Director of Public Prosecutions warns: ‘Even just sharing images of riots online can be criminal.’

[…]

Via https://decripto.org/en/england-director-of-public-prosecutions-warns-even-just-sharing-images-of-riots-online-can-be-criminal-decripto-org-suspends-publication-of-articles-on-the-subject/

By Doug Glaass

There are a variety of debates that one can jump into concerning the alleged pandemic. The viruses don’t exist crowd say that no scientific evidence exists that any virus has ever been isolated, so it follows that there was no novel virus.

Denis Rancourt’s research shows there was no viral spread in NYC. The most mainstream debate revolves around the virus’ origins; did it escape from a lab or did it have natural cause?

Listening to Jonathan Couey, who has been outspoken in his belief that not only was there never any pandemic, all of these debates distract from the idea – the truth – that the novel coronavirus is a mythology that must be destroyed. Those Rand Paul vs. Tony Fauci back-and-forths are debates put out not to determine whether the virus came from a lab or from nature, but rather to affirm the existence of a novel disease in the first place.

While I most certainly fall into the Couey camp, what I want to show is that it’s not necessary to analyze any of the evidence concerning the lab leak vs. nature debate, or pour through any of this research to come to the same conclusion as Couey.

All anyone has to do is look at their own lived experience from 2020 onward. Despite the media’s daily case-counter-porn, no honest person would say these reports were a reflection of their everyday lives. There were certainly reactions from health officials to a pandemic, just no pandemic. If there wasn’t actually a pandemic, it isn’t that much of a stretch to say there was never any novel virus.

[…]

This led me back to Couey who is still on Twitch and who you can support. I bring him up because my finding him (again) has inspired this particular output, and because I agree with him so completely that the real casualties of this psyop are our children. He goes much deeper into all of this and I highly recommend listening to his Gain-of-Function is the Scooby Doo villain analogy.

At the risk of appearing to pump my own tires saying I got it right before JJ or anyone (well, this elementary school teacher with a liberal arts degree apparently did figure it out almost four years before world famous evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein), I’ve been of the opinion that there was no pandemic going back to September 2020 and tried showing this to my K-5 students very early on. I did so just by having them compare what they were hearing or being told to believe about the pandemic, and what they were actually experiencing.

Perhaps the most shocking realization in early 2020 was that using evidence to support an argument became completely and utterly ineffective as a means of doing so. Certainly when the idea you were arguing against was supported by evidence supplied by authority.

Even if this evidence was simply, “According to the CDC…” or “The FDA has determined that … ”, it was powerful and captured people who up until that point, seemed to be smart, critical thinkers.

In The Most Dangerous Superstion, author Larken Rose writes:

The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.

(Rose is also responsible for The Jones Plantation, first a short and now a full length film you can purchase, and highly recommended)

It should be obvious to any critically thinking person that much of the madness that has taken place since March 2020 is a direct result of this religious belief. Some examples are the policies mandated by so many cities in the US and Europe requiring masks to be worn in public or on airplanes, or requiring restaurants to verify patrons’ vaccine status before allowing them in.

Never mind that no evidence has ever been shown that requiring any of these measures reduced the spread of contagious disease, or that prior to 2020 it was an accepted fact that masks were seen as a talisman at best [emphasis mine]:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection… ….It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis.[1]

The general population cared little for such details and would respond in ways such as, and I’m generalizing of course, “Just do what they say, and you won’t get in trouble.” One can look at the comments on the Facebook/Twitter pages of any small business or restaurant that didn’t toe the line and see that it was either a false assumption that there was science to back the non-sensical measures, or just simply non-compliance that bothered people; whether or not complying actually made people safer.

There are still some (allegedly) real people who continue to advocate for mask wearing in public, and no medical intervention has ever had such a religious zeal attached to following it. The fact is that the focus of this debate has always centered on whether or not there is a benefit. In other words, do they work?

The pro-mask crowd has never, ever considered that there may be a cost to universal masking, especially in the school setting. It is always under the guise of reducing spread and “keeping kids safe” but no school or health official has ever put forth any evidence that it does either of these things.

