late Show with Jaime Oliver

Washington Post Reis Thebault

May 14, 2019

Bill Nye frolicked in a ball pit to explain how the planet’s populations compete for resources. He took a chain saw to a loaf of bread, comparing it to Earth’s crust, and he was nearly blown away in a wind tunnel while shouting “science!”

But he’s talking about global warming now — and he’s in no mood to mess around.

“By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees,” Nye said, appearing on a segment of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” on Sunday.

The famously zany scientist and host of the PBS series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” then aimed a blowtorch at a globe to illustrate his argument: “What I’m saying is, the planet’s on f–ing fire,” Nye said.


bill nye was a big part of most of our childhoods & now he’s cussing us out. i love him 2,41510:34 PM – May 13, 2019901 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacy

Gone was the Nye of the ’90s, the man whose show was a middle school substitute teacher’s secret weapon. This was the Science Guy, circa 2019, delivering a sermon squared directly at the legions of Gen Xers and Millennials who were weaned on Nye’s brand of wacky pedagogy.

And he had a message for his erstwhile pupils, especially those who eventually became members of Congress.

“Grow the f–k up,” he said, injecting some more language that wouldn’t fly in public broadcasting. “You’re not children anymore. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now, and this is an actual crisis, got it?”

Nye took to Oliver’s show to teach his audience about global warming and its possible solutions — namely, the Green New Deal and carbon pricing (in his words, “when something costs more, people buy less of it. Safety glasses off. That’s it.”).

Nye appeared to endorse Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., trademark legislation, telling lawmakers they needed to do something and chiding those who have said the proposal is too expensive. As he spoke into the camera, the globe continued to burn.

“There are a lot of things we could do to put it out,” he said. “Are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing’s free, you idiots.”

His harsh tone surprised some – one viewer wrote on Twitter that he “just heard Bill Nye swear and it’s blowing my mind.” Another observed, “Global warming is so bad that it now has Bill Nye the Science Guy cursing us out to fix it.”

Even Oliver, as his show ended, gasped, “I think we’ve all broken Bill Nye.”

But for Nye, the man whom The Washnigton Post once dubbed “half mad professor, half Mr. Rogers,” the role of climate crusader is not a new one. In recent years, he has talked with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., about the dangers of man-made climate change and has debated Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who questioned whether those dangers really exist.

In April 2017, he took the stage at the March for Science in Washington and declared that “science is for all,” the best antidote to anti-vaxxers and climate deniers alike.

“Our lawmakers must know that science serves every one of us,” he said then. “Every citizen of every nation in society. Science must shape policy. Science is universal. Science brings out the best in us. With an informed, optimistic view of the future, together we can – dare I say it – save the world!”

That month, he also debuted a new TV series with an equally urgent title: “Bill Nye Saves the World.” And judging by his turn on Oliver’s show, he’s willing to go to great lengths to get his message out – even if it takes some fire and fury.

New Zealand: Citizens Receiving Home Visits From ‘Political Police’

Arwen ~ The two clips are not showing up on this article. Please click link following article to watch both clips. Am posting the second video directly from the man’s Youtube account…and after listening to him , I subscribed to his channel, “Cross the Rubicon“.
He is very well informed. Highly recommend you check him out. Also reposting a piece from May 6th..and while it is “satire”, it is fast becoming our reality

Stay informed…Stay awake ~Arwen

 13 May, 2019

Paul Joseph Watson

  • Man asked if he supports President Trump.

New Zealanders are receiving home visits from police to check on their political views, with one individual claiming that authorities asked him if he supported Donald Trump.

The visits are taking place as a response to March’s Christchurch mosque massacre.

In one clip, armed police arrive at a man’s home on Sunday morning to question him in relation to his political beliefs.

“The reason we’re here, basically it’s down to the recent events in Christchurch, with the shooting there, a number of people have been identified who we’ve been asked to go and speak to, so you’re one of those people,” says the officer.

The man is happy to talk to the cops, but they refuse to do so on camera and eventually leave.

In a separate clip, another man relates the story of how he was visited by armed police (again on a Sunday morning) because he makes YouTube videos criticizing mass migration.

The man’s wife and daughter, who were both upset by the experience, were also interviewed by police.

“I was asked if I was a Trump supporter, I was asked if I was a racist and have I got any ethnic minority friends,” said the man, who runs a YouTuber channel called Cross the Rubicon, adding that police also quizzed him on whether he owned guns.

Within a week, police returned to the house – 15 of them this time – closing off the entire street – to again interrogate him on his political views.

“They’re trying to force me to shut my mouth and to keep it shut,” the man said.

He also warns that governments are exploiting the mosque shooting to deplatform conservatives.

One wonders whether random Muslims receive home visits from police after Islamic terror attacks. Unlikely.

“Cross the Rubicon”