Adam Smith-Connor Photo: Courtesy of ADF International
t seems oddly mediaeval to convict a man for his prayers.
But the British courts have defied all reasonable expectations of modern democracy by convicting a man for doing just that on the streets of Bournemouth.
Adam Smith-Connor is a military veteran who served his country in the reserves in Afghanistan. As part of his medical training, he participated in 30 abortions in 2003—actions he now deeply regrets. Adam converted to Christianity in later life, and is now deeply committed to prayer on the issue. In November 2022, he stopped to pray for a few minutes, in silence, near an abortion facility, remembering a time he had paid for an ex-girlfriend to abort his own child.
Adam was confronted by officers and grilled as to “the nature” of his prayers. Despite no passerby claiming to have been harmed by Adam’s presence, the content of his silent thoughts was enough to trigger a penalty, leading to two years of criminal proceedings, and three days of trial. The short exchange with the police was caught on film and is worth recounting:
Police: “We just wanted to come over and say hello, but also just to inquire as to your activities for today.”
Adam: “Well, I’m praying.”
Police: “In terms of that, can I ask what is the nature of your prayer today?”
“What is the nature of your prayer today?” Words I never thought I would hear a police officer say on the streets of Britain.
Despite being on the brink of bankruptcy, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council—the local authority responsible for the prosecution—poured huge resources into making an example of Adam. In a highly unusual and disproportionate move for a Magistrates’ Court, they hired a King’s Counsel, racking up legal fees of over £110,000 for an offence with a maximum penalty of £1,000.
Meanwhile, the BBC report that the same Council must cut at least 10% of its budget for local services, and is begging the government for money to avoid shutting down special needs services for children. The priorities of these authorities are truly chilling. Worse, they tried to demand £93,000 in costs from Adam following his conviction – a man of humble means with two children to support.
The judge sized this down to £9,000, to be paid in instalments of £250 every month.
This might have been the most expensive silent prayer of all time.
In the ruling, the judge laid significant emphasis on the fact that Adam said his head may have been “slightly bowed” and his hands were “clasped”. As it happens, Adam, an ex-serviceman, almost always stands with an “at ease” posture with hands clasped across his middle. Yet this stance was enough for the judge to determine that members of the public would have known that he was praying – and that would amount to breaching a “buffer zone” around the abortion facility, which prohibits “expressions of approval or disapproval of abortion”, including through prayer. How anybody would have known Adam was praying about abortion specifically is a mystery. In fact, nobody knew at all—it was the abortion facility staff, rather than a member of the public—who notified the police about Adam’s presence.
That a judgment from the law courts of England seriously assessed a man’s “slightly bowed head” and “clasped hands” when determining criminal liability is utterly farcical. Moreover, the focus on posture prevented the court from getting to the root of the matter: If we truly have the right to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, can silent prayer in a public place ever be a crime? Or are we now meant to accept that we have those rights, but not in public places and certainly not with bowed heads?
Adam’s conviction is horrific for him and for his family. His criminal record, his finances and his professional reputation are all impacted by the content of his silent thoughts and prayers. But even more broadly, Adam’s conviction is horrific for the UK, and represents a dark stain on our nation.
We know legal restrictions on Christian beliefs exist in other countries around the world in order to protect the dominant religion, for example, through blasphemy, apostasy, and anti-conversion laws. But in recent years the West has adopted its own secular versions of these laws, protecting the dominant secular ideologies of our day. This process has moved so quickly that head tilting and hand clasping have become part of the legal argumentation. And with the legislative proposals of the new government, the process shows no signs of abating.
There is no denying this decision is disheartening and disorienting. And we know it will be an uphill battle ahead. But we cannot—and we will not—stop fighting for the fundamental freedoms that have been hard-won over many centuries. No matter how long it takes and no matter what obstacles we have to overcome.
Two people who participated in Pope Francis’ private meeting with New Ways Ministry on Saturday have attested that the Pope committed to consider “openness to transgender people” as a criteria for appointing new U.S. bishops.
According to Deacon Raymond Dever, who was cited in The Times, Francis was impacted by the closed-door meeting he had with LGBT activists.
The Times reported Dever – who was one of the 11 guests of Francis in the meeting – as saying that “Francis mentioned that situations experienced by [so-called] transgender people will be more on his mind.”
Dever added that “He [Francis] said that when he appoints new bishops in the US he will consider their openness to transgender[-identified] people as a criteria.”
The Times cited another member of the meeting who attested hearing the quoted comment from Francis.
