Monthly Archives: September 2026

Big Victory for Free Speech & Dissent from Land Acknowledgement Nonsense

Posted on by

University Of Washington Settles Case Against Professor Disciplined For Mocking Land Acknowledgment

Tyler Durden's Photo

by Tyler Durden

Wednesday, Sep 09, 2026 – 08:05 PM

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

Land acknowledgments have become standard at academic and political events, including the opening of the Obama Presidential Library and a recent Michigan Democratic event. While supporters insist it merely shows respect for original inhabitants, critics argue it is the ultimate virtue signaling and is increasingly being forced on both speakers and audiences. One critic is Professor Stuart Reges, who teaches at the computer science and engineering school of the University of Washington. He has now received a settlement from the University of Washington, which spent a significant amount of time and resources in response to his mocking of the school’s land acknowledgment.

We previously discussed the case of Professor Reges, who was disciplined because he refused to post the school’s “land acknowledgment” and instead posted an alternative statement. Professor Reges sued the university and various officials in 2022. Professor Reges has declared “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”

The defendants included Nancy Allbritton, the Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington, Magdalena Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, UW President Ana Mari Cauce, and the Allen School’s Vice Director Dan Grossman.

After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgment” statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own statement. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people.

The school provided a recommended statement for all faculty to post and/or read to their students at the first of every course:

“The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”

Professor Reges disagreed with that statement and expressed his doubts to the faculty while also noting that “Magda” did not want the faculty to discuss such reservations on the email system. That may refer to the Director of the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Magdalena Balazinska.

Reges’ alternative statement read:

“I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

The labor theory (which I teach) generally refers to John Locke’s theory. In his Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature, where all was created in common by God. Reges declared that these tribes, indigenous people, “can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land and that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people. That acknowledged group is a broad collection of different groups with ethnic or linguistic associations.”

In his lawsuit, Professor Reges says that, after he stated his own views, the university moved against him.

“On January 4, 2022, the day after Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class met for the first time, Defendant [Magdalena] Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, sent Professor Reges an email ordering him to remove the statement from his syllabus because it was ‘offensive’ and created a ‘toxic environment.’“

Reges noted that the university allowed other professors “to include modified statements in their syllabi that were more consistent with the University’s recommended statement.” The operative point is that “other faculty at the Allen School continue to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi that differ from the University’s own statement, so long as they express a viewpoint consistent with the University’s recommended version.”

According to the complaint, Balazinska then allegedly removed his dissenting statement, and the university emailed his students to apologize for their professor’s “offensive” land acknowledgment opinion and advised them on “three ways students could file complaints against” him. The students were later allegedly told by Balazinska that, according to the complaint, “all students in Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class section [can] switch into a new ‘shadow’ class section, which would meet at the same time as Professor Reges’s class section.”

Reges notes that the alternative class was a series of recorded lectures, but viewed as a reasonable alternative to being in a class with a professor with a dissenting view on land acknowledgments. Some 170 out of his 500 students took the alternative course.

I previously wrote how universities can use course assignments and other collateral means to isolate dissenting professors in an effort to get them to resign. This is especially true of tenured faculty.

I wrote that:

The Reges case could prove a major challenge to that orthodoxy. All university faculty should have condemned the university’s actions as an attack on academic freedom and freedom of speech, regardless of how they feel about land acknowledgment. The silence, however, is a reflection of how much has changed in higher education.”

It has now resulted in a $600,000 settlement after the university spent massive amounts of public money over four years to fight this lawsuit over the abusive treatment of Professor Reges.

The university settled only after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in December that administrators were “liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.”

Unfortunately, there is no indication that the university officials who created this fiasco will be held accountable in any way. Millions were spent, and years of litigation were triggered by the orthodoxy of the university. However, these officials will likely be heralded by their colleagues, and nothing is likely to change in the University of Washington’s intellectual echo chamber.

However, according to FIRE, the settlement “stipulates that the university cannot take any further action against Reges.”

Congratulations to Professor Reges and FIRE for a well-fought case with potentially lasting implications in protecting free speech and academic freedom.

Mayoralty Candidate Paul Fromm Was Right Blasting Andrea Horwath for Harassing the Dominion Society: Hamilton police viol­ate the Charter – City cru­sad­ing against anti-immig­rant con­fer­ence

Posted on by

City cru­sad­ing against anti-immig­rant con­fer­ence

National Post - (Latest Edition)

JOHN CARPAY John Carpay is pres­id­ent of the Justice Centre for Con­sti­tu­tional Freedoms.

8 Sep 2026Rewind 15 secondsListenForward 15 secondsSwitch to focused listening

The mayor and police in Hamilton have decided that some Cana­dians have the wrong kind of opin­ions and should not be allowed to rent pub­lic facil­it­ies.

Last week, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Hor­wath declared the Domin­ion Soci­ety is not entitled to rent city-owned prop­erty to hold a con­fer­ence. The pre­dict­able res­ult was to force the group to seek a private venue in which to hold its meet­ing.

The Hamilton Police Ser­vice then diver­ted some of its stretched resources to imped­ing the efforts of the Domin­ion Soci­ety, issu­ing a polit­ical state­ment denoun­cing it as “divis­ive and exclu­sion­ary,” and as neg­at­ively impact­ing “the sense of safety and belong­ing within our com­munity.” The police even asked the pub­lic to con­tact them with inform­a­tion about any efforts the group might make to secure a venue.

