Canada Moves to Ban Christians From Demonstrating in Public Under New Proposed Anti-Hate Legislation

Canada Moves to Ban Christians From Demonstrating in Public
Under New Proposed Anti-Hate Legislation
by Shane Trejo, Big League Politics – May 11, 2019

Legislation proposed in the Canadian province of Ontario would criminalize public displays by Christians deemed hateful to Muslims, the LGBT community and other victim groups designated by the left.

The bill, “Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act, 2019,” bans any demonstration, rally or other activity that is deemed hateful by the Speaker from being permissible on legislative grounds – effectively insulating the government from Christian speech.

Life Site News explains that the nebulous nature of Canada’s anti-hate laws essentially give leftist legislators carte blanche to ban all Christian protest:

The problem with this bill, however, lies in the fact that the definition of “hate” is uncertain under Canadian law. As a result, unfortunately, the use of the word “hate” can be a useful tool for some to prevent differing views from being expressed. That is, the word “hate” can be used to silence opposing views expressed when, in fact, the views are simply a reasonable expression of belief.

This concern is based on actual experience. Canadians have already experienced the contempt shown by the Supreme Court of Canada towards Section 2 of the Charter of Rights which provides for freedom of opinion, expression and religion. In the Trinity Western Christian University case (2018), a private Christian university’s moral covenant was deemed hateful and discriminating. In the Bill Whatcott case (2013), the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the effects of an expression used, not the communicator’s intent, are what is relevant. The court went on to conclude that “truthful statements and sincerely held beliefs do not affect the finding of “hate”. Mr. Whatcott merely expressed in his pamphlet the well-established facts about homosexuality which the court held to be “hateful”. It is worth noting that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, presumably consisting of equally learned judges, had previously concluded that the pamphlet was not hateful. The Supreme Court of Canada prides itself on being a “progressive” court and has an established bias as evidenced in a series of decisions that have struck down laws based on traditional values. There is little likelihood that the court will protect tradition-based groups if they are denied the right to demonstrate at the provincial legislature.

As Canada becomes more restrictive toward Christianity, they open their arms for the LGBT agenda and Islam to take a foothold in their culture.

The Royal Canadian Mint issued a commemorative coin last month to celebrate homosexual love as a core principle of Canadian society. “Marking 50 years since a landmark decision that began a process of legal reforms to recognize the rights of LGBTQ2 Canadians is a powerful way to recognize Canada’s profound belief in equality and inclusion,” said Marie Lemay, president and CEO of the Royal Canadian Mint.

Meanwhile, the far-left Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been revealed to be plotting different ways to bring ISIS terrorists to his nation and possibly be re-introduced in public life. “None of the options are ideal and all present different challenges and risks,” said the three-page secret paper, which was heavily redacted after its release through the Access to Information Act.

As globalism and liberalism takes a stronger hold in Canada, the government can be expected to become even more hostile to Christianity and more hospitable to subversive agendas.

MONIKA SCHAEFER’S LETTER TO BORDER SERVICES RE: THEFT OF HER BOOKS

MONIKA SCHAEFER’S LETTER TO BORDER SERVICES RE: THEFT OF HER BOOKS
Here is the letter I sent to Ottawa.
——————————————
         Monika Schaefer

         P.O. Box 116
         Jasper, Alberta  T0E 1E0
2019 May 3
Canada Border Services Agency
171 Slater Street, 7th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0L8
RE: Seizure of personal books at Calgary YYC Airport on 2019/04/24
I was detained for three hours on the evening of April 24, while three border guards searched my possessions. They were allegedly looking for “hate propaganda”. Five books were taken from my possession. I consider this to be theft of personal property. The search and seizure was nothing short of personal harassment and an attempt at intimidation. I did not consent, and I do not consent. Consider the following:
• These books are available and/or for sale and are NOT banned.
• I did not write the books.
• My books were not in commercial quantities, and I was not selling them. I was carrying single books (one each) for my personal consumption.
• It is nobody’s business except mine what books I choose to read. Or do we now have thought laws?
• Is there a list of forbidden books in Canada? If so, are these books on this list? Where is this list? Why could the three border guards harassing me for three hours not find my books on any such “list”?
• By their actions in seizing these books, the border guards demonstrated an utter contempt for our most basic human right: the freedom to think.
The five books seized are the following:
⁃ Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust”  by Germar Rudolf
⁃ The Commission  by Richard Barrett
⁃ The Great Impersonation – The Mask of Edom  by Pastor Eli James
⁃ Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol 1  by Eli James & Clay Douglas
⁃ Government by Deception  by Jan Lamprecht
The 3 guards were 12452: Masi; 30482: Nigh; and 35394: Lahaie
I insist that you send me back my books immediately, at your expense. I also insist on receiving a copy of your entire report in this file.
Sincerely,

Monika Schaefer

it gets worse … the trans=bender cult / boil ready to be lanced

Prince Harry throws royal charity’s support behind transgender activist group

May 8, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Nowhere has the transgender ideology taken root more swiftly and more firmly than the United Kingdom. Rates of children identifying as transgender are up by 4,000%, triggering a government investigation into why these numbers are spiking so dramatically. Ordinary Brits expressing the belief that biological males and biological females cannot become the opposite sex are actually getting visits from the police and, in some cases, have even been arrested for expressing those views. Police officers are even getting trained by transgender activists in order to better police the “thinking” of British citizens (and no, I’m not making that up).

And now, the United Kingdom’s most prominent transgender lobby group, which bills itself as a “charity” for “gender variant and transgender children,” has attracted the attention of a very high-profile sponsor: Prince Harry. Mermaids — the organization is named for the mythical half-human, half-fish creatures who are sexless from the waist down — has “thrown his weight behind the cause of transgender children” with the announcement that the Royal Foundation will be working with the charity, according to the Daily Mail. The Royal Foundation functions as the “primary philanthropic and charitable vehicle” for the Duke of Sussex, his wife Meghan Markle, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who have not yet commented on the announcement.

Prince Harry, who recently had his first baby, met for a roundtable discussion some time ago with the CEO of the transgender advocacy group along with a number of other organizations at the Ealing YMCA. This perceived royal endorsement — and again, Prince William and Princess Kate presumably agree with the Royal Foundation’s support of Mermaids — was greeted with great glee by trans activists, who believe that Prince Harry’s public stance will assist them in further mainstreaming their cause. Mermaids, which was founded in Leeds in 1995, is a particularly controversial group due to the fact that it advocates for children to be granted easier and swifter access to puberty-blockers and medical “transition” (including mastectomies and castration).

In fact, Mermaids director Susie Green, a former I.T. consultant, took her own son to Thailand at the age of 16 for “genital surgery” — physical castration. Green told the Telegraph that Prince Harry’s support for the transgender cause is particularly gratifying because “I think it’s always really important to young people to see that people with the authority and credibility that Prince Harry has are supporting them and are listening and acknowledging the fact that they exist. This is somebody who has got that profile who’s showing clear understanding of the issues they’re facing.” Green went so far as to say that Harry’s public endorsement of a medically dubious cause involving children making irreversible decisions was similar to Princess Diana’s advocacy on behalf of AIDS victims.

Unless there is some disagreement between Prince Harry and Prince William that we are unaware of, it would seem that Queen Elizabeth II is the last socially conservative monarch of the House of Windsor. Prince Charles, next in line for the throne, is famous for his kooky ideas. William has indicated his support for groups that advocate for population control. Harry, who until recently was primarily known as the party prince, has lately been in the headlines for marrying progressive celebrity Meghan Markle, a well-known supporter of LGBT causes who caused a tempest in a teapot for breaking royal protocol and expressing her pleasure at the result of Ireland’s abortion referendum last year. The queen stays serenely above all of this, but she is surely aware of her progeny’s progressive bent.

