This Gay Week 9: Global LGBTQ Crackdowns, Digital Lifelines, and Radical Family Support

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/28

Karel Bouley is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Bouley, they track a “gay week” in global news, from China’s removal of Blued and Finka to Kazakhstan’s “LGBTQ propaganda” law and Qatar’s entrenched repression. Bouley contrasts hookup-app culture with their role as lifelines where queer spaces are scarce, and warns about state surveillance and extremist violence. He skewers Catholic hypocrisy, U.S. moral panics over Epstein and “groomers,” and Western homophobia exported abroad. Yet the interview closes on hope in families like Robert De Niro’s, showing how public, unconditional support for trans kids can counter rising hate and model meaningful allyship publicly.

Interview conducted November 14, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.

Karel Bouley: This week with Scott and Bouley: gay news from around the world. Let us start with China.

Apparently, they do not want their gay citizens to date, because they have removed two of the country’s most popular gay dating apps from Apple’s App Store and from several major Android platforms in mainland China. I had never heard of these apps, but I have never been to China. They are called Blued and Finka. I do not know if those are Chinese words. I also cannot imagine a gay person saying, “I found you on Finka.”

The apps were unavailable on the app stores yesterday and remain unavailable today on Apple’s China App Store and on several Chinese Android app stores. Users are having trouble downloading them from those platforms. However, if you already have the apps on your phone in China, they still function. In addition, they remain available for download from their official websites, even though they are no longer listed in the major app stores. The companies behind the apps have not released any public statements or detailed explanations for their removal.

In a statement to Wired, Apple said, “We follow the laws in the countries where we operate,” and explained that, based on an order from the Cyberspace Administration of China—known as the CAC—it had removed the two apps from the China storefront only. Apple operates a separate app store for China, which I did not know until reading this story. Still, it makes sense given China’s specific rules and its censorship of digital content.

As a result, many popular foreign apps such as Facebook, Instagram, and other Western social media platforms are blocked in mainland China and therefore unavailable to ordinary users unless they use circumvention tools. International dating apps such as Grindr and Tinder are also blocked. Blued, founded in 2012, is the country’s most widely used dating app for gay men, with more than 40 million registered users worldwide. In recent years, it has expanded into live streaming. However, it is still primarily considered a gay dating app. In 2020, Blued’s parent company, BlueCity, acquired Finka.

Homosexuality is legal in China; same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in 1997. So it is not the case that these apps were removed because being gay is illegal. However, after several decades of economic opening and partial social liberalization, open displays of LGBTQ identity have increasingly been pushed underground again. LGBTQ civil society organizations have been forced to close, and Shanghai Pride—the country’s largest Pride event—was suspended in 2020 and has not resumed.

In September, an Australian–American horror film titled Together was digitally altered for screenings in China: a gay couple in a wedding scene was changed into a straight couple by using AI to replace one of the male characters’ faces with a woman’s. The backlash was strong enough that the film’s wider release in China was postponed.

Bouley: There is no indication yet on whether Blued and Finka will return to the Chinese app stores, since there was no advance notice of their removal and no clarification on the duration of the measure. The living space for sexual minorities has been shrinking over the past few years in China. One founder of an LGBTQ community organization in China said that hearing about the removal of Blued and Finka from the app stores “caught him off guard,” because even the remaining online spaces now feel insecure. He also noted that apps like Blued contribute to social stability and harmony by helping people connect, so their removal is difficult to understand.

It is not clear why the apps were removed or whether this will be a permanent move. Chinese authorities have not issued a public explanation, nor have they said whether the removal is reversible. One WeChat user wrote that Blued “made countless people realize for the first time that they were not alone; it brought a group from the margins to being seen,” capturing how vital these platforms have been as lifelines for many LGBTQ people in China. The Cyberspace Administration of China could not be reached for comment.

For now, if you already have the apps on your phone in China, they still work. You cannot download them from the leading app stores, and it is uncertain whether that situation is temporary or permanent. Two questions remain hanging in the air: what exactly triggered this specific crackdown, and what kind of digital space, if any, China is willing to leave for LGBTQ people in the future.

Jacobsen: In North America, presumably, you have made some prior commentary that apps can be a little bit dicey and unsafe at times—terrible actors. Akin to the Pokémon Go incidents, where someone sees a Pokémon, wanders into an alley, and then gets beaten, threatened and robbed. It is analogous, in a way.

Bouley: To the first part of the question, yes, I would imagine that in a country where homophobia is not only rampant but also almost state-sanctioned, some bad actors would feel emboldened, or might even feel it is their duty, to go and “find the gays.” I have never used—well, I am on Scruff, and I got on there when it first started. I really have not updated my profile in a very long time. I do not go on there. If I get a notice that someone has messaged me, I will read their message. I usually do not respond.

I always say, “You order pizza online, not men.” It has always been a safety concern for me, and I am a public figure. Now, Andy Cohen has openly said that he uses all the gay apps—Grindr, Tinder, Scruff and all of those. If he chooses to put himself in that kind of risk, that is his business. He is not the smartest of queens anyway. I am not a fan. I am really not a fan of Andy Cohen’s.

Because I am also a public figure who says controversial things, I tend to stay away from such apps. Also, it is depressing, because it appears everybody in the world is in an open relationship, which is—well, every person on there says “partnered but open relationship.” It is a sad statement. So I do not use them. But in a country like China, yes, I personally, here in the United States, would feel uncomfortable and unsafe in China.

There have been a few times when I have been either in rural America at a Republican convention or in another country, and I have launched the apps to see if there are gay people around. When I was in the west of Ireland—in a tiny little town, Portmagee, right on the far western tip—I thought to myself, there cannot possibly be any other gay people here in Portmagee. I launched the app, and sure enough, within ten miles, there were five queens—farmer Irish queens. It was fun to talk to them and ask, What is it like for a gay person in the west of Ireland?

So, have I used these apps as a way to communicate with gay people? Yes, because in some rural places, where you would be shocked that there are gay people at all, the apps give them a way to connect. In China, I can easily see why a gay person would rely more heavily on an app like this—because it is far easier than trying to find a safe gay space. As gay bars disappear in the United States, they are certainly not multiplying in China.

Safe gay spaces in China, particularly rural China, are probably few and far between, and the apps function almost like a gay bar—a safe space to meet and talk. We tend to look at these apps differently depending on the country. In America, they are basically hookup apps. In other countries, they tend to function more like social apps because there are no in-person spaces for queer people to meet. They serve different purposes in different countries. This is actually a blow—no pun intended—to the gay and lesbian community in China, because it takes away a safe space. Even if there is some debate about how “safe” these apps truly are, they have been a place for people to meet and talk.

I would also fear, in a country like China, that the government would be watching and taking notes about who is gay and who is not. So even though being gay is legal there, they have followed Trump’s lead in tightening the grip on the gay community. I would be hesitant to use this app in China anyway. But I am not Chinese. If I were Chinese, and this were my only safe space, I would probably still use it. And they still can, as I said—you cannot download any new updates or new versions. We will see whether anyone challenges this and what ultimately happens.

But yes, in answer to the first part of the question, I would imagine there is increased risk in China, not only from bad actors but also from the government itself, which may be watching and collecting data on who is gay. Not that governments elsewhere do not do that. In Florida, it has now become a felony to say you are gay on state-owned land. They literally made it illegal to say you are gay on property owned by the state. You could be on a sidewalk—technically a crosswalk—and if you say you are gay, you could be committing a felony because the Department of Transportation owns it.

I am not saying that the government in this country is not using apps to find gay people; they very well might be. But I think a government like China’s is even more likely to do so. The safety issue there is twofold: danger from bad actors and danger from the state itself.

Jacobsen: I am often reminded of the cultural imposition that surrounds these debates in North America and many religious communities. They will balk at Pride parades and say, “We do not want your lifestyle”—as they call it—”imposed on us.” I have always reflected on that and thought: they are so close to understanding the irony. 

Bouley: My answer to that sort of thing is that, growing up, I had their lifestyle imposed on me. It was in every movie, every television commercial, every car ad—everywhere. It was so omnipresent that now I actually get a little uncomfortable when I see gay representation in media, simply because I never saw it.

I was watching a gay film—Boots, I was watching Boots—and I got a little uncomfortable during the gay scenes. And I thought, “Why am I uneasy?” Because you never see this. You never see an open, happy representation. And even then, we were not especially open and happy; we were closeted and alcoholic, but that is another story. Those kinds of excuses I have heard my whole life, and they are just that: excuses. People are looking for justification for their bigotry. If you look hard enough, you can always find a reason for bigotry.

Speaking of which, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is facing member backlash over a partnership with Qatar—or Qatar, depending on how you want to say it, one of the most mispronounced words of 2025, by the way. More than 150 psychiatrists have signed a letter condemning contracts to host exams in countries with well-documented human rights abuses.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists partnered with Qatar’s state healthcare provider, Hamad Medical Corporation, to host international exams in Doha, enabling psychiatrists from across the Middle East and beyond to apply for membership in the organization. The decision to hold clinical exams in a country with well-documented human rights abuses—and in which same-sex relationships are criminalized—prompted more than 150 psychiatrists from leading UK hospitals and universities to sign a letter to the president of the college.

A commercial relationship with Qatar’s public health system—a de facto branch of the government—risks significant reputational damage to the college, the letter states, which was sent in September. Women are denied equal rights in numerous areas, there is no legal protection for domestic abuse, and same-sex sexuality remains legally subject to the death penalty in Qatar.

So they are upset that the college plans to hold exams in a country where it is illegal to be gay. I think it is well-meaning on the part of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Great Britain, but it won’t change anything in Qatar.

I always say this: sometimes you win battles by going into the enemy’s camp. If the Royal College of Psychiatrists can bring in members who may currently be opposed to LGBTQ rights, maybe they can shed some light, spread some knowledge, and soften those attitudes. It is a fine line. Sometimes you win by going into places you are not supposed to go. Perhaps by recognizing these psychiatrists and allowing exams to take place in these countries—but without changing your stance, because the Royal College of Psychiatrists is not going to change its stance on LGBTQ people—you can still create some small openings to accommodate those people in Qatar. So perhaps by holding firm to their position that being LGBTQ is not a mental illness, they may influence some minds. We will see. It is encouraging that these 150 psychiatrists signed a letter condemning the decision to host exams in a country with severe human rights violations.

Qatar is not a safe place to be gay. There are LGBTQ people there, but they remain deeply closeted. Another story with international implications has been circulating in the news. On my birthday, November 7, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up Kim Davis’s claim that her rights were violated when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She was challenging the legality of same-sex marriage itself. The Supreme Court declined the case. That does not guarantee they will never revisit same-sex marriage. Still, it means this particular case did not meet their criteria. The lower court ruling stands.

The lower court found her liable, and she now owes substantial damages.

Jacobsen: What is the public opinion, in reliable surveys, toward same-sex marriage?

Bouley: Sixty-seven percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage. Even more—according to a recent Gallup poll, about 71 percent—believe the law should remain in place even if they personally oppose same-sex marriage. Many think the matter is settled, the law is established, and society has not collapsed. Support has held steady or increased over the past five years. A decade ago, opposition was higher than support. That has reversed.

Jacobsen: Gretta Vosper, the atheist minister of the United Church of Canada at West Hill United in Ontario, said she felt she was dragging the Christian church into the 21st century. These laws seem to do the same work.

Bouley: And speaking of turning back the clock, the UK High Court is hearing a challenge over guidance for single-sex toilets. The court is reviewing guidelines issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission on which public or workplace toilets transgender people should use. The Commission issued—and later withdrew—interim guidance in April. It stated that in places with male and female toilets, they should be used based on biological sex.

Lawyers challenging the guidance argue that it is legally flawed and overly simplistic. The earlier guidelines were withdrawn, and now the High Court is determining what the policy should be.

Under the withdrawn guidance, a trans woman—a biological male who identifies as a woman—would be expected to use either gender-neutral facilities or men’s toilets, but not women’s. The guidance was issued shortly after the UK’s highest court ruled that “woman” is defined by biological sex under equality law.

The Good Law Project and three anonymous plaintiffs argue that the guidance has created a climate of fear for transgender people. They are asking the court to reconsider. A written judgment will be issued at a later date, and advocates hope the court will remove the emphasis on “biological sex.”

And say that if you are a trans woman, or if you identify as a woman, you may use the women’s restroom. We will see. We do not know what the court will decide, but at least the April guidance has been rescinded. New guidance is being developed.

Jacobsen: Did we talk about Kazakhstan two weeks ago?

Bouley: We did. At that time, the proposal was before their parliament. Since then, it has passed. Kazakhstan now prohibits the distribution and possession of what it calls “LGBTQ propaganda.” It is not limited to distributing material; simply having pro-LBGTQ content in your home is prohibited.

Despite the term “propaganda,” which would logically apply to both anti- and pro-LGBTQ messaging, the law only targets pro-LGBTQ material. Anti-LBGTQ messaging is untouched and effectively encouraged. The law is now entirely in force.

As I have said many times, if you are gay in Kazakhstan, leave if you can. There is no economic pressure on the government, no diplomatic pressure from the United States, and none from surrounding nations. The law will almost certainly stand.

Sometimes governments pass anti-LBGTQ laws primarily for symbolic reasons, to appease a conservative base. In some countries, these laws are selectively enforced or barely enforced at all. Jamaica, for example, historically criminalized same-sex activity only for the receptive partner—an absurd and invasive distinction—and enforcement was inconsistent. Authorities typically used the law as a tool of harassment rather than consistent prosecution.

We do not yet know whether Kazakhstan will enforce its new law aggressively. There have been no reported arrests for mere possession of LGBTQ-affirming material so far. But the government now has a legal mechanism available if it chooses to use it.

In more positive news, Northern Ireland—part of the United Kingdom—is now offering the long-acting HIV prevention injection. This injectable form of PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) has been approved in the United States and several other countries. It significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission when taken as prescribed.

Jacobsen: Would highly homophobic governments restrict access to this new treatment?

Bouley: They already do. Many governments in Africa are so homophobic that they restrict or obstruct HIV medication entirely, and people die as a result. That is not speculation; it is well-documented.

However, in many non-Western nations, HIV is not primarily seen as a “gay disease.” In much of sub-Saharan Africa, it is associated with heterosexual transmission, drug use, and lack of access to healthcare. Women make up a significant portion of new HIV cases because men acquire HIV from multiple partners and transmit it to their wives or other partners. The global perception of HIV differs sharply from the Western stereotype that dominated early coverage in the 1980s.

In so-called “civilized” countries, HIV is often mischaracterized as a gay disease. In sub-Saharan Africa—where HIV has existed for decades and where the highest burden still exists—it is not viewed that way. It is understood as a sexually transmitted infection affecting men, women, and heterosexual couples, and it has also spread through contaminated blood products, especially during periods when screening systems were inadequate. Blood screening is now widely implemented, but was not always reliable in earlier decades.

It varies by country. In Russia, for example, HIV prevention is difficult to access because authorities continue to frame HIV as a “gay disease,” despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

In Northern Ireland, however, people can now access the long-acting HIV-prevention injection known as Cabotegravir—informally called the “Cabla-jab.” It is administered every two months and offers an alternative to daily oral PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), which uses antiretroviral medications, including drugs in the same broad class as protease inhibitors.

The injection works by maintaining a protective level of antiretroviral medication in the bloodstream. If a person is exposed to HIV while protected, the virus is unable to establish an infection. Studies show it is 97–99% effective.

Countries that have adopted PrEP—whether in pill or injectable form—have seen dramatic drops in new infections. I have chosen not to use it personally. My late husband was HIV-positive, and I never contracted HIV because safe sex works. Not everyone tolerates protease inhibitors well—they are potent drugs. Paxlovid, the COVID-19 antiviral, is also a protease inhibitor; that is why it is prescribed only for brief periods. Cabotegravir is a different drug, but the principle is similar: a potent antiviral that alters how the virus replicates.

The good news is that Northern Ireland now joins England, Wales, and Scotland in making this injectable option available. That is six shots per year instead of taking pills every single day.

Jacobsen: Anything else?

Bouley: Plenty. Since you mentioned Kazakhstan, it is worth noting that its new anti-LBGTQ “propaganda” law closely mirrors Russia’s. It uses nearly identical wording. Historically, the Central Asian states—the “stans”—have followed Moscow’s ideological lead, at least until geopolitical winds shift. Afghanistan, for instance, was within the Soviet sphere until suddenly it was not.

In Russia, authorities recently found an LGBTQ travel agent guilty of “extremism.” They are aggressively prosecuting LGBTQ individuals and organizations. In one bizarre case, a court even issued a posthumous ruling: 48-year-old Andrei Kotov was declared guilty after he was found dead in a Moscow pretrial detention center. Officials claimed suicide—a claim as dubious as many government explanations for in-custody deaths.

For the record, the Epstein scandal had nothing to do with gay men. The problems in that story run in very different directions.

Another trend: some global LGBTQ travellers skipped Pride in the United States this year. A demographic review following the major Pride events showed a decrease in international attendance. Canadian participation dropped 23%. Many Canadians typically visit New York, Chicago, or other U.S. cities for Pride. Still, this year they chose not to travel. The same pattern held for visitors from Mexico and several other countries. Travel hesitancy, political climate, and safety concerns all play a role.

Jacobsen: Benitez—did we cover this person? 

Bouley: No. 

Jacobsen: ABC News weekend anchor joins Catholic Church, reaffirming faith with husband by his side. Quote: “I found the Ark of the Covenant—capital A, capital C—in my heart, stored there by the one who created me… exactly as I am.”

Any thoughts on this? 

Bouley: He is delusional. I have always wondered why gay people choose to be members of the largest child-raping institution in the world, which is what the Catholic Church is. And more importantly, I have always wondered why they want to be Catholic when the Catholic Church does not really accept them. They have made some advances, and the current pope has made some positive statements, but ultimately, they do not fully accept gay people. At the end of the day, that is the truth.

You can find other religions. Many religions are LGBTQ-accepting. So when people like Geo Benitez say, “Look, I am Catholic and I am doing it with my husband and it is such a great thing,” it feels like they are just trying to make the cool kids like them. They see the Catholic Church as the cool kids—probably because they were raised in it—and they want to belong to that group so severely that they are willing to look the other way.

And if you are in the Catholic Church and you are gay, you are looking the other way. Because no matter what advances have been made, they still will not perform same-sex marriages. Some priests have rebelled and done it, but the pope has not endorsed it. He says you can welcome same-sex partners into the church, you can bless their marriages—but you cannot perform them. So they still do not accept gay people. They still see it as a sin. Even though they have softened that stance, I think they have done so mainly because their numbers are dwindling. The Catholic Church needs people to join. I believe they have softened their stance on “the gays” to get more of us in the door.

If you are gay, you should find another church.

Jacobsen: The United Church of Canada—like I mentioned before—has been at the forefront of this. I mentioned Gretta Vosper. Her journey from non-theist to openly atheist caused a national scandal when they considered defrocking her. And yet the church remains openly LGBTQ+ friendly. When I had pansexual friends in Fort Langley, where I grew up, Trinity Western University was there. They tried to open a law school and were denied because of a mandatory covenant banning LGBTQ relationships, banning premarital sex, and so on. The concern was the discriminatory effect on future graduates.

A friend of mine who attended Trinity Western—basically the Canadian equivalent of going to Liberty University—found that he had to search for a church that was friendly to him as an LGBT person. In that sense, UCC fills a critical need. 

Bouley: Is the UCC Church international? 

Jacobsen: I believe it is. The United Church of Canada is a branch of it in a sense. They have long been at the forefront of progressivism. In the 1930s, they ordained the first woman minister.

Bouley: Here we had Reverend Carl Bean. I met him—a fabulous man—and sang with him in his choir. He was also the founder of MCC, which we used to call the Metropolitan Community Church, which later became the Universal Community Church, UCC. They created these churches because gays were not welcome anywhere.

