Political Prisoner Leslie Bory Was Severely Beaten in Prison Several Weeks Ago

Political Prisoner Leslie Bory Was Severely Beaten in Prison Several Weeks Ago
CAFE has just been informed that political prisoner Leslie Bory, who faces three counts of harassment because of a February  Internet podcast and may soon face charges under Sec. 318 (wilful promotion of genocide) and 319 (wilful promotion of hate against a privileged group) was severely beaten, in late September, at Maplehurt Correctional Complex in Milton, Ontario. Mr. Bory has no criminal record but Ontario’s highly politicized judicial system has refused him bail. Murderers and violent perpetrators of assault and use of dangerous weapons are out walking the streets on bail, but populist political dissidents languish in jail.

Mr. Bory writes: “I have now been injured in prison which, I believe, is another form of minority violence used by the real dictators of Canada who write our laws to dissuade others from speaking out. I have a broken nose, two black eyes, a gash on my forehead that needed stitches. I have a gash on the back of my head and cuts on the left side of my head and bumps all over my head and two broken ribs and scrapes on my knee and hand.” Apparently, Mr. Bory was assaulted in the prison exercise yard by another inmate, identity unknown. The prison authorities are investigating. A person knowledgeable about the prison states that there must be video of the assault. Mr. Bory’s lawyer was informed.

“I was told that I would be charged with ‘advocating genocide’ which carries a five year sentence” for warning about a certain minority that, Mr. Bory believes, have tried to commit genocide.

CAFE sent our recent newsletters to Mr. Bory. The envelope was returned with a non-explanatory letter that said: “We are sure that you can appreciate our need to ensure that illicit drugs and other contraband/unauthorized items are not introduced into the institution.” Then, a long list of examples followed. Highlighted in pink magic marker was “newspaper clippings.” But we sent Mr. Bory the Free Speech Monitor and the Canadian Immigration Hotline, not newspaper clippings. Oh, well, let’s fight to protect democracy in the Ukraine, while freedoms are trampled here in Canada

You may drop a letter or postcard of support to political prisoner Leslie  Bory at this address:

Leslie Bory,

c/o Maplehurt Correctional Complex

661 Martin St,

Milton, ON.,

 L9T 2Y3

Manitoba is now up the Creek, Without a Paddle, in a Leaky Kinew

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Saturday, October 7, 2023

Manitoba is now up the Creek, Without a Paddle, in a Leaky Kinew

 I have said before that I think we Canadians owe our Sovereign, now His Majesty Charles III, although when I made the remark originally it was our late Sovereign Lady of blessed memory, Elizabeth II, an apology for the incompetent, utterly corrupt, and insanely evil clown who, through our abuse of our voting privilege, has been Prime Minister of this Commonwealth Realm for the last eight years.   Now I would add that the Canadians of my province, Manitoba, owe a double apology for putting the only politician in the Dominion worse than Captain Airhead himself into the premier’s office, with a majority in the Legislature behind him.

When the evil New Democratic Party led by the execrable Wab Kinew won the provincial election on 3 October, I was disgusted but not surprised.   When Lee Harding of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a local think-tank here in Winnipeg, published a piece on 29 September calling for the re-election of the Progressive Conservatives, I could not agree with his title as much as I desired that outcome.   The title was “Manitoba PCs Deserve Another Mandate”.   No, they did not.   The reason for voting PC this election was not that they deserved it but that the alternative was much, much, worse.

The Progressive Conservatives, led by Brian Pallister, won the provincial election of 2016 and governed well enough in their first term that Harding’s title would have been true had he written his article in 2019.   That year they won re-election and at the annual New Year’s Levée hosted by the Lieutenant Governor I shook Pallister’s hand and congratulated him on his victory.   Within a few months of this, however, Pallister’s governance went south badly and I came to loathe the man.   In July of 2021, a short time before he resigned as PC leader and premier, I expressed this in these words:

Brian Pallister is an ignorant fool!

He’s a stupid, ugly, loser and he smells bad too!

His one and only virtue,

I hate to say it but it’s true,

His one and only virtue is –

He’s not Wab Kinew!

It was Pallister’s handling of the bat flu scare that had so soured me on his governance.   He had imposed a particularly harsh lockdown, had done so earlier than many other provinces, and had done so in an arrogant, in-your-face, manner.   Wab Kinew and the NDP criticized Pallister’s handling of the pandemic, but their criticism went entirely in the wrong direction.   They criticized Pallister for not imposing lockdowns sooner, not making them harsher, lifting them too early and this sort of thing.   They should have been criticizing Pallister for trampling all over the most basic rights and freedoms of Manitobans, that is to say our ancient Common Law rights and freedoms not the useless and empty guarantees of Pierre Trudeau’s Charter, and acting like there are no constitutional limits to the power of government in an emergency.   Their mishandling of the bat flu panic under Pallister is the reason the PC’s don’t deserve another mandate.   Kinew’s criticism of the same, which amounted to a demand that Pallister do more of what he was doing wrong, is one reason why the NDP do not deserve to replace the PC’s as government and are a much worse alternative.

It was not the botched job he made of the bat flu that ultimately brought about Pallister’s resignation as PC leader and premier at the beginning of September 2021.   This was 2021, and the crazy progressive leftists who dominate so much of the Canadian mainstream media, envious as always of their counterparts in the United States, decided that Canada needed her version of the George Floyd controversy that had been manufactured by the BLM Movement – the movement for whom the lives of American blacks matter the least because their target is the American police who protect American blacks from the violent crime that costs so many blacks their lives each year – and so jumped on the discovery of ground disturbances – and that was all that were discovered – on the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, which the band interpreted as the discovery of unmarked graves – not “mass graves” as falsely reported – and began claiming that this “proved” the version of the Indian Residential Schools narrative that defrocked United Church minister and conspiracy theorist Kevin Annett has been spouting since the 1990s, i.e., that children were murdered by the thousands in the schools and buried in secret graves.   Imagine if the mainstream media in the UK were to start reporting David Icke’s theory that the world is controlled by reptilian shapeshifters from outer space and you will have an approximation of the degree of departure from journalistic standards and integrity that was involved here.   Their claim has since been thoroughly debunked, which is why leftist politicians now want to criminalize debunking it, but it had its intended effect.   That summer saw the biggest wave of hate crimes in Canadian history as Church buildings – whether the Churches had any connection to the residential schools or not – were burned or otherwise vandalized all across the country.   On Dominion Day, Year Zero, Cultural Maoist terrorists, toppled the statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislature.   No society can afford to tolerate this sort of violent, seditious, assault on her history and civilization and Brian Pallister appropriately condemned these acts.   In doing so he made positive statements about the previous generations of Canadians who settled and built the country and who are now constantly being defamed by progressive academics and journalists, in violation of the fifth and ninth commandments.   The provincial Indian chiefs decided to take offense at this – take offense is the operative phrase, as none was given, Pallister had not said anything about them, negative or otherwise – and demanded that Pallister apologize.  Pallister should have told them to go suck an egg and stood his ground.   Instead, about a month later, he cravenly gave them the apology they didn’t deserve, and in the event didn’t accept, and shortly thereafter resigned.

Kelvin Goertzen took over as interim party leader and premier until the party held its leadership vote on 30 October.   Now, I am not a fan of this method of choosing a party leader.   I think that it is far more consistent with our parliamentary form of government for the party caucus – the party’s sitting members in the House of Commons or provincial legislative assembly – to choose their leader, and that selling paid memberships in the party with a vote for the leader attached smacks of the American republican system.   I also dislike the way our elections, Dominion and provincial, are now treated by almost everyone as if we were directly voting for the prime minister or premier, rather than voting for our local representatives in a larger parliamentary assembly, for the same reason.   This is a consequence of being inundated with too much American culture in the form of television and movies.   That having been said, if the party leader is to be chosen this way, it should at least be open and honest.   That is precisely what the vote that put Heather Stefanson in as leader of Manitoba’s Progressive Conservatives and premier of the province was not.   Stefanson was the candidate supported by the sitting members – had the party chosen its leader according to my preferred method she would have still become leader.   She was also, however, the candidate that the backroom bosses of the party wanted as leader, and when they ultimately got their way their new leader had a huge cloud of suspicion of shenanigans over her head.   Stefanson won the leadership vote by a narrow margin – 51.1% over the 48.9% received by Shelly Glover, which looks even narrower in total vote count – 8, 405 for Stefanson, 8, 042 for Glover.   Glover, who had formerly been a member of the House of Commons representing St. Boniface, based her campaign in part on dissatisfaction with how Pallister, with whose government Stefanson had been associated, had handled the bat flu.   The party’s former CFO, Ken Lee, had also sought the leadership, in his case making opposition the Pallister lockdowns his sole issue, but his candidacy was disqualified for reasons that never really were made clear.   This looked shady, as did the fact that over 1200 members had not received their ballots in time to vote, and when Glover lost by such a narrow margin – less than 400 votes – she contested the outcome, but her challenge was quickly dismissed.    This had all the appearances of a backroom fix.

When this happened I realized that it would take a miracle for the Progressive Conservatives to win the next election.   You cannot treat your voting base this way and expect them to turn up in sufficient numbers to support you come election time.

It was apparent during the short election campaign, and the longer pre-campaign leading up to it, that Stefanson’s PCs were not remotely as committed to their winning the election as their enemies were to their being defeated.   I say enemies rather than opponents because it is not just their rivals in the legislature that I am talking about.

The unions have been determined to take down the PCs since pretty much the moment Brian Pallister became premier and have really stepped up their game in the last couple of years.   They have spent a fortune on billboard ads all over Winnipeg attacking the PC government.   Then there are the yard signs that began popping up like mushrooms all over the place long before the party campaign signs came out.   These couldn’t explicitly endorse candidate or party, but everyone knew what they were getting at.  The most common such signs were from the Manitoba Nurses Union and the Manitoba Teachers Society.  

Allied with these unions in their quest to bring down the PCs and put Kinew’s NDP into government, was the media, especially the CBC, which as Crown broadcaster by rights ought to be neutral, and the Winnipeg Free Press.     

These media, along with the Manitoba Nurses Union and the NDP, have been using health care as a club to bash the Progressive Conservatives with ever since Pallister, early in his premiership, indicated his disagreement with them that health care spending needs to keep going in one direction only, up, converted the Emergency Rooms at Seven Oaks and Victoria Hospitals in Winnipeg into urgent care centres, and closed the Concordia Hospital ER refocusing the hospital to transitional care for the elderly and those undergoing physical rehabilitation.   The PCs dropped the ball on this one.   They should have hammered back, just as hard, pointing out that the consultant’s report on whose recommendations they did this had been commissioned by the previous, NDP, government, and that at the same time they expanded the capacity of the three remaining ERs – Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface, and Grace.   They should also have emphasized that health care has usually fared much worse under NDP governments in rural ridings.   The ER in Vita, a rural community about an hour and a half south-east of Winnipeg, closed three years after Greg Selinger became premier.  Two years later it was still closed, with eighteen others along with it.    ERs in many other rural communities remained open, but on a basis somewhat like a multi-point parish, with the same doctor serving several ERs, being in the one the one day, another the next.   In the second last year of Gary Doer’s premiership, the ER in Virden, a rural community along the TransCanada Highway near the Saskatchewan border was temporarily closed, mercifully for only about half a year.   These examples are representative, not comprehensive, and while the rural doctor shortage is a chronic problem regardless of who is in government, rural areas always fare worse under the NDP.  Not coincidentally, these same areas rarely if at all vote NDP.   A rural ER closure, even a temporary one, is worse than an ER closure in Winnipeg, for while there are more people in Winnipeg, the transit time to the next ER, especially if the ER to close is one that serviced a very large area, like the one in Vita, is increased that much more in the country.

The media also found another club to bash the PC government with in the Indians’ demand that the Prairie Green Landfill be searched for the remains of two murdered women that the Winnipeg Police believe to have ended up there.   This demand was expressed in protests, blockades, and something that is probably best described as a riot, earlier this year.   Here again, Stefanson’s PCs shot themselves in the foot.   Not so much by refusing the demand – their grounds for doing so were sound, and certainly not the “racism” of which idiots accuse them – but by bringing the issue into the election campaign.   No matter how sound the case for not conducting this just under $200 million search of an area laced with toxins, there was no way Stefanson could argue her point without appearing heartless.  It would have been better to stay silent.

So, no, the Stefanson PC’s did not deserve another mandate.   The problem is that those who won deserved it even less.

Let me spell it out for you.   At the moment, people all across the Dominion of Canada are experiencing an affordability crisis.   The price of food has gone through the roof.   Many Canadians are skipping meals, many others are buying less healthy processed food than they otherwise would, because the prices at the grocery stores are too high.   At the same time rent is sky high and houses are selling at obscene prices.   Transportation is also that much more expensive.   Much of this is the direct consequence of bad action on the part of the Dominion government.   The price of gasoline has gone up considerably due to the carbon tax, which in turn increases the price of everything that needs to be transported using fuel.  The housing shortage is a direct consequence of Captain Airhead’s decision to use record immigration, with apologies to Bertolt Brecht, to elect a new people.   While Captain Airhead seems to think that food prices are high because of price fixing on the part of the big grocery chains, a notion he borrowed from the man propping his minority government up, federal NDP leader Jimmy Dhaliwal, the fact of the matter is that he has been spending like a drunken sailor since he got into office.   When governments spend more than they take in in revenue, this is not a contributing factor to inflation, it is inflation.   The extra they spend increases the supply of money, the means of exchange, which decreased the value of money per unit, and causes the price of everything else to rise relative to it.    When you spend the way Captain Airhead did over the last few years, paying people to stay home for long periods of time and not go to work – decreasing the production of goods and services and thus causing their cost in currency to go up – you increase inflation exponentially.   Manitoba just elected a premier who has the same sort of attitude towards spending as Captain Airhead.  

Last month, in the Million Person March, organized by Ottawa Muslim activist Kamel El-Cheik, but supported by many faith groups and people just concerned about the rights of parents, Canadians across the Dominion expressed what polls already had indicated to be the overwhelming majority opinion of Canadians – that schools should not be keeping parents out of the loop about what is going on in the classroom with their kids about gender identity and that sort of thing.   While leftists have tried to spin this as an alphabet soup issue, accusing those protesting of various sorts of hatred and bigotry, and spinning the reasonable insistence that teachers entrusted with the education of children report back to the parents who so entrusted them, as “forced outing”, they are being absurd.   There is a word for someone who tells kids to keep stuff having to do with sex a secret from their parents.   The policy that schools and school boards have been following in recent years seems tailor-made to accommodate such people.   Heather Stefanson had promised in her campaign to protect parental rights.   The promise would have been more credible had she introduced the legislation to do so earlier when the New Brunswick and Saskatchewan governments were doing so.   However, this much is clear, if someone wanted to protect perverts in the schools rather than the rights of parents, he would be cheering the outcome of this election.

The province already has a huge problem with drug abuse and related social evils.   The CBC reported in April that provincial Chief Medical Examiner had told them via e-mail that the number of drug-related deaths per year has “risen dramatically here in recent years” and that “the deaths are only the tip of the iceberg”.   407 Manitobans died from overdoses in 2021, 372 the year previously, both record numbers.   It was at least 418 in 2022.    At least 228 involved fentanyl and/or related drugs.   The city of Winnipeg also saw the largest jump in crime severity of any Canadian city in the same period.   These two facts are not unrelated, nor is the size of the homelessness problem in Winnipeg.    The left, in recent years, has been obsessed with the “harms reduction” approach to this matter, an approach that tries to lower the number of deaths due to overdose and contamination by providing a “safe” supply of drugs and “safe” places to use them.   It is usually coupled with decriminalization or outright legalization of some or all narcotics.   This approach is concerned more with the effects of drugs on those who (ab)use them and less or not at all with the effects of drug abuse on the surrounding community.   It was tried by the NDP in Alberta in the premiership of Rachel Notley, and more dramatically in British Columbia, where the provincial NDP government introduced this approach on a provincial scale earlier at the beginning of this year, despite it having proven a failure when the city of Vancouver tried it, causing overdose deaths to rise.   The NDP are incapable of learning from their mistakes on matters such as these.   Expect Kinew to try and imitate BC’s mistake, not avoid it and look elsewhere, like, for example, Singapore’s “harm prevention” approach, for a successful model.    This problem is about to get much worse in Winnipeg and Manitoba.

It will not be long before we in Manitoba rue the outcome of this election. Now we owe His Majesty a double apology, first for Captain Airhead in the Dominion Prime Minister’s Office, now for Captain Airhead’s doppleganger in the province of Manitoba. — Gerry T. Neal

Tribute to Richard Bilkszto today @ 2 pm at Mel Lastman Square

Tribute to Richard Bilkszto today @ 2 pm at Mel Lastman Square

SOS TDSBToronto, Canada

Oct 15, 2023 — 

A Tribute to Richard Bilkszto will be taking place today (Sunday, October 15) at Mel Lastman Square in North York, starting at 2:00 pm.

Please join us to commemorate and celebrate Richard’s life. All are welcome to attend.

Tasha Kheiriddin from SOS TDSB will be emcee and attendees will hear speeches from columnist Anthony Furey, Trustees Dr. Weidong Pei, Dennis Hastings and Mike Ramsay, as well as Dr. Ragini Sharma from the C and educators Natasha Mansouri and Jon Roberts.

Please join us in-person if you can, however, a video recording of speeches will be uploaded to our website following the memorial.

Freedom Events in the Okanagan, October 14 -21 — Donald Lee; 1 Million March for Children

This issue of the Penticton4Freedom Newsletter will be short, with just 3 events on the horizon for the next week or so. Come out and join us. We’d love to see you.

Please bear with us while we re-evaluate our newsletter and website processes.

Meanwhile, please email us your feedback on what you like, don’t like, would recommend we change about both our weekly newsletters and our website at https://penticton4freedom.com/

Your ideas matter.

——————————- o0o————————————-

Penticton 4 Freedom Weekly Events


——————————- o0o————————————-

FREEDOM RALLIES – Penticton4Freedom – every Sunday from 1 to 3 p.m.  at Main and Warren, Penticton

============================================= This Week THIS SUNDAY IN PENTICTON OCTOBER 15: Donald Lee will be arriving EARLY so let’s be there to greet him! PLEASE SHOW UP no later than 12:45 to welcome him. Lots of time for Q&A, and book signings.image.png

Miss a week and you miss a lot!

Fighting for freedom is more fun with friends. Bring a few. Suggest a topic or a speaker, and we’ll be happy to find someone to share their knowledge with us.   ——————————- o0o————————————- EVENTS    image.png

Join us at Dakoda’s Sports Bar for a distinctive Town Hall experience.

Two independent candidates are running as Members of the Legislative Assembly

(MLA) in two Kelowna ridings. It’s a unique opportunity to ensure your voice is heard,

ask questions and engage in conversations that will shape Kelowna’s future.

This inclusive, non-partisan gathering welcomes all residents, whether you’re a

seasoned political enthusiast or a first-time voter.

——————————————- o0o————————————————-

1 Million March 4 Children Events October 21, 2023



Murielle and James are organizing the event in Summerland, and can use some help both before and during the event at Memorial Park, Summerland at 1.

For more details of the Canada wide event: https://handsoffourkids.ca/

 And for local details, please contact Murielle at 250-388-0820.



——————————- o0o————————————- Remember that Freedom Hugs are available at ALL our Penticton4Freedom events!   Let’s make this weekend AMAZING!!  

Mary Lou Gutscher



To all sovereign indigenous Britons —Stop the Online Safety Bill

To all sovereign indigenous Britons

Please, everyone, sign this petition to Stop the Online Safety Bill, keep free speech free.

The UK Government MUST kill the Online Safety Bill Immediately. Free speech MUST remain free!

Free speech is vital for democracy, individual rights, accountability, cultural growth, conflict resolution, personal development, and preventing minority oppression. It empowers expression, fosters an open society, and holds authorities accountable.

It safeguards rights, enabling people to express themselves authentically. It also ensures accountability by allowing citizens, journalists, and activists to expose corruption and wrongdoing, holding authorities and corporations accountable.

Click this link to see the petition and start sharing it:


Thanks very much,


mobile:07467 948294 email: enquiries@thebritishvoice.org.uk

Merrick Garland Seeks to Criminalize Trump Supporters & Populist Dissent


Merrick Garland has one bone-chilling plan to target Trump supporters in 2024

Oct 6, 2023

Chuck Kennedy for The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Attorney General Merrick Garland weaponized the Justice Department against conservatives.

He’s now ramping up his efforts for the next election

And Merrick Garland has one bone-chilling plan to target Trump supporters in 202

Former President Donald Trump exposed the rot in the FBI, beginning with the agency’s attempt to target him in the Russian-collusion hoax.

Attorney General Merrick Garland unleashed the FBI against the political opponents of President Joe Biden, including pro-lifers, traditional Catholics, and parents who protested Marxist indoctrination at school board meetings.

The FBI has made persecuting Trump supporters a top priority for the agency, with child trafficking cases taking a backseat to investigating non-violent attendees on January 6.

The Biden regime is using the bogus claim that Trump supporters are potentially “violent” as an excuse to weaponize the federal government against them.

With the possibility growing that the former President could beat Biden in the 2024 election, the FBI is once again gearing up to target Trump supporters.

FBI has its sights set on Trump supporters for the 2024 election

The FBI is running a secret operation to target supporters of Donald Trump to prevent alleged violence and civil disturbances during the 2024 election, according to a report from Newsweek.

Over the course of three months, Newsweek spoke to more than a dozen current or former federal government officials who specialize in terrorism.

The Biden regime falsely claims that domestic terrorism from “right-wing extremism” is the top threat facing the country, and the FBI is using it as a flimsy pretext to target Trump supporters.

The FBI is secretly tracking Trump supporters because the agency believes that they pose the greatest risk of violence in the country and could potentially start another civil war.

Supporters of Trump’s Make America Great Again movement are being labeled as “violent domestic extremists” by the agency.

The FBI created a new category of domestic terrorists called AGAAVE-Other (anti-government, anti-authority violent extremism).

This new category is defined by the agency as “domestic violent extremists who cite anti-government or anti-authority motivations for violence or criminal activity not otherwise defined, such as individuals motivated by a desire to commit violence against those with a real or perceived association with a specific political party or faction of a specific political party.”

The move is an attempt to give Trump supporters an official government label as violent extremists.

“Government insiders acknowledged to Newsweek that although they are not named specifically, the AGAAVE-Other title applies to political violence associated with Trump supporters,” Newsweek reported.

This is a massive change from the FBI after publicly claiming that political viewpoints were not a consideration for domestic terrorism investigations.

“It was a subtle change, little noticed, but a gigantic departure for the Bureau,” Newsweek wrote. “Trump and his army of supporters were acknowledged as a distinct category of domestic violent extremists, even as the FBI was saying publicly that political views were never part of its criteria to investigate or prevent domestic terrorism. Where the FBI sees threats is also plain from the way it categorizes them — a system which on the surface is designed to appear nonpartisan. This shifted subtly days after the events of January 6 when it comes to what the Bureau calls AGAAVE.”

The current momentum in the 2024 election is with Trump after a slew of polls showed that he opened a small lead against Biden.

The FBI is going into overdrive to ensure that Donald Trump does not take back the White House in 2024

Professional Organizations in Canada Silence Dissent by Disciplinary Measures

Dear friend of the free society,
It seems obvious that freedom of expression is fundamental to a well-functioning free society.
But does this also include freedom of expression for nurses, accountants, teachers, engineers and other professionals?
While some establishment voices in Canada will try to tell you and I that there is a distinction between professionals and the general public, the Justice Centre is here to remind these powers that, in no uncertain terms, there is no difference.
Professionals in all fields deserve to be able to express their opinions, whether it’s convenient for industry gatekeepers or not.

Silencing and punishing Canada’s doctors, lawyers and psychologists for expressing unpopular opinions is unconstitutional.
How Dr. Jordan Peterson is being censored by the College of Psychologists of Ontario may well be the most prominent example. And let’s not forget British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, whom the Justice Centre is defending against the BC College of Nurses and Midwives, which is conducting disciplinary proceedings against Amy Hamm because she stated publicly that there are only two genders.
Saskatchewan nurse Leah McInnes is now facing the same intimidation and censorship after daring to criticize the government’s vaccine mandates and attending a peaceful protest in September 2021.
Support us today!
As Leah McInnes would soon find out, merely by stating her opinions about government policies, she slighted a healthcare establishment that prioritized conformity, uniformity and blind obedience. 
The College claims that no “mandates” were ever brought into force in Saskatchewan, and on that basis claims that Leah’s public statements about “mandates” amounted to “misinformation”, “disinformation” or “misleading” information. Of note, virtually the entire media apparatus, government officials and medical authorities have frequently referred to the government’s vaccine policies as “mandates” in Saskatchewan and across the country.
When taking on this case, our lawyers had a sobering reflection…
What happens when professionals tasked with the responsibility of looking after our health can be silenced for doing so openly? For exercising their independent professional judgment about medicine and science?
Or, perhaps more pertinently, what happens when well meaning, truth-seeking professionals speak out against the professional establishments that employ them?
Today in Canada, government-sponsored professional regulators–most notably in the medical space, such as the College of Registered Nurse’s of Saskatchewan (CRNS)–are increasingly taking on a brand new role by insisting that they are the final arbiters of what is true and what is not.
Freedom of expression in Canada is taking a back seat to power, control and obedience–even amongst our most educated and acclaimed sectors like medicine and law.
It’s becoming blatantly clear to our legal team, as well as to so many hard-working professionals who toil in silence every single day, that vexatious allegations of misconduct made by professional regulators, thrown at individuals merely for expressing an opinion that may undermine the regulators’ influence, has nothing to do with misconduct at all…
… it has everything to do with power and control
The culture of control in Canada’s most coveted professions must be reined in.
If you want to live in a country that respects freedom of expression, and allows Canadians serving in their professions to think critically, speak honestly, and exercise their professional judgment without fear, then please help the Justice Centre defend rights and freedoms with a $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or even $2,500 contribution today, so that our litigation team can take on as many of these professional censorship cases as possible.
As in the case of Leah McInnes, non-descript allegations of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are used as a cudgel in disciplinary hearings by self-interested industry hall monitors to silence voices and opinions that differ from their own.
By defending brave, critical thinking, and selfless healthcare professionals like Leah McInnes, the Justice Centre is sending a clear message directly to occupational regulators everywhere:
Their political interests and their obsession for complete conformity does not and will not ever supersede the fundamental Charter rights of Canadians. Period. 
Our legal team knows that Leah McInnes is on the right side of the law in this case because we’ve won on this issue before!And we know we can WIN MORE CASES just like this one if we could only stretch our litigation budget a bit further…
Support us today
That’s right. In November 2020, the Justice Centre successfully defended Dr. Chris Milburn from disciplinary action being considered against him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia.
A group of 14 activists filed a complaint against Dr. Milburn for writing an op-ed in which he opined that, while police and jail guards should be held to a high standard, they cannot reasonably be held responsible for inmate deaths arising from drugs, alcohol, and the often-violent consequences arising from their use.
The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and should not be encouraged by the College.
As proponents of a truly free society, Canadians like you and I know that our society only improves when there is free debate, and when no power is beyond scrutiny.
Regulatory agencies must be held to the same standard as the rest of society when it comes to upholding these principles: the spirit of free and open dialogue and the right to free expression.
The Justice Centre is eager to take on more of these cases. 
The more freedom of expression cases the Justice Centre can take on today, the less likely it will be that regulatory bodies will consider silencing dissent within their industries tomorrow.

