New study reveals extent and nature of online sexual victimization of Canadian teens

CBC
Sat, November 29, 2025 


Monique St. Germain said predators often start a conversation on a public platform and then quickly move it to a private chat. (Photo illustration/CBC - image credit)

A new study from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection is providing insight into the online dangers that Canadian teenagers are facing.

Researchers surveyed 1,279 teens ages 13 to 17 who said they had experienced online sexual victimization.

"This is very important data for us to pay attention to because these are the kids who maybe have not come forward before and told anybody about what has happened to them," said Monique St. Germain, the general counsel for the centre.

Speaking to CBC Radio's Information Morning Nova Scotia, St. Germain said four out of five teens surveyed said they had experienced unwanted sexual talk online.

St. Germain said this is often a grooming tactic.

Monique St. Germain is with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. (Canadian Centre for Child Protection)

She said predators will try to manipulate teens into sending images of themselves or put them in a position where they could be threatened.

The study also found that half of the teens surveyed had been sent unwanted nude photographs.

St. Germain said it was very common for these interactions to start on public social media apps and then move into private messaging, which makes it harder for the child to get help and for anyone to witness what is happening.

The most common platforms for this abuse are Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook, she said.

The research comes against the backdrop of a recent incident in Nova Scotia where a mother discovered her 14-year-old daughter had bypassed security on her school-issued Chromebook and been targeted by online predators.

The woman, whom CBC News is not naming to protect her daughter's identity, said her daughter was accessing inappropriate chats on Roblox and through her school email.

Speaking to CBC News, the province's education minister, Brendan Maguire, acknowledged that children are able to circumvent online safety measures.

“I know even my own boy last year was able to get around it to play video games within the classroom,” Maguire said.

Brendan Maguire, minister of education and early childhood development, taking questions from reporters following a cabinet meeting on Thursday. (Patrick Callaghan/CBC)

St. Germain noted that online groups like 764, whose members coerce children into harming themselves and others, including engaging in sexual activity on camera, are another serious threat.

She said the study's findings show that Canada needs to do more and that relying on criminal law after a child has been hurt is not enough.

She believes the government must create new laws to hold technology companies accountable for what's taking place on their platforms.

'We've got serious harm to children happening in multiple domains and we know this and the time for self-regulation is over."

The rise of masculinism: From obscure online forums to ballot boxes (2/3)

LONG READ


For the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, FRANCE 24 examines a sharp rise in masculinist discourse that seeks to normalise and legitimise misogyny. This second article in a three-part series explores how masculinism has moved from the dark corners of the internet to become a central political tool. From the United States to South Korea, populist parties and authoritarian leaders are increasingly adopting the discourse and rolling back women’s rights.


Issued on: 25/11/2025 
By: Pauline ROUQUETTE

Maculinism, which was initially confined to obscure online forums, has become an important political tool. © Studio graphique FMM


Masculinist discourse is no longer just a muted background noise online. What once belonged to obscure subcultures on the internet is now being echoed, amplified and instrumentalised by political actors who are helping push the misogynistic ideology into the mainstream.

In the US, South Korea and parts of Europe, the anti-feminist rhetoric has become an effective electoral tool – a shared language that mobilises supporters and helps undermine democratic institutions.

“Although the masculinity ideology emerged in the Anglosphere, it has now taken off in many other countries too, from South Korea to Germany, including in France, where – for the first time – a man has been put under formal investigation for plotting a terror attack motivated by the incel [involuntary celibate, eds. note] movement,” a report published by the Gender and Geopolitics Observatory of the French geopolitical think-tank IRIS noted in October.

READ MOREShould France’s incel threat be treated like terrorism?

“Several factors have turned masculinism into an expanding political force,” the report continued, stating that platform algorithms were bringing like-minded users together and enabling masculinist networks and influencers to organise, spread and monetise their ideas through large-scale anti-feminist campaigns.

The online movement then quickly found its way into politics, where populist players stood ready to channel the male anger into electoral capital.
‘Bloke things’

“It’s the whole galaxy gravitating around [Donald] Trump – and especially Steve Bannon – that has set the strategic blueprint for uniting disparate masculinist groups and exploiting men’s grievances,” Stéphanie Lamy, researcher and author of the book “La Terreur Masculiniste” (The masculinist terror), explained.

“It costs less for a candidate to promise middle- and working-class men that they will regain control over ‘their women’, than to actually improve their material conditions,” she said.

In 2014, the US was the scene of the so-called Gamergate controversy – a sexist, anti-feminist harassment campaign that targeted female journalists and researchers.

“It was a large anti-feminist masculinist mobilisation that brought together fairly disparate groups under the one and same umbrella,” she said.

Many of the men who participated in Gamergate all shared the same core values: an hostility towards feminism, the anti-racist Black Lives Matter movement, so-called Social Justice Warriors (SJW), along with a contempt for both journalists and researchers.

Gamergate became a showcase for the American alt-right movement which strongly backed Trump during his first campaign to win the White House. According to IRIS, the anonymous administrator of the “The Red Pill” – a masculinist subgroup on Reddit – played “a key role in rallying young. anti-feminist men to vote for Trump”.

Lamy described it as “a fairly young voter base that had hardly voted at all before”.

In his 2024 re-election campaign, Trump sought to mobilise the fringe group again and appeared on masculinist podcasts like “The Joe Rogan Experience” – one of the most popular podcasts in the world, which in October drew 16 million listeners and averages at 200 million monthly downloads – to appeal to them. Nearly 90 percent of the show’s guests – and 80 percent of its audience – are male, with half of listeners aged between 18 and 34.

In February, 2024, Nigel Farage, the head of Britain’s far-right ReformUK party, appeared on the “Strike It Big” podcast where he described masculinist influencer Andrew Tate as “an important voice” for men. In the interview, Farage explained that young men’s masculinity was being looked down upon and that they were being told “you can’t be blokes, you can’t do laddish, fun, bloke things”.

The rise of masculinism: Violence and misogyny online (1/3)

According to Alice Apostoly, co-director of France’s Gender in Geopolitics Institute (GGI), said that even though few politicians, even conservative ones, are ready to openly align themselves with Tate’s rhetoric, they use it as a “symptom” of a broader malaise, claiming to “take young men’s mental health and their supposed ‘masculinity crisis’ into account”.

Trumpism was the first to grasp the mobilising force behind this type of rhetoric, which has since been used by other leaders around the world on their route to power. “Autocrats learn from one another,” Lamy remarked.

In Argentina, large mobilisations for women’s rights – including pro-choice and anti-femicide protest – actually ended up paving the way for Javier Milei’s rise to power. “They sparked a backlash from Christian nationalists and libertarians,” Lamy said. “And Milei knew how to unite these groups.”

Similarly, South Korea’s former president Yoon Suk Yeol, successfully courted the so-called Idaenam community, which Lamy described as “young men in their 20s frustrated by their lack of (sexual) opportunities”, to win the 2022 elections.

Researchers say that most of these young men are radicalised online, where they are exposed to misogynistic discourse and fed a masculinist propaganda pushed to them through platform algorithms.

“Masculinism is being used politically and is being offered as a societal project that incorporates not only masculinist proposals but also far-right ideas,” Apostoly said. “Young men are becoming a pool of valuable voters for these political players,” she said.

Last year, the Financial Times published an investigation which analysed recent election results from several countries. The findings showed that men under 30 are now turning out to vote in greater numbers than ever before – and most of them are voting for far-right parties.

Conservative think-tanks have picked up on this trend, and are trying to capitalise on it by rolling back legislation related to equality. Trump, for example, has signed dozens of executive orders that are in line with “Project 2025” – a societal blueprint created by the ultra-conservative American think-tank The Heritage Foundation.
Eroding rights

Apostoly said that for years now, a “coalition” of associations, academic websites and politicians has taken form in a bid to push back against feminist societal gains. This became particularly evident in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement, she said, where some started accusing feminist movements of going “too far” and “taking up way too much space”.

As masculinity networks have grown in both popularity and influence, landmark US legislation protecting abortion and LGBTQ+ rights have been rolled back in recent years.

This push has been driven by a combination of fathers’ rights groups (one of the first masculinist movements, which emerged in the 1960s-1970s), parents’ associations, medical organisations, and last but not least, influential Christian fundamentalist groups, Lamy said, citing a recent report from the European Parliamentary Forum.

“Their victories reinforce each other, more or less explicitly,” she said.

In the US, Trump has surrounded himself with political masculinist influencers, and attacks on gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights have become clear priorities on his agenda.

In South Korea, which is currently experiencing a strong anti-feminist backlash, one of Yoon’s 2022 election promises was to shutter the ministry for gender equality and family – the only public body supporting women who were affected by violence in a nation where the wage gaps and femicide rates are among the highest in the OECD.

“We’re dealing with pure and simple propaganda which is being instrumentalised by the hatred of women and which works at the ballot boxes,” she said, adding that “the radicalisation of young men towards reactionary parties and political projects” is happening on platforms “run by leaders [Marc Zuckerberg and Elon Musk] who have effectively sworn allegiance with Donald Trump, who support his ultra-liberal socio-economic agenda and openly align themselves with certain masculinist values.”

Just a few days ago, the French womens’ rights group La Fondation des Femmes sounded the alarm on Facebook’s parent group Meta, saying it was making certain content published by rights groups in Europe invisible after the company stopped all advertisement about politics, elections and social issues.

“The voices defending womens’ rights are being silenced even more,” the foundation wrote in a post on Instagram. “As if this wasn’t enough, the algorithm isn’t working in our favour, our content is made invisible and our messages are fading away.”

Once this propaganda has been legitimised politically, it no longer seeks to just appeal to those – it starts attacking those opposing it.
Political opponents, feminists and journalists in the visor

“This type of violence has very clear goals: to silence women and make them disappear from both the digital public space and the public space,” Apostoly said.

In India for instance, misogynistic online campaigns were targeting female politicians and journalists critical of Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s ruling party, IRIS said in its report.

Rana Ayyub, a prominent journalist, and Kavita Krishnan, an activist, have both been targeted. Lamy said that in Krishnan’s case – where the online harassment included daily rape and torture threats – “we finally realised that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was encouraging these acts and followed the accounts that were harassing her”.