I have always said, “If you are gay and you still want to believe in the Christian story, then go to UCC.” They accept you. They were performing domestic unions before marriage equality. Why not just go to them?

Sometimes, as a gay person, you feel the need to fight your way into spaces or organizations that exclude you. I certainly had to fight to get into radio and television. I did not say, “They do not want me so that I will give up.” There are times to push your way in. But there are also times—like the military—where I have never fully understood why gay people wanted to join. They did not want us there. In a sense, we were lucky: we did not have to serve.

Yet some say, “I want to serve my country.” Then join the Peace Corps. Join something else. You do not have to join the military to serve. Sometimes gay people try to join groups simply because they were excluded, not because they genuinely need that group. The Catholic Church, the military—if you are gay, you do not need them. They need you more than you need them.

The military needs bodies. If they want to expand their ranks, then be fair: allow trans people, allow gay people. The same applies to churches. If the Catholic Church truly wants numbers and claims to be accepting and loving, then perform same-sex marriages, allow baptisms for children of same-sex couples, and grant the same rights that every other Catholic has.

And now a story that shows what these policies and cultural attitudes produce. In Weirton, West Virginia, a man was sentenced to five years in prison. He and his landlord were on scaffolding outside the building where the tenant lived. The landlord blew him a kiss, and the tenant threw him off the scaffolding.

Thirty-six-year-old Michael Bezozi II pushed his landlord off the structure in April 2024 after complaining about loud music. The landlord owned the building. Bezozi threw him off because he felt entitled to do so, and because he did not regard the landlord’s sexuality as legitimate or worthy of respect. That is the daily reality of homophobia.

Another topic today—unrelated to sexuality but everywhere in the news: the Epstein files. Megyn Kelly is arguing that Epstein was not a pedophile because the girls were 15 and 16. Gay people tend to be hyper-aware of age-of-consent laws. And to be clear, she is technically correct: pedophilia refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children. Fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds are post-pubescent.

But flip the scenario. If Epstein had trafficked boys, and sixty-year-old men had been sleeping with fifteen-year-old boys, the national outrage would be deafening. The attempt to soften the impact because the victims were “almost legal” girls is repugnant. These are the same people insisting that trans adults are a danger to children, and that drag queens should not read to kids.

But now they are saying that 15- and 16-year-old girls are “not so bad” as victims, that it is somehow less horrific for older men to sleep with them. That might be the most despicable thing that faction has done this week—and I say “this week” because every week brings something more disgusting.

For Megyn Kelly to say, “Well, it was not that bad, they were barely legal, Epstein was not a pedophile,” is absurd. This is the same political faction that calls every gay person a pedophile. I am called “pedophile” in my comments by MAGA supporters every day because the GOP and MAGA have branded gay people as “groomers” and “pedophiles.” Yet people within their ranks were sleeping with 14- and 15-year-old girls, and now they argue it is “not as bad.”

So yes, she is technically correct that pedophilia refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children. Epstein was not a pedophile by definition—he was a statutory rapist. And gay people are not pedophiles either. I would love to hear her make that distinction publicly, but we will not see that.

Here it is: Megyn Kelly saying Epstein may not have been a pedophile because the girls were 14 and 15. Well, maybe gay people are not pedophiles either, Megyn. Hello.

Jacobsen: I can already see Jon Stewart tearing that apart with a simple comparison.

Bouley: Here is something positive to end on. Robert De Niro’s trans daughter went public this week, describing her father’s constant support, kindness, and protection. Jamie Lee Curtis has done the same for her trans child. Pedro Pascal has openly supported his trans sister. It matters when public figures double down on their love when trans kids need it most. Hearing trans kids say, “My family is supporting me,” is powerful. So to Robert De Niro, Jamie Lee Curtis, Pedro Pascal, and every other public figure supporting their trans children or siblings—kudos. That will be the bright spot of the week.

Jacobsen: This gay week. That is right. Thank you for your time today. 

Bouley: I will see you next week. Travel safely.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.