Member of Parliament for Prince George – Peace River – Northern Rockies
Dear Bob,
Thank you for taking the time on Monday July 15th, 2024 at the Beanery in McBride to have a conversation with me. I noticed that some of the things I said were surprising and unfamiliar to you. I can assure you that I have reached my conclusions after a great deal of research and inquiry, combined with personal experiences which have proven to me that many of my conclusions were correct. I am always open to learning and to changing my mind if presented with evidence which shows that I erred.
Rather than try to persuade you of this or that, I would like to leave you with a few questions, as stimulus and food for thought. I do not expect you to provide me with answers to these questions as I do not believe that you have answers just yet, from what I gathered during our conversation on Monday. My hope is that the questions will be the seeds which will germinate one day soon. Perhaps some of these questions will prompt you to do your own research into these matters. Once you really see what is going on in the world, you cannot unsee it. Nor will you want to, even if the truth is uncomfortable at times – at least that is my personal experience. This old saying is apt: The Truth will set you Free.
I simply ask that you please send me acknowledgement of having received and personally read this emailed letter (not just one of your staff members). Here are my questions for you to ponder:
Why are there many countries, including Canada, which enshrine history into law? Is it possible for past events to be forced into existence by laws? Can events of the past be altered by the stroke of a pen today?
Why do we not leave history for historians, scholars, researchers and archaeologists to decipher and revise as new evidence emerges?
If there are laws forbidding us to question the Holocaust, why are there no similar laws criminalizing the questioning of the Holodomor? Or the Armenian genocide? Or any number of other genocides?
Why is evidence forbidden in “Holocaust trials” in Germany? (The defendant can be charged a second time – or a third and fourth time and so forth – for presenting evidence during the trial – I know this to be true because it happened to my brother.)
Why do lawyers go to jail for defending their client in these “speech crime” trials? (Just as an example, research Sylvia Stolz, a German lawyer who went to jail for doing her job too well while defending her client.)
Why were Jews expelled from countless nations, states, and regions during the past several thousand years? Are Gentiles simply born with an “anti-Semitic” gene that makes them want to evict Jews after having welcomed them in? Or is it possible that the behaviour of the Jews caused the Gentiles to evict them?
What exactly is “anti-Semitism”? Is it an emotion? Is it words? Perhaps words which state uncomfortable facts? And why are there laws criminalizing these words and emotions?
When I spoke to you about geo-engineering (i.e. chem-trails), you asked why they would do this. That is a good question. Why indeed? And what are they spraying us with? Why are there so few insects anymore?
Perhaps on a related note, why do they call CO2 a dangerous gas, a pollutant which must be reduced, when in fact it is the stuff of life? Why do green-house operators pump more of this “dangerous gas” into their greenhouses?
Did you know that we are actually at a very low level of atmospheric CO2 when viewed in the long historical record? And did you know that average temperatures in the distant past have been significantly higher than they are now, and that the earth was teeming with life during those times?
You did acknowledge that the many fires in Alberta in 2023 started all at once, indicating that they were man-made. Yet we never stopped hearing about “climate change” in relation to the fires. Why would these man-made fires be conflated with the “climate change” narrative?
Why have so many food processing plants mysteriously or “accidentally” burnt down over the last few years?
Why are so many small family farms being attacked by way of ever-increasing government rules and regulations, and orders to kill their livestock due to some invisible non-existent virus or too much “greenhouse gas” emissions or any number of other invented and invisible threats?
Why did they tell us the “vaccine” was “safe and effective”, when in reality it was never “safe” nor “effective”? (now by their own admission)
Are you aware that the jab was an “experimental” gene-modifying “therapy”? (also by their own admission)
Why were we coerced (fired from jobs, not allowed into universities, prevented from travelling, shamed and blamed, etc) into taking this “experimental” injection?
Is there any evidence to substantiate the serious allegations about the mass murder – or even a single murder – of Indigenous school children in Canadian residential schools? Why have none of the alleged “unmarked graves” been dug up? Why the resistance to investigate?
Do you know and understand the contents of Bill C-63, Canada’s Online Harms Act? Do you know that it includes provisions to make a court order against a person for “hate” speech which they are suspected they might do in the future? Do you know that the penalties section of Bill C-63 includes life in prison for certain “speech crimes”? (I realize that your party is opposing this bill – that is great – but still, I would ask why every single Member of Parliament is not screaming from the rooftops about this tyrannical bill. My online search in the parliamentary records of your spoken words did not yield results for this particular Bill – but I stand to be corrected if I err.)
Have you ever heard about the Bolshevik revolution?
Did you know that the Bolshevik leaders were predominantly Jewish?
Are you aware that tens of millions of Russians were murdered, tortured, starved and terrorized under Bolshevik rule during the previous century?
Are you aware that there were laws in the Soviet Union against “anti-Semitism”, prior to and during the reign of terror? Are you familiar with Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the “hate speech” law? Can you connect the dots?
There are many more questions I could pose, but that is enough for now. I truly hope that these questions will cause you to pause and reflect, why nothing really makes sense in the world as seen through the prism of the mainstream narrative being prescribed for us. Our very existence depends on enough of us waking up to the truth about who is doing what to us.
Thank you for reading this. I am copying a few other MPs and I am also sending this letter by blind copy (bcc) to many other people. It is, in effect, an open letter.