Prince Harry’s endorsement, which may well have been inspired by his new wife’s activist leanings, takes the House of Windsor far beyond their traditional neutrality on social matters. Transgenderism is a dangerous ideology that is moving like wildfire through schools in the United Kingdom, primarily among young girls. The effects of the so-called treatments advocated by organizations like Mermaids are permanent, and children who transition at a young age will live with the scars of that mutilation even if they change their minds later on — and many of them will. The sons of Princess Diana have proven enormously popular with the British people, and it is for that reason that this new partnership between the Royal Foundation and Mermaids is so dangerous.

U.S. JEWISH LOBBY SETBACK AS STATE ANTI-BDS, LAW STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

U.S. JEWISH LOBBY SETBACK AS STATE ANTI-BDS, LAW STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

(Update-DK) 

THE JEWISH LOBBY in America has suffered an important setback in their attempts to stifle criticism of Israel with the striking down by a US federal judge of the “anti-boycott, divestment and sanctions” (BDS) law in Texas, on the grounds that it violates freedom of speech under the country’s first amendment of the constitution.

The Texas law — which has been copied by twenty-five other equally Jewish lobby controlled states in other parts of the country, is officially known as the Anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions law (Anti-BDS) and was passed and signed into law in May 2017.

The law requiring all government contractors to sign a pledge vowing not to participate in the pro-Palestinian BDS movement. At the time that the law was passed, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said that “Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally.”

The blatantly unconstitutional law was challenged by the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which sued the state to get the law overturned after a Muslim speech pathologist, Bahia Amawi, was not allowed to sign a contract extension with Pflugerville independent school district — a public school district near the state’s capital Austin — unless she pledged to not boycott Israel.

In his 56-page opinion, Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas ruled the state’s law violated the First Amendment by threatening to “suppress unpopular ideas” and “manipulate the public debate through coercion.”

The court found that “political boycotts are protected speech,” and “none of the exceptions to that rule urged by the State apply to this case. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs’ BDS boycotts are speech protected by the First Amendment.”

In addition, the court ruled that the state of Texas “has failed to identify a compelling state interest justifying H.B. 89’s burden on protected speech.

“In fact the only interest distinctly served by the content [and viewpoint] limitation is that of displaying [Texas’s] special hostility toward the particular biases thus singled out. That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.”

For this reason alone, the court said, the law is an “unconstitutional content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech.”

In a statement released by CAIR after the ruling, that organization said that “every single ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clause in every single state contract in Texas” has “ been stricken as unconstitutional,” and that the “Attorney General of Texas is no longer permitted to include or enforce ‘No Boycott of Israel’ clauses in any state contract.”

CAIR added that they are “gearing up for the fights in the other 26 states where anti-BDS laws have been passed and we are certain that we are on the right side of the constitution and history.”

* It is ironic that increased Muslim immigration into America — which is the primary cause of the spread of the BDS movement in that country — is one of the non-White invasions which is specifically supported and encouraged by the Jewish lobby.

A report in the Times of Israel from December 2015, for example, said that “American Jewish groups,” including the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Interfaith Alliance, and others, all announced their vehement opposition to then presidential candidate Donald Trump’s suggestions that Muslim immigration into the US be halted.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt called Trump’s plan “unacceptable and antithetical to American values,” while the American Jewish Committee’s Associate Executive Director for Policy Jason Isaacson condemned “in the strongest terms” what it called the “latest offensive and inflammatory comments from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a statement it also condemned Trump’s remarks, as “our nation, founded by those fleeing religious persecution, is rooted in principles of religious freedom.”