Hamilton’s police and mayor are behav­ing much like Que­bec’s former tour­ism min­is­ter, Car­oline Proulx. In 2023, she ordered the Centre des congrès de Québec, which is owned by a Crown cor­por­a­tion, to can­cel its con­tract with Har­vest Min­is­tries to hold a Chris­tian con­fer­ence. The sole reason for can­cel­ling the con­tract was that Proulx vehe­mently dis­agreed with the Chris­tian group’s beliefs about abor­tion.

The Super­ior Court of Que­bec recently ruled Proulx had abused her author­ity and viol­ated the Charter-pro­tec­ted free­dom of expres­sion of Har­vest Min­is­tries. The court awar­ded gen­eral and pun­it­ive dam­ages to Har­vest Min­is­tries.

The Domin­ion Soci­ety describes itself as “ded­ic­ated to pro­mot­ing Cana­dian iden­tity, her­it­age and nation­al­ism.”

It advoc­ates for remig­ra­tion: send­ing immig­rants back to their coun­tries of ori­gin. Neither Hamilton’s mayor nor its police force have accused it of being viol­ent, crim­inal or ter­ror­ist. It there­fore has the same right as every other non-profit in Canada to oper­ate peace­fully within the law, and to advoc­ate for its beliefs.

Polls have shown roughly half of Cana­dians believe immig­ra­tion levels are too high. Let’s say for argu­ment’s sake only eight per cent of Cana­dians sup­port remig­ra­tion, and 92 per cent oppose it. Should hav­ing only eight per cent sup­port for your opin­ion mean los­ing your right to rent gov­ern­ment-owned facil­it­ies, and to use pub­lic spaces like parks and side­walks?

If yes, then no gov­ern­ment facil­it­ies should be avail­able for rental by the NDP, which garnered only 6.3 per cent of the pop­u­lar vote in Canada’s most recent fed­eral elec­tion. Almost 94 per cent of Cana­dians rejec­ted the NDP in 2025. Yet the NDP is not dis­qual­i­fied from being able to exer­cise its Charter freedoms of expres­sion, asso­ci­ation and peace­ful assembly.

Politi­cians and police officers have every right to express their polit­ical opin­ions for or against vari­ous groups and causes. At the same time, Canada’s may­ors, cab­inet min­is­ters and police forces have no right to treat gov­ern­ment prop­erty as though it were their own private prop­erty, avail­able only to “good” people who have the “cor­rect” polit­ical beliefs.

The Hamilton Police Ser­vice has a sol­emn duty to fight crime. Its decision to waste its scarce resources on polit­ics is a betrayal of tax­pay­ers and free cit­izens alike. Indeed, unlike other pro­fes­sions, police have a legal duty to enforce the Crim­inal Code, as well as numer­ous non-crim­inal laws (such as traffic safety).

The politi­ciz­a­tion of the Brit­ish police should serve as a stark warn­ing to Cana­dians. What began with the mon­it­or­ing and record­ing of “non-crime hate incid­ents” quickly led to Brit­ish cit­izens being crim­in­ally charged for what essen­tially amoun­ted to thought crimes.

Their crimes included shar­ing opin­ions about top­ics like immig­ra­tion and trans­gen­der­ism. David Woot­ton was sen­tenced to two years in prison for an “offens­ive” Hal­loween cos­tume. This is why police should be 100 per cent focused on fight­ing crime and zero per cent focused on polit­ics.

If Canada is to remain a free soci­ety, the gov­ern­ment should uphold the law equally for all Cana­dians, includ­ing those who hold unpop­u­lar beliefs. Oth­er­wise, there will be little to sep­ar­ate us from Fas­cist, theo­cratic, Com­mun­ist or national social­ist regimes, under which the gov­ern­ment decides which views are cor­rect.

This is why tax­payer-fun­ded facil­it­ies like con­ven­tion centres, and pub­lic spaces like side­walks and city parks, are — and must always be — avail­able to all cit­izens, regard­less of their polit­ical beliefs.



Posted on by

Alberta woman faces eight-day human rights hearing over rainbow crosswalk flyer

Alberta woman faces eight-day human rights hearing over rainbow crosswalk flyer

  • September 8, 2026

Share this:

Media inquiries: media@jccf.caRainbow crosswalk (Courtesy of Acrylicbased)

WESTLOCK, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers funded by the Justice Centre will appear before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal beginning September 14, 2026, to defend Westlock resident Benita Pedersen against a human rights complaint arising from a political flyer she distributed opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk.

Witness testimony is scheduled for September 14–18, September 28–29, and October 2. The proceeding will involve as many as 15 witnesses, including expert evidence from both sides.

The complaint dates back more than three years and concerns a flyer Ms. Pedersen distributed in June 2023 after learning that the Town of Westlock planned to paint a rainbow crosswalk incorporating the colours of the transgender pride flag.

Ms. Pedersen is a Westlock resident who works as a DJ, children’s entertainer, event coordinator, and workshop facilitator. She opposed the proposed crosswalk because of her concerns about transgender ideology and children.

Her flyer discussed potential consequences of gender transition, including infertility, and encouraged residents who opposed the crosswalk to contact their elected representatives. It included the statement, “Cancel the rainbow crosswalk.”

On June 19, 2023, local resident Laurie Hodge filed a complaint against Ms. Pedersen under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging that distributing the flyer constituted discrimination based on gender, gender expression, and gender identity.

Ms. Hodge was not a member of Westlock Town Council when the flyer was distributed. Both women subsequently ran for council in a January 2024 by-election. Ms. Pedersen finished second and Ms. Hodge third. Ms. Hodge was later elected to council.

On October 7, 2025, the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal for a hearing under section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. The provision prohibits certain publications that indicate discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or that are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on protected characteristics. The Director has since taken carriage of the complaint on Ms. Hodge’s behalