‘Magic: The Gathering’ Decides The Word ‘Tribal’ Is Offensive, But To Whom?

The things you hold dear, even innocuous fantasy board games, will be corrupted and you’ll be told to love it or get out.

Leftist Canadian party seeks to create anti-free-speech zones around drag performances, punish 'offensive remarks' with $25,000 fines



A Canadian political party has introduced legislation that would create anti-free-speech zones around drag shows and punish anyone caught making remarks deemed "offensive" by LGBT activists while in the vicinity.

The Ontario New Democratic Party is a radical leftist party that serves as the official opposition in the conservative-run province of Ontario. One of its parliamentary members, Kristyn Wong-Tam, chair of the city of Toronto's 2SLGBTQ+ Community Advisory Committee, held a press conference Tuesday, urging the Ontario government to spare men masquerading as women from criticism and to clamp down on free speech.

"The topic that brings us here is deadly serious," said Wong-Tam, a woman who refers to herself with plural pronouns. "The rise of hate and violence facing the 2SLGBTQI-plus communities, including the drag artists, happening across Ontario and right [across] the nation has been alarming."

Canadian state media noted that hate crimes (e.g., verbal or written statements of a hateful nature) allegedly motivated by sexual orientation increased from 258 in 2020 to 423 in 2021. Statistics Canada previously indicated that 1 million of the nation's 39 million residents identify as members of the "LGBTQ" community.

Alluding to American protests targeting drag shows and recent efforts by Canadians to follow suit, Wong-Tam claimed, "Drag artists, their audiences, the businesses and the facilities that host those drag performances have been put at risk."

Jon Dobbie, whose drag name is "Crystal Quartz," appeared in a woman costume at the press conference beside Wong-Tam. He claimed that after doing drag performances for kids, he faced criticism online.

"They then started showing up to all of my events, screaming at parents and myself saying they were groomers, pedophiles and a bunch of other homophobic slurs to make everyone there feel unsafe to attend," said Dobbie. "These acts of intimidation now made our safe spaces feel unsafe."

"Unless we put forward a strategy to protect them, Ontario's social, economic and cultural richness is under attack," added Wong-Tam. "We have to protect that."

To this end, Wong-Tam seeks give the state the power to create 100-meter LGBT bubble zones wherever it deems fit, wherein "any homophobic, transphobic act of intimidation, threat, offensive threats, offensive remarks, protest, disturbance, and distribution of hate propaganda within the meaning of the criminal code."

The penalty for creating a disturbance or issuing what are perceived to be offensive remarks inside such a zone would be $25,000 CDN ($18,581.42 USD).

It is already a criminal offense in Canada to incite hatred against any identifiable group; however, the Criminal Code states, "No person shall be convicted of an offence ... if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; ... if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; ... if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or ... if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."

In the event this legislation is passed, it is unclear whether offensive remarks that would not constitute criminal offenses under federal law could nevertheless be punished.

The legislation notes that disturbances and so-called hate propaganda are to be understood "within the meaning of the Criminal Code"; however, offensive remarks "with respect to matters of social orientation or gender roles" are not so clearly defined.

Furthermore, it is unclear who will ultimately determine what would constitute an offensive remark or a disturbance and whether, as in the case of sexual assault accusations brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, an accuser will only have president evidence that the comments "more likely than not" took place — as opposed to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

While Wong-Tam intimated that the legislation is intended to protect drag performances in particular, the bill itself makes no such specification. It appears as though Ontario's attorney general would be able to arbitrarily designate "2SLGBTQI+ community safety zones" for "a specified period of time."

The name and address of the "community safety zone" must be provided, but there is otherwise no specified limit to the size of these zones (but for the circumferential 100-meter bubble) and the duration of their recognition.

Despite prohibiting offensive remarks and oppositional language, the bill states, "For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents peaceful protests or demonstrations."

There is precedent for anti-free-speech zones in Ontario.

The former Liberal government, which lost official party status after a crushing defeat in the 2018 general election, had created bubble zones around abortion sites, reported Canadian state media.

\u201cHoly sh*t\n\nNew bill would criminalize protests and offensive remarks in parts of Canada\u201d
— End Wokeness (@End Wokeness) 1680671137

In addition to creating the anti-free-speech zones, the legislation calls for the establishment of an Ontario "2SLGBTQI+ Safety Advisory Committee."

The vice chair for this committee must be "a member of the Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or other sexually or gender diverse community."

Among this proposed committee's duties will be ensuring that the education curriculum is to the liking of LGBT activists.

Terence Kernaghan, an LGBT activist also with the NDP, said in a statement, "The government must support this legislation and put a stop to the alarming rise in hateful action against drag artists and 2SLGBTQI+ community. This bill is especially important for drag performers in smaller communities like London and Sarnia, where artists have fewer places to perform and less protection."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican bill in North Dakota would ban LGBT activists' reality-denying pronouns in state-funded organizations, including schools



Republican state Senator David Clemens has taken a stand against the systemic embrace and imposition of LGBT speech conventions in North Dakota, enraging activists.

Clemens, a Vietnam War veteran and father of four, introduced Senate Bill 2199 on Jan. 10 with fellow Republican Sens. Shawn Vedaa and Kent Weston, as well as Reps. Karen Anderson, Austen Schauer, and Bill Tveit.

The bill would require "any entity receiving state funding, including a public school, an institution under the control of the state board of higher education, and a state agency or office," to use the pronouns referencing a given person's biological sex.

Accordingly, words referring to "an individual, person, employer, employee, contestant, participant, member, student, or juvenile must be used in the context of that person's sex as determined at birth."

If there is some confusion about a person's so-called "gender identity," determination will be made on the basis of the individual's DNA.

This reality-affirming requirement would apply to the communications, policies, procedures, training, and records of state-funded institutions.

The penalty for using reality-denying pronouns in such documentation or policies is $1,500.

Clemens provided some clarity around the bill, stating, "Say they’re a boy, but they come to school and say they’re a girl. As far as that school is concerned in this bill, that person is still a boy. If it becomes contested, the burden will be on the girl, the so-called girl, or the boy, to prove that he is a girl."

The senator stressed that the bill would not "outlaw an individual’s personal expression, but it does outlaw the use of public funds to promote or support anything that is contrary to a person’s biological sex at birth," to preclude state-funded organizations from "promoting transgenderism."

Republican Rep. Brandon Prichard intimated that this amounted to a defense of children's innocence, reported the Bismarck Tribune.

"There is a broader assault on children’s innocence in this country, and if somebody — if I don’t step up to it, I’m worried that no one else will," said Prichard.

KFYR reported that the bill did not pass the Republican-led state Senate Judiciary Committee, but since the committee lacks veto power, it will nevertheless advance to the Senate floor.

Activists keen on continuing to foist ideologically loaded neologisms on others are beside themselves.

Transsexual activist Katrina Koesterman of Tristate Transgender said the bill "the general atmosphere of hostility and hatred towards the transgender community."

Christina Sambor of the so-called ND Human Rights Coalition told KFYR, "Respectfully, I see no way this law would pass any sort of legal challenge based on basic legal construction principles. It’s vague, fails to advance any legitimate state interests, and not only would cause impermissible, gender-based discrimination, its very purpose is gender-based discrimination."

Some have taken to launching personal attacks, suggesting that Clemens looks like Captain Kangaroo, the titular character of a children's show that reportedly aired on CBS from 1955 to 1984.

The Bismarck Tribune noted that if this legislation fails, as many anticipate it will, there is hope yet with Republican Sen. Larry Luick's Senate Bill 2231.

Luick's bill — introduced at the request of the executive director of the state's Catholic Conference — would prohibit a government entity from requiring an employee to "use an individual's preferred pronoun when addressing or mentioning the individual in work-related communications."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New California Law Uses COVID-19 As An Excuse To Silence Pro-Life Speech

Holding up a sign or speaking to someone 100 feet from any vaccination site, even on private property, could land you in jail or with a $1,000 fine.