The lack of the specific term "incel" and the insistence of him being single and misogynistic in the motive being mentioned by police and politicians is rather telling.
As far as the Australian authorities and Government are concerned, single men are just as much of a terror threat as other well known groups. They're also preparing to interview the perpetrators family as if they are implicit in this tragedy. Expect the Government to take action through new laws and measures considering their assumed background and majority of victims.
A contributor to the Hyprland project (a dynamic window tiling manager), Vaxry, who he and others on his Discord is critical and joking of pronouns (who/cares), does not care about the political background of contributors or users of Hyprland and is concerned about the creep of ideology into the free and open source ecosystem.
Background:
From his critic: https://archive.ph/Sfvlr And Vaxry's rebuttal: https://archive.ph/jMoKB
He called out the bad apples who wish to impose their purity testing onto projects and users:
Subsequently his concerns were dismissed as transphobia and national socialism by his opponents which led to a member of RedHat, FreeDesktop and Xorg to tell him via a RedHat email address that he is in violation of the Code of Conduct for behaviour outside of the project and if he continues he will be banned.
And subsequently calling this out publicly got him banned.
And the other side justifying this move for balance:
As a consequence, he can no longer contribute code to FreeDesktop including Xorg and Wayland, critical components for a tiling window manager. And there is now a push to banish the "deeply toxic" Hyprland project from distributions and deal with "problematic" users to purge them from free and open source software, including their forks.
It looks as if the purity testing in free and open source software is spreading. And there are increasing numbers of individuals drunk with power who wish to impose their values, beliefs and codes onto everyone else. The Linux Kernel already replaced its Code of Conflict with the Code of Conduct. Not just with FreeDesktop, I've seen the same principles being made within the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE, RedHat and other important project contributors and users. Now we're seeing purity testing and gatekeeping in the same regard as we've seen elsewhere in proprietary software, gaming and other media.
https://reclaimthenet.org/the-uk-government-is-considering-a-new-looser-definition-of-extremism
I did post about this in the Tommy Robinson thread but wanted to leave that post to focus on him specifically (tl;dr - he's guaranteed to be labelled an extremist for being critical of Government and Islam). It however, has a much wider range of consequences if this goes ahead.
The current definition is the:
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
The new addition will be:
“The promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalization, hate crime and terrorism.”
The definition will be statutory - in other words, decided or controlled by law.
It will bring about the effective implementation of Blasphemy and Lese-majeste laws where protesting Government policies, criticism of the state, of certain foreign states, ideologies, religions, royalty and politicians will be defined within the new vague definition of extremism. Political opposition will also fall within the definition, the article gives an example of the Scottish National Party stance on nationalism. The Muslim Council of Britain, Palestine Action and Muslim Engagement and Development could also be defined as extremist under the new definition.
You may have notice in recent times that the Labour Party has turned into the Red Tories and the Tories are purging members who are on the right of the party, such as Suella Braverman and Lee Anderson. And why we've now got a Uniparty situation where the only thing that changes is the colour of the rosette and the ribbon.
Another few examples I could give will be JK Rowling, Graham Linehan and Sharon Davies MBE and their strong stance on biological sex in society and sport as well as acknowledging the biological reality of sexual dimorphism.
It will result in groups being required to be deplatformed, banks will have to debank them and funding will have to stop for those groups/individuals (think the Canadian truckers). The fear being is that people will be jailed, people will have to flee the country and claim political asylum or the Government could strip citizenship, even if it makes them stateless, from critics and dissenters.
We're also at a time where there is pressure to "protect the children" using the examples of Molly Russell and Brianna Ghey to push a new agenda to deal with American social media conglomerates broadcasting "hate" and "extremism" with the solution being lobbied being a national Intranet where you impose a Ofcom regulated and controlled walled garden with electronic border checks for data coming in and out of the Internet.
If you're outside of the UK in a western country, keep an eye on developments in the UK as early as this week. It is coming to you.
Archive: https://archive.is/MXNri
Piers can see the writing on the wall, the viewership is online for long, multi-hour content to compliment short form clips on TikTok, not broadcast media and their strict regime of schedules.
Have to say, I have also seen regular content creators on YouTube, Rumble, Odysse et al also move in this direction. Channels that used to put out 20-30 minute concise content are now expanding it to 1-2 hour live streams, if not longer on increasing occasion.
The days of 10-60 minute video and audio form content is dying. People either want long form or clip form content, nothing in between.
Archive: https://archive.is/qeL2G
For background, Ghey was a transgender teenager who was killed by two other teenagers. Both were sentenced last week to life imprisonment with a minimum of 22 and 20 years respectively. They formulated their plans to kill a number of schoolchildren by befriending them and using plans they researched.
Now Ghey's mother has spoken to the BBC (who else?) to denounce the Internet as the "wild west" and calling for the state to restrict what children can view online in a way that would only work by removing access to the Internet and implementing a UK style Intranet. She also claims that it is impossible for parents to parent their children - therefore the state must intervene - by requiring all technology and what citizens see to be restricted by the state.
As we live in a time where people are treated like children by default, you are assumed to be a child by default (the Online Safety Act requires different treatment for content not "safe for kids" as an example), the desire that people need to be protected from themselves and everything must be done "for the children" and "for your own good".
For example, in North Korea, the general public have no access to the Internet. They do have access to Kwangmyong, the heavily restricted Intranet where everything citizens see and the technology used to access it is wholly controlled by the state.
Another case of not letting a tragedy go to waste.
ETA: Education Minister just told the BBC that they will be expanding age verification to all content not "safe for kids", not just pornography. Their preferred option to be introduced by 2025 is both Government Photo ID and live, on-going facial recognition. They're also not ruling out implementing an Intranet and banning the possession of technological devices for children.
Fifty eight minutes into Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg (so people can verify this later), Kuenssberg played a clip of Fresh & Fit, described as a dating and fitness podcast and played this "deeply misogynistic" clip:
"If I arm you guys with the tools that you need to deal with these (bleep) modern day women. I'm happy with that. Because you know what? I'd rather be called a misogynist [BBC edit] I'd rather that, right, be called names than one of you guys killing yourself over some (bleep)".
She puts Lord Michael Grade, the Chairman of Ofcom on the spot to ask him if Ofcom will ban that podcast and relevant content from the Internet (his face was a picture as the clip was played). Grade says yes, criticising women is deemed illegal under the Online Safety Act and platforms should be removing all such content.
They're also pushing for this legislation in every other country through both legislation and demanding corporations withdraw funding from any platform that hosts such content.
EDIT: Clip now available. Nitter and archive links below: https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1723670359650562252
EDIT 2: Myron Gaines noticed: https://twitter.com/unplugfitX/status/1723738679158460861 (Nitter link) (Archive)
As a bonus, they demanded the shut down of GB News as well. Grade isn't saying anything as there are fourteen investigations ongoing at the moment.
Spoken on behalf of the Government on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wants pornography gone from the UK on the basis of protecting women's and girls safety and fighting misogyny in society.
Bear in mind, this is separate from the Online Safety Act about to be enacted and the age verification plan any website not "suitable for children". Also bear in mind VPN's operating in the UK are also required to comply with the law.
The UK Government is about to go to war on pornography and appease both the feminists who believe it is exploitative and harmful to women while turning men into misogynists and the traditional conservatives who also believe it is harming masculinity, encouraging bachelorhood and contributing to the decline in birth rates.
Video: https://twitter.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1706998621567066463
Non-Twitter link: https://nitter.salastil.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1706998621567066463
Archive: https://archive.ph/5sFGt
I know the link is to a fierce critic of GB News but it's the only account I can see that posted the full context, most only played a clip. Any footage has been memory holed from YouTube.
For context, a journalist for JOE appeared on the BBC to mock and ridicule an MP who asked for a Minister for Men to balance out the existing appointment of a Minister for Women. On Dan Wootton Tonight, Laurence Fox blasted the journalist by decrying her as a modern day feminist that no-one unless they were a "cucked little incel" would sleep with. He states further that no self-respecting man would engage in a date with her and asks "who'd wanna shag that?".
Ofcom are now investigating the channel and the Metropolitan Police have been contacted regarding Fox's comments and whether they would be in breach of section 127 of the Communications Act - speech that causes "gross offence", the same law that got Count Dankula a fine of £800 for his pug prank on his girlfriend at the time. If the Police do investigate and press charges, Ofcom will likely revoke their broadcast licence there and then. They have a zero tolerance attitude to law breaking on the air.
Both Fox and Wootton are now suspended and the channel is in damage limitation mode fearing for its survival. Those going against GB News and have sensed blood will not stop with them if they succeed in their goals, they will go for Talk TV next.
In order to "send a signal to the world". The new law doesn't just include the burning of any holy book, not just the Quran, but will "prohibit the inappropriate treatment of objects of significant religious importance to a religious community". That will also include the ideas, beliefs and critique of the text in said holy books. Such as what happened with Salman Rushdie with The Satanic Verses or Richard Dawkins critiques of creationism and intelligent design. Both of which have caused offence to religious individuals and even resulted in Government condemnation, civil unrest and violence. Violation of the law will result in fines and two years imprisonment.
The only stance not covered by the law will be atheism.
