(Christian Today) The Christian CEO of Scotland’s biggest grant-making trust has won his unfair dismissal and religious discrimination case against his former employer.
Kenneth Ferguson was CEO of the Robertson Trust from 2011 until his dismissal in March 2020, supposedly for “performance issues”.
His dismissal came after the trust cancelled a booking by Stirling Free Church, where Ferguson is an elder, for use of its Barracks conference venue.
Macpherson was reportedly angered by the booking because of the church’s traditional stance on marriage.
Although it was claimed that the trust had a neutrality policy that meant it could not rent out the property to organizations promoting religious or political views, the employment tribunal heard that Stonewall and other groups supporting same-sex marriage had been allowed to use the space.
The tribunal concluded that Ferguson was unfairly dismissed by the trust and subjected to religious discrimination by both the trust and Macpherson.
“The impression was of [Macpherson] seeking to find reasons to justify dismissal, that that decision in her mind had been taken well before 16 March 2020,” the tribunal said.
“The inference that the majority draws is that the issue of [Kenneth Ferguson’s] beliefs remained one that was one of the reasons for that decision to dismiss.”
It added that Ferguson’s beliefs on marriage were protected, and that it was “trite that it is lawful to hold such beliefs and to express them.”
A further hearing will be held to determine the amount of damages the trust must pay to Ferguson.
Commenting on the outcome, Ferguson said: “I’m just relieved this is over. It’s been a very difficult time for me and my family.
“I was treated by The Robertson Trust in a way I had never been treated before in my whole professional life. But I’m satisfied that justice has been done. The tribunal has ruled that they were wrong to behave that way and I’m grateful.
“I also want to thank those who have supported me and prayed for me, especially those at The Christian Institute who have been such a blessing to me.”
Simon Calvert, spokesman for The Christian Institute, said he was “very pleased” with the tribunal had ruled in Ferguson’s favour.
“This ruling is a welcome re-statement of the principle, upheld again and again in the courts, that the Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is a belief protected by equality law and worthy of respect in a democratic society,” he said.
“This is a just outcome and one which sounds a warning to those who think they can mistreat Christians in the workplace.”
The Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “delta variant” is spreading like wildfire in areas with high “vaccine” compliance, new reports indicate.
In California, there is a direct correlation between high rates of injection and exponential growth in new “cases” of the Fauci Flu – meaning the more people get vaccinated, the more people are testing “positive” for the Chinese Virus.
The counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco all claim a higher-than-average percentage of fully vaccinated residents. These counties also have the most out-of-control growth in new delta variant cases, which just goes to show that the jabs are spreading the disease.
Meanwhile, the counties of Modoc, Glenn, Lassen, Del Norte, and San Benito all have below-average vaccination rates alongside decreasing case counts.
The “vaccines” are clearly not “working,” in other words – unless “working” means that they are killing people. And yet public health “authorities” are doubling down on pushing people to get them in order to “flatten the curve.”
Dr. Phillip Norris, an infectious disease “expert” at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) actually came out and said that the rising number of cases among “fully vaccinated” Californians proves that the jabs are working as intended.
“If there are a lot of people around, you’re more likely to bump into one who has covid,” Norris stated, suggesting that the Fauci Flu is more likely to spread in densely populated counties where vaccine compliance is high.
According to Norris, vaccinated people are unknowingly spreading the virus to people around them, including other vaccinated people. This shows that they work, even though they do not work, he contends.
Delta variant has rendered vaccinations worthless
Norris further added in an interview that the vaccines are basically a failure – but you should still get one – thanks to the delta variant. This, he says, is due to the superstition that the delta variant’s viral load in people’s noses is 1,000 times higher than the original Wuhan Flu that was detected in early 2020.
“If that’s the case, even a little bit in somebody who’s vaccinated could be a lot,” Norris contends.
Even though the facts state otherwise, Norris has chosen to believe that vaccinated people are still a little more protected against infection than unvaccinated people. Science says otherwise, of course, but Norris really wants to believe the opposite.
The Senate passed a procedural vote to advance a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. In a 67-to-32 vote Wednesday, the Senate reached bipartisan support to move forward on the bill after weeks of no progress.
“The Senate has just come together and, in a strong bipartisan fashion, voted to begin the legislative process here on the Senate floor,” stated Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
With late GOP support coming after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced he would show his support, 17 Republicans voted ‘yes’ to proceed with debates on the bill’s specific details.
“We’ve done something on a bipartisan basis; it’s the way Washington should work,” stated Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). “It’s the way America expects us to work and I’m confident that we will be able to get it across the finish line.”
While there’s still a lot of work to be done until the bill reaches a final vote, lawmakers within both political parties are confident a deal will be reached in the near future. That’s according to the GOP’s lead negotiator, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).
“We have reached agreement as I said on the major issues, so we still have legislative language and finalize,” said Portman. “We look forward to moving ahead and having the opportunity to have a healthy debate here in the chamber, regarding incredibly important projects that the American people would like to have my colleagues.”
As of now, the deal includes funding for the nation’s roads, bridges, public transportation, electric buses and clean drinking water among other items.
In a statement, Joe Biden wrote:
“This deal signals to the world that our democracy can function, deliver and do big things. As we did with the transcontinental railroad and the interstate highway, we will, once again, transform America and propel us into the future.”
We who have lived in communist countries recognize the signs: American freedom of speech and thought are hanging on by a thread.
In 1991, Mario Vargas Llosa, Nobel laureate from Perú, caused a firestorm on Mexican television by calling Mexico the “perfect dictatorship, a phrase that has since become iconic. He pointed out that the one-party rule in Mexico had become entrenched: the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional in Spanish, or PRI) held uninterrupted power in the country for 71 years, even though the name of the presidents changed every five years (whereupon they were automatically amnestied by their successor for any criminal activity). Criticism—up to a point—was permitted, even encouraged, to maintain the illusion of Mexico being democratic. Opposition parties were allowed, but they often found that the means for an effective election campaign was controlled by the ruling party. As Vargas Llosa explained, a special kind of political rhetoric had been created to justify Mexico’s political system by recruiting intellectuals who were too willing to prostitute themselves. In short, it was a deviation from the traditional style of brutal military dictatorship, but it was a dictatorship nonetheless.
Vargas Llosa’s interview had an impact. Vicente Fox, running on the National Action Party (PAN) ticket, was elected president in 2000, followed by Felipe Calderón (also PAN) in 2006. In 2012, PRI returned to power with the election of Enrique Peña Nieto, but lost it again in 2018 with the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (of the center-left progressive populist party, Movimiento Regeneración Nacional). By pointing out what everyone knew, Vargas Llosa had effectively altered Mexican politics.
With reflection, it is evident that the template for a “perfect dictatorship” has also been applied in other countries such as Turkey, Venezuela, and Russia: either the same leader—Erdogan, Maduro, Putin—gets “re-elected” while opposition candidates are hamstrung. Alternatively, as in the case of Iran, clones of the same kind of leader cycle through the office. Though these regimes are a deviation from the traditional style of brutal military dictatorship (where power is seized by force), they are dictatorships nonetheless: despite the performance of periodic elections, power is nevertheless held by a single leader or group with little or no tolerance for political pluralism or independent media.
Upon further reflection, it is also clear that many western (ironically, democratic) countries now face a similar condition—not necessarily in terms of their elections, but in terms of other freedoms that democratic electorates have grown accustomed to. Western democracies are now under perfect censorship. This process has been going on for many years, and is on the verge of being perfected in the United States.
THE DANGEROUS TREND TOWARD PERFECT CENSORSHIP
“Perfect censorship” has already been perfected and is in full operation in many of our western counterparts: the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, and Sweden—all countries where freedom of speech has vanished. Gone. In those countries, anyone who makes jokes will at best be fined and, at worst, jailed.
Jokes, meanwhile, are practically illegal in Scotland (actually, in all of the UK), as Mark Meechan, known online as “Count Dankula,” found out when he tried to irritate his girlfriend by teaching her pug dog the Hitler salute. When he posted the prank online, it was deemed not only offensive, but threatening, as if people were going to be converted to National Socialism because of a pug doing a Hitler salute. He was taken to court and fined. (Meechan subsequently praised America’s First Amendment after Britain’s Prince Harry called it “bonkers.”) Meanwhile, police are on the lookout for a “loud man” who talked of his “dislike of Muslims” on a train from York to Leeds—a heinous hate crime, according to British Transport Police.
Then, there is climate change. Those who deny global warming should be murdered, according to at least one British actor—but murdered humanely, he insisted. One actor’s opinion doesn’t rise to the level of censorship, of course, but when these views are combined with the power of left-leaning institutions, censorship isn’t far behind. Climate activists have lobbied social media platforms in the UK to designate speech critical of the “climate change” narrative as misinformation, even going as far as to call for the de-platforming and demonetization of these views. The mainstream media, meanwhile, has fallen in line: in February, the Press Gazette’s Charlotte Tobitt declared that the UK press has “moved from denial to acceptance and now action on climate change.”
I could continue, but you get the picture. In short, Europeans (and Canadians) may have democracy, but, paradoxically, they do not have freedom of speech. They have been told, and they have accepted, that such restrictions are for their own good and so certain select groups won’t feel offended. In fact, the majority of the citizens of those countries are even unaware that they are living under a regime of censorship—that is how effective it has been.
It is a dangerous trend, one that is making its way to the United States.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT HANGS ON BY A THREAD
Just as the ”perfect dictatorship” deviates from the traditional violence of a military coup, the “perfect censorship” deviates from more traditional styles of state censorship in that it is not instituted by the government. Instead, it is a kind of control that has been slowly, subtly, and systematically imposed over the years by ideologically driven fanatics who, almost without notice, have established a wide presence within institutions, and who instinctively gravitate towards positions of power within those institutions, no matter how seemingly insignificant (like student governments in universities). They have a hive mind: they think alike, they speak alike, they act alike, they feel alike. It is as if they were NPCs.
Whether one wants to admit it or not, the fact of the matter is that American censorship is being carried out not by libertarians or conservatives, but by liberals. The very same people that so fiercely advocated free speech decades ago are now equally fiercely advocating censorship.
In order to present an illusion of tolerance, American editors will occasionally hire a “conservative” who is anything but a conservative. Occasionally, they will even hire a real conservative as long as he/she hates Trump. However, when one of these token conservatives steps out of line for expressing views that are anathema, he/she finds themselves instantly out on the street (as happened to Kevin Williamson in 2018 with The Atlantic, when the editors realized that Williamson was much more conservative than they had anticipated, having once posted on Twitter that women who have abortions should be hung).
Another instance is Bret Stephens, formerly of Wall Street Journal, now working on borrowed time at The New York Pravda—sorry, The New York Times. He was brought over to the Dark Side immediately after the 2016 election simply because of his intense hatred for Donald Trump, and he has pleased his new masters by occasionally writing pieces like the one where he defended Sarah Jeong, despite her unapologetic anti-white racism. (However, deviation from the party line sends leftists into a hysterical frenzy, as Stephens has learned on a number of occasions.)
The United States has one advantage that the supposedly democratic countries of Europe and Canada do not have: the First Amendment of the US Constitution—the highest legal authority of the United States—which forbids any governmental body or bureaucrat from usurping the free speech rights of its citizens. This is not to say that there are no politicians who would love to strip us of those rights. Or try to, rather. And as expected, they all happen to be from the Democratic Party.
During a 2018 CNN interview, California Democratic Representative Ted Lieu declared that he “would love to be able to regulate the content of speech,” while the former Chair of the Democratic National Committee and presidential candidate Howard Deandeclared in a Tweet that “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.” David Chipman, President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, recently showed his contempt for not one, but two fundamental American rights, saying that those who use “hate speech” on the internet should not have the right to bear arms.
Most of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates advocated “regulating” “hate speech” and “white nationalism” speech. As early as 1974, then-Senator Joe Biden had braggedthat politicians could take away the First Amendment while, during the Democratic presidential debate, Kamala Harris called on Twitter to delete President Trump’s account. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont, wants to control all facets of journalism, which is not surprising since there isn’t a communistregimethat he doesn’t like. In 2019, Sanders published an op-ed for Columbia Journalism Review to share his vision for a government-managed Fourth Estate: “We need to rebuild and protect a diverse and truly independent press so that real journalists can do the critical jobs that they love, and that a functioning democracy requires,” he writes.
The enthusiasm that leftist leaders have for censorship is trickling down to the local level as well. It speaks volumes that this year Glenbrook South’s chapter of Turning Point USA was canceled by orders of Democratic politicians because the group put up a poster criticizing China’s Communist Party. That tells you everything there is to know about the future of free speech in a Democrat-controlled world. It’s a little scary to think what all these individuals would do if it wasn’t for the First Amendment. It’s likely one of the reasons that Democrats are desperate to pack the Supreme Court with totalitarian-minded “progressives.” After eliminating “hate speech,” they would then outlaw the Republican Party (even though it is mostly composed of eunuchs), something that they have openly advocated.
Nor is it just politicians. American universities are teeming with sophists who haveargued in favor of censorship; so havejournalists. (The irony being that these two groups have been strong opponents of censorship). Just look at the catalog of acts of censorship in schools found in The College Fix, Campus Reform, and Samizdat 2020. It is fascinating reading the intellectual gymnastics undertaken by the intellectual left to justify censorship.
The First Amendment protects Americans from censorship by the government, but has no say in preventing censorship by private institutions, such as social media(YouTube, Google, Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook), newspapers (e.g., NewYorkTimes, The Boston Globe, WashingtonPost), andnetworknews (CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC). In the past four years, I have personally collected hundreds of instances of censorship by these entities, ranging from outright deliberate falsehoods (“fake news”) to news blackouts to removal and demonetizing internet channels. After I finished writing this essay, President Biden called on Facebook to censor “misinformation” on its site, even more aggressively than it already does, just like YouTube. Since the politics of the Democratic Party and Silicon Valley are congruent, Facebook and its peers will no doubt comply.
We may have the First Amendment, but free speech in America is hanging by a thread.
Capitol Police say they’ll arrest staffers who try to enter the House of Representatives without a mask, and report members who refuse to comply. Republicans have vowed to resist, calling out Speaker Pelosi’s “abuse of power.”
Capitol Physician Brian Moynihan announced on Tuesday that face masks would once again be required to enter the House side of the US Capitol, regardless of the wearer’s vaccination status. The measure was supported by top Democrats, but opposed by many Republicans. Even Moynihan himself was seen flouting his own guidance, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) claimed to have seen Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) forgoing her mask while “in a crowded room.”
Nevertheless, the Capitol Police have been instructed to enforce the mandate to the fullest extent of the law. A memo circulated by Chief of Police J Thomas Manger on Wednesday instructs officers to order any visitors and staff who refuse to wear masks to leave the building, and arrest them for unlawful entry if they refuse. Officers are also instructed to file a report with the House sergeant-at-arms if any members of Congress refuse to comply.
In today’s edition of Pelosi’s abuse of power, Capitol Police have been directed to arrest staff and visitors to comply with her mask mandate for vaccinated individuals.
For Members, they advise not arresting but “reporting Members to SAA for their failure to comply.”
— Congresswoman Kat Cammack (@RepKatCammack) July 29, 2021
Some Republicans have already vowed to resist. “Might as well come into my office and arrest my entire staff,” Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky, tweeted on Thursday. “We are not wearing masks … the physician and the chief of police don’t have this authority.”
This is INSANE. Might as well come into my office and arrest my entire staff. We are not wearing masks. I support the Capitol Hill Police, but the Chief of Police made a mistake here. The physician and the chief of police don’t have this authority. https://t.co/CgiSuNvE8c
Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Georgia), a vocal opponent of most coronavirus restrictions, called the move “hysterical unprecedented abuse of power,” and Lee Zeldin, a Republican from New York, accused Pelosi of being “massively drunk on power, obsessed with control, and hypocritical and partisan beyond belief.”
Texas Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R) said she’d bail out any staffers arrested for violating the mask rule, while Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Florida) told Pelosi to “come see me” if she had an issue with his staffers going maskless.
On Twitter, multiple Republican representatives hammered Pelosi over the mandate.
Speaker Pelosi's draconian behavior isn't even based on credible science. This isn't about our well-being. This is about politics and power. https://t.co/zm6HpET7un
— Rep. Chris Stewart (@RepChrisStewart) July 29, 2021
Lemon said he might have to defend the rival show host because “I would not want it to happen to me.”
CNN host Don Lemon is condemning the recent verbal attack on rival Fox News host Tucker Carlson while he was in a Montana fishing supply store with family.
The incident was captured in a 22-second viral video by the person who allegedly insulted Carlson, Dan Bailey.
In the video, Bailey seems to tell Carlson he is “the worst human being known to man” and continues bashing Carlson in front of his family adding, “I don’t care that your daughter’s here.”
“Settle down, son,” Carlson says as he walks away while Bailey questions, “Son? Don’t call me son” and follows.