LifeSiteNews contacted New Ways Ministry – the LGBT group that sponsored the meeting – asking if they could confirm the remarks attributed to Pope Francis, but did not receive an answer.
Held on Saturday, the meeting between Francis and the New Ways Ministry group lasted nearly 90 minutes.
The guests “urged” Francis “to move past the Church’s negative approach” to so-called “gender-diverse people, and to encourage Church leaders to listen more attentively” to what they called “the lives and faith of LGBTQ+ people.”
According to Reuters – whose Vatican correspondent has close links with NWM – Francis faced “calls to overturn the Catholic Church’s ban” on so-called “gender-affirming care,” namely, calls to overturn the Church’s prohibition of “sex-change” surgery.
Dever was one of five people in the meeting who shared a personal testimony with Francis. A retired married deacon, Dever is father of a “transgender” male who attempted suicide after “transitioning.”
Delivering his testimony to Francis, Dever stated about his son (now living as a “woman”) that “with our unconditional love and support, [he] eventually came out and transitioned fully, socially, legally, and medically, a process that took almost 10 years – if [he] hadn’t done that, [he] probably wouldn’t be alive today.”
However, transgender drugs have been linked to bone density loss, suicide risk, and other major medical problems and can leave individuals permanently infertile. Transgender surgeries aim to remove healthy organs, including genitals, thus leaving individuals infertile and mutilated.
Dever claimed that gender-confused people “are being excluded from the life of the church in too many dioceses and parishes – they are denied the sacraments, they are not allowed to attend Catholic schools.”
Instead, Dever and his wife urged the Church “to talk about, to learn, and to discern the truth about these issues.”
Catholic teaching rejects transgender ideology, affirms the reality of the two sexes, and condemns bodily mutilation, such as “gender transition” procedures, as “against the moral law.”
The Church also teaches, in accordance with Sacred Scripture and the constant Tradition of the Church, that homosexual activity is mortally sinful and a “sin that cries to heaven” and that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered.”
Another individual who testified at the meeting was “Michael Sennett,” a “transgender man” involved in church work “for many years,” who told Francis that he appreciated having had “sex-change” surgery.
There are a number of U.S. episcopal sees which could become vacant in the coming years as bishops reach the age of 75, at which point they submit their retirement to Francis who makes a decision on whether to accept it.
A number of prelates already seen as very much in line with Francis’ thinking, and open to LGBT issues, are already in key sees. Indeed, just two days before the NWM meeting Francis met with three of the U.S. bishops who conform to this description.
Cardinals Joseph Tobin, Blase Cupich, and Robert McElroy were all received in private audience, with Tobin telling journalists the next day that he had personally requested it.
VATICAN: #PopeFrancis received Cardinals Joseph Tobin, Blase Cupich and Robert McElroy together in audience today. They are 3 of 11 prelates from America at the Synod.
Tobin is a member of the Synod Ordinary Council. Cupich & McElroy are personal picks of the Pope at the Synod. pic.twitter.com/6GtDhk7mOn
He said briefly that they discussed the Church, synodality, and “discernment,” stating that they are topics that the three cardinals talk about amongst themselves.
Notably, D.C. Cardinal Wilton Gregory was not present, stating later that “I didn’t get the invitation.”
NWM was co-founded by Sister Jeannine Gramick, the heterodox pro-LGBT nun whose official Vatican censure remains in place, though she has received signal favor from Francis in recent years.
Gramick was personally censured by the Vatican in 1999, and in 2010 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) further declared that New Ways Ministry “has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church” to speak on the LGBT issue.
Last week nominations for the Noble Peace Prize were announced, and the nominees were typical of the Prize’s history. A perusal of past winners reveals that the majority of prizes are for good intention, moralizing internationalism and its institutions, short-lived peace treaties, feckless disarmament, and any choice that gratifies global anti-Americanism.
And let’s not forget terrorists and their enablers included in this year’s nominees: the United Nations’ Palestinian refugee agency, the International Court of Justice, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. All three reflect the Prize’s long history of promulgating globalism and the “rules-based international order” that has serially failed to deter aggression.
The Wall Street Journal’s profile of this year’s nominees is a must read. Take the International Court of Justice, which took up South Africa’s specious charge of “genocide” against Israel, a despicable lie, given that South Africa seems unconcerned that Hamas’ founding charter explicitly calls for the genocide of Israel’s Jews. Worse, the ICJ “ruled that Israel ‘must immediately halt its military offensive’ in Rafah and other areas ‘which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’”
The other two nominees–– United Nations’ Palestinian refugee agency, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres––are just as morally idiotic, and obviously hostile to Israel and indifferent to the Israeli people. Employees of the UNRWA joined in Hamas’ butchery, and Secretary General Guterres claimed that Hamas’ violence, rape, and murder did “‘not come in a vacuum,’ but instead was grown from a ‘long-standing conflict, with a 56-year long occupation and no political end in sight.’”