Rabbi Jack Moline, director of the Interfaith Alliance issued a statement saying that “a country that discriminates against individuals on the basis of their faith would be a poor excuse for America.”

https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/05/us-jewish-lobby-setback-as-state-anti-bds-law-struck-down-as-unconstitutional/?fbclid=IwAR3AnPbMz4-EwuLyLAqcRVFLHJHQnx8NGfnjvVawKy4J3u4bWc3zwGoDlEA#comment-23958

* * *

US Jewish Lobby Setback as State “Anti-BDS Law” Struck Down as Unconstitutional

https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/05/us-jewish-lobby-setback-as-state-anti-bds-law-struck-down-as-unconstitutional/?fbclid=IwAR3AnPbMz4-EwuLyLAqcRVFLHJHQnx8NGfnjvVawKy4J3u4bWc3zwGoDlEA#comment-23958

*******************
Texas is doing something about social media censorship of conservatives,   May 7, 2019 Dr. Eowyn   This post first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds

There is a new, unprecedented, and very toxic phenomenon in U.S. politics.  Privately-owned businesses have become blatantly partisan and willing to lose customers and profits by discriminating against and outright banning conservatives. See, for example:


Among those corporations are the information tech giants — social media and WordPress — which have been censoring conservatives, including this blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM), for some time now. See:

The latest social media censorship took place four days ago on May 2, when Facebook and Instagram, with no warning, banned a number of so-called “far-right extremists,” including Alex Jones, InfoWars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Laura Loomer, ostensibly for “safety” reasons to remove individuals who promote “hate and violence.”

But as Clash Daily points out, neither Facebook nor Instagram cited how or what the “far-right extremists” had posted that violated their “community rules” or “terms of service,” which makes their banning and take-down entirely arbitrary.  As usual, President Trump did some huffing and puffing with this tweet:

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

Instead of empty threats, Texas is doing something about the social media censorship.

The Texas Tribune reports that on April 25, 2019, in an 18-12 vote, the Texas State Senate approved SB 2373, a bill that would hold social media platforms accountable for restricting users’ speech based on personal opinions.

SB 2373 was introduced by state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), who said the bill applies to social media platforms that advertise themselves as unbiased but still censor users. In the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing, Hughes said:

“Senate Bill 2373 tries to prevent those companies that control these new public spaces, this new public square, from picking winners and losers based on content. Basically if the company represents, ‘We’re an open forum and we don’t discriminate based on content,’ then they shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on content.”

CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, spoke at the hearing in support of the bill. He said Facebook has shut down 16 of the organization’s local groups and did not explain why. Grisham said Open Carry Texas is a conservative gun rights platform and is “routinely targeted” for pushing gun rights on Facebook.

Opponents to the bill maintain SB 2373 violates a federal law that protects social media platforms under a “good Samaritan” policy that allows them to moderate content on the platform however they want.

Harvard Law School lecturer Kendra Albert, who specializes in technology law, said the federal law would likely preempt SB 2373 because “The federal law contains what we would call a ‘subjective standard. It’s based on whether the provider thinks that this causes problems, whereas the Texas bill attempts to move it to an objective standard.” Albert said it would be difficult to determine what is “objectively” offensive, which is why the federal law leaves it up to social media platforms and their users to determine what is offensive. Sometimes there’s not a particular reason why content is removed; it’s flagged by an algorithm.

Anonymous Media Reporter Harasses Faith Goldy Volunteers

 

Anonymous Media Reporter Harasses Faith Goldy Volunteers

Faith Goldy

 

OK, this is getting insane.

The so-called “journalists” in Canada’s Media Party are taking their obsession with me to a whole new level — by coming after YOU!

This morning I woke up to a message from one of my top volunteers during my campaign.

She said:


An unnamed man called himself a journalist has been calling the people who donated to your campaign for Mayor.


Sorry, WHAT?!

As you know, the City as required by election law made me hand in a list of our top donors or face a fine of over $79,000!

But the list we handed in did not include your phone numbers!

THAT MEANS SOME “JOURNALIST” IS SPENDING HIS DAY FINDING OUR SUPPORTERS’ NUMBERS & HARASSING THEM!


If this has happened to you, here’s what I want you to do…

FIRST: DO NOT GIVE THEM ANY OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION
YOU OWE THEM ZERO ANSWERS.

Then send me an email to harassment@faithgoldy.ca with all the details of your encounter with this harassment.

If you want to help please be sure to provide your
full name
postal code
and phone number.
I will need this to compare with our internal donor list.

If you cannot or would not like to provide this information
I still want to hear your account!