Because there isn’t any.[2]

Like so many of the non-pharmaceutical interventions of 2020, no benefit-cost analysis was ever done regarding masks. This seems patently obvious to any rational person and I don’t need a study to know that putting masks on 4 & 5 year-olds, 10 year-olds or teenagers 8 hours a day for months on end causes deep psychological harm.

Most importantly, since we don’t “know” if and to what degree masks may be harmful if worn for extended periods – this question is never addressed by the mask stasi, or it is simply dismissed as superficial – it is impossible to determine whether or not they provide a net benefit.

I saw first hand the deleterious effect that masks had on young people working in an elementary school at the beginning of 2020. It is hard to imagine a group of people more compliant than public school teachers and so the mask requirement was dutifully enforced by them across the country. It’s been a lonely place for educators like me over the last four years, and I can only imagine how difficult it was for like-minded teachers in the northeast or Oregon, California or Washington.

In the fall of 2020, I was teaching a group of 2nd and 3rd graders. By this time, I was not only of the opinion that the coronavirus thing was a big psyop, I was starting to believe that there wasn’t actually a “pandemic” based on my own lived experience.

I was a specialist, meaning that I would go pick students up from their classrooms, and bring them back to a separate area to give them more individualized instruction. It was then that the damage that was being done to our most precious members of society really hit home, both figuratively and literally.

I was lucky in that being a specialist allowed me to fly below the radar of the mask stasi, allowing me not wear a mask while teaching. The kids, however, wore them without question, especially the younger ones. Anyone who has kids or has taught young kids knows why: they trust us implicitly, and want to please.

Teachers quite literally told children that masks were preventing people from dying, and that not wearing them could lead their unwittingly killing someone.

So sayeth Adults, so kids believeth.[3]

I didn’t realize how frightened they were until I actually asked them why they never took off their masks, even though I didn’t wear one and always told them they didn’t have to. When they told me why, it crushed me, especially since I knew that they were the least likely to suffer any complications across all age groups.

One day, I just posed the question to a small group of five kids: “Are you guys afraid of coronavirus?”

There wasn’t any hesitation – which in and of itself was a tell because all of them were non-native speakers and sometimes it was like pulling teeth to get an answer. All of them said “Yes.” I asked them why, and one of them said, “Because I don’t want to die.”

This may sound like a “that definitely happened” story, but for whatever it’s worth, I can assure you that it did.

My caseload was 27 students, between the ages of 5 and 10 years-old so I decided to ask the same question to all of them, and 26 of 27 gave that same answer.[4]

They were afraid. What broke me is the reason that they were afraid was not because they had looked into the matter themselves, of course, but for the same reason they wore the masks: Adults told them that this is what they should feel, and that implicit trust led to their having a completely unfounded fear of dying.

[…]

The next time I saw this girl’s group, I told all of them they could take their masks off, confident that she would be the first one to do so when in fact she was the only one who didn’t. I didn’t pressure her and continued on with the lesson. She volunteered the answer to a question but I couldn’t understand her, even when she repeated so I said, “Just take your mask down for a minute so I can understand.”

Within a few seconds, she was sobbing, still with her mask on. When I was finally able to understand what she was saying she told me, paraphrasing, “I don’t want to catch coronavirus and take it home and kill my parents.”

I don’t remember what happened after that to be honest, aside from reassuring her that this was absolutely not the case. I think I told her that all the other adults were wrong, and reminded her that parents had told her that she had nothing to be afraid of.

[…]

Then I finally asked them, “If this is what we imagined a world with a terrible disease going around would look like, but none of that is true about the world we live in, is there a terrible disease going around?”

The implication was hard for some kids to grasp at first, but most of them were pretty excited to understand. (Interestingly enough, when I did it for groups of high school students the following year, there was a large portion of them who suffered from some serious cognitive dissonance despite having given the same answers as their younger counterparts).

The most dangerous superstition has caused people to be afraid of something that runs contrary to what they see with their own eyes.

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2024/08/07/the-virus-telenovella-teaching-the-plandemic/

In 2019, a scandal ripped through the Wikipedia community when a Wikipedia admin who goes by the handle Fram was handed a year-long ban from the site. While known to few outside the tight-knit but feverishly active collective of Wikipedia contributors, the affair was part of a far-reaching, partisan shift at the open encyclopedia with widespread implications for the future of media, technology, and politics around the world.

Although contributor bans are not uncommon on Wikipedia, this case was different. Instead of coming from the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (Arbcom), the panel of editors empowered to make such decisions, the ban was handed down directly by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the NGO that owns the site.

Little more than 12 hours after the ban’s announcement, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales publicly intervened to help quell the storm by publicly assuring the community he was reviewing the situation, and later saying he’d “raised the issue with WMF.” A week later, two Wikipedia bureaucrats — high-ranking editors who can assign admin rights — and 18 admins — editors with enhanced rights — resigned in protest. Arbcom released a searing statement saying the top-down ban was “fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance.”

At its lowest resolution, the controversy was born from the tension between the decentralized Wikipedia site and the highly centralized Wikimedia Foundation. In reality, the ban and subsequent backlash were tied to a massive culture shift at Wikipedia, precipitated by the rise of a new social-justice-minded power structure at Wikimedia Foundation.

The launch of Wikiproject Black Lives Matter in 2020 exemplified Wikipedia’s all-in pivot to DEI. Seeking to address what it called Wikipedia’s “systemic bias,” the project called for editors to enrich the content, and elevate the visibility, of pages like “Black Lives Matter,” “Police Brutality in the United States,” “Racism in Oregon” and “US National Anthem Protests.” Most importantly, the project represented a carve-out from Wikipedia’s foundational policy of providing No Original Research: instead of aggregating information from other sources, Wikipedia editors began both going to protests and proactively reaching out to photographers who would be willing to allow Creative Commons use of protest photography.

The controversy was ultimately about who would control the site containing “all the world’s knowledge,” and hundreds of millions in Wikipedia funding. Would the site’s community of decentralized, uncompensated editors continue to govern it according to its principles of openness, transparency, and neutrality, or would a handful of highly paid NGO technocrats re-orient Wikipedia toward endorsing and promoting the ever-shifting currents of the Western elite social justice regime? And how would Wikipedia respond to a revolution in American public life that challenged the idea that knowledge should be both neutral and objective as a vestige of white supremacy?

As the Wikipedia community (“communitah” in Wiki-speak) erupted over the scandal, a few crucial facts emerged. Fram was (and still is) a prodigious editor, with around 200,000 edits by the time of his ban. But he was also seen as sometimes being sharp-tongued with editors whose contributions he thought violated policy. One of those editors was Laura Hale, then an Australian PhD student whose Wikipedia contributions focused on feminism and women’s sports, particularly related to the Paralympic movement. Hale, who did not have admin status, had previously claimed that Fram had “harassed” her by leaving comments on her Talk page, where comments about an editor’s edits are aggregated.

In a FAQ about the ban, Wikimedia Trust and Safety offered no more than corporate policy-speak to explain why it had been issued, with no specifics supplied. “As described on the Metapage about Office actions, we investigate the need for an office action either upon receipt of complaints from the community, or as required by law. In this case we acted on complaints from the community,” was the most substantive piece of the explanation. As one Wikipedia editor put it, “Of all the non-answers I’ve seen in my life, that’s possibly one of the most long winded.”

In the thick of the #MeToo movement ripping through America, an allegation against a senior male editor (Fram is widely known to be a man) against a woman editor with less power resonated with progressive parts of the community. Women in Red, a Wikipedia faction founded to increase the number of active female editors and articles whose subject “self-identifies as a woman — binary and/or non-binary and/or other” on the site, doubled down, accusing Fram of “real crimes” in a since-deleted tweet. “[I]t’s pretty clear that something legal or very serious was involved in this case,” wrote one self-described “anti-racist, pro-LGBTQ+” editor on a community discussion page.

But the fact that Hale was then in a long term romantic relationship with an editor called Raystorm (real name Maria Sefidari), who had rallied to Hale’s defense, at one time thundering “Just leave Laura alone” on a Talk page, complicated efforts to frame the controversy as a #metoo issue. On its own, her defense of Hale was unremarkable — except for one fact. In addition to her capacity as an editor, Sefidari held a vastly more powerful role as Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the board that oversees the Wikimedia Foundation that owns the site. In this position, Sefidari was responsible for working directly with the executive director on issues like staff compensation, finding the director’s replacement, and setting the literal agenda for the WMF Board of Trustees, which oversees financial aspects related to the Foundation. In addition, as a board member, Sefidari had served, or was serving, on many of the top-level decision-making committees, including the Audit Committee, which oversees the finances of WMF, and Board Governance Committee, which administers Board elections, committee appointments and assessments.