The moral equivalence between the victims and murderers, like the lie “occupation,” makes a mockery of the UN’s claims to serve justice and peace. As the Journal concludes, “These aren’t peace makers. They’re apologists for war makers.”
Fortunately, the Peace Prize was awarded to Japan’s Nihon Hidankyo, an organization comprising atomic-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki who lobby to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This choice expresses the Nobel Committee’s preference for good intentions and impossible disarmament dreams, but it’s much more respectable and less morally offensive than celebrating enablers of terrorist murderers
But the Nobel Peace Prize has before legitimized not just the enablers, but the terrorists themselves. In 1994, Yasser Arafat, head of the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization, shared the prize with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin “for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.” The fruit of that collaboration between the terrorist and two leaders of a liberal democratic state was the doomed Oslo Accord signed in 1993.
Typical of the Prize’s premature celebrations of “peace,” terrorist attacks against Israelis were about the same as the pre-Oslo toll, and continued escalating. In 2000, Arafat turned down a “peace package” offering most of what Arafat said the Palestinians wanted, and instead began the Second Intifada that murdered 1000 Israelis.
This rewarding of “diplomatic engagement” is an important component of the Nobel Prize’s foreign policy preferences for the globalist “rules-based international order,” and its distrust of a realist foreign policy that acknowledges the primacy of national interests and, humanity’s lust for power and dominance, no matter how many prize-winning pacts and treaties have serially failed to resolve conflicts. There are, of course, some Prizes that acknowledge success–– such as the 1998 prize to John Hume and David Trimble “for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland,” efforts that produced a peace that still holds today. But most of such Prizes have failed like the Oslo Accord.
Consider the history of Peace Prizes after World War I. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson won the Prize “for his role as founder of the League of Nations.” The next year Léon Bourgeois, a leftist French government official who served in numerous offices, “for his longstanding contribution to the cause of peace and justice and his prominent role in the establishment of the League of Nations.” In 1922, Fridtjof Nansen, a Norwegian explorer and statesman, won “for his leading role in the repatriation of prisoners of war, in international relief work and as the League of Nations’ High Commissioner for refugees.”
Also in the Twenties, two much celebrated multination treaties were negotiated in order to normalize Germany and put the Great War behind Europe. Both the Locarno Treaties in 1925, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1929 were awarded Prizes for their principal architects. The delusional idealism of both pacts is obvious in the terms of the Kellogg-Briand agreement. The contracting parties “condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another,” and “agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”
These awards for good intentions were repudiated in the following years, when three members of the League of Nations, and signatories of the Locarno Treaties and the Kellogg-Briand pact––Japan, Italy, and Germany––violated the terms of the agreements, and simply walked away from the League. All that was needed to ignite World War II was yet another act of feckless and delusional “diplomatic engagement,” the infamous Munich agreement in 1938.
Yet despite those fruitless Prizes, “diplomatic engagement” and negotiations still are favorites when selecting winners. Another notable example of failed “diplomatic engagement” that ended badly are the Prizes give to Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho for negotiating a cease-fire in 1973. Le Duc Thos declined the award, no doubt knowing the cease-fire was merely a tactical feint in the North’s plan to continue the war, which ended in the U.S.’s shameful abandonment of South Vietnam in 1975.
Not just diplomacy, but the multinational institutions and their functionaries are favorite beneficiaries. Thus, this year’s nomination of the UNRWA is part of a long tradition of the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the Prize to the UN and its Secretary General, along with UN agencies that are frequent winners. In 2001, the Prize went to the UN and its Secretary General Kodi Annan, “for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world.” Notice again how aspirations rather than concrete achievements are rewarded.
Other favorites are NGO’s like the International Atomic Energy Agency and other organizations focused on controlling or eliminating certain kinds of armaments such as landmines and chemical weapons. But such ambitious projects are like Jonathan Swifts’ laws: “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” These organizations can lobby and hector national governments, but like the UN itself, have no power of enforcement.
Other prizes for the UN have been awarded for its agencies that frequently fail and make conflicts worse. In 1988 the UN’s Peacekeeping Forces won the Prize “for preventing armed clashes and creating conditions for negotiations.” How did that worked out in southern Lebanon, where the peacekeeping forces were deployed in 1978, becoming a launching pad both for terrorist incursions, and Hezbollah’s continuous barrages of missiles into Israel? About as well as the subsequent UN Security Council’s Resolution 1701 in 2006 forbidding such attacks ––a tacit admission that the earlier deployment of peacekeepers was a failure. Again, the Prize more frequently rewards aspirations and posturing rather than results.
