Feminists vs Amy Barrett etc., Digest from Peter Myers

(1) Amy Coney Barrett is a woman having it all, and the Left hates her for it(2) Barrett unscathed by tough Democratic confirmation probing(3) Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has 'no agenda' on Obamacare, abortion(4) Canada’s Nunavut minister stripped of duties for "All Lives Matter" Facebook post(5) Nunavut Cabinet Minister Patterk Netser stripped of duties over Facebook post(6) Seattle radio host Dori Monson suspended after 18 years for tweet accused of being "transphobic"(7) Founder of Trans suggests alterations to human biology(8) Campaign to cancel Cuties, an incognito child porn film(9) Netflix indicted by US grand jury for Cuties 'sexualising' 11yo girls(1) Amy Coney Barrett is a woman having it all, and the Left hates her for ithttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-is-a-woman-having-it-all-and-the-left-hates-her-for-itby Kimberly Ross  | October 13, 2020 10:29 AMJudge Amy Coney Barrett is a target for the Left because she's successful in both her high-profile career and in her personal life. This is hypocritical given that the modern-day feminist movement constantly contends "women can have it all." Instead of celebrating Barrett's accomplishments, the same people who demand gender equality are criticizing her. Her abilities and intentions as both a jurist and mother are questioned simply because she stands on the wrong side of the political aisle, especially in the Trump era.Barrett's official introduction as President Trump's third nominee to the high court brought with it a torrent of unjust criticism. Not only has she been described as a pro-life radical who will bring an end to the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade, but her Catholic faith and the family's two transracial adoptions have been heavily scrutinized — all because she emulates the late Justice Antonin Scalia and has been hand-picked by Trump to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. During her acceptance speech in the Rose Garden, Barrett stated, "Our children are my greatest joy," before praising her husband for his help as they parent a large family while both navigating demanding careers. This was a refreshing reminder that Barrett prizes family first and foremost.On Monday, Tom Scocca of Slate wrote that Barrett's admiration for Ginsburg reveals she is "a shameless, cynical careerist who believes nobody can stop her." Scocca can't believe Barrett won't respect the supposed dying wish of the late justice and decline a nomination until after the election. Scocca argues that the Barrett nomination is unfair, writing, "What sort of prospective Supreme Court justice believes a president should get five years’ worth of court picks in a four-year term?"In reality, the Barrett nomination is within the president's four-year term and completely in line with the law. Scocca scoffs at Barrett's "charismatic Catholic religious identity" and "her traditionalist wife-and-mother persona" as if that hasn't already been under attack by a vicious media. He surmises that "what’s wrong with Barrett isn’t that she’s too pious, or that she’s submissive in her personal life. It’s that she’s bent on making herself one of the nine most powerful judges in the country."It's fair to say that Barrett will most likely undergo a kind of intense examination never before seen by a female Supreme Court nominee. That Trump nominated her automatically makes her devious in the eyes of his opponents. This is despite her own, separate record of success and impartiality and worth as a wife and mother. Her ability to do well in all aspects of life matters little. Existing as a staunch Catholic wife, mother, and competent judge who will follow Ginsburg somehow makes her a deceitful caricature who should decline an opportunity.Watching the Barrett nominating process unfold is actually an encouragement to young women who desire both fulfilling personal and professional lives. Barrett has reached career heights that few ever will, all while maintaining devotion to her husband and seven children. This combination places her in the leftist line of fire, especially since she is a devout Catholic. The idea that one area of her life must suffer greatly just because the other exists is nonsense. So is wondering whether that dynamic makes her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Women with careers and children must institute a work-life balance that is best for them and their responsibilities. "Having it all" has always required organization, compromise, and outside help.Barrett isn't secretly neglecting career duties or treating her children as nuisances; she is doing well and doing so with grace. This doesn't mean she is perfect.Apparently, a successful wife, mother, and career woman who accepts a lawful nomination to the Supreme Court is wrong for being good at all three — but only because a Republican president selected her.Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.(2) Barrett unscathed by tough Democratic confirmation probinghttps://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-health-63a2f915b62cf3281f66e80fea9c20e1By LISA MASCARO, MARK SHERMAN and MARY CLARE JALONICKOctober 13, 2020WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett batted back Democrats’ skeptical questions on abortion, health care and a possible disputed election in a lively Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, insisting she would bring no personal agenda to the court but would decide cases "as they come."The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views with often colloquial language, but refused many specifics. She declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Donald Trump, who nominated her to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is pressing to have her confirmed before the the Nov. 3 election."Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world," Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee during its second day of hearings."It’s not the law of Amy," she said. "It’s the law of the American people."Barrett returned to a Capitol Hill mostly locked down with COVID-19 protocols, the mood quickly shifting to a more confrontational tone from opening day. She was grilled in 30-minute segments by Democrats strongly opposed to Trump’s nominee yet unable to stop her. Excited by the prospect of a conservative judge aligned with the late Antonin Scalia, Trump’s Republican allies are rushing ahead to install a 6-3 conservative court majority for years to come.Youtube video thumbnail Trump has said he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from his heated election with Democrat Joe Biden, but Barret testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases. Pressed by panel Democrats, she skipped over questions about ensuring the date of the election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases without first consulting the other justices."I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process," she said.A frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part."It’s distressing not to get a good answer," Feinstein told the judge.Barrett was unmoved. "I don’t have an agenda to try to overrule Casey," she said. "I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come."She later declined to characterize the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion as a "super-precedent" that would not be overturned.The committee chairman, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, opened the day-long session under coronavirus protocols that kept it off limits to in-person attendance by members of the public.Republicans have been focused on defending Barrett and her Catholic faith against possible criticism concerning issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and Graham asked if she would be able to shelve her personal beliefs to adhere to law."I have done that," she said. "I will do that still."He said, "I will do everything I can to make sure that you have a seat at the table. And that table is the Supreme Court."The Senate, led by Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the latest challenge to the "Obamacare" Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election."I’m not hostile to the ACA," Barrett told the senators. She distanced herself from her past writings perceived as critical of the Obama-era health care law, saying those pieces were not addressing specific aspects of the law as she would if confirmed to the court. "I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act."She appeared stumped when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., tried to put her on the spot about several details of the health care law’s effects. She could not recite specifics, including that 23 million people are covered by the law or that more than 2 million young people are on their parents’ health insurance.The Indiana judge, accompanied by her family, described herself as taking a conservative, originalist approach to the Constitution. She told the senators that while she admires Scalia, her conservative mentor for whom she once clerked, she would bring her own approach."You would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett," she declared.Senators probed her views on gun ownership and racial equity, at one point drawing an emotional response from the mother of seven, whose children include two adopted from Haiti, as she described watching the video of the death of George Floyd at the hands of police."Racism persists," she said, adding that Floyd’s death had a "very personal" effect on her family and that she and her children wept over it. But she told Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that "making broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I’m capable of doing as a judge."Republicans were thrilled when she held up a blank notebook, apparently showing she had been fielding questions without aid.Overall, Barrett’s conservative views are at odds with the late Ginsburg, the liberal icon whose seat Trump nominated her to fill."You would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Barrett to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, and they spent their time portraying her as a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials. She would be Trump’s third justice.Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, the last day of hearings, which would allow final approval by the panel one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26.Protesters rallied outside the Senate building, unable to come inside the hearing room.Other issues aside, Democrats are outraged that Republicans are moving so quickly, having refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee after Scalia’s death in February 2016, well before that year’s election. ___Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Matthew Daly in Washington, and Elana Schor in New York contributed to this report.(3) Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick says she has 'no agenda' on Obamacare, abortionhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-barrett/trumps-u-s-supreme-court-pick-says-she-has-no-agenda-on-obamacare-abortion-idUSKBN26Y1AJOCTOBER 13, 20208:09 PMBy Lawrence Hurley, Patricia Zengerle, Andrew ChungWASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said on Tuesday she gave no commitments to the White House on how she would rule on Obamacare or election-related disputes and declined to tell senators whether she believes landmark rulings legalizing abortion and gay marriage were properly decided.Barrett opted not to say whether she would step aside from taking part in a major Obamacare case to be argued on Nov. 10 or in any disputes arising from the Nov. 3 election - as Democrats have requested - as she answered questions for the first time on day two of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.The marathon questioning gave the conservative U.S. appellate judge a chance to respond to Democrats who oppose her because they fear she will cast a decisive vote in striking down the 2010 healthcare law formally called the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions."I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act," Barrett said. "I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law."Trump has asked the Senate, controlled by his fellow Republicans, to confirm Barrett before Election Day. Trump has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the election’s outcome as he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden.Barrett said no one at the White House sought a commitment from her on how she would rule on that or any issue."No one has elicited from me any commitment in a case or even brought up a commitment in a case. I am 100 percent committed to judicial independence from political pressure," Barrett said.While Democrats were persistent in their questioning, the hearing retained a respectful tone and Barrett remained even-tempered while nimbly sidestepping questions on her views on abortion, LGBT rights, gun control and voting rights.In the Obamacare case, Trump and Republican-led states are seeking to invalidate the law. Barrett said the case centers upon a different legal issue than two previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld Obamacare that she has criticized.The law, signed by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, has enabled millions of Americans to obtain medical coverage. Democrats have blasted Trump for trying to kill Obamacare amid a deadly pandemic.In declining to commit to stepping aside on politically charged cases in light of her nomination so near an election and comments made by Trump on the issues, Barrett said she would follow rules giving justices the final say on recusal amid questions about impartiality.Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, making Barrett’s confirmation a virtual certainty. If confirmed, Barrett, 48, would give conservatives a 6-3 Supreme Court majority. She is Trump’s third Supreme Court appointment.Abortion rights advocates fear Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Asked about the ruling, Barrett said she would consider the usual factors on whether to overturn a precedent."Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world," Barrett said.But Barrett indicated Roe v. Wade was not a "super-precedent" that could never potentially be overturned."I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates Roe does not fall in that category. Scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean it is not a case that everyone has accepted," Barrett said.Senator Dianne Feinstein, the panel’s top Democrat, asked Barrett whether she agreed with her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.After Barrett sidestepped, Feinstein told her that "it’s distressing not to get a straight answer."Barrett, a devout Catholic and a favorite of religious conservatives, said she could set aside her religious beliefs in making judicial decisions."I do see as distinct my personal moral religious views, and my task of applying laws as a judge," Barrett said, adding that she expected that as a nominee her religious faith would be "caricatured."Barrett also declined to say whether she agreed with Scalia that the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide was wrongly decided."I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said.Asked about George Floyd, a Black man killed by Minneapolis police in May in an incident that triggered widespread protests, Barrett called the issue "very, very personal for my family" because among her seven children, two - adopted from Haiti - are Black. Barrett said she and one of her daughters, Vivian, cried together after seeing the video.Barrett said racism persists in America but declined to give her view on whether it is systemic or how it should be addressed.Trump nominated Barrett to a lifetime post on the court on Sept. 26 to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The four-day confirmation hearing is a key step before a full Senate vote due by the end of October on Barrett’s confirmation.Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and Lawrence Hurley and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham
(4) Canada’s Nunavut minister stripped of duties for "All Lives Matter" Facebook posthttps://reclaimthenet.org/canadas-nunavut-premier-stripped-of-duties/October 11, 2020 Posted 5:52 pmCanada’s Nunavut Premier stripped of duties for "All Lives Matter" Facebook postBy Naga PramodAn increasing phenomenon.Patterk Netser, a housing minister from Nunavut, northern Canada, has now been stripped off of his cabinet portfolios as he made a Facebook post saying "All Lives Matter."Netser recently took to Facebook and wrote "All lives matter," while also referencing his pro-life views as related to abortion. Soon after he made those comments, Netser was removed from his duties as the housing minister. He was also responsible for the Nunavut Arctic College, but was removed after this "unacceptable social media post.""I practised my freedom of speech as a Canadian citizen, which is protected in the Constitution… Our freedom of speech is just automatically taken away, little by little, and before we know it, we’re going to be a country like China or Russia," said Netser, as reported by The Canadian Press.Joe Savikataaq, the first minister of Nunavut, also known as the "Premier of Nunavut," said that he learned about the Facebook post through one of his staff members. Savikataaq called Netser and presented him with two options: quit or get stripped of portfolios. Netser refused to resign, forcing Savikataaq to do the latter.Savikataaq said that being an executive council member meant carrying the position "24 hours a day, seven days a week," because of which making such remarks was unacceptable. The Black History Society of Nunavut appreciated Savikataaq’s "hard decision to remove a cabinet member who had made insensitive comments towards our local Black Lives Matter movement, Black women and women generally.""I was quite shocked that a post like that was posted by one of the executive council members, as part of my cabinet," said The Premier.Netser later apologized for his post and said that he did not want to target a specific group but was concerned about the "little babies that were aborted and that have been aborted."The Premier also said that he cannot remove a minister but can only remove portfolios. "As a premier, I can remove portfolios but I cannot remove a minister. Only full caucus can remove a minister."(5) Nunavut Cabinet Minister Patterk Netser stripped of duties over Facebook posthttps://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/nunavut-cabinet-minister-patterk-netser-stripped-of-duties-over-facebook-post/Kent DriscollOct 08, 2020Daughter Malaiya Lucassie, an Iqaluit city councillor, also adding comments online about BLM.Nunavut MLA Patterk Netser is no longer minister for Housing or minister responsible for Arctic College.On Thursday, Premier Joe Savikataaq stripped him of those offices because of a post he made on his Facebook page about Black Lives Matter and abortion.In the post Netser wrote, "All lives matter. Just thinking out loud. The movement of BLM. I wonder how many BLM ladies go through abortion and at what stage of the gestation? Are they not lives too?"This morning Savikataaq released a statement informing Nunavummiut of his decision."An unacceptable social media post was brought to my attention yesterday. As a result, I have made Minister Patterk Netser a Minister without portfolio, effective immediately," the statement said.Unlike the federal or provincial leaders, Nunavut’s premier can’t remove a cabinet minister under its consensus system of government.The members of the assembly vote for a premier and cabinet – after, the premier assigns portfolios.While Netser remains in cabinet, he is the minister of nothing.MLA’s return to the assembly on October 21, where they will decide if Netser remains in cabinet."The Government of Nunavut values diversity, equality and fairness for all." Savikataaq said in the statement.Savikitaaq is in his hometown of Arviat for the long weekend, and was unavailable for immediate comment.APTN News reached Netser at his Coral Harbour home.He said he plans to make his case to remain in cabinet in front of the assembly."Diversity is all about understanding our differences, I also respect equality. My personal views are based on my faith, separate from my job. [In my job] I have never imposed my personal beliefs on anyone."He was also critical of the premier’s statement about fairness for all, saying "In the premier’s press release, I think he shoots himself in the foot. I don’t think my views were respected."Netser is an Evangelical Christian, which is quite common in Nunavut.Most Nunavut communities have an Evangelical Christian church.In September 2019, a controversial American missionary, Rodney Howard-Browne, visited Iqaluit and collected money for his ministry from one of the poorest groups in Canada, Nunavut Inuit.Netser was asked about the visit at the time.He was quoted by Nunatsiaq News as saying, "Rodney is a friend of mine and we connect regularly."Howard-Browne may be most well-known for saying a U.S. Supreme Court Justice should be shot for insulting the American Constitution.One group that was quick to praise the decision to strip Netser was Nunavut’s Black History Society, who were the organizers of a Black Lives Matter march in Iqaluit earlier this year.They were so pleased they used a Martin Luther King quote."He has shown himself as a leader that really understands that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."The political fallout is now spilling