Please help us defend even more independent-minded professionals who have the courage to take a stand for what they know in their hearts is right. Please consider donating $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or even $1000 today. Your generous contribution will go toward establishing the protection of basic expression–not to mention professional opinion–in critical sectors across Canada.
Donate today
Unfortunately, right now the Justice Centre can take on only a small fraction of the many very legitimate requests for legal help that come to us from across the country. 
Every single one of these cases is another Canadian who needs help…
Our nation depends on free and open debate.
Such is the messy nature of democracy, a democracy worth preserving.

John Carpay
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
P.S. Since its founding in 2010, the Justice Centre has been the tip of the spear for defending Charter rights and freedoms in Canada. Freedom of expression is a foundational liberty, without which we could not defend the rest. As healthcare and other functions like the justice system in our country encounter unprecedented dangers, the time is now to stand for free speech–the medicine that cures the disease. Only through free and open discussion–something we are very close to losing entirely in this country–will Canadians take back their lives and their safety. That discussion starts with principled citizens like you.

Ireland Fierce Anti-Free Speech Bill: Mere Possession of Offensive Material on Your Computer Could Be A Crime

Free speech fears and far-right conspiracies: the culture war over Ireland’s hate speech bill A chorus of negative reactions to the bill has grown louder in recent weeks. 25.7k 92 May 29th 2023, 12:05 AM


When Ireland’s proposed hate speech laws, The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, passed final stage in the Dáil last month, the most high-profile criticism came from international right-wing figures online. 

“This is a massive attack against freedom of speech,” Elon Musk wrote on Twitter.

“It’s insane what’s happening in the “free world”,” Donald Trump Jr, the former US president’s son, decried while quoting a tweet which warned what the law could mean for those in possession of “hateful” material on their device.

Unbeknownst to them, the pair echoed arguments made during the final Dáil debate on the bill by a self-styled socialist. 

People Before Profit’s Paul Murphy, a TD who would definitely see himself on the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Trumps, made a series of failed last-ditch attempts to amend the legislation. 

He repeatedly warned about the bill’s creation of “thought crime” and complained about its lack of an explicit reference to the right to freedom of expression.

“Persons can be criminalised for having hateful material on their computer but without having published it or caused incitement to hatred or a consequence for anybody else,” he said during the bill’s final debate in the Dáil.

It’s difficult to imagine many other situations in which Murphy, Musk and Trump would appear on the same side of a contentious political debate, but controversy over the proposed hate speech laws has created an unusual space in which exponents of opposing political outlooks have united.

The ranks of those against the bill have swelled in recent weeks, with NGOs and free speech groups joining the chorus of Irish and international detractors.

The Government continues to defend the bill – which only has to pass through the Seanad before going to the President to be signed into law – amid a strange battle in a wider culture war where most people are actually on the same side. 

But it does beg the question, why has the chorus of negative reactions grown so much louder in recent weeks? 

The bill, itself, was first approved by the Government in 2021.

A ‘form of deterrence’

At the time, then-Justice Minister Helen McEntee explained that the Government wanted to “stamp out prejudice and hate” and to show solidarity with minority groups. 

“Offenders will also be managed appropriately, and perpetrators will know that their crimes will be reported, investigated and prosecuted, which is the most effective form of deterrence,” she said.

Although legislation on hatred already exists in Ireland in the form of the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act 1989, critics have argued that this is ineffective and point to the fact that it has only led to around 50 prosecutions in almost a quarter of a century.

The new bill will, if it passes into law, introduce more up-to-date protections than those contained in that legislation, such as gender identity and disability.

In a nutshell, it seeks to buttress the laws on hate speech in Ireland by strengthening the legal recognition of hatred in the criminal justice system.

It would create new aggravated forms of a number of existing crimes, where those crimes are proven to be motivated by prejudice against ten “protected characteristics”.

These characteristics are: race; colour; nationality; religion (including the absence of religion); national or ethnic origin; descent; gender; sex characteristics; sexual orientation; and disability.

If the new bill becomes law, prosecutors will be allowed to consider that crimes against vulnerable individuals or communities could be motivated by hatred against them, based on those characteristics.

By recognising hatred as a motivation in law, Irish courts could potentially consider certain crimes to be aggravated by these protected characteristics, which in turn could lead to longer sentences.

Walter Scott House 015 Sasko Lazarov / RollingNews.ie Justice Minister Helen McEntee introduced the bill two years ago

Those who would be protected by the legislation have welcomed the bill, particularly groups within the Coalition against Hate Crime, an umbrella grouping made up of 22 representative organisations for those who are commonly targeted by hate crimes.

The coalition has long campaigned for a review of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act and the introduction of hate crime laws.

In a submission to the Oireachtas in 2021, the coalition pointed to research showing how the impact of hate crime could be greater than the comparative impact of crimes committed where no such bias existed.