Finally, another blot on the Prize’s reputation is that it’s often awarded to anti-American individuals and organizations in Europe, and to oikophobic progressives rather than conservatives in America. Take this notorious example: in 1990, a year before the Soviet Union finally collapsed from its chronic economic failures, and Ronald Reagan’s realist policies and military build-up the Soviets couldn’t afford to match, the Noble Peace prize went to USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, “for the leading role he played in the radical changes in East-West relations.” In fact, his only “role” was accepting the inevitable fate resulting from Ronald Reagan’s realist policies, the actual “leading role.”
Progressive Americans, on the other hand, who endorse and promote globalism’s erosion of national sovereignty, and the anti-national “global community” delusions, are welcome. Hence, it’s no surprise that Jimmy Carter, the most ineffective foreign policy president in U.S. history, in 2002 won the Peace Prize “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.”
Again, it’s not about concrete achievements, but paying homage to the globalist “international rules-based order.” In fact, Carter was a defeatist and apologist for the U.S. He set the tone in his first Inaugural Address, when he confessed the nation’s “recent mistakes,” counseled Americans not to “dwell on remembered glory,” and reminded citizens that “even our great nation has its recognized limits,” and can only “simply do our best.” Such defeatist rhetoric no doubt pleased the Europeans and the Soviets with a de facto rejection of American exceptionalism. Naïve promotion of human rights and disarmament, not defending our Constitution and national security and sovereignty, was Carter’s mission.
Finally, one can’t end an exposure of the Nobel Peace Prize’s function as a press agent for the shibboleths of globalism and the “international community,” without mentioning the Prize bestowed on Barack Obama in 2009 after only a few months in office, “for his decades [?] of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.”
Once again, campaign rhetoric rather than achievement sufficed to “earn” this prestigious honor. In 2007 Obama had published an article in Foreign Affairs that comprised a panegyric to “diplomatic engagement” that the U.S. allegedly had neglected for decades. He called the war in Iraq a “morass” from which American forces should be withdraw before the dreaded “escalation” would hastens a looming disaster. In 2011 Obama did just that, only to send our force back a few years later when ISIS threatened to conquer Iraq.
Also music to globalist ears, Obama promised “to reinvigorate American diplomacy” and “to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security.” These statements reflected the Democrats’ campaign smear that George W. Bush had compromised alliances and ignored diplomacy, a claim that is empirically false. And Obama denigrated American exceptionalism, reducing it to a nationalist amour propre. Finally, he pledged to use American wealth and power to help other countries “not in the spirit of a patron but in the spirit of a partner––a partner mindful of his own imperfections.”
When it comes to our security and interests, and our unalienable rights and freedoms, the Nobel Peace Prize has no interest in acknowledging the benefits America has given the world. But it is quick to reward those, including Americans, who criticize our actions and threaten our security and interests. We shouldn’t waste our time on this Orwellian Newspeak.
Kamala Harris sat down for a one-on-one interview with Fox News host Bret Baier.
This is the first non-softball interview of her life and she totally cracked under pressure.
A completely unhinged Kamala Harris began screaming about democracy!
“[Trump] talked about locking people up because they disagree with him! This is a democracy!” Kamala Harris shouted. “And in a democracy the president of the United States in the United States of America should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he would lock people up for doing it!”
The look on Bret Baier’s face said it all.
WATCH:
Kamala — screaming — has completely cracked under the pressure of the first non-softball interview of her vice presidency.
Kamala Harris refused to take responsibility for the death of Jocelyn Nungaray as a video of her grieving mother is played in front of her face, continues to attack President Trump.
Finally!
Kamala Harris was finally confronted about her deadly open borders policies.
WATCH:
Kamala Harris refuses to take responsibility for the death of Jocelyn Nungaray as a video of her grieving mother is played in front of her face, continues to attack President Trump.
An award-winning transgender Taiwanese author has filed multiple lawsuits against lesbians and women’s rights advocates after they refused to validate his identity as a “woman” and “lesbian.” Li Kotomi (りことみ) has repeatedly targeted individuals who refer to him as a man with legal harassment and has been demanding substantial financial compensation from the defendants.