Diane Shima Rwigara, the main opponent challenging Rwanda’s Paul Kagame in the 2017 presidential race, was subject to similar tactics.

A few days after announcing her candidacy, fake nude photos began to circulate online. “The goal was to accuse her of sexual immorality, to attack her sexuality, her person. Pro-government commentators and news outlets shared the photos to mock her without questioning whether the photos were real, making fun of her as a depraved woman,” Apostoly said.

The national electoral commission ended up rejecting Rwigara’s candidacy on administrative grounds, and Kagame was re-elected with 98.8 percent of the vote.

“Misogyny is an extremely powerful unifying force, and goes beyond partisan lines,” Lamy said, noting that while masculine supremacy is a gateway to the far right, radical masculinist circles can be found across the political spectrum.

“We are in a reactionary, fascist societal project,” Apostoly concluded. “This backlash against gender equality is symptomatic of a democracy that is sick. A democracy that’s in danger.”

This article was adapted from the original in French by Louise Nordstrom.

The rise of masculinism (3/3): Nine misogynistic propaganda arguments debunked

ANALYSIS


For the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, FRANCE 24 examines a sharp rise in masculinist discourse that seeks to normalise and legitimise misogyny. In this third and final part of the series, we look at some of the main arguments pushed by masculinist propaganda – and the facts and figures that debunk them.


Issued on: 25/11/2025 
By: Pauline ROUQUETTE

For the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, FRANCE 24 examines a sharp rise in masculinist discourse that seeks to normalise and legitimise misogyny. © Studio Graphique France Médias Monde

Claiming to rely on science, statistics or just first-hand stories presented as proof, masculinist propaganda spreads many ideas that might seem plausible at first glance. But this glib mix of distorted figures, poorly analysed studies and patchy rhetoric collapses in the face of hard evidence.

Studies and statistics in hand, FRANCE 24 dismantles some of the main arguments commonly pushed by masculinist movements.

• Argument 1: 'Just as many men as women are victims of intimate partner violence'

What the propaganda says:

This argument paints intimate partner violence as “symmetrical” or “reciprocal” – that is to say, that just as many men as women experience it in their lives. If this is the case, the argument made by masculinist movements goes, pointing the finger at men as the sole perpetrators of this kind of violence is blatant “misandry” – a prejudice or hatred/hostility towards men.

What the facts say:

Almost one in three women across the world – some 840 million people – are subjected to violence at the hands of their current or former partner, or face other forms of sexual violence from someone other than their partner, over the course of their life.

Within the European Union, 17.7 percent of women experience the threat or reality of physical and/or sexual violence throughout their lives at the hand of an intimate partner. This number grows if we take psychological violence into account, reaching 31.8 percent of women, according to figures published by the Fundamental Rights Agency in November 2024.

In France, 84 percent of people experiencing intimate partner violence in 2024 were women, placing the number of male victims in a clear minority. Women also represented 98 percent of those who had experienced sexual violence.

Violence against women: What is masculinism?

ENTRE NOUS © FRANCE 24
06:39

And while men also experience intimate partner violence, the structure of that violence is far from symmetrical. Intimate partner violence against women tends to be repeated more than that against men, and the broader context of male domination within society often means that the long-term consequences of that violence fall heavier on women.

“The structural inequalities that still persist in society and the learning of a culture of stereotypes contribute to the foundation on which intimate partner violence is built,” the Citizens and Justice Federation said.

The Canadian NGO SOS Violence Conjugale, which offers shelter as well as information, outreach and reference services to people who have experienced intimate partner violence, wrote in an article that it is also important to draw a difference between the violence of the aggressor – in most cases, a man – from the violence of someone defending themselves, sometimes called “reactive violence” or “violent resistance”.

What we need to understand:

Speaking about gendered violence doesn’t mean “forgetting” men who experience intimate partner violence. It just means accurately describing a massive phenomenon in which women remain far and away the main targets.

By claiming that intimate partner violence is largely “symmetrical”, this argument turns the balance of power on its head and erases the systematic nature of violence against women, instead framing it as a straightforward conflict between individuals.

“This argument of the symmetry of violence allows people to trivialise or even deny violence against women … and ultimately to deny the very existence of a heteropatriarchal system, a hierarchical system that gives privileges to men and oppresses women,” wrote Quebecois sociologist Louise Brossard.

• Argument 2: 'Women lie about violence to destroy men’s lives'
Variations: By accusing men of violence, women “are looking for fame” or “want to tear down men’s careers”

What the propaganda says:

Accusations of rape, assault or intimate partner violence are largely built on lies and used as a weapon to make money, gain legal advantage or destroy a man’s reputation or career.

What the facts say:

Most research on the subject agrees that the false rape allegations are rare, ranging from two to eight percent of charges filed depending on how the study is conducted.

Roughly three to five percent of rape or sexual assault charges are dismissed as false or misleading after investigation, the French ACI criminal law firm said.

According to the UK’s Channel4 fact-checking services, a British man is 230-times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape

In fact, the problem is largely the opposite than that described by masculinists – a massive percentage of violence against women never gets reported. According to the French justice ministry, “four out of five women impacted by violence don’t file charges”.