About a half a year ago, I was invited to write an article about my story for a popular magazine in the southern interior of British Columbia Canada. The magazine has a respectable print circulation, and it shall remain unnamed here as it is not my intent to embarrass anyone. The article was to be about my personal persecution story which of course would reveal some forbidden truths. The publisher of this magazine is a man who understands the truth about history, and he requested this story with the genuine desire to publish something which might help others to open their eyes about the controversial topic which got me into hot water. Unfortunately, he must have lost the nerve to publish my article. Considerable time and effort was put into writing this piece which was aimed at an ordinary audience, perhaps for folks who may not have looked into this hot topic yet, outside of the Hollywood version we have all learnt.
Thus, I offer the article here now. Please comment and/or share, as you see fit.
*************************
When I was a child in junior high school, I did not understand the significance of our social studies teacher’s words, “the victors write the history books.” I wondered, what difference does it make who writes the history books? Don’t they just write about what happened? I could not even conceive of the possibility of anyone writing down anything but the facts. The concept of lies being printed in books simply did not exist in my young mind.
A little later, as a young adult I read some novels about political prisoners, but those stories only happened in a far-away and distant land, where an evil dictator ruled over the people with an iron fist. Political prisoners – people imprisoned merely for the things they said and for their dissenting views – those only existed very far away, never in our land– or so I believed. Nothing like that could ever happen in our country, because we had freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and we also had democracy. We were told that democracy was the very best system ever, and anything else was just uncivilized. The mantra “government by the people, of the people and for the people” was drummed into us.
Now imagine that in our perfect democracies in so many of our modern western countries, there exist laws which tell us that we are not allowed to be critical of a certain group of people, and if we merely point to facts about what that group of people is doing and if we name that group of people, we are called haters and there is a law against being a “hater”. Imagine also that there are laws which legislate our history into place. Whoa! Stop the train! History determined by lawmakers? Isn’t history a subject for historians to figure out? I thought laws are supposed to be about basic things like thou shalt not steal or murder.
The other day some friends gathered in my back yard on a sunny afternoon for a picnic. One of the children, around 11 years old, held up a book and asked me if he was allowed to read it. The book was authored by yours truly, myself, and I had just given a copy to another guest, and so there it was, on the table where the child spotted it. I said, yes of course. He promptly sat down and read the first few pages. Maybe ten minutes later, the child looked up at me with big eyes and asked in a clear voice, without judgement only inquisitiveness, “why did you go to jail?”
It was a simple question from a curious child, and I needed to give him a straightforward and matter-of-fact answer to his perfectly natural question. There was silence while all eyes turned to me in anticipation.
“Law makers have made laws to tell us what we must believe about history. These laws forbid us questioning the history that has been taught to us. We have been told that certain events happened a certain way, and laws have been made which tell us that we must not disagree with that version of events. After I looked into these stories which were taught to us and which I had believed all my life, I came to the conclusion that it all happened differently than what they told us. Then I made a video and talked out loud about it, which means I broke their laws. Then they put me in jail.”
The child seemed satisfied with my explanation, he put the book back on the table and went off to play with the other children. That conversation was over, and everyone carried on where they had left off.
What is this story which is so set in stone, so untouchable, so sacrosanct, that we must not investigate, we must not question, and we must believe? What is the one word which elicits gasps of horror and incredulity when we dare say we do not believe it? You probably have guessed it by now: “The Holocaust”.
Indeed, many western countries have laws which criminalize anyone who dares to question and dispute the narrative about 6 million Jews being murdered in gas chambers in “Nazi Germany” during the second World War.
A bit of background is in order, to my own awakening to what is really going on in the world. In 2011, I began to figure out the false flag nature of the big event we call nine-eleven. My brother Alfred Schaefer sent some emails to family members about it and I responded with many questions and “how do you know this and how do you know that?” I had already heard about the “9/11 Truth Movement” but had not yet really delved into it, so when Alfred started talking about it, I was hungry for information. He sent a few links to articles and videos, and I launched myself onto this journey of learning, searching, reading, questioning, listening, until I was completely satisfied about the correctness of my conclusions that the government, media, and other institutions were lying to us about what happened that fateful day of September 11, 2001. At first I felt nauseous about it, as it was turning my world upside-down, but then I came through the tunnel into the light on the other side and felt an urgency to tell other people what I had learnt. I considered myself a peace activist, and I thought that if we could just explain this deception about what happened then everyone else would understand it too, and we could stop the wars abroad and stop the development of a police state at home.
It surprised me when I experienced some resistance to my leafletting and other educational efforts. Why was there this pushback?
Little did I know that some time later, the pushback would take on whole new dimensions as I dove down the proverbial rabbit hole and discovered that lying was not invented in 2001 and learned that they really lied to us about WW2. By now almost everyone knows that 9/11 was a false flag military operation and so when you talk about it, hardly anyone bats an eyelid. But the holocaust? That is entirely on another level.
They say it is the most documented event in history. What does that actually mean? Where is the evidence? Just because they say it over and over again that it is the most proven event ever, does not make it so. In fact, when it comes to proving it in court, they cannot and they do not present evidence to prove it. Their solution? They declare that if something is common knowledge or is self-evident, then evidence is not required. The judicial subterfuge began with the Nuremberg trials right after WW2. Articles 19 and 21 of those trials stipulated that the tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence and that something that is common knowledge or self-evident does not need evidence to prove it.
Judicial notice has been used in courts ever since then, with very few exceptions. The holocaust trials in Toronto in the 1980’s when Ernst Zündel was being tried under the “Spreading False News” law, was one such exception. Zündel’s attorney Douglas Christie was successful in bringing much evidence into the court, evidence and testimonies which shredded the official story. At the same time the key witness for the Crown, Raul Hilberg, was unable to produce a single piece of forensic evidence that a gas chamber existed.
In holocaust court cases in Germany, they simply forbid evidence. This I experienced firsthand during the Schaefer sibling trial in 2018.
What was I on trial for? A video. In 2016 while visiting my brother Alfred in Germany (he reverse migrated in the 1980’s back to the country from where our parents had come in the 1950’s), we made a short video entitled “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”. In this video, I tell the story about how I learnt early in life to hide my German roots while at school, but at home loved the German traditions. Then as a teenager after learning about the terrible things that were done by the “bad Nazis” and by Adolf Hitler, I bitterly reproached my mother for not having done anything to stop those horrors from happening. My mother answered me by saying that they did not know about those things back then. She assured me they never heard about any gas chambers until much later. They knew there were work camps, but they did not know about death camps. Less than 3 minutes into the video I say,
“Now I know why she did not know. It is because these things did not happen.”
After I explain a few more things about those camps, I apologize to the spirit of my parents (they had both passed away years earlier), and express my relief that my parents and grandparents had not been part of a generation that suddenly turned into monsters. I could be proud to be German after all.
In late 2017 I went back to Germany for a little holiday over Christmas and New Years, and on January 3rd, 2018, I was arrested. Later I learned that my cousins had reported Alfred and myself to the police after they saw the video a year and a half earlier. My cousins are kind and good people. They thought they were doing the right thing. But they are very much the product of the “re-education” program à la George Orwell style.
Here is what Sefton Delmer (1904-1979), former British Chief of ‘Black propaganda’ said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm.
“Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final.
“Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
Back to the 2018 trial of the Schaefers in Germany. Evidence was simply forbidden. We were not allowed to present evidence or argument which would support us in explaining how we reached our conclusions, as that was deemed to be a new crime. The chief judge stopped Alfred numerous times during his testimony to warn him that if he was to continue speaking along those lines, then new charges would have to be pressed. Alfred would reply,
“You want to lock me up for 6 million years anyway; I am just speaking the truth, and so I will continue.”
Sure enough, they pressed new charges against Alfred and he was sentenced to an additional year in prison for the things he said and did during the 2018 trial.
Our lawyers submitted applications on numerous occasions for recusal of our judges, on grounds of extreme prejudice and bias. Each time, the higher up panel of judges would over-rule the application, and the inquisition continued. Here are just two examples of the many demonstrations of extreme bias. When Alfred was half way through reading page one of a seventy-plus page defence statement, the chief judge interrupted impatiently and told Alfred to summarize the statement in a few sentences. On another occasion the judge was caught commanding a psychologist to write an exemption letter for a police witness whose testimony was likely to be favourable for us.
On another occasion the judge had all the pens, pencils and paper removed from the people in the public gallery, so that they were unable to take notes during our trial. If you, dear reader, try to acquire a transcript of the Schaefers speech-crime trial of 2018, you will fail. It does not exist. The proceedings were not recorded. The only things which would remain on the record are written statements, but any questions and answers, or speeches which were not read from a prepared script, those would not be recorded. One could be forgiven for thinking this resembled an Inquisition of the Dark Ages rather than a trial in a modern western “democracy”.
The judges seemed uninterested in facts and evidence. But they were very interested in whether or not the act of clicking certain buttons to release videos onto the internet had occurred in Germany or elsewhere. A huge amount of time was spent on cross-examining a technical computer expert who had been tasked with examining the hardware on which the videos were made and what IP addresses were used in their dissemination. Germany has a law, and the judge wanted to determine if we broke their law.
Nothing drives that point home better than the final words of the judge presiding over the Ernst Zündel trial in Germany in 2007. The judge said,
“It matters not whether the holocaust happened or not; what matters is that it is against the law to deny it and you broke the law.”
He then sentenced Zündel to 5 years in prison, the maximum penalty under Paragraph 130 of the German Criminal Code, the same law that Alfred and I were charged under.
If Canadian readers think this kind of thing could never happen here in Canada, think again. Already in the 1980’s, when Ernst Zündel was on trial in Toronto, the culminating statement of the judge during one of Zündel’s hearings was that truth is not a defence.
By the way, even lawyers go to jail in Germany if they do their job too well. In other words, if they present evidence which would explain how the defendant reached his or her conclusions, they are charged under the same law that their client was charged under. Precisely that happened to Sylvia Stolz, one of the lawyers on Ernst Zündel’s defence team during his trial in Germany. She went to prison for over three years for that “crime”.
Perhaps we are all wrong in thinking we need hard evidence to prove something happened or not. Let us look at the erudite statement coming from 34 French historians. This piece of wisdom was published on February 21, 1979, in Le Monde, the paper of record in France.
“It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.”
There cannot be any debate, because those who push the holocaust narrative will lose the debate, and they know it. That is why they must make laws forbidding dissent.
Truth does not fear investigation. Only lies need to be protected by laws.
Just as I was editing and completing this article, an interesting event occurred, very relevant to this story. On September 1st, 2023, the BC Hate Crimes unit of the RCMP arrived on my doorstep. They spent two days driving (one day here and one day back), lots of expenses, just to have a conversation with yours truly, Monika Schaefer. They had received a complaint, anonymous of course, about the Truth and Justice for Germans Society website, (truthandjusticeforgermans.com), that it incites HATE. Anyone can complain if they do not like the contents of a website, and their identity is protected. Then the taxpayers of Canada pay for the witch hunt and inquisition that follows.
Perhaps readers of this article would like to visit the website and search for the “hate”. You may be surprised by the education you receive there.
History is not changeable by writing laws. No amount of hand-wringing or squealing or persecution of dissidents will change the facts about what actually happened or did not happen during WW2. The entire population of Canada or even the World could be jailed over this, but that would still not change the facts about what happened in the past. The truth is the truth is the truth, and ultimately, the truth always wins. I am happy to be on the winning side. And so should we all be.
“Pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition is weighing its legal response after being labelled a ‘far right Christian nationalist group’ by a federally-subsidized anti-fascist network.”
August 15th, 2024:“Pro-life advocacy organization Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) is weighing its legal response after being publicly labelled a ‘far right Christian nationalist group’ by a federally-subsidized anti-fascist network.”
Can it be said that, as with beauty, “hate is in the eye of the beholder?” Can the observation be realistically applied to PM Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government’s dictum regarding the state of race-relations in Canada?
The annual National March for Life is organized by the Campaign Life Coalition, a leading pro-life and pro-family organization in Canada.
“The event is the most prominent forum for pro-life Canadians to demand justice for the 100,000 childrenwho are killed in their mothers’ wombs each year by abortion. Currently, Canada is the only Western nation with zero legal protection for the pre-born, meaning abortion is permitted for any reason or no reason whatsoever, up till the moment of birth.”
And this constitutes “far-right” status for a Canadian not-for-profit organization? Do tell, fellow patriots– how does an advancement of sanctity-of-life equate with far-right political advocacy?
What would transpire if a group of Canadians turned this around to state that “pro-death” special interest groups are far more “far-right” than the anti-abortionists? Any thinking Canadian will know what the outcome would be: nothing at all, as the effort would be transformed into chopped-liver by mainstream media.
“There are potential repercussions from a label like this,” said Pete Baklinski, communications director for Campaign Life Coalition. “It’s not something we take lightly. We’re going to fight this. We’re going to pursue what legal options we can.”
For years now, Cultural Action Party [est.2016] has proclaimed that— in emulation of so-called “multicultural” organizations— Christians of Canada must unite in political solidarity. To remain passive is to submit to full societal marginalization at the hands of our quasi-communist Liberal government.
We pick up on related dynamic. Just as the “anti-hate” haters brand political solidarity among white Canadians racism, these same types now brand Christian organizations “far-right.”
What does the commonality tell us? For one thing, what mainstream media wouldn’t suggest for all the white rice in China: Canada has been systemically transitioned to an anti-Anglophone, anti-Christian society.
The ball began rolling back in the year 1968. Upon the advent of Pierre Trudeau as prime minister, a slow-and-steady wave of anti-Canadian sentiment began to flow through the veins of society. Some forty-years later, current PM Justin Trudeau injected the phenomenon throughout Canada’s entire body politic.
Thus, the current condition of Canada, in which non-militant anti-abortionist groups fall into a flaming pit of government and media demonization.
In a recently published handbook, 40 Ways to Fight the Far-Right, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) blacklists both CLC and the Catholic media LifeSiteNews as ‘far right’ and “Christian nationalist” groups.
“CAHN enjoys access to the ears of Ottawa officials, and over the past two years has received federal government funding totalling $640,000. At the end of 2023, CAHN received a two-year $440,000 grant from Heritage Canada for a project called Informing, Connecting, and Encouraging Anti-Hate Activities in Canada.”
Upon which they turn around and brand Christianity racist, bigoted and hateful. We stand witness as the Trudeau government empower a crew of non-elected activists as arbiters of race-relations. They’re an arrogant bunch, firmly entrenched in the idea that their subjective view of society exists as a final truth.
Six private citizens sit on the board of CAHN. A smug, arrogant lot they are. A key organizational goal comes as no surprise– censorship of the internet in neo-authoritarian fashion:
“Hate online has become the communications of choice for extremist murderers to choose their minority victims from twisted ideologies consumed online…. So now with Bill C-63 we have more tools in our legal tool chest to hopefully prevent such radicalization and grief in the future.”
As funded by the Liberals through Canadian tax-payer dollars, anti-racism activists advocate for the erosion of freedom of speech. Never do these types take into account that related social consternation is rooted in “too much too fast” immigration policies advanced by government. It’s basic common sense, eschewed for the benefit of a woke “witch hunt” directed at average Canadians.
We witness the hypocrisy inherent in the situation. Is the term “extremist murderers” reflective of the zeitgeist of contemporary Canadian society? After all, an objective thinker might believe that knocking off 80,000-90,000 unborn fetuses each year is a far superior example of “extremist murders.”
“The Canadian Anti Hate Network usually goes after us for being pro-marriage and pro-life.To suddenly list us as a Christian nationalist group? That was surprising.”
Upon which CAP interjet with this tid-bit. According to the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels believed that the “monogamous nuclear family emerged from capitalism. According to Engels, the nuclear family promotes inter-generational inequality.”