I’m building a file and will expose this targeted harassment and expose this freak-show.

If you receive a call after seeing this note, feel free to call this loser out!
Best, record the call and pass it to me!

Know someone who is being harassed?
Send them to FaithGoldy.ca/donor-harassment


DO WE LIVE IN THE SOVIET UNION?

DEMAND THE COWARD REVEALS HIS NAME!

YOU OWE THESE PEOPLE NOTHING AND HAVE NO DUTY TO RESPOND TO THEIR SOLICITATIONS!

THE MEDIA TRULY ARE THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! 


But I thank God I have all of you in my corner to expose their LIES and LOSER BEHAVIOUR!

Blessings,
Faith

P.S. This should be the last email from Faith For Toronto, I felt this was vital to send out as none of my donors deserve this harassment.

P.S.S. If you want to help out my independent operations please visit FaithGoldy.ca!

Faith Goldy
http://www.faithfortoronto.ca/

French Jews Apoplectic As Heroic “Holocaust Denier” Avoids Jail For Thoughtcrimes

French Jews Apoplectic As Heroic “Holocaust Denier” Avoids Jail For Thoughtcrimes

Bookmark and Share

Alain Soral, a French scholar, intellectual, and journalist, has been tyrannically persecuted by organized Jewry in France for years. Back in January, we reported that he was sentenced to a one year prison sentence for “inciting anti-Semitism” by publishing critiques of Jews on his website. He has since faced other prosecutions for his intellectual activity, and even his defense lawyer has been fined by the French judicial system for simply defending the man in court.

Soral explains in detail here:

The Jews have had this man in their crosshairs for years, and were hellbent on seeing him thrown behind bars for daring to question their fake “Holocaust” narrative and criticize them publicly.

Now, they are practically apoplectic because a public prosecutor in Paris overturned a previous ruling sentencing Soral to a one year prison sentence. The Algemeiner reports:

Alain Soral

French Jews reacted with fury on Tuesday after the Paris public prosecutor overturned a historic decision reached last month to sentence one of the country’s most notorious Holocaust deniers to a year in jail.

Far-right activist Alain Soral — who has earned several previous convictions for hate speech and Holocaust denial without being incarcerated — had been sentenced to twelve months behind bars on Apr. 15, after he was found guilty of publishing an article that denied the Holocaust on his website,“Égalité et Réconciliation” (“Equality and Reconciliation”).

But on Tuesday, the Paris public prosecutor’s office overruled that decision, arguing that the court sentence had wrongly applied the criminal code and was unlawful.

Many of the individuals and groups that hailed Soral’s original sentencing as a sea-change in the approach of French courts to antisemitic agitation angrily denounced the decision to spare him from actual jail time.

In an editorial published on the website of French Jewish communal organization CRIF, its president, Francis Kalifat, argued that the public prosecutor’s decision required “an explanation of the inexplicable.”

Kalifat asserted that the rising climate of antisemitism in France and Soral’s record as a repeat offender meant that a custodial sentence was both “legitimate” and “necessary.”

“It does not depart from the canons or the principles of criminal justice; it is the illustration of it,” Kalifat wrote.

Both Soral and the antisemitic comedian with whom he partners, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, were “the undisputed stars of this sinister market of hatred” toward Jews, Kalifat said.

In a statement published by the periodical Le Nouvel Observateur, four prominent anti-racist activists quipped darkly that Soral would now feel “as happy as an antisemite in France.”

The group, which included Sacha Ghozlan, president of the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), argued that the belief that French law was being faithfully applied in Soral’s case was effectively a surrender to his extremist views.

“Believing to protect the law, we end up protecting racists and antisemites from any effective punishment…by organizing their impunity,” they wrote.

The statement noted that antisemites, racists and Holocaust deniers were rarely sentenced to prison in France, pointing out that Robert Faurisson — France’s most outspoken Holocaust denier until his death last October — “died without having ever known a single day’s imprisonment.”

Along with a severe increase in antisemitic hate speech on the internet and in many public locations, French Jews experienced a 74-percent rise in violent attacks during 2018, according to official government figures.