Prior to relocating to Japan, Li has used several aliases, including Li Qinfeng (李琴峰) and Xu Feng (絮風). Li’s birth name is Huang Chen-Yang (黃晨揚), a male name which means morning and raising. In Taiwan, Li’s current name is Huang Chin-Wei (黃琴薇), a female name which means string instrument and a scented herb.
A well-known author within the Japanese and Taiwanese literary scene, Li presents himself as a female author and a lesbian, despite having been born male. Additionally, he frequently incorporates themes of relationships, both platonic and romantic, between women within his work. In 2021, he received a prestigious literary award known as the Akutagawa Prize for his novel “Island Where the Red Spider Lilies Bloom” (彼岸花が咲く島). The prize for rising talent, established in 1935, is highly sought-after and carries with it a cash reward of ¥1,000,000 ($6,400 USD).
Huang Chin-Wei, or Li Qinfeng, also known as Li Kotomi, in 2019. Photo credit: BusinessToday
The award-winning novel focuses heavily on interactions between young female protagonists, and follows 17 year-old Umi, who finds herself stranded on an island with a small, matriarchal society run by a group of female priests known as the Noro. The Noro speak and teach Umi a “woman’s language” (女語), and Umi uses it to communicate with another girl of the same age named Yona. The two then develop a deep relationship.
Li’s critics have called attention to the lesbian and feminist themes within his work in order to highlight the fact that he has deceived the public about his biological sex. The observation that he is a man posing as a lesbian, which has been repeated by multiple individuals over the past three years, is the basis on which Li has vexatiously filed defamation lawsuits, in collaboration with Taiwan’s most influential trans lobby group, the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, or TAPCPR (伴侶盟).
The TAPCPR is campaigning for sex self-identification policies in the nation. Current laws stipulate that an individual must fulfill certain medical requirements in order to change the legal sex on one’s identification documents. If successful, the law would be altered to remove the necessity of obtaining reports from two psychiatrists showing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and a letter from a doctor to confirm that “sex reassignment” surgery has been completed.
At present, the concept of sex self-identification measures is immensely unpopular in Taiwan, and especially with women. In a recent survey of over 10,000 respondents where the majority were female, participants “strongly disagreed with support for transgender females.” The study’s authors commented in the abstract: “Given the majority of respondents were females, survey findings should be regarded with caution.”
In August of 2023, Li began accepting financial donations to contribute to his campaign of “slander lawsuits.” On social media he stated that funds raised would be used to file “civil lawsuits and criminal charges” in order to combat “misinformation.”
“It all started when I won the Akutagawa Prize in July 2021,” Li said in the 2023 blog post. “Since winning the award, I have been subjected to a great deal of slander. Personal attacks against me, discriminatory remarks, low-level insults and name-calling, as well as rumors and misinformation were spread mainly on social media.”
He continued that he had “already taken legal action against several detractors,” and that there were pending “criminal charges and civil lawsuits.” Li goes on to reveal that his targets have been both. male and female individuals from Japan and Taiwan, and then “most cases have not yet been decided, but some cases have already been decided.”
In February, Li explained that as a result of the legal action he pursued, one unnamed man, a Taiwanese national in his 40’s, had recently been sentenced to four months in prison for “spreading false rumors” and “insulting” him, and added that he had also been ordered to pay ¥700,000 ($4,700 USD) in compensation to Li.
He continued to claim that the criticisms made about him caused him to suffer from “physical and mental problems such as insomnia and dizziness.”
“I also suffered from the anxiety and fear that would come over me when I was alone. As I was being bombarded with abuse online, every time I heard the sounds of life upstairs or the creaking of the floor, I was terrified that someone was coming to kill me. That’s how much I felt the world’s hostility,” Li stated.
“There were times when I thought it would be easier to just kill myself and be released. After seeing a psychosomatic doctor and taking anti-anxiety medication, I was finally able to live and work normally again after a long period of time, but even now I still feel anxious when I have to give lectures, give talks, or perform work in public,” Li said, adding that he lives in “fear that attackers and detractors may be lurking in the audience.”
Court document for one of the slander lawsuits filed by Li Kotomi, which he shared to his blog in 2023.
Yet despite his self-professed anxiety surrounding “attackers,” the majority of critics who Li has filed litigation against have been lesbians and women’s rights advocates who contest his claim to lesbianism.
Li has filed defamation claims against at least nine individuals within the past two years for making comments and social media posts referring to him as a male. The majority of those targeted for litigation have been women, while three have been men who are critical of gender ideology. Reduxx has seen evidence of both settled and ongoing legal disputes, but in order to safeguard the privacy of those affected, has chosen to withhold their identities.