Lemon, whose political views differ sharply from Carlson’s, said Monday night the encounter was an invasion of “personal space” and that he may “have to defend Tucker Carlson.”
Migrants from countries far beyond Central America are increasingly arriving at the country’s borders under the Biden administration, specifically to come across the U.S.-Mexico border illegally and risk getting caught.
Since the start of the government’s fiscal year in October 2020, Border Patrol agents nationwide have encountered significantly more people from the Caribbean, Central Europe, and South America than last year. Although migrants from Mexico and Central America make up roughly 75% of all illegal immigrants at the northern, southern, and coastal borders, far more people from other countries are arriving. Some have traveled thousands of miles and across oceans for the chance to get into the United States, predominantly by walking across the southern border.
“We are seeing a permanent change in migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. And now it’s expanding,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. “We’re seeing huge increases in people, not from the Central American countries and not from Mexico, which means this is now just the migration route.”
Border Patrol agents who work along U.S. borders saw a 13,951% increase in Venezuelans taken into custody between June 2020 and this June, BPC’s Grace Kluender wrote. This comes as more than 26,000 Venezuelans have fled political repression and dire economic circumstances.
From Ecuador, a country of 17 million people located on the northwestern tip of South America, more than 54,000 people have been encountered by U.S. border authorities over the past nine months — five times more than at the same point last year.
Further south in central South America, Brazilians are also leaving. Nearly 30,000 Brazilians were encountered at the border, compared to fewer than 9,000 the previous year. Last June, just 80 Brazilians were apprehended. The 6,678 Brazilians seen last month is an 8,248% increase. The coronavirus pandemic hit Brazil harder this year than last, prompting domestic crises that citizens are attempting to flee.
Cuban apprehensions increased from 14,000 as of June 2020 to more than 26,000 last month. Migration from Haiti is up 2,906% in the same period.
More than 34,000 people from the Philippines and 4,369 Romanians were stopped at the border. The “other” category of migrants, whose home country could not be determined, doubled to more than 37,000 this year.
While the change in migration patterns is obvious, Brown said, the federal government is focused on responding rather than planning. For example, while the Border Patrol has responded to this 21-year high in illegal immigration at the border by putting up tents to hold and release people from custody, it ought to make plans to deal with it if it continues or worsens.
The Biden administration’s focus on resolving the “push” factors that prompt people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to migrate to the U.S. also needs to change to include factors that prompt people from other countries to come, Brown said. Otherwise, Central American migration will drop, but global migration to the U.S. will continue to rise.
“What about Nicaragua? What about Brazil and Venezuela? What about Haiti? What about Ukraine and Romania? And Congo. What are the root causes there? How are you going to manage that?” Brown said.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) plans to stay in the GOP despite facing harsh criticism from within the caucus for agreeing to serve on the panel investigating Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol.
“Look, I am a Republican at heart, right? I was a Republican way before Donald Trump, since I was six years old,” Kinzinger said during an appearance on CNN on Wednesday night.
“I believe in the values I’m fighting for and I believe a party with such a great, rich history deserves to have people, even if it’s only a couple of us at the moment, in there to fight for the soul of it. So I’m going to fight hard for that,” he added.
Kinzinger and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who both have openly shown a strong dislike of Trump, are the only Republicans on the Jan. 6 panel, which was formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Pelosi rejected two of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) picks for committee members, prompting McCarthy to withdraw all five.
Pelosi then asked Kinzinger to join, which he agreed to. Cheney opted to serve as a member after being asked earlier by Pelosi.
Republican leaders have increasingly vocalized discontent with the pair, who appear out of step with the majority of their caucus.
McCarthy dubbed Kinzinger and Cheney “Pelosi Republicans” while speaking to reporters outside the White House this week. Other members have taken to television or social media to denounce them. And the House Freedom Caucus held a press conference Thursday calling for a resolution that would expel Kinzinger and Cheney from the GOP conference.
While meeting as a caucus, Republicans discuss strategy, policy, and advancing the GOP platform, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told reporters in Washington.
“It was antithetical to have sitting in your conference individuals who have professed that they want to take out the minority leader, and that they want to go join the Democrats on a witch hunt through the Republican Party to try to take members of the Republican Party out. It would be antithetical to invite somebody in to hear you strategize how you will respond to something like that when they’re sitting on that committee,” Biggs said.