over, and has ensnared Netser’s adult daughter.Malaiya Lucassie is also an Iqaluit city councilor, and was the first to write a comment of support on her father’s post."I had the same exact thought this morning," she wrote. "I wondered why the City of Iqaluit did a BLM protest earlier this year when [George] Floyd was murdered by an officer… All lives matter. Why don’t we do something for everyone and not just BLM."A release sent out late Thursday afternoon from the mayor’s office didn’t mention Lucassie by name – but says councillors will be reminded of its racism policy at the next meeting."City Councillors are held accountable to following the City’s code of conduct and human rights and anti-harassment policy," said Mayor Kenny Bell. "Council will be discussing this together at the next City Council meeting and will take this opportunity to look at additional ways to educate council on racism, biases, and other social discrimination."City Councillors represent the entire community and we will respect the diverse nature of all our citizens."Lucassie did make a statement on her own Facebook page.While not a full apology, she does address how she feels her comments were received."I would like to apologize for comments I made that came across as insensitive to the Black Lives Matter movement, and to residents of our City." She added, "As an Inuk woman, and strong advocate for all Inuit, recent events affecting Indigenous people have hit me hard and in my desire to see these issues addressed my passion got the best of me."Malaiya Lucassie did not return a phone call asking for comment before she issued this statement.https://reclaimthenet.org/seattle-radio-host-dori-monson-suspended/October 11, 2020(6) Seattle radio host Dori Monson suspended after 18 years for tweet accused of being "transphobic"By Didi RankovicPosted 8:27 pmTwitter activists are campaigning for him to be fired.If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A radio host in Seattle who specializes in the football team Seahawks has been suspended indefinitely after 18 years on the job for posting a tweet that is accused of being offensive to transgender persons.The 59-year-old Dori Monson works for KIRO-FM, the flagship for Seahawks pre and post match shows and play-by-play commentary.Monson, who hosted his own afternoon talks show on another Bonneville-owned and Seahawks station, and also pre-game and post-game shows on KIRO is now all but out of that job not for any professional failing, but for daring to express, on Twitter, what is essentially a political opinion.The tweet was posted on Wednesday, during a Washington state gubernatorial debate.Referencing current Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat, Monson posted, "Inslee: we follow science in WA. The state where I could go to Olympia tomorrow and change my birth cert to say I was a girl on 10/2/61 HAHAHAHAHA."Among those calling for Monson’s canceling was Seattle Pride, and their wish has been all but granted now that both the Seahawks and Bonneville have infinitely suspended this well-known local radio host and personality.Seattle Pride said they appreciated the move, but would continue to work to make sure that Monson was completely canceled, i.e., fired. The group, promoting LGBT issues and organizing events to this end, issued a statement saying that the suspension was a good first step, but that if Monson has any chance of keeping his job, he is expected to apologize, and make it sound sincere. In addition, the radio host must "take actions to build empathy and understanding toward our transgender community."Furthermore, Seattle Pride mentions Monson’s past history of homophobic and transphobic remarks, though its unclear what these may have been.The only "dirt" the Seattle Times was able to dig up on the host in its article is that he is "known" for his conservative positions, apparently manifested in his past criticism of the city council for their stance on homelessness.(7) Founder of Trans suggests alterations to human biologyFrom: Eric Walberg <walberg2002@yahoo.com>https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/not-just-a-tattoo-transgenderism-attacks-our-fundamental-humanity/Martine Rothblatt, <https://uncommongroundmedia.com/martine-rothblatt-a-founding-father-of-the-transgender-empire/> founding father of the transgender empire, self-identified "transgender woman," and renowned transhumanist, in 2016 spoke at the Trans History Forward Movement conference in British Columbia. The conference was organized by the Transgender Chair at the University of Victoria (a position—first of its kind—purchased by another rich, powerful man claiming to be a woman). Rothblatt suggested that techno-transhumanists attempt to use the same procedures as techno-transgenders to make legal change allowing for alterations to human biology.The implication is clear: Rothblatt and some of the <https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/> richest and most powerful men in the world—like Bill Gates, Ray Kurzweil, Peter Diamandis,Elon Musk and others—are willing to sacrifice our reality as a sexually dimorphic species to their technological and megalomaniacal eugenicism. As they do so, it behooves us to consider the conflation of superficial changes to our bodies with changing who and what we are.Jennifer Bilek is an investigative journalist, artist, and concerned citizen. She has been following the money behind the transgender agenda for six years. She blogs at <https://www.the11thhourblog.com/blog>the 11th Hour.(8) Campaign to cancel Cuties, an incognito child porn film:
"These are not adults acting out these scenes – they are young girls. This is child abuse material and we believe it has contravened Australian law."https://email.createsend.com.au/t/ViewEmail/r/0D04D7877F26F7902540EF23F30FEDED/352BF64A4372B138A2432AF2E34A2A5FThe campaign to cancel Cuties continues this week, and we’ve had some wins!Yesterday our Chief Political Officer Dan Flynn and Queensland State Director Wendy Francis met with the Hon Paul Fletcher, the Federal Minister for Communication, Cyber Safety and the Arts. With a portfolio like that, he was certainly the right person to meet with!Our argument has been that, while Netflix argues that "Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualisation of young children," it is hypocritical, absurd and abusive to sexualise young children in order to try and make that point!We’re campaigning to have the film’s Australian rating of MA15+ reviewed and amended to "Refused Classification (RC)". To that end, it can only help our case that a Texan grand jury indictment was served on Netflix this past week.Finally, to top off a huge day, Wendy was a guest on The Bolt Report last night, pressing the point that there’s nothing cute about Cuties. She pointed out:"These are not adults acting out these scenes – they are young girls. This is child abuse material and we believe it has contravened Australian law."So as we do our bit, thanks to all of you who did your bit in writing nearly 6,000 emails to Minister Fletcher (and Minister Dutton) last week. Great work! It’s all part of a united effort to stand in defence of the innocence of childhood, which is under constant assault these days.(9) Netflix indicted by US grand jury for Cuties 'sexualising' 11yo girlshttps://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/cuties-netflix-indicted-by-us-grand-jury-over-controversial-film/news-story/1f644f522006a704931f2485022ccfe1Cuties: Netflix indicted by US grand jury over controversial filmStreaming giant Netflix has been indicted by a grand jury in the US for allegedly promoting "lewd visual material" in a controversial film.Ben GrahamOCTOBER 7, 202012:08PMNetflix’s ‘Cuties’ criticised for ‘sexualising’ 11yo girlsNetflix has apologised after the "inappropriate" poster for the film sparked outrage online.Netflix has been indicted by a grand jury in the US for allegedly promoting "lewd visual material" of a child in connection to the release of the controversial French film Cuties.The movie has faced a major backlash online, with many saying it’s basically an incognito child porn film targeting paedophiles.The hashtag #CancelNetflix was trending last month shortly after the film’s release on the streaming service.Cuties focuses on a young Senegalese girl who joins a French hip-hop dance troupe.It’s supposed to be a coming-of-age dramedy, based loosely on the experiences of writer and director Maïmouna Doucouré.The film premiered at Sundance film festival where it was then acquired by Netflix earlier this year.However, the film has now landed the streaming giant in hot water.A grand jury in Tyler County, Texas returned the indictment against the streaming giant on September 23, it was revealed overnight.The indictment charges that Netflix did "knowingly promote visual material which depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created, which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."It specifically mentions the award-winning film Cuties, which also goes by the French title "Mignonnes" and was released on Netflix on September 9.Despite its accolades from some critics, many have panned the film, claiming it exploits and sexualises children.Texas senator Ted Cruz is among several US politicians who have called for a Department of Justice investigation of Netflix over the film."The video streaming service and content producer Netflix is currently hosting a film entitled Cuties that sexualises young girls, including through dance scenes that simulate sexual activities and a scene exposing a minor’s bare breast," Cruz said in a letter last month to Attorney-General Bill Barr.In a statement Tuesday, a Netflix spokesman said: "Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualisation of young children. This charge is without merit and we stand by the film."The streaming service was forced to issue and apology over a poster it used to promote the film prior to its release which showed the film’s young stars posing in revealing dance outfits.It quickly drew criticism online and led to thousands signing an online petition calling for the film to be banned from the online streaming platform."We‘re deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties," Netflix said in a statement. "It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description."Netflix also altered the description of the film when it changed the poster — updating it to say she’d come from a "conservative family" and removing the reference to twerking.After Netflix apologised, some critics were still not happy, saying the problem was with the age of the children in the film."This is actually disgusting," one woman wrote on Twitter. "11 year-olds twerking and the show is rated for mature audiences? Whoever came up with this idea needs to be fired and promptly arrested, and this whole thing needs to never see the light of day."