The total amount of financial compensation thus far ordered to be awarded to Li on the basis of defamation is known to be at least 865,000 Japanese yen ($5,800 USD), in addition to an undisclosed amount that he has received from supporters online by means of crowdfunding.
The most recent litigation has been ongoing since July 1 against a woman and Taiwanese national, identified to Reduxx by the pseudonym Shawl, from whom Li is seeking up to $70,300 USD in damages.
In September 2022, Shawl received a demand letter from Li’s lawyer by way of her personal email account informing her of criminal charges against her. For the crime of revealing Li’s biological sex without allegedly verifying the source of the information, she was charged for violation of personal information and defamation. However, the court ruled against the criminal charges, after which Li persisted in filing a civil accusation for damages and sexual harassment.
Taiwan’s defamation laws are more severe than in many Western countries, and according to the criminal code, a person who “disseminates a fact which will injure the reputation of another… commits the offense of slander”. The punishment for those found guilty of slander can involve “imprisonment for not more than one year, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than fifteen thousand dollars.”
Among the social media posts cited by Li’s legal representative as “slander” include several which refer to him as a “man”. Litigation is ongoing and a ruling in her case is expected to be handed down by the Taiwan New Taipei District Court on October 31.
In March 2022, Shawl wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “Li Qinfeng writes lesbian literature as a woman. I noticed a few days ago that he was originally a man. He has been criticized by many people. He is clearly a man. Why can he dictate women’s affairs? Since he is a man, entering a girls’ high school would have been impossible, so how did he create a semi auto-biographical novel [with this theme]?”
Shawl’s comment refers to Li’s book Solo Dance ( 独り舞) which was promoted by its publisher as a semi-autobiographical novel that centers around a teenager who realizes she is a lesbian while attending a girls’ high school. However, Li did not attend a girls’ school, but rather a public high school in Taiwan, which he had previously identified as the Taichung Municipal High School (臺中市立臺中第一高級中等學校), and wrote under the pen name Xu Feng (絮風) – a fact that has been exposed not only by his critics, but also by his own background in writing.
In 2005, while in grade nine of high school, Li wrote his first novel, Are You Still Online (你還在線上嗎 – ISBN 9867280040). The story revolves around “a Capricorn boy who longs for love” and “lives in Changhua,” both of which are details that are identical to Li’s own personal life.
In the book’s introduction Li included his email address and online screen name, very1ghost, which internet sleuths were able to use to track his history of posting in the Taiwanese online forum PTT. Posts made by very1ghost match up exactly with Li’s educational background, and corroborate his former pen name of Xu Feng.
In 2009, while he was attending NTU, a classmate of Li’s complained in the PTT forum about Li’s behavior towards others, remarking that he was “rude” and had begun “wear[ing] skirts recently.” That same year, Li, using his screenname very1ghost, posted in the PTT community about his fear of participating in Taiwan’s mandatory military conscription, which had just been reduced from two years of service to one year.
“Can anyone tell me how on earth gender equality is possible when all (biological) males are required to do one year of military service (or alternative service or four months of military training) but females are not?” reads the post.
“The military conscription system of the Republic of China has always been a lingering nightmare for me. I know I’m afraid of that kind of life,” Li continued. “By visiting feminist boards (and other gender issue boards) over the past year, I have a basic understanding of feminism… However, what I don’t understand is why the current Taiwanese society is so politically correct about gender equality, but completely ignores the conscription system, a system that is fundamentally gender-unequal?”
“Transgender people who wish to transition have been thought to suffer from a mental illness called gender identity disorder. The idea was that it was an illness that required treatment (social gender transition, hormone therapy, surgery, etc),” Li wrote in February of this year.
“However, in recent years, the term ‘gender identity disorder’ has been abolished internationally, and instead it has been replaced by a ‘gender-related condition’ known as ‘gender incongruity/gender dysphoria’,” he added, referring to a shift in language first adopted by the US-based World Professional Association (WPATH). In depathologizing “gender identity disorder,” WPATH academics had consulted with anonymous members of a pedophilic castration fetish community.
Li also appears to hold the belief that males can identify as lesbians. In 2019, Li condemned Tokyo’s longest-running lesbian bar, Goldfinger, for their women-only night, which was being held only once per month.
n April of 2019, an American trans-identified male and university professor, Eric ‘Elin’ McCready, attempted to enter the venue on a women-only night and was denied access. In response, McCready took to social media to garner sympathy and portray himself as a victim of discrimination. His posts set off a flurry of criticism from online trans activists, with some calling for bar Goldfinger to be excluded from future Tokyo Pride events. Stonewall Japan Vice President Jessica Gordon even asked supporters to boycott the bar completely and authored a blog post slandering the venue’s owner and employees as “transphobic pieces of human trash.”
Joining in on the controversy, Li sent a message to the lesbian bar’s official account on X: “I heard that you have publicly announced the ‘exclusion of trans people,’” he wrote. “Even though Ochanomizu University has announced that it will accept trans women, why would Japan’s largest lesbian event declare that it will exclude trans women? This is an extremely malicious act that goes against the times and violates human dignity.”
But Li has advocated against women’s right to single-sex spaces on multiple occasions. As the criticism of the women-only event at Goldfinger began to escalate, Li, using his Taiwanese pen name Li Qinfeng, wrote an article for Tai Sounds which strongly denounced “transphobic hate speech in Japanese society”.
“Because of the existence of transgender people, we can no longer take the existence of ‘women’ as natural and biological, but must think about definitions: What is a woman? And all definitions essentially mean exclusion,” Li wrote. “The prejudice and exclusion of trans women by native women certainly falls into the category of cannibalism and does not contribute to the substantive improvement of women’s rights or gender equality.”
In addition to his relentless harassment of critics through defamation litigation, Li has made a disturbing comment sympathetic towards pedophilia. In August 2020, Li compared pedophilia to homosexuality, and stated that he didn’t “necessarily agree” that a sexual attraction to children did not constitute a sexuality.
“‘Pedophilia’ is trending for some reason… Some say that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation like LGB, but a pathology, and I don’t necessarily agree with that. I can’t agree. It’s always those in power who decide what’s sick and what is not, so we have no choice but to be cautious. Don’t forget that homosexuality was considered a disease 50 years ago.”
Taiwan’s government is now in the process of drafting an “Anti-Discrimination Act” (反歧視法). According to the current version of the legislation, based on reports of the hearings, “gender identity” is set to be included as a protected category. To date, Taiwan has permitted 7 known cases of sex self-identification, of the alteration of one’s legal sex without a surgical requirement.
In 2020, a man in Taipei was discovered to have secretly filmed more than 160 women and girls in “all gender” restrooms located across Taipei and New Taipei City. He had placed spycams in various universities and schools, and among his victims were girls as young as 13 and 14 years old.
A 23-year-old woman, previously unknown to the justice system, was sentenced to ten months in prison without parole by the criminal court in Nantes (Loire-Atlantique) on Wednesday October 16 for attacking her father with a knife in Rezé (Loire-Atlantique). Angelina accused him of preventing her from ‘wearing the veil’, even though she is now ‘Muslim’.
The young French woman is also convinced that she was ‘disowned’ by her family because she ‘hangs out with people of other ethnicities and skin colours’. She has a CAP (skilled labour certificate) and is now a self-employed entrepreneur in the ‘production of handmade candles’, which is why she now lives ‘on the street’. She even ‘slept in a mosque’, confirms the blonde young woman in the dock. www.leparisien.fr
The #NCFNewspeak panel remember 21 year old Tom Roberts, the aspiring Royal Marine who was was stabbed to death by an Afghan asylum seeker while trying to stop a fight over an electric scooter between t his pal James Medway and Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai. To watch the full version of this video, please click here: • UK’s Huge Population Boom Fuelled Exc…
He took advantage of the helplessness of two women, lured them into a trap and raped them. Now Gulagha A. (40) is finally behind bars.
The 40-year-old was arrested at the beginning of December 2023 after a Dutch woman (32) reported him for rape. But he was released again. The then homeless woman – apparently completely exhausted and frozen through – had accepted the offer of the Afghan living alone to wash and rest in his flat in the Dresden district of Gorbitz.
But while the woman was still in the bathroom, he knocked several times on the locked door. When she lay down to sleep, he raped her, although the woman shouted ‘No, no’ several times. The arrest warrant against Gulagha A. was issued, but not executed – not even after a DNA comparison (sperm traces) led to the second victim. He had already assaulted a woman a year earlier. On the 30th of November 2022, A. stalked social worker Verena K. (35, name changed) to her home in Dresden’s Neustadt district. In the courtyard of her home, he forced her onto a table and raped her. Verena K.: ‘I kept saying “No, No”, I had no strength to keep him off. When he was finished, he left without a word, leaving me lying in the courtyard.’
The presiding judge Joachim Kubista (60) sentenced the accused to four years in prison: ‘It looks as if you were deliberately looking for women who were unable to offer you any serious resistance. You deliberately took advantage of their weakness.’ Gulagha A. came to Germany with his wife and three children in 2020, he is a rejected asylum seeker and has been separated from his family since 2022. He has no criminal record.
During the trial, he said nothing about the rape allegations. When the court issued the arrest warrant, he burst into tears and let himself be led away, sobbing.
Adam Smith-Connor Photo: Courtesy of ADF International
A man charged for praying silently in an abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth has been found guilty in a shock ruling from Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court.
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by office on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING🚨🚨🚨
British courts have found Adam guilty for praying to God, silently in his mind, for 3 minutes in an abortion "buffer zone".
This is the first known conviction of a "thoughtcrime" in modern British history. pic.twitter.com/l352IEJ58A
“Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts – silent thoughts – can be illegal in the United Kingdom.That cannot be right.”- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for silently praying
The Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000. A conditional discharge is a type of conviction that means Smith-Connor will only be sentenced if he is convicted of any future offences in the next two years.
In its decision, the court reasoned that his prayer amounted to “disapproval of abortion” because at one point his head was seen slightly bowed and his hands were clasped.
DORSET (16th October 2024) – A man charged for praying silently in an abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth has been found guilty in a shock ruling from Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by office on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.
Responding to the ruling, Smith-Connor stated:
“Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts – silent thoughts – can be illegal in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. All I did was pray to God, in the privacy of my own mind – and yet I stand convicted as a criminal?
“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”
Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £90,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.
Interrogated for a prayer
Smith-Connor was confronted by officers who asked “what is the nature of your prayer?”, on a public green within a large “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.
Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds ahead of the verdict, politician Miriam Cates said:
“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”
The defence contended that Adam’s prayerful thoughts and the fact that he held certain beliefs and opinions could not in themselves amount to a crime, particularly when he stood peacefully and silently on a public street.
Smith-Connor did not outwardly manifest his prayer by kneeling, speaking, or holding any signs. He made every effort to be out of the line of sight of the abortion facility, positioned behind a tree with his back to the facility and did not engage with any other person.
Responding to today’s ruling, Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said:
“This is a legal turning point of immense proportions. A man has been convicted today because of the content of his thoughts – his prayers to God – on the public streets of England. We can hardly sink any lower in our neglect of basic fundamental freedoms of free speech and thought. We will look closely at the judgment and are considering options to appeal. Human rights are for all people – no matter their view on abortion.”
Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities.
The UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023.
The Labour Government have announced plans to implement the zones on 31st October. Under the national law, “influencing” someone’s decision to “access” abortion services will become a crime.
Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said:
“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. But the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion.
“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, are protected by international legal provisions on freedom of thought and speech. Yet the lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.
This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly.”
Commenting on the trial, Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh MP said:
“It is disgraceful that in Britain in 2024 someone can be put on trial for praying silently in his head. Unfortunately we have seen repeated cases of free speech under threat in the UK when it comes to the expression of Christian beliefs. To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offence. The government must clarify urgently that freedom of thought is protected as a basic human right.”
Abdul Alim Hamza (32) tried to win over young men to his values via TikTok, among other things Photo: Instagram
He propagates hatred, he is an Islamist who despises our democracy. And yet: the Bonn-based Salafist preacher Leonis Hamza (32), alias Abdul Alim Hamza, was released from the Büren deportation prison a few days ago.
The Kosovar is free again after just under four weeks and can continue to propagate his evil ideas! This is reported by the weekly ‘Focus’. The Salafist was arrested at the beginning of September and has been in custody pending deportation ever since. In order to prevent the planned deportation to Kosovo, he filed an urgent appeal – and was ruled in favour by the competent administrative court in Cologne! According to the court, the city of Bonn had not provided sufficient evidence that the preacher posed a threat to the free and democratic basic order. His propaganda in favour of Salafism was not sufficient. According to a court spokesperson, there is therefore ‘no particularly serious interest in deportation’.
The hate preacher was released four days ago.
The Bonn State Security Service takes a completely different view of the Salafist preacher: according to Focus Online, a 51-page secret report characterises Hamza as a violent extremist who tyrannises his family and spreads anti-Semitic hate speech.
He is ‘very well networked in the radical Salafist scene’ and is looking for young men to instruct. He is also intensifying his contacts in the clan scene. And: He is said to have threatened to kill his daughter (5) because she does not obey him and he rejects her because of her gender. On Tuesday, the Kosovar published a statement on Instagram. In it, he presents himself as a harmless, blameless citizen: ‘I would like to emphasise that I am not in conflict with the city of Bonn, the German government, the authorities, the state security services or any secret services. I am a citizen like any other. I’m certainly not infallible – nobody is.’
