British Female Sailor Convicted of Sexually Assaulting Shipmates on Royal Navy Destroyer
March 28, 2026
Instagram/Sian Dowsett
Dowsett was described as a ‘cancer on the ship’.
Earlier in the week, TGP reported on the rather unusual case of Sian Dowsett, a British female sailor being court-martialed for sexually assaulting both male and female shipmates on the destroyer HMS Dauntless.
Yesterday (27), news arose that Dowsett has been convicted of six sexual assaults while serving aboard the Royal Navy ship.
She picked the four victims because she thought they would not complain, the prosecution argued.
An ‘intimidating’ female sailor has been found guilty of a string of six sexual assaults against her male and female shipmates.
Able Seaman Sian Dowsett, 25, was said to be a ‘cancer on the ship’ after she groped four of her Royal Navy colleagues – two men and two women.
“The prowling predator carried out attacks on her female colleagues including smacking their bottoms and squeezing their breasts while they were changing. Dowsett grabbed the crotches of male sailors, stroked their arms and even pinched the nipple of one colleague.”
Dowsett previously claimed allegations were ‘made up’ because her colleagues didn’t like her, but the prosecution successfully argued that ‘it was unlikely that all 10 of the witnesses were making up allegations’.
“The attacks were carried out on HMS Dauntless from 2023 to 2024 and Dowsett was described as a ‘cancer on the ship’ by one male victim in his police interview.”
HMS Dauntless – U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker/Wiki Commons
“In an incident, Dowsett grabbed the breasts of a naked Petty Officer, a senior rank, while she was changing and asked: ‘Do you like that baby girl?’
While taking lessons with a male leading hand she ‘pinched his left nipple’ on and off for around half an hour, while keeping eye contact with him, the court heard. She had previously told him ‘I like my coffee how I like my men, big and strong’.”
She was found guilty of six out of seven counts of sexual assault, and is to be sentenced at a later date.
Canadian Liberals Pass ‘Anti-Christian’ Bill That Would CRIMINALIZE Quoting Parts of the Bible in Public
March 28, 2026
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
The Canadian Liberal government has just rammed through a bill that effectively declares war on the Bible and anyone bold enough to quote it in public.
Canada’s House of Commons passed Bill C-9, the so-called “Combating Hate Act,” in a 186-137 vote Wednesday night.
Liberals and the Bloc voted in lockstep to strip away long-standing protections for religious speech under the Criminal Code. Conservatives, the NDP, and the Greens opposed it. The bill now heads to the Senate.
The bill expands Canada’s hate speech laws and introduces new criminal penalties for what the government defines as the “willful promotion of hatred” against protected groups.
This “anti-hate” legislation guts the good-faith religious defense in Section 319 of the Criminal Code. That defense used to shield Canadians from prosecution when they expressed opinions “based on a belief in a religious text.”
Rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia have left too many people feeling unsafe in their own communities. The Government of Canada has introduced the Combatting Hate Act to better protect access to places of worship, as well as schools, community centres and other specified places, and to more clearly address and denounce hate-motivated crime.
[…]
Intimidation offence
The proposed intimidation offence would make it a crime to engage in any conduct with the intent to make someone afraid, in order to prevent them from accessing a religious or cultural institution and other specified places. This could include threats, acts of violence, or other intimidating behaviour.
The offence would be punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, or two years less a day for less serious offences.
Obstruction offence
The proposed obstruction offence would also make it a crime to intentionally obstruct or interfere with another person’s lawful access to the same places. This would include, for example, deliberately blocking doors, driveways, or roads that are used to get to religious or cultural centres, or not allowing a person to enter those places.
The offence would be punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, or two years less a day for less serious offences.
Places protected by the new intimidation and obstruction offences
The proposed intimidation and obstruction offences would protect buildings or structures that are:
Primarily used for religious worship (e.g., synagogues, mosques, churches, temples and gurdwaras) or cemeteries.
Primarily used by an “identifiable group”, for administrative, social, cultural, or sports activity purposes, as an educational institution, or as a seniors’ residence.
“Identifiable group” is defined as groups distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
Hate crime offence
The proposed hate crime offence would apply to anyone committing a federal crime that is motivated by hatred based on specific grounds, such as race, sexual orientation, religion or sex.
The penalty for the new hate crime offence would reflect the harm caused by the illegal act, allowing higher maximum penalties for more serious crimes. For example, the offence of uttering threats carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment (a criminal charge for more serious crimes). If prosecuted under the new hate crime offence, the maximum penalty would increase to 10 years on indictment. Sentencing courts must impose a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
Some warn that teachings rooted in religious texts, including the Bible, could face increased legal scrutiny if interpreted as promoting “hatred” under the law’s expanded definitions.
In comments sent to LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) blasted the passage of Bill C-9 and called upon “Christians and pro-life advocates to prepare for increasing hostility.”
“With the passage of Bill C-9 in the House, Christians and pro-life advocates will almost certainly face an entirely new level of hostility, as the door swings open to actual persecution under a cloak of supposed legality,” said CLC’s Campaigns Manager David Cooke, who is also a Christian pastor.
Cooke said the Bill C-9 was framed as a law going after “hate,” but, in reality, it is a bill that religious leaders from various faith communities “say could lead to hate-related charges against believers – empowers ideologically-driven police officers and judges to target, for the first time, the very word of God on matters of life, family, and faith.”
[…]
CLC Director of Political Operations Jack Fonseca noted that Bill C-9 must be stopped in its tracks in the Senate, but admitted it will be a hard battle, as most of the senators were appointed by former Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“The battle to defend religious freedom in Canada has now moved to the Senate, which, unfortunately, Justin Trudeau has spent the past decade stacking with anti-Christian bigots like Kristopher Wells, a radical LGBT activist who I suspect will relish the opportunity to criminalize parts of the Bible as ‘hate speech,’” he said.
Despite this, Fonseca noted that there is always hope that things could turn around.
Every single Minnesota House Democrat voted against a bill that would have required age verification on pornographic websites to protect children from watching or accessing explicit online content.
The vote on House File 1434 ended in a 67-67 tie on Thursday, with all 67 Republicans supporting the measure and all 67 Democrats opposing it.
The tie killed the bill.
The legislation would have mandated that commercial websites where 25 percent or more of the content consists of material harmful to minors verify that users are at least 18 years old before granting access.
The bill defines “harmful to minors” based on standards lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for youth.
It included protections for data privacy and enforcement mechanisms through the attorney general and private lawsuits by parents.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, during a debate about the bill, Democrat State Representative Leigh Finke, the state’s first openly transgender legislator, voiced strong opposition, claiming porn can be “educational” for queer kids.
Finke claimed that the vague definition of “prurient interest” could be interpreted to include “the very existence of transgender kids.”
Intentionally allowing children to be exposed to this content is sick, predatory, and disgusting.
The left appears hellbent on destroying the innocence of children. Parents everywhere should take note.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