It’s nice reading some good news for a change! Imagine facing a prison sentence for criticizing Jews and questioning their narratives of history. Only in this clown world we live in, which is totally run by Jews, would this be possible. Good for the French!

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Do you appreciate the work we do here? Please consider making a donation to help keep us going. Donations may be sent to:

John Friend
PO Box 20514
Long Beach, CA 90801

One Small Victory for Free Speech

One Small Victory for Free Speech

 

What gives the vociferous Jewish lobby the right to tell others how to manage their own business. Much of the resentment of Jews often mislabelled “anti-Semitism” results from their leaders’ meddling in other people’s business.

 

A patrotic politician. Jessica Biessmann, will be allowed to remain in the nationalist Alternative for Germany party (AfD) despite posing to be photographed in front of wine bottles decorated with images of Adolf Hitler.

Maltese Freedom Champion Norman Lowell Denies Holocaust After Calling Auschwitz The ‘Disneyland Of Poland’

 

Maltese Freedom Champion Norman Lowell Denies Holocaust After Calling Auschwitz The ‘Disneyland Of Poland’

https://lovinmalta.com/news/news-politics/norman-lowell-denies-holocaust-after-calling-auschwitz-the-disneyland-of-poland?fbclid=IwAR3FPZX5ATj1mJ81SMFKjIjXaKajan9GtQ1k0kkKeBI8P0eEWNfPxhNDct4

Johnathan Cilia 1 day ago

Untitled Design 2019 05 06 T132317 492

Norman Lowell, the firebrand right-winger, Imperium Europa leader and MEP candidate who famously referred to himself as a “racialist, not a racist”, has explained his views on the Holocaust after comparing the World War Two concentration camp Auschwitz to the ‘Disneyland of Poland’.

When asked by Lovin Malta whether he denied the Holocaust happened, he said: “How can one deny something that never happened? …This whole hoax is the biggest lie since the Virgin Mary.”

Disneyland comments begin at around 6:28 in the above video

“The Holocaust never happened,” Norman Lowell continued. “Only some 70,000 Jews died in Auschwitz according to the Russian figures and backed by the Red Cross who had free access to the camps. These casualties died of typhus, dysentery and starvation since the allies had bombed all the rail-tracks leading to the camps – so the Germans just couldn’t feed them.”

The Holocaust refers to the systematic genocide committed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler that murdered around six million European Jews between 1941 and 1945.

The Auschwitz concentration camp, which was built in conquered Poland, is considered an especially egregious example of the horrors of Nazi Germany, with over a million people exterminated within its prison walls through forced labour, starvation, infectious diseases, murder, or being forced into a gas chamber.

Selection Birkenau Ramp

SELECTION OF HUNGARIAN JEWS IN AUSCHWITZ, 1944

Lowell continued to say that the Jewish population in Europe increased following WW2

“Moreover, the Jewish population within the whole of Europe, including the unoccupied territories, stood at four million Jews, according to the Jewish Almanac in 1947,” he said. “The Jewish population actually increased by 1947! How can a population that suffered six million dead increase in just two years? This whole hoax is the biggest lie since the Virgin Mary.”

As of this week, Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa is sitting as the third most popular political party, ahead of Partit Demokrtiku and Alternattiva Demokratika, in this month’s MEP elections.

Martin Cauchi Inglott, a PD candidate and former Commander of the AFM’s Maritime Squadron, has called out Lowell’s comments on Auschwitz

“One would have thought Lowell could not stoop any lower, but now he mocks Auschwitz Concentration Camp, calling it Poland’s Disneyland, and the holocaust a bunch of lies,” Cauchi Inglott said.

“Auschwitz remains a living pain to decent people,” he said. “More than six million dead deserve better. Lest we become complacent thinking it cannot happen again. Lowell minced my words precisely because I wanted to send a clear message that our children need to be educated about where far right politics can lead mankind.”