Accusations began to fly that Sefidari had helped secure for Hale a paid position as Wikipedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, a semi-official editor role associated with an NGO that paid a stipend. Hale’s bonafides for the positions were questionable at best: she created dozens of English-language Wikipedia articles from Spanish articles despite the fact that she had begun learning Spanish only a few years earlier, resulting in frequent errors and odd usages on her pages. She was also caught admitting to using a “Ukrainian bulk content developer” (in her own words) — a low-cost content creator that could fill out a template created by Hale to generate dozens of articles — to mill more articles on the subject.

This strange triangle of love, enmity, and power led many in the community to believe that Fram had been banned not for vague accusations of “abuse” but for calling out sub-par work of a top Wikimedia official’s love interest. Salacious as it all was, if this had been the end of the story, it would have been an unpleasant, but quirky, footnote in Wikipedia history. In reality, it was only the beginning of a fundamental change that would replace the decentralized ethos of the site’s founders, and impose the WMF agenda on Wikipedia to use it as a tool for progressive social change.

Two years later, Sefidari announced that she’d be stepping down from the WMF Board of Trustees. But there was a catch: she would transition into a role as a paid consultant. This immediately set off alarm bells in the community, with members protesting that a senior WMF official taking a separate paid role on exit smacked of self-dealing. The landslide of objections became so intense that WMF’s General Counsel, Amanda Keton, had to step in with a lengthy response.

Keton explained the new arrangement by saying the WMF had identified “gaps in implementation of the Foundation’s Movement Strategy” that required further staffing. Sefidari was supposed to fill this gap, now as a paid consultant, with her extensive knowledge of WMF and the Movement Strategy brought to bear on the work.

The Movement Strategy, also known as Wikimedia 2030, was indeed a massive undertaking. Launched in 2017 by then-WMF executive director and CEO Katherine Maher, the strategy would be a complete re-imagining of WMF and Wikipedia’s mission. Where Wikipedia had been built on the principle of decentralized knowledge, the Movement Strategy would veer into the hyper-centralized space of top-down social justice activism and advocacy. At the initiative’s launch event, Maher told the audience it had taken eight months to fully conceive and would draw in various stakeholders, like media, tech, academics and NGOs. (Among the few directly named was Maria Sefidaris.)

The key concept undergirding the Movement Strategy was “inclusion,” an idea rapidly becoming buzzy amid the swirling culture currents that would soon crystallize into #MeToo, BLM and the trans movement. One of the “Consensus Findings” derived from the process of fleshing out the initiative was a statement that could have come straight from a DEI handbook: “Inclusivity and new representation can be only forged on lower barriers to entry.”knowledge,” the WMF would need money — lots of it. Accordingly, the Movement Strategy devoted significant focus on funding WMF deep into the future. But it went much further, innovating a new structure for the Foundation that could harness the internet’s insatiable demand for digital information.

The central aspect of WMF’s new financial strategy was the establishment of the Wikimedia Endowment, a pool of money that, as its name suggests, is designed to fund the organization essentially “in perpetuity.” Distinct from Wikimedia’s budget, which funds Wikipedia’s day-to-day operations, the Endowment was set up in 2016 as a donor-advised fund at leftist mega-fund, Tides Foundation, an $800 million fund that’s part of the wider Tides Center, a network of such funds “that partners with social change leaders and organizations to…accelerate social justice.” The Tides Foundation’s IRS 990 filing lists its mission as “Grantmaking through funds to accelerate the pace of social change.”

Tides, which has received $34 million in taxpayer funding since 2008, funds a variety of left leaning groups focused on defunding police departments, like the Justice Teams Network, which works to defund the Oakland police, as well as Chispa, which worked toward the same end in Santa Clara, California. Tides has also founded numerous anti-Israel groups like the Council on Islamic American Relations, which is an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas. The fund recently made the news for its association with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, a group it not only funds but operates, which last November led the shutdown of the Bay Bridge to protest the war in Gaza.