Let us understand the situation within a larger social context. It makes not a shred of difference whether anti-racism advocates “make sense,” adhere to logic, or justify their ideological beliefs.
In this is witnessed a major irony. While advancing themselves as “keepers of the peace,” this ilk have far more in common with communism than they do adherence to democratic principles. No wonder Justin Trudeau pumps them up with federal government funding. The same principle is true of the Feds themselves.
“The government is funding an organization that is doing the very thing it’s trying to campaign against.”
Absolutely, to which CAP add a corollary: this dynamic exists as a fundamental of Marxist ideology. As a successful fascist of the 20th century once stated, “accuse your enemy of that which you indulge in.”
In this we see the true orientation of the “anti-racism” movement. Campaign Life Coalition:
“The Canadian Anti-Hate Network is spreading division amongst Canadians. By trying to shut down groups, attempting to remove them from the public square, you are doing the very thing that you’re supposed to be campaigning against.”
“Divide and rule policy, or ‘divide and conquer,’ in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power divisively. This includes the exploitation of existing divisions within a political group, and the deliberate creation or strengthening of such divisions.”
“In politics, the concept refers to a strategy that prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discordamong the people to prevent a rebellion against the elites.”
The Liberals and their anti-hate campaigns exist as a post-modern manifestation of totalitarianism. Utilizing immigration as a “thorn in the side” of society, Team Trudeau are leveraging the impact to transition Canada to a ersatz socialist dictatorship.
All those who stand in opposition are to be systemically demonized– another tactic lifted from fascist and communist revolutions of the 20th century. Peel away the propaganda, and a salient truth is revealed.
In various forms, these patterns are fundamental to socio-political transformation. The Communist Revolution of 1917 in the Soviet Union; Chairman Mao Tse Tung’s Silent Revolution of the 1950’s in China.
In Justin Trudeau’s Canada, “wolves in sheep’s clothing” are in full control. In 2024, it includes neo-communist attempts to control not only what we do, but also what we think.
With an unspoken-of cabal of woke bureaucrats at their disposal, the death of democracy lies in wait.
Senior citizen has accounts terminated by Scotiabank apparently for criticizing DEI policy
Toronto resident ‘Jane’ tells David Menzies that Scotiabank terminated her 20-year relationship with the company because she criticized its diversity, equity and inclusion policy.
Do you remember the good old days when Canada’s big banks were all about… financial services? Savings and chequeing accounts, RRSPs, mortgages, and so on?
Increasingly, these days, thanks to the virus that is “wokeness”, Canada’s big banks are actually “de-banking” certain customers. These are not deadbeat clients nor con artists. Rather, thanks to the unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion, if a bank deems a client guilty of “wrong-thought”, that customer might very well be “fired.”
This disturbing Orwellian approach to financial services surely hit a crescendo in 2022 when thousands of Canadians had their bank accounts frozen simply for making an online donation to the Freedom Convoy. It was equal parts shocking and disgraceful.
And consider our story last year, in which we drew attention to the case of Gary Duke of Grand Prairie, Alta. He was fired as a customer by his local Scotiabank branch when Gary politely asked if it was possible to remove the rainbow icon from his Scotiabank phone app given “Pride Month” had come to an end.
Those comments were not appreciated nor tolerated, and in the name of “inclusivity”, Gary had his bank accounts terminated.
Our latest example of wokeness driving bank policy is the inexplicable case regarding Toronto senior citizen “Jane” (she doesn’t want her real name used as she doesn’t want to incur further penalization from any other banks).
Earlier this year, a Scotiabank branch in west end Toronto terminated her accounts. But why? Was Jane running a financial scam? Does she have links to a terrorist organization? Hardly.
Jane suspects she was given the axe because she dared make a suggestion regarding the bank’s diversity, equity and inclusion policy. Which is to say, she suggested that the bank should include seniors in its inclusion policy, not just members of the LGBT-etc.-etc. community.
Alas, for having the temerity to make such a suggestion, Jane was sent a letter from bank manager Guy Morin telling her that the bank was terminating its relationship with her.
And get this: we can only speculate what the real reason is for this termination, given that the bank manager would not state anything tangible for Jane getting the axe.
Indeed, this is what Guy Morin stated to Jane in an email:
After careful consideration, The Bank of Nova Scotia… has decided to end our relationship with you. We understand it will take time for you to make arrangements with another financial institution, therefore we are providing you this advance notice of the date on which each of your accounts and other products/services will be closed. Our decision complies with the conditions in the agreements you have with us.
But again, the question arises: what “conditions in the agreement” did Jane breach? We reached out to the manager and Scotiabank’s media relations department and even paid a visit to the branch, but no comment was offered. Of note, even though we are firmly entrenched in the month of August, this branch still had its Pride propaganda on full display.
Please note that our company had been pre-approved for the mortgage by a Royal Bank branch in Calgary. But when it came to rubber-stamping the approval at Royal Bank HQ in Toronto, the mortgage application was denied.
The reasons for the refusal had absolutely nothing to do with the financial wellbeing of Rebel News. Rather, the woke Royal Bank head honchos apparently didn’t care for our editorial viewpoint. Unbelievable…
Lesson learned: Canada’s big banks no longer solely judge clients on their financial merits. These days, the banks want to make certain their clients are not guilty of “wrong thought.” And if you are deemed guilty of harbouring a non-woke opinion, then these big banks will think nothing of declaring you persona non grata.