Meanwhile, the many controversies around male celebrities accused of sexual violence these past few years somewhat undercuts the idea that men accused of rape or other forms of sexual assault would see their career fall apart as a result.

“In general, the careers of wealthy or powerful men who are accused or even convicted of violence are not impacted that much,” said researcher Stéphanie Lamy, the author of “The Masculinist Terror”. “Especially if they are white.”

What we need to understand:

Spinning a few highly publicised cases into a general rule is a disinformation strategy.

False accusations exist, and they should be dealt with and punished. But they remain an incredibly small minority, dwarfed by the scale of very real violence that women are subjected to every day, whether it’s reported or not.
• Argument 3: 'The justice system is biased against men and fathers'
What the propaganda says:

Judges are biased towards mothers, and fathers are systematically robbed of custody of their children.

What the facts say:

It’s true that in France, after a couple is separated, the child’s primary residence is still largely that of their mother (around 70 to 80 percent of cases). But in most cases, this is the result of an amicable agreement between both parties (around 80 to 85 percent of cases), not a decision handed down against the father after a bitter fight in front of a judge.

Gender-based violence in Pakistan: Female influencers targeted

FOCUS © FRANCE 24
06:11

What’s more, cases of shared custody have been rising steadily for more than 20 years. If a father asks for shared custody, the request is granted in 86 percent of cases, as podcaster Cédric Rostein pointed out on social media.

Several studies have shown that most custody decisions favour the person who had already been most responsible for the child’s care before the separation rather than open favouritism towards one gender over another.
What we need to understand:

Masculinist narratives distort reality to conceal very real problems that mothers face in the French justice system: unpaid child support (in 25 to 35 percent of cases), mothers who bear the mental and material burden of raising a child alone, the struggle to have family violence recognised by a court of law.

These movements paint family courts as “pro-women”, neglecting to mention the fact that women are left disproportionately poorer after a separation and remain over-represented among those most vulnerable to violence.

• Argument 4: 'Feminism is destroying society, the family and even desire'
What the propaganda says:

Feminism is responsible for the “crisis of the family”, declining birth rates, celibacy and male sexual frustration.
What the facts say:

As for the family, the data shows above all that the rise of feminism coincides with a decrease in forced marriages and child marriages, as well as a decline in intimate partner violence in countries that invest heavily in pro-equality policies.

And when it comes to desire, investigations into marital satisfaction show that the most stable couples are often those in which the domestic division of labour and manner of communicating are shared in the most equal way.

What we need to understand:

The argument that a given movement is “destroying society” has long been a staple of counter-revolutions: it was used to argue against the abolition of slavery, the right of women to vote and the expansion of civil rights.

Enduring inequalities are presented as necessary for “the survival of civilisation”, despite the fact that data show that the most equal societies are also the most stable and prosperous.
• Argument 5: 'A woman who has already had multiple sexual partners can no longer become attached to just one man'
What the propaganda says:

A “good” woman is supposed to have little or no previous sexual experience.

The “bodycount” theory is based on a pseudo-scientific argument built around oxytocin, a hormone linked to emotional attachment. With each sexual encounter, the theory claims, a woman will “release” a certain amount of oxytocin that will “bond” her to her sexual partner. A woman who has had “too many” sexual encounters will exhaust her stockpiles of oxytocin, leaving her unable to form further bonds or become securely attached to a future partner.
What the facts say:

The body synthesises oxytocin continuously throughout a person’s life. There is no serious scientific study that suggests that having a higher number of sexual partners has any negative impact on the production of oxytocin for women, or its effect on them.

'Manosphere' influencers prey on the insecurities of young men, expert says

© France 24
10:25

What we need to understand:

This argument is built on a double standard: male sexuality is considered neutral or praise-worthy while female sexuality is considered degrading for women.

This pseudo-scientific theory also justifies the control of both the body and private life of women, as well as pathologising women who have an independent sexual life.
• Argument 6: 'Women have too many privileges'
Variations: “Feminism has gone too far – women now have more rights than men do”
What the propaganda says:

Feminists have gained “too many” rights: protective laws, hiring quotas, public policies based on gender – men are now at a glaring disadvantage.
What the facts say:

Economically speaking, it’s a hard case to make. According to figures published by Equal Measures 2030, more than 2.4 billion women and girls live in countries scoring “bad” or “very bad” in terms of gender equality.

At this rate, the report reads, “no country [of the 139 examined] is on path to reach gender equality by 2030.”

In France, women still make less than men – even in the same job – and their annual income is on average 22 percent lower, often due to interruptions to their career caused by having and raising children.

Despite this, women still shoulder the lion’s share of unpaid domestic and care work, are less represented in positions of political and economic power and continue to be the main victims of sexist and sexual violence.
What we need to understand:

The “privileges” denounced by masculinist movements are really efforts to correct a massive imbalance between men and women, not an attempt to put women in a dominant position over men.

The gender pay gap is back: What’s behind America’s backslide on equal pa

51 PERCENT © FRANCE 24
12:37

• Argument 7: 'Laws around consent have gone too far, you can’t even ask women out anymore'

What the propaganda says:

Trying to build a “culture of consent” will make “everything” punishable under the law: coming on too strong, giving someone a kiss, a harmless misunderstanding – we’ll all become crippled by paranoia.
What the facts say:

Recent laws related to consent do not criminalise flirting, but sexual acts without free and informed consent. They replace the logic of “Did she try to fight?” with “Did she clearly say ‘yes’?”

Studies show that what is being targeted by these laws is not one-off misunderstandings, but persistent patterns of harassment, pressure and duress, whether explicit or implicit – all things described by those subjected to them as clearly unwanted.

Several investigations into the sexual lives of young people show that teaching consent improves the quality of relationships while reducing the risk of violence – none of which stops people from flirting.
What we need to understand:

The refrain that “you can’t even ask women out anymore” only serves to delegitimise the basic idea that a woman’s desire counts just as much as a man’s.
• Argument 8: 'Men are the real victims'
What the propaganda says:

Men will be crushed by feminism, abandoned to suffer alone with their own burdens (higher rates of suicide, increased risk of struggling at school and experiencing unemployment) while all the money goes to women.
What the facts say:

While there are very real mental health problems that impact men more than women – including higher rates of suicide, addiction and violence against other men, research suggests that these are strongly connected to norms traditionally considered masculine such as an unwillingness to ask for help or higher readiness to take risks.

Masculinist narratives use these very real struggles to attack feminism rather than questioning the worldview that underpins them.
What we need to understand:

Masculinism weaponises real distress by turning it against women rather than challenging its structural causes such as precarity, toxic masculinity and a lack of appropriate public policy measures.
• Argument 9: 'Femicides are just individual crimes rather than a systematic problem'
What the propaganda says:

The murders of women are tragic individual events, but there’s no connecting line between them. To frame them as “femicides” is just ideological.
What the facts say:

In 2024, 83,000 women and girls were intentionally killed across the world, including roughly 50,000 who were killed by their intimate partner or a family member, according to UN Women. To put it another way, 137 women and girls lose their lives every day at the hands of their companion or their kin – murders that are “often the culmination of repeated episodes of gender-based violence”.

Every year in France, almost 120 women are killed by their current or former partner. On November 20 alone, four women were killed by their former partners. Official reports show the same factors repeating over and over: past instances of violence, a recent separation or a refusal to respect judicial protection orders.

These figures call for a structural interpretation: to view these murders not as individual outbreaks of violence, but as the tip of an iceberg of gender-based and intimate partner violence.
What we need to understand:

Reducing femicides to simple isolated tragedies allows masculinist movements to deny the systematic character of male-perpetrated violence and ignore the collective responsibility of aggressors.

By depoliticising these crimes, this argument blocks any kind of ambitious political response and perpetuates the myth that “feminists are exaggerating” and that “men are the real victims”.

This article has been adapted from the original in French. 

Ilhan Omar Pushes Back During Heated CNN Interview On Charlie Kirk: 'That Is My View'

Marco Margaritoff
Sat, September 20, 2025 

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Friday stood firm during a heated discussion on CNN about her comments on Charlie Kirk, the late right-wing activist fatally shot last week, whom she called a “hateful man” during a town hall in Minnesota last weekend.

“The Source” host Kaitlan Collins asked Omar why she used those terms along with reposting a social media video that called Kirk a “reprehensible” Dr. Frankenstein-like figure, whose own “monster” — his unwavering defense of gun rights — had contributed to his death.

Omar replied, “Because there were a lot of things in the video that I did agree with.”

“Obviously, we share videos, won’t have to agree with every single word — but I do believe that he was a reprehensible, hateful man,” she continued Friday. “Like, that is my view of the words that he has said about every single identity that I belong to.”

Kirk made numerous racist, misogynistic and xenophobic comments over the course of his public life. He not only said certain Black women “do not have the brain processing power” to be taken seriously, but that the “conquest values” of Muslims are a danger to the U.S.

Omar is a Black Muslim, born in Somalia.

“He didn’t believe that we should have equal access to anything,” she told Collins. “He also just didn’t even believe I could be smart enough, I could have thoughts that could be equal to a white man. Where are we missing … who this man was, and the things he said?”

Omar then asked Collins directly, “Do you not find that reprehensible, Kaitlin?”

Collins said she doesn’t “subscribe to that” rhetoric, prompting Omar to ask if she agreed with Kirk’s remarks about the “brain processing power” of Black people. When Collins said she doesn’t, Omar once again asked her interviewer if she finds his words “reprehensible.”

Collins said she doesn’t “justify” them, but that people found Omar’s criticism “jarring.”

Omar responded, “What I find jarring is that there’s so many people willing to excuse the most reprehensible things that he said, that they agree with that, that they’re willing to have monuments for him, that they want to create a day to honor him, and that they want to produce resolutions in the House of Congress, honoring his life and legacy.”

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) on Wednesday pushed for a censure resolution that accused Omar of having “smeared” Kirk and urged Congress to strip her of her citizenship. It was tabled after four Republicans joined all Democrats in a vote of 214 to 213 against it.

Omar wrote on social media after Kirk died that her “heart breaks for his wife and children” and that she doesn’t wish violence “on anyone.” The political divide has only grown wider, however, with condolences seemingly drowned out by right-wing anger.

The shooting also prompted one Republican lawmaker to file legislation in Kirk’s honor, as Omar noted. Sen. Shane Jett (R-Okla.) filed two bills Wednesday that would require public universities in Oklahoma to build statues of Kirk and commemorate him with a holiday.

Omar argued Friday that there’s a difference between grief and retribution against critics.

“It is one thing to care about his life, because obviously so many people loved him, including his children and wife,” she said. “But I am not going to sit here and be judged for not wanting to honor any legacy this man has left behind, that should be left in the dustbin of history.”

Related... ‘F**k her’: Nancy Mace Pushes Ilhan Omar Censure, Suggests Deportation In Vile Attack

Republicans grapple with backlash over tabling Omar censure brought by Mace

Emily Brooks
Sat, September 20, 2025 

The four Republicans who voted with Democrats against reprimanding Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) over comments about Charlie Kirk are getting excoriated by the online right — with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who prompted the vote on the Omar censure, leading the charge against Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) in particular.

The four — Reps. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), Jeff Hurd (Colo.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Mills — are defending themselves from the attacks, putting out videos and statements making their case. Flood also referred Omar for further investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

And Mills confronted Mace directly.

Mace accused Mills of sending her a “threatening message” Wednesday night. According to a copy of the message seen by The Hill, Mills talked about highlighting Mace’s previous statements criticizing President Trump for Jan. 6 if she is going to put out messages about him.

“You want to put me out for not wanting to penalize someone for 1A? Why don’t we show your words blaming Trump for J6?” Mills said in the message. “It was nothing to do with you or against you.”

Mace responded: “Not really helping the allegations of you threatening women, are you…”

She was referring to an ex-girlfriend of Mills alleging to police that he threatened to release nude images of her after they broke up — which Mills has denied.


Mills told Politico earlier this week that “if reminding someone of their own remarks is a threat, well, then that means everyone threatens each other every day to remind someone, ‘Hey, you voted for this, and you did this and you voted for this.’”

Mace had forced a vote on a resolution to formally censure Omar and remove her from her committee assignments, alleging Omar “smeared Charlie Kirk and implied he was to blame for his own murder” and pointing to a video Omar reposted on social media critiquing Kirk’s politics after the assassination.

The resolution referenced an interview that Omar gave in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, but did not quote her own words. Instead, it directly quoted from the re-posted video that said Kirk, whose suspected killer has been described as left-wing by government officials, “was Dr. Frankenstein and his monster shot him through the neck.”

The House voted to table the resolution 214-213, preventing it from moving to debate and a vote on the underlying censure, effectively ending Mace’s effort to formally reprimand Omar and remove her from committees.

Mace immediately called out the four Republicans who voted to table the measure on social media, saying they “sided with Democrats to protect Ilhan Omar.”

A wave of right–wing influencers and commentators followed, naming the GOP members and posting their photos while calling for primary challenges and calling them “cowards” and “RINOs” — racking up tens of thousands of interactions.

Mills was the last-minute deciding vote that pushed the resolution to fail — which came as he faced a retaliatory censure brought by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) over the disputed allegations of domestic violence, threatening to release nude videos of an ex-girlfriend, and making false financial disclosures.

Axios had reported the day before that Casar was expected to withdraw his push to censure Mills if the Omar censure failed, just as a similar retaliatory censure of Mills was abandoned after Republicans voted to table a resolution to censure Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who faces charges resulting from a clash with officials at an immigrant detention center.

Mills posted a video on Friday addressing commentary that his vote against censuring Omar was a “vote-for-vote exchange” to avoid a vote on his censure. He noted he voted in favor of advancing the McIver censure, despite knowing it could lead to a vote about him.

“The thing about Ilhan Omar’s comments – were they vile? Were they abhorrent? Were they evil? In my opinion, yes,” Mills said, going on to praise Kirk while saying he believed in “open dialogue” and warning against making Omar a “free speech martyr.”

In a post alongside the video, Mills called for Omar to be investigated for immigration fraud in reference to unproven claims long pushed by conservatives.

Mace fired back on social media by noting Mills had voted in favor of a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) in 2023 over comments she made about the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel.

“He voted to censure Rashida Tlaib. By his own logic, that’s a direct violation of her First Amendment rights. The hypocrisy is exhausting,” Mace said.

Flood, meanwhile, hopes to spark an investigation by the House Ethics Committee. He sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member listing 19 statements and incidents relating to Omar that he says collectively “speak to a pattern of behavior that does not reflect creditably on the House,” including her interview and the video she reposted. Flood said Omar “must be held accountable” and promised to submit a formal complaint to the panel.

Flood, unlike Mills, voted with a handful of other Republicans to table McIver’s censure.

Omar, for her part, said that “no one should be going after” the Republicans who voted to table the measure.

“Four Republicans didn’t join Democrats to protect me, they joined to defend the first amendment and sanity,” Omar said in a post on X, adding: “This country stands for freedom and right now what people are doing is totally unacceptable.”

McClintock issued a statement and took to the House floor to explain his vote, stressing the importance of the principles of free speech.

While Omar’s comments were “vile and contemptible,” McClintock said in the statement, he argued that hateful speech is still protected speech and said that the House has “already gone too far down this road” with formal censure.

“Omar’s comments were not made in the House and even if they were, they broke no House rules,” McClintock said.

Hurd, who called Omar’s statements “ghoulish and evil” in a statement, said he had been hearing both from constituents who supported the vote and those who opposed it.

“I think it’s the right decision. I stand by it,” Hurd told The Hill.

“It was a tough vote politically, but I came here to do the job that I was sent here to do, and part of that is following the Constitution and and also improving this institution as well, and making sure that we’re not engaging in this back and forth censuring on both sides,” Hurd said. “Censure should be reserved for the most serious offenses. And I think exercising one’s first amendment rights, however wrong-headedly, is not deserving of censure.”

One of the House’s most notable free speech advocates, however, voted with all other Republicans against tabling the censure: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

“I think the debate would have been good,” Massie told The Hill.

Massie that he was “willing to entertain the thought” of removing Omar from her committees because Democrats had kicked Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) of their committees “for less than that.”

“In a perfect world, we wouldn’t be doing any of this stuff, but I mean, they do it to us,” Massie said.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Ilhan Omar Applauds ‘Principled’ Ted Cruz for Jimmy Kimmel Concerns

Mediaite
Sat, September 20, 2025 



Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said she is experiencing a rare moment of unity with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) after the Republican raised concerns over the FCC potentially pressuring ABC to suspend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

“Ted seems to be one of the few people on the right who seems to have a principled stance on this,” Omar said on MSNBC’s The Weekend on Saturday night.

Omar then went into wordy description of the First Amendment, followed by her claiming the FCC threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license if Kimmel was not pulled off of the air.

“When the government in itself says we are not going to renew the license unless this person’s voice is taken off the air, then we get to a level of censorship that does violate someone’s First Amendment rights,” Omar said.

She added this is all part of how President Donald Trump “cracks down on free speech.”

Her comments come a few days after ABC suspended Kimmel for saying the man who killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk was a Republican.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” Kimmel said on his show last Monday.

Kimmel was criticized by many for the claim, considering the reported details point to Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s suspected killer, being a leftist.

Robinson reportedly had a romantic relationship with his trans roommate, used phrases associated with Antifa, and, in text messages released on Tuesday, said he shot Kirk because of the conservative influencer’s “hatred.” Utah officials have said Robinson was “indoctrinated” in far-left “ideology” in the years leading up to Kirk’s murder.

ABC suspended Kimmel on Wednesday, after pushback from Nexstar and Sinclair, the companies behind its biggest affiliates, and hours after FCC Chair Brendan Carr said “remedies” would be pursued against the comedian, if ABC did not punish him first.

“I mean look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Cruz, a day later, said he was not a fan of what Carr said.

“Look, I like Brendan Carr. He’s a good guy,” Cruz said on his podcast. “But what he said there is dangerous as hell. ”

On that point, Omar and Cruz are aligned.

Omar has been busy making the media rounds on Saturday. Earlier in the day, she ripped Kirk on CNN, saying his ideas should ” be in the dustbin of history.”

Learning from Opera (and Old Master Painting)

David Carrier

 September 5, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Titian: The Rape of Europa, 1559–62; in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston.

A philosopher interested in public life can learn from how the popular media handle issues of art and morality. I read with interest now and then Slipped Disc, a web site devoted to gossip about the music world. Recently they posted a discussion about a Mozart performance under the heading, “This is what you’ll receive if you want to see Marriage of Figaro at Glyndebourne Festival Opera”. The advisory statement warned potential spectators that the opera presented unwanted sexual advances and aggressive behavior. (Read it for yourself, it’s on-line.) True enough, but you don’t need to have studied musicology to know that. A glance at Wikipedia will suffice. What interested me, however, was that the responses on-line ridiculed this statement. Marriage of Figaro is a great opera set in the old regime, several people said, and so why would anyone need to be warned about the morality of the story? You might as well complain, I suppose, that Rossini’s operas about Islam reveals him to be an Orientalist.

Here, I believe, we actually face a very interesting issue, which deserves reflection. To what extent are we justified in looking critically at the moral issues presented by an artistic masterpiece from an earlier era? I am asking: should we judge that work by our standards, or — rather— might we not admit that it is of an earlier time, when different ways of thinking were prevalent? It happens that in my own present research, devoted to the history of painting in Venice, that a very challenging, conceptually comparable case has recently been discussed. And this example deserves attention because I can here present a good reproduction to accompany my discussion.

Titian painted in late middle-career, in the 1550s and 60s, a series of Ovidian pictures for a grand patron, the Spanish king. These works were exported directly, and never shown in Venice. Recently, however, there was a display of all seven first in London. And that show was much commented on. The picture that I will focus on is Rape of Europa (1560-62), normally on display at the Gardner Museum. Purchased by the founder, Isabella Stewart Gardner, it is generally acknowledge to be the greatest Italian painting in America. I will focus on this one work, while noting that some of the other works in this show revealed quite different erotic concerns. In Death of Actaeon (1556-9), for example, Actaeon is torn to bits by his hunting dogs because he inadvertently saw the goddess Diana bathing nude.