[…]

Via https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-the-regime-captured-wikipedia

By Sean Adl-Tabatabai

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed to impose ‘COVID-style lockdowns’ to stomp out anti-immigrant protests erupting across the country.

Facing a full-blown crisis less than a few weeks into office, recently installed WEF Young Global Leader Starmer gathered top cabinet ministers on Saturday as civil unrest erupted in dozens of towns and cities throughout the UK in response to the murder of three young girls and the stabbing of eight others, including children, by a 17-year-old Rwandan-heritage second-generation immigrant on Monday.

Breitbart.com reports: The Guardian, citing the far-left Hope Not Hate organisation, reported that an estimated 35 locations had been scheduled to see protests on Saturday, some of which saw violent clashes between participants and the police, as well as attacks on businesses, particularly in Belfast, Hull, Liverpool, and Manchester. According to The Telegraph, at least 90 arrests were made throughout the country on Sunday.

A Downing Street spokesman told the paper: “The prime minister set out that the police have our full support to take action against extremists on our streets who are attacking police officers, disrupting local businesses and attempting to sow hate by intimidating communities.

“The prime minister ended by saying the right to freedom of expression and the violent disorder we have seen are two very different things. He said there is no excuse for violence of any kind and reiterated that the government backs the police to take all necessary action to keep our streets safe.”

The hardline rhetoric from the PM, who has characterised the protests and riots as “far-right,”  on the outpouring of rage and violence has been contrasted to his response during the deadly and deeply destructive Black Lives Matter riots in 2020, when he infamously took the knee in solidarity with the Marxist movement and described those involved as “people rightly demanding justice”.

The government has also faced criticism for refusing to discuss footage posted on social media appearing to show violent responses from large groups of Muslim or leftist counter protesters.

The prime minister’s response to his first crisis of his expected five-year term has been heavily criticised by the Reform UK party of Nigel Farage, who accused Starmer of failing to address the root cause of the anger, which is mass migration.

On Friday, Farage’s deputy, Boston and Skegness MP Richard Tice, said: “Many millions of concerned British citizens are furious at lawless Britain. Children being slaughtered. Machete mobs abound. Soldiers being stabbed. Police violently attacked in airport.

“Instead of empathy, Keir Starmer labelled folk as “far-right”. Out of touch, clueless.”

However, others have demanded that the government go farther, including Tory leadership candidate and former Home Secretary Priti Patel, who has called on Starmer to recall Parliament to hold an emergency session on the unrest.

One of the more extreme takes on the crisis came from former Labour MP and current government advisor on political violence, Baron Walney, John Woodcock, who argued that the government should consider a coronavirus-style lockdown to stamp out the uprising if it continues to persist.

“I think the government and new ministers will understand the British public will back them in whatever measures they feel is necessary to get this situation under control,” Lord Walney told the Times Radio.

“Back in Covid, they were prepared to back measures that were needed in that situation and I think they would take a similar approach to keeping rioters off the streets now given the scale of damage that has been done to communities.”

[…]

Via https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/uk-pm-keir-starmer-threatens-covid-style-lockdowns-to-stop-protests/

Episode 9 Ogedei Khan’s Western Campaigns

The Mongol Empire

Dr Craig Benjamin (2020)

Film Review

Chingiss Khan’s son Ogedei was approved as Great Khan at a 1229 kuritai. In the celebration that followed, a large number of horses and 40 noble wives were sacrificed for his father’s use in the afterlife.

Believing the sky god Tingari had ordained the Mongols’ conquest of the entire earth, Ogedei immediately launched a three pronged military campaign:

1. He and his brother Tolui renewed the attack on the Jin Dynasty in China;
2. He appointed General Subitai to lead his troops along the Siberian steppes to secure northern territories Jochi had conquered during the Khwarazmian campaign (see Chinggis Khan’s Khwarazmian Campaign)
3. He appointed Generals Chormaqan Noyen and Davir to lead a campaign against Jalal Al-din (son of the deceased Khwarazmain caliph Mohammed Shah), who had returned to Persia.