A law that allows border agents to search personal electronic devices, including computers and smartphones, violates Canadians’ charter rights, Ontario’s top court has ruled, telling Parliament it needs to rewrite the law in six months.
In an Aug. 9 decision of the province’s Court of Appeal, Chief Justice Michael Tulloch and justices Jonathon George and Patrick Monahan said the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “guarantees everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable searches.”
The decision says one section of the Customs Act “offends this basic guarantee.” It says section 99(1)(a) of the act allows border agents to search “some of the most private information imaginable on the lowest possible standard to justify a search,” based merely on suspicion “in the border officers’ own minds.”
The charter requires more, Tulloch wrote in the decision. “A reasonable search in this context requires a reasonable suspicion,” which means the suspicion must be based on facts indicating reasonable possibility officers will find evidence of law violations on the device, the chief justice said.
“I conclude that the law infringes s. 8 of the Charter and is unconstitutional,” Tulloch wrote, noting that the Crown failed to show that the law’s low requirement to justify a search was necessary, because a higher threshold is already in place for similar situations.
He also said a less restrictive alternative—requiring border agents to rely on facts that show travellers could be violating laws, as opposed to “good faith purpose”—“would not jeopardize its mandate.”
“Because the border is not a Charter-free zone, it is also not an almost-anything-goes zone for highly intrusive searches like digital device examinations,” Tulloch wrote.
He further noted, “Reasonable suspicion requires border officers to rely on objective facts supporting a possibility of border violations that courts can independently scrutinize. This prevents border officers from relying on mere hunches, intuition, and uncorroborated tips of unknown reliability.”
The appeals court also noted that about 62 percent of the 31,579 searches of digital devices made by border agents between 2017 and 2020 found no evidence of any border law violations. The invasion of these innocent individuals’ privacy “is a strong sign that the law is unreasonable,” the decision said.
The appeal court’s decision relates to the case of two Canadians, Jeremy Pike and David Scott, whose devices were searched at the border and who were charged with possessing and importing child pornography. Pike was acquitted and Scott was sentenced to 23 months of house arrest.
The two men challenged the constitutionality of Section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act, and Scott sought to appeal his conviction while the Crown sought to appeal Pike’s acquittal.
“The unconstitutionality of this law does not entitle Mr. Pike and Mr. Scott to acquittals on the serious crimes against children with which they were charged,” the court decision said.
Regarding Pike, Tulloch disagreed with the trial judge’s decision to disallow the content found on Pike’s devices to be used as evidence and to thus acquit him. Tulloch allowed the Crown’s appeal against Pike’s acquittal, admitted the evidence of child pornography found on Pike’s devices, and ordered a new trial on the pornography charges.
As for Scott, evidence found on his devices had been allowed in his trial. Tulloch not only dismissed his appeal of his conviction but also said Scott should have received three years in jail instead of 23 months’ house arrest.
“While the trial judge generally appreciated the seriousness of Mr. Scott’s crime, he overlooked the significant number of children Mr. Scott victimized and the three-decade duration of his offending,” Tulloch wrote.
However, Tulloch declined to impose jail time on Scott at this time, saying that he has already served more than half of his 23-month sentence and that he would likely have received parole by this time if he had received a three-year sentence.”
“This decision’s condemnation of possessing child pornography and guidance for future cases is sufficient to denounce and deter that crime,” Tulloch added.
The UK is currently experiencing a massive attack on free speech, spearheaded by new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is encouraging police to use the full force of controversial British laws to crack down on social media posts.The push for more online censorship has spanned many years, and different governments in the UK have gained new momentum with the recent protests and riots.Emboldened by the crisis, officials seem to be using it to step up the already existing, multi-year effort to get social media companies to “cooperate” with the authorities.It has now emerged that the government in London has started flagging content it deems to be “misinformation” – but also something referred to as “concerning content.”X is among those who have been asked to remove posts which British officials consider to threaten the country’s national security; and while reports say Google, Meta, and TikTok are complying with these demands, X is said to be resisting them.The accusations that social sites are “providing a platform for hate” while allegedly unaccountable for that is coming from cabinet members and MPs alike.Science, Innovation, and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that he and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper are working to get content they consider “harmful” removed from the internet
.Recent actions in the UK regarding the apprehension of individuals for disseminating “incorrect information” highlight a concerning trend that threatens the very core of free speech—a foundational pillar of Western democracies.These developments suggest an alarming escalation in government and law enforcement involvement in regulating online speech, which traditionally enjoys broad protections under democratic norms.The use of existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986, to arrest individuals for their online speech is deeply troubling to civil liberties groups.While maintaining public order is a legitimate concern of the state, the broad application of these laws and combining accusations of “stirring racial hatred” with instances of alleged “misinformation” is supercharging an attack on free speech.The introduction of the UK’s most recent censorship law, the “Online Safety Act” further complicates this, with supporters of censorship like Kyle, suggesting that the already-controversial act doesn’t go far enough.As far as Kyle is concerned, he is looking for ways for the government to be able to control online speech to an even greater extent.