Tyranny Defeats the Rule of Law in Oak Bay British Columbia

Tyranny Defeats the Rule of Law in Oak Bay British Columbia

The account below is a short take on what happened last Thursday night in Oak Bay … the mob shouted-down the guy who calls himself “Jenn Smith”

It was the watershed  moment in the contest to get out the information about just  HOW  crazy the trans-benders are

Its author – Dr Charles Lugosi – is one of the best minds in the British Common law world.

Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic

Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians

Tyranny Defeats the Rule of Law in Oak Bay British Columbia

By Dr. Charles I. M. Lugosi, SJD         May 5, 2019

Grassroots democracy is under attack in British Columbia in direct violation of the rule of law. On May 2, 2019, in Oak Bay BC, Jenn Smith was permitted by the local municipal council to give a public educational talk about the serious harm that can result from transgender surgery and from toxic drugs prescribed to teenagers who self-identify with a gender different than their sex assigned at birth by DNA.  Smith is an opponent of SOGI (Sexual Orientation Gender Identity) in BC schools, which is supported by the LGBTQ community, the BC Teachers Federation Union and the Liberal and NDP parties. LGBTQ activists and their allies now feel empowered to silence any opposition to SOGI as “hate speech,” in the wake of the Whatcott decision issued in 2019 by the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

The enemies of Jenn Smith view him as a traitor to their cause to promote transgenderism and put pressure upon the Oak Bay municipal council to cancel his talk. To their credit, Oak Bay’s leaders accepted sound legal advice, and ruled that the event was legitimate and lawful, in accordance with the values of democracy, the rule of law, and freedom of political expression, and permitted Smith to have his event.

The opponents of Smith rebelled against this decision. People who wanted to hear Smith had to pass through a large boisterous crowd of several hundred protesters that may have intimidated many who wanted to hear Smith. Various speakers from the LGBTQ community, took the opportunity to support SOGI. Dozens of Smith opponents, took their rainbow flags, drums and signs, and packed the small meeting room upstairs, leaving no room for people who wanted to sit and listen to Smith.  Someone blasted an air horn, others made very loud rattling noises, while another screamed vulgar profanities. Someone pulled a fire alarm that rang for a very long time. There was such a public disturbance that it was impossible to hear anything Smith had to say.

An elderly man responded to chants of “hate speech” by the crowd by yelling back back “free speech,” but that lone soul was drowned out. The bully tactics of the opponents of Smith became increasingly aggressive. A few of them became very angry, and appeared mentally disturbed.  There was no violence. In any other context, the police would have arrested those protesters under the Criminal Code for causing a public disturbance, trespass and mischief. In this context, by doing nothing to quiet the protesters, the police who were present, appeared to take sides with the protesters.

Throughout Smith was composed. Although it was futile, with great civility he attempted to give his presentation entitled, “The Erosion of Freedom: How Transgender politics in school and society is undermining our Freedom and Harming women and children.”

The Oak Bay police refused to clear the room of hooligans so that the talk could proceed. An announcement was made by a leader of the protesters that the police informed him that uniformed officers were coming, but that the meeting was to be shut down. This information resulted in jubilant cheers by the unruly crowd, happy that they had attained their goal to silence Smith.

The police apparently chose not to do their duties under the Police Act, the common law, or the Criminal Code.  Citing “safety” concerns as a sham pretext to do nothing, one police officer informed the event organizer that the event was forcibly closed by the police. To any objective observer, the police shamefully engaged in a gross dereliction of duty, by permitting hooliganism to triumph.

Suppression of freedom of speech by hooliganism, violates the rule of law.  Without the enforcement of mutual respect and self-control to listen without interruption, the right to freedom of expression and the corresponding right of willing listeners to hear the message, the very foundation of democracy is threatened. Civilized debate of opposing viewpoints can occur in a question period at the end of a presentation or in an organized debate between opponents. Good manners, social stability and enforcement of the rule of law are the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. Selective law enforcement that discriminates against those with a moral, political or social message, gives more than a legal license to bullies to silence political opponents: It enables the roots of tyranny to grow and flourish.