“Part of the importance of hate crime legislation is the symbolic value – for victims and society at large – of labeling the offence and explicitly condemning the bias motive,” the group said.

The submission also pointed to the potential use of data arising from criminal convictions, which it suggested could ultimately prevent similar crimes occurring in future. 

“In addition, with aggravated offences patterns relating to the commission of such crimes have greater visibility and data on hate crime is easier to collect, which can then better inform the legal and policy responses required to combat such crimes,” it added.

Culture war issue

But the potential criminalisation of forms of speech has been seized upon to make the passage of the bill a culture war issue.

Anticipating this as far back as 2021, McEntee said that the proposals are not about criminalising instances where someone is merely offended by something another has said, but rather about preventing forms of speech that could lead to harm and illegal discrimination.

“The legislation we are working on will be evidence-based, while respecting the vital constitutional right to freedom of expression and association,” she said.

The passage of the bill through the Dáil has simply ignited concerns, however, with perceived issues about the impact the bill could have on the right to free speech catalysing opposition towards it in recent weeks.

On top of international criticism from the likes of Trump and Musk, an array of Irish-based groups and individuals have latched on to the bill, with some conflating it with other culture war issues.

Occasionally, such critics have used the bill as an excuse to attack some of the minorities the proposed legislation would protect.

During a rally organised by the far-right Irish Freedom Party to “protect free speech” outside Dublin’s Customs House earlier this month, multiple speakers launched verbal attacks on transgender people in speeches criticising the bill.

“I want to protect my kids from dangerous trans ideology,” one woman told the assembled audience, claiming she needed to be able to speak ‘freely’ in order to do so.

The party’s president and founder Hermann Kelly, who has previously claimed that “anybody who puts sugar on their porridge will be dishonestly smeared as far-right”, also appeared to address immigration issues during his speech at the rally.

“What’s clear over the last number of years, with the legislation that’s been brought in – and you can see even about the priority of people on the housing list – that the people who the Irish Government hate is the Irish people,” he told the rally.

DAIL PROTEST AM4Z8094 Sasko Lazarov / RollingNews.ie Irish Freedom Party leader Hermann Kelly

The bill is also discussed regularly in conspiracy groups and the channels of Irish misinformation spreaders on the messaging app Telegram, though it received limited attention until after it passed through the Dáil at the end of last month.

Those channels contain outlandish claims that the proposed law is designed to defend “globalists” and that it another step in the ongoing “plantation” of Ireland (a local version of the Great Replacement conspiracy).

Prominent figures have shared lists of all senators’ email addresses, urging people to ask for the bill to be amended in the Seanad, while others have called for an email campaign to President Michael D Higgins to demand that he refuses to sign the bill into law.  

‘Uncensored debate’

Grassroots groups are also campaigning on the issue, notably Free Speech Ireland, whose tweets were quoted by Musk and Trump in their critiques of the bill.

The extent of the group’s membership and the identity of its leaders are unknown, though it claims on its website to have “members, students and college alumni from all across Ireland” after starting out in University College Cork in 2018.

It says its aim is to preserve the right to freedom of speech and expression, and it has opposed the bill since at least last year.

“If it’s not nothing to do with the incitement of violence or any incitement to commit a crime, [we think] that’s acceptable speech,” Free Speech Ireland’s Alex Sheridan told attendees at a press conference in Dublin a few weeks ago. I think developed nations [should] have no issue with uncensored debate.”

During a presentation outlining why the group was opposed to the bill, Sheridan highlighted examples of things that were prosecuted in other jurisdictions under laws on hatred – suggesting similar may happen here if the legislation as it stands becomes law.

Those examples included the animated sitcom South Park, though the bill does contain exceptions for material that consists solely of “a reasonable and genuine contribution” to several fields, including artistic discourse (which may except comedy shows).

The group also expressed concerns about the use of the image of Pepe the Frog, an internet a meme often – though not exclusively – used by the far-right.

Sheridan questioned whether Ireland’s hate speech laws could lead to commercial pressures similar to those faced by a pub in the UK, where golliwog dolls were seized in April after being prominently displayed in the pub.

The pub’s landlady, Benice Ryley, had put the dolls on show near a sign which read “If you feel offended please do not enter”, before police seized the dolls as evidence and began investigating their display as a hate crime.

The pub has since closed down after Heineken and Carlsberg said they would no longer sell lager to its owners, while a maintenance company also refused to work on the site.

In another example, Sheridan asked whether hate speech laws in the UK were justified in the prosecution of former UKIP candidate Mark Meechan for filming a dog responding to Nazi slogans.

Meechan had recorded and uploaded to YouTube a clip of his girlfriend’s dog responding to statements such as “gas the Jews” and “Sieg Heil” by raising its paw.

A court found that the video was “anti-Semitic and racist in nature”, aggravated by religious prejudice; it rejected a claim made by Meechan that he had made the video simply to annoy his girlfriend.

Claiming that Ireland did not need to see hate speech laws because they already exist here, Free Speech Ireland suggested the bill was being pushed by “NGO groups funded by foreign billionaires, sometimes by bodies like the EU”.

Sheridan claimed that such groups have lobbied governments to introduce hate speech laws around the world.

When asked by The Journal to name such billionaires, Sheridan refused to answer but referenced the Open Society Foundations, founded and chaired by George Soros, a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracies.

The claim of foreign influence was echoed at the meeting by Independent Senator Ronan Mullen, who also expressed opposition to the bill and suggested vaguely that there was an “international element” to the proposed legislation.

“[There have been] very few prosecutions under current legislation and it’s assumed that this is a problem. Why is that a problem?” Independent Senator Ronan Mullen also said last week.

“It’s not like people can just say anything in our society [and don’t] need to worry about the law. There are already protections in place.”


In recent weeks, however, the Government itself has fed the sense of polarisation around the bill, with certain figures dismissing opposition towards the proposed legislation as a unified pushback against plans to protect minorities. 

The week that Musk and Trump attacked the bill on Twitter, Justice Minister Simon Harris dismissed their criticism by taking aim at the pair instead.

“Whenever you see Donald Trump Jr, the Trump family and Elon Musk oppose your legislation and then you see Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Greens, Sinn Féin, Labour coming together to vote in favour of something? You know, there’s no conspiracy here,” he told reporters.

This narrative has played out in another form, allowing those against the bill, particularly on the far-right, to criticise opposition parties for not doing enough to prevent the bill from progressing.

They suggest that the opposition simply sided with the Government all through the process (a similar trend to anti-immigrant groups who are targeting opposition parties at protests in an effort to hoover up some of their vote).

526New DMR Offices Leah Farrell / RollingNews.ie Simon Harris recently dismissed criticism of the bill

Yet both perspectives – the Government and the far-right’s – present a binary choice of being for or against the bill and obscure more nuanced forms of opposition.

NGOs and some opposition parties expressed concerns with certain sections of the bill, despite welcoming it overall.

Although far-right groups are correct to say that most opposition parties – such as Sinn Féin and Labour – voted to send the bill through the Dáil in a final vote, TDs from both parties voted against the Government to alter or remove controversial sections of the legislation in the debate that preceded that final vote.

That included a proposal to remove the bill’s most controversial section, Section 10, in an amendment put forward by Paul Murphy. 

The section outlines a proposed offence of creating or being in possession of material that is deemed likely to incite violence or hatred.

This will make it an offence to possesses inciteful material that could be communicated to members of the public, whether by the person who possesses it or someone else.

There are further worries about a subsection of the bill, which some say could upend the traditional legal presumption of innocence if it becomes law.

It says that a person in possession of hateful material will “be presumed, until the contrary is proved” to be in breach of an offence.

In a speech during the final debate that was widely shared online, Murphy captured the nuance of this other, non-binary form of opposition, which welcomes how the bill would protect minorities while also being concerned at what could mean if it is enacted.

“Section 10 creates the possibility of someone being criminalised purely for having material which is hateful, without that material being communicated to the public,” he said.

“That’s a problem, in my opinion. That gets to the fundamental problem of this bill; that is the creation of a thought crime.

“Someone has hateful material on their computer; they don’t publish it; no incitement to hatred is caused; there’s no consequences to anyone else […] and they can be criminalised as a consequence of that.

“Again, to be clear, I’m completely against this hypothetical hateful material that this person has on their computer. But I think this is extremely problematic.”     

It was also this specific section that prompted criticism from Musk and Trump, and among others who raised concerns about it were the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), a leading member of the Coalition against Hate Crime.

The group particularly raised fears about the idea that a person suspected to be in possession of hateful material could have to prove that it is solely for personal use.

“Normally in the criminal case, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the offence. That’s at the heart of what it is to be presumed innocent,” Doireann Ansbro, ICCL’s Head of Legal and Policy told The Journal.

“What we’re seeing here, we would agree, is that there is a reversal of the burden of proof. We would totally disagree with that. We think it should be on the prosecutor to prove any every element of a crime. We don’t agree with any kind of reversing of the burden of proof.”

A vote to remove this section of the bill, proposed by Murphy and supported by People Before Profit, Sinn Féin, Labour, Aontú and other Independent TDs, was defeated before the legislation passed final stage.

“Within Section 10, we have the creation of thought crime and then a dangerous reversal of the burden of proof, where the burden is now placed on the accused to overturn the presumption that the material was not intended for personal use,” Murphy said during the final debate.

“This is extremely problematic. There is a real problem in terms of civil liberties with this section.”

People Before Profit 003 Leah Farrell / RollingNews.ie People Before Profit’s Paul Murphy, who has described the bill as ‘problematic’

‘People trying to overstate things’

The Department of Justice has disputed these claims, saying in a statement to The Journal that claims the bill equated to “thought crime” were “erroneous”.

“The provisions being referenced here apply to where an individual has a clear intention to disseminate harmful material which would incite violence or hatred – for example pamphlets, websites, public displays of hateful material etc. against members of vulnerable and minority groups,” a spokesperson said.

“Furthermore, preparing and possessing material that is likely to incite hatred is already an offence under the 1989 Act and it is fundamentally important that we retain the latitude to hold these people to account, even if An Garda Síochána manages to intervene before the material becomes public.”

Simon Harris likewise suggested that such criticisms of the bill were unfounded, once again dismissing all opposition towards it as a single entity and conflating concerns about Section 10 with those who believe the entire bill impinges on free speech.

“The reality here is just people trying to overstate things for whatever reason, that’s fine. We live in a democracy that people have their debate,” he said.

“This legislation went to Dáil Éireann, there is not much that the opposition and the government agree on. Overwhelmingly, the Dáil passed this legislation, because it’s not about policing thought. It’s not about stopping freedom of expression.”

In the coming months, the bill will be debated in the Seanad before it is signed into law by President Michael D Higgins.

The nature of the debate in the upper house of the Oireachtas will depend on how effectively the various campaigns against the bill mobilise – and how well those who are normally political opposites attract each other – between now and then.