The primary catalyst appears to be the recent riots and social unrest following tragic incidents, like the knife attack in Southport.Axel Rudakubana is an 18-year-old who has been charged with the murders of three young girls during a knife attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England. The victims were Bebe King, aged six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, aged nine. In addition to the murder charges, Rudakubana faces charges of attempted murder against a yoga class instructor, a businessman, and eight children, as well as possession of a kitchen knife with a curved blade.Rudakubana was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents and lived in Banks, Lancashire, England. UK police are alleging that early posts stating that Rudakubana was a Muslim have fueled online hatred and prosecutors are using claims of “misinformation.”Yet while those in the US may be familiar with false allegations being a civil matter, as the First Amendment largely protects citizens from criminal charges for such incidents; in the UK, where free speech is struggling, citizens don’t have the same protections under the current law
.In Cheshire, police have taken anti-lockdown campaigner Bernadette “Bernie” Spofforth into custody for allegedly spreading misleading information on social media about a suspect involved in the Southport killings. According to Cheshire police, she faces charges of inciting racial hatred and disseminating false information. Police allege that her actions are part of a broader issue of online misinformation sparking violence nationwide.The controversy centers on a social media post attributed to Spofforth, in which she identified “Ali Al-Shakati” as the Southport suspect, describing him as an “asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year” and claiming he was under surveillance by MI6. The post ominously noted, “If this is true, then all hell is about the break loose.”Chief Superintendent Alison Ross commented on the situation, saying, “We have all seen the violent disorder that has taken place across the UK over the past week, much of which has been fueled by malicious and inaccurate communications online. It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person.”Even the much-criticized Online Safety Act, a sweeping censorship law, is now not enough as far as Kyle is concerned, as he is looking for ways for the government to be able to control online speech to an even greater extent.
The UK’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a forthcoming review of the Online Safety Act. During his visit to a police station on Friday, just before two individuals were imprisoned for using social media to incite attacks on asylum seeker accommodations, Starmer emphasized that social media must not be a “law-free zone.”London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who criticized the legislation as inadequate and in urgent need of revision, also suggested it doesn’t go far enough and more censorship power is needed.“I do agree that we’re going to have to look more broadly at social media after this disorder,” Starmer said. “But the focus at the moment has to be on dealing with the disorder and making sure that our communities are safe and secure.”Starmer further commented on what he believes should be the responsibilities of social media executives, telling them to prioritize community safety. He affirmed, “The first thing I’d say is, this is not a law-free zone. And I think that’s clear from the prosecutions and sentencing. Today we’re due sentencing for online behavior.”And, the government has brought in the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) to monitor online activity “discussing the deaths of the three children killed in Southport and the rioting,” as Kyle put it.NSOIT, previously known as the Counter Disinformation Unit, is infamous for its censorship “handiwork” during the Covid pandemic when it flagged accurate posts from politicians and journalists simply for being critical of the government’s policy.Conservative MP David Davis previously called for the unit to be disbanded, but now, he doesn’t mind “deploying” it to once again police speech: “It’s perfectly legitimate for the state to monitor things that might incite violence,” said Davis.Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo writes that Kyle is “reviving Whitehall’s disgraced Counter Disinformation Unit” and warns that it would be a “grave mistake” to further undermine free speech as it would simply “inflame tensions, sow distrust and undermine democracy.”Carlo also warns about “the very neat response of online censorship that benefits elites who have never really trusted us with free and open access to information online.”
Meanwhile, Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales Stephen Parkinson has told citizens not to reshare posts that are “insulting or abusive (…) intended to or likely to start racial hatred.”Some reports interpret this to mean citizens could be prosecuted even if they are sharing that content as a warning to others.The UK government issued a stern warning to its citizens regarding the risks of sharing potentially offensive content online, particularly in the context of the recent riots. Those who incite “hatred” could face imprisonment, as stated in a post by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the social media platform X.“Think before you post!” the CPS advised.But it’s not just UK citizens that officials are threatening.Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that what he terms “keyboard warriors” could face terrorism charges for their online behavior that incites violence, even if they are based overseas.“And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” highlighting the extended reach of law enforcement to those instigating unrest from afar,” Rowley said to Sky News.“Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law, you can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material, and all of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are causing the problems for communities.”Keir Starmer has asserted that criticisms of police and accusations of a two-tier policing system in the UK are themselves dangerous. This could have troubling implications for free speech.X owner Elon Musk, who is facing censorship calls from Starmer, called out Starmer’s hypocrisy, highlighting how the Prime Minister himself criticized police back in 2021. “What a hypocrite,” Musk posted.By framing such critiques as not only unfounded but also hazardous, there’s a risk that public discourse may be stifled.This stance might discourage individuals from voicing legitimate concerns about policing, out of fear that their criticisms could be seen as harmful or destabilizing.It suggests a scenario where the public might hesitate to hold law enforcement accountable, which is a crucial aspect of democratic oversight. The suggestion that voicing concerns about police practices can endanger officers potentially shifts the focus from the need for transparency and accountability in policing to a narrative that prioritizes the suppression of dissent to protect police image and safety. This could undermine the principle of free expression, which includes the right to critique and question government institutions.
Ever since the Paris Olympics triggered culture warriors by dumping drag queens all over the opening ceremony like fleur de sel with a faulty cap, they’ve been on high alert for any perceived attempts by the organizers to further a woke, gender-bending agenda.
When Algerian boxer Imane Khelif defeated Italian Angela Carini in a fight that lasted just 46 seconds, with Carini taking a punch to the head and reeling from a suspected broken nose, it didn’t take long for social media to pick up on Carini’s cry that the match wasn’t fair. Nor would it take long for a debate to emerge along the usual fault lines around Khelif’s gender and for Khelif to become a Rorschach test.
Former competitive swimmer Riley Gaines tweeted that “men don’t belong in women’s sports,” to which X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk replied, “Absolutely.” Gaines has become an activist against men competing in women’s sports as a result of having to face off against transsexual swimmer Lia Thomas in the NCAA college swimming championships. And Musk has recently expressed upset over one of his children’s own gender transitioning.
“The idea that those objecting to a male punching a female in the name of sport are objecting because they believe Khelif to be ‘trans’ is a joke. We object because we saw a male punching a female,” ‘Harry Potter’ author and frequent transsexual issue commentator J.K. Rowling wrote.
Yet there isn’t any credible evidence that Khelif has ever undergone any kind of gender transitioning – something that would be unheard of in Khelif’s native Algeria.
“This is the purest form of evil unfolding right before our eyes,” boxer and influencer Logan Paul said. “A man was allowed to beat up a woman on a global stage, crushing her life’s dream while fighting for her deceased father. This delusion must end.” But then Paul deleted the posts. “OOPSIES,” he wrote. “I might be guilty of spreading misinformation along with the entirety of this app.”
It’s no wonder everyone’s confused. Two sports governing bodies have faced off over Khelif and another athlete competing in women’s boxing, China’s Lin Yu-Ting.
According to the International Boxing Association, the worldwide match sanctioning entity which disqualified both athletes in the 2023 World Championships where they won bronze and gold respectively, “the athletes did not undergo a testosterone examination but were subject to a separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential. This test conclusively indicated that both athletes did not meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.” Regulations stipulate that proof could be in the form of a DNA test, but no further evidence has been provided to confirm the results – perhaps due to concerns around privacy violations.
In the other corner, the International Olympic Committee calls the IBA’s ruling “sudden and arbitrary,” which can also be true without the results themselves being illegitimate. Accusing its CEO, Chris Roberts (an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to British army boxing), of a unilateral decision, the IOC issued a statement related to the latest controversy, stipulating that “as with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport.”
That’s hardly a rigorous test, particularly when there are at least two countries already – Canada and the US – that permit anyone to freely decide the gender that gets listed on their passport.
Arguably, the most levelheaded take came from Caitlyn Jenner, who was an Olympic decathlon champion when known as Bruce. She recently explained – in a Netflix documentary about Jenner’s sporting career and life – that it was Bruce Jenner who won those accolades, not Caitlyn. Bruce also had the integrity to keep the dresses at home and not show up in one to compete in the women’s decathlon – and Jenner does not now support any man who would. Jenner has described Khelif as “the Algerian competitor with XY chromosomes,” referencing the IBA test results, and has argued that the IOC has a duty to protect the integrity of women’s sports. The IOC doesn’t seem too interested in actively doing so, however, preferring instead to just take participants’ and countries’ word for it.
It’s unclear what Khelif’s specific case is, but it’s not impossible for a person to have male XY chromosomes yet also possess the sexual characteristics of a woman. The Denmark-based Novo Nordisk Foundation for medical research, including of sex chromosome abnormalities, calls them“hidden men.” According to their research, “one in 15,000 males is born and grows up as a girl. And neither these girls nor their parents know it. These girls do not discover anything different until puberty” when they simply don’t menstruate. And some even reach their 30s without realizing that they are genetically male, with “an extremely high level of testosterone and other male sex hormones.”
Is this the case with these two boxers? First, this has to be ascertained. And the IOC should do that rather than just brush off the IBA’s efforts and sweep them under the rug or attempt to discredit them without specific evidence. Then, rather than stick its head in the sand on gender-related issues that directly impact sporting results, the IOC should decide whether it’s going to in fact allow “hidden men,” in the exact words of scientific medical researchers, to compete against women in various sports. If so, then presumably women’s sports advocates would have something to say about it. But this discussion needs to take place openly and transparently.
The way things are going right now, couch warriors are policing gender in sports from home, with beer and Doritos in hand, because no one really trusts the authorities in charge of maintaining the integrity of the events anymore. It’s hardly unreasonable considering that the Paris Olympic organizers, whose actions are presumably validated or at least monitored by the International Olympic Committee, have already allowed ideology and special interests to trample the playing field.
Athletes in the Olympic Village have complained about the lack of available protein, such as meat and eggs, amounting to forced veganism in the interests of reducing carbon emissions (while increasing profit margins, no doubt). The lack of air conditioning for the athletes’ rooms, in upwards of 35C Parisian summer heat last week, amounted to greenwashing their own cheapness. Then they announced that plan B for the triathlon, if they couldn’t make the Seine river fecal bacteria test results work, was to have the triathlon just self-identify as a duathlon. Which came after having a totally gratuitous depiction of ‘The Last Supper’ in the opening ceremony self-identify as a drag show.
Despite the IOC’s increasingly laid-back approach to the Games, it at least pays lip service to maintaining an even playing field with doping tests, evolving in sophistication along with the cheating methods they’re meant to combat. With all the gender bending being promoted in Western society, maybe it’s also time for DNA tests to be included. Or not. In which case, everyone, regardless of gender, can just get jacked to the max and punch each other in the face for gold without concerning themselves with the details.