In Titian’s Rape of Europa we see Europe on the body of the bull, who is carrying her away. And she, hanging on for dear life is positioned to be frontally visible by the viewer. What do we make of the fact that Gardner installed this painting, which she adored, with one of her petticoats on the wall? Perhaps I can explain what looks problematic by contrasting a small, very little known work by a female artist. Rosalba Carriera (1673–1757), one of the most famous painters of her time, was greatly admired by prestigious collectors, both in the Venetian Republic and abroad, including French and Habsburg royalty. And by Antoine Watteau, whose portrait she painted. A long lived, very successful independent artist, she did not have the advantage of being the daughter of a painter, as did Giulia Lama, another 18th-century Venetian woman whose work now attracts attention. Her Rape of Europa (54-5) a small work painted on ivory, cannot legitimately be compared to Titian’s famous masterpiece which has been much discussed. And yet, it’s worth comparing her later version of this scene, which reveals her perspective as a woman. Where Titian erotically plays to the spectator, gives us a frontal view of the turned body of the lightly clothed Europa, Carriera shows her embracing a woman, with the bull looking a little cowed. Her Europa looks slightly melancholy. Carriera worked on a small scale, doing no frescoes or altarpieces, but she was emphatically not a modest artist.

The question raised by Titian’s picture are similar in form to those posed by The Marriage of Figaro. Once upon a time, formalist art historians claimed that we could appreciate a visual artwork regardless of its obvious content. That’s emphatically not possible before Rape of Europa, in which the subject is obvious and ambiguous. (Nor is it possible at The Marriage of Figaro, when the count’s desires are central to the plot.) That Carriera offers an alternative view only emphasizes that point. The question I pose then is: how do we deal with this Titian painting or, to go back to my earlier discussion, with Mozart’s opera?

Often in morality, so everyone knows, compromise is called for. A legitimate defensive war may cause, alas, innocent deaths. Still, on balance, we may decide to go to war. But it’s not clear how to understand compromise in this case. Titian’s painting is beautiful; and Mozart’s music is beautiful: but the subjects they present are morally dreadful. (Does it help knowing that Figaro outsmarts the count?) In these cases, it’s hard to imagine how compromise is possible. One might as well say, crime is wrong but you have done a magnificent mugging. This is why, in my considered judgment, the people who ridiculed the Glyndebourne handout missed the point. But I say that without myself being decisive. I greatly admire Marriage of Figuro and Titian’s Rape of Europe. And I see the problems here without any view of a convincing solution. What is to be done when our sensibility is divided in this way? Judging culture can be difficult!

NOTE

See the exhibition catalogues: Mathias Wivel (and other authors), Titian. Love-Desire-Death (London: National Gallery, 2020) and Alberto Craievich, Rosalba Carrera (Venice, 2023).

David Carrier is a philosopher who writes art criticism. His Aesthetic Theory, Abstract Art and Lawrence Carroll (Bloomsbury) and with Joachim Pissarro, Aesthetics of the Margins/ The Margins of Aesthetics: Wild Art Explained (Penn State University Press) were published in 2018. He is writing a book about the historic center of Naples, and with Pissarro he conducted a sequence of interviews with museum directors for Brooklyn Rail. He is a regular contributor to Hyperallergic.

 Australia to tackle deepfake nudes, online stalking

By AFP
September 2, 2025


The proliferation of AI tools has led to new forms of abuse impacting children - Copyright AFP/File Chris Delmas

Australia said Tuesday it will oblige tech giants to prevent online tools being used to create AI-generated nude images or stalk people without detection.

The government will work with industry on developing new legislation against the “abhorrent technologies,” it said in a statement, without providing a timeline.

“There is no place for apps and technologies that are used solely to abuse, humiliate and harm people, especially our children,” Communications Minister Anika Wells said.

“Nudify” apps — artificial intelligence tools that digitally strip off clothing — have exploded online, sparking warnings that so-called sextortion scams targeting children are surging.

The government will use “every lever” to restrict access to “nudify” and stalking apps, placing the onus on tech companies to block them, Wells said.

“While this move won’t eliminate the problem of abusive technology in one fell swoop, alongside existing laws and our world-leading online safety reforms, it will make a real difference in protecting Australians,” she added.

The proliferation of AI tools has led to new forms of abuse impacting children, including pornography scandals at universities and schools worldwide, where teenagers create sexualized images of their classmates.

A recent Save the Children survey found that one in five young people in Spain have been victims of deepfake nudes, with those images shared online without their consent.

Any new legislation will aim to ensure that legitimate and consent-based artificial intelligence and online tracking services are not inadvertently impacted, the government said.

– ‘Rushed’ –

Australia has been at the forefront of global efforts to curb internet harm, especially that targeted at children.

The country passed landmark laws in November restricting under-16s from social media — one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and X.

Social media giants — which face fines of up to Aus$49.5 million (US$32 million) if they fail to comply with the teen ban — have described the laws as “vague”, “problematic” and “rushed”.

It is unclear how people will verify their ages in order to sign up to social media.

The law comes into force by the end of this year.

An independent study ordered by the government found this week that age checking can be done “privately, efficiently and effectively”.

Age assurance is possible through a range of technologies but “no single solution fits all contexts”, the study’s final report said.