After fleeing north to Iran, then to the Caucasus, Jalal Al-din wa slaughtered by Kurdish peasants. In 1233, the Mongols defeated Azerbaijan and invaded Georgia and Armenia, which quickly surrendered and agreed to pay duty. They also began military raids into Iraq for booty.

Following Tolui’s sudden mysterious death, Ogedei recalled General Subitai from the Volga River to join the campaign against the Jin Dynasty. The latter ceased to exist after the capitol Kaifong fell in 1234. Mongols then attacked the southern Song dynasty when they attempted to occupy former Jin territory.

Withdrawing from military duties to consolidate the empire, Ogedei called a kuritai in 1234 to approve his plans to extend the Mongol military campaign to the principalities of Rus* in Eastern Europe.

The 150,000 Mongol warriors that set out for Eastern Europe split into two divisions and easily surrounded the 20,000 troops hastily mustered by the princes of Rus. They also used siege engines (built for them by Chinese engineers) to lob boulders and flammable naphtha bombs at the major Russian cities. In 1240 Chinggis Khan’s sons Tolui and Batu led the attack on Kiev. After the capitol was looted and burned to the ground, the other Russian cities were quick to surrender.

Batu and General Subitai then led the campaign against Hungary, which controlled large areas of Eastern Europe, while Generals Adan and Baidar attacked Poland. Thanks to intelligence the Mongols received (most likely from the powerful city-state of Venice**), they knew that Bohemian and Prussian knights were mobilizing to support Poland and attacked before reinforcements arrived.

Soon after Mongol scouts appeared outside the walls of Vienna, Ogedei died in December 1241 (most likely from complications of chronic alcoholism). During the decade it took to appoint his successor, the military campaign against Eastern Europe was put on hold.

*In Russian history, Mongols are referred to as Tatars.

**Mongols signed a trade treaty with Venice (which held colonies across the Eastern Mediterranean, in 1221. Assistance with intelligence is believed to be one of its benefits. See Venice and the Mongol Hordesf

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanapy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/12373094/12373112

The Blogging Hounds

In a rare move that has left many stunned, the Vatican has issued a statement condemning the Paris Olympics’ opening ceremony for its grotesque and blasphemous depiction of Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic painting, “The Last Supper.”

[…]

On Saturday, a week after the blasphemous Olympics opening, the Vatican expressed deep disappointment over the skit, which featured drag queens, a transgender model, and a naked singer portraying the Greek god Dionysus.

This scene, presented on July 26 during the opening ceremony, resembled the biblical portrayal of Jesus Christ and his apostles during their final meal before the crucifixion.

A young child was also spotted in the performance, standing next to the drag queens.

NEW: The Paris Olympics is under fire for including a *child* in their hyper-s*xualized, blasphemous rendition of The Last Supper.

An apparent child could be seen joining the drag queens during the performance.

Instead of bringing people together, the planners of the event… pic.twitter.com/5nUSmE72Oe

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 26, 2024

ESPN reported that the Olympic committee is scrambling to contain the fallout. On Sunday morning, Paris 2024 spokesperson Anne Descamps issued a so-called ‘apology’ if anyone was offended by the sick performance while maintaining they managed to celebrate “community tolerance.”

“Clearly, there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group. It (The opening ceremony) tried to celebrate community tolerance,” Descamps claimed during a news conference.

“We believe this ambition was achieved,” she added. “If people have taken any offense, we are really sorry.”

Translation: we have no regrets over the performance, and it’s your fault for misinterpreting our intentions, silly Christians.

The Pope’s statement was released in French during an unusual weekend press conference, according to Reuters. The Red Pope Francis stated it could not “but join the voices raised in recent days to deplore the offense done to many Christians and believers of other religions.”

“In a prestigious event where the whole world comes together around common values, there should not be allusions ridiculing the religious convictions of many people,” the Vatican added.

“Freedom of expression, which is obviously not called into question, finds its limit in respect for others.”

This condemnation follows an open letter signed by three cardinals and 24 bishops from around the globe, calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to “repudiate” and “apologize” for what they deemed “intentionally hateful mockery,” according to Catholic News Agency

[…]

Via https://theblogginghounds.com/2024/08/04/vatican-shocks-world-with-surprising-statement-over-olympics-blasphemous-last-supper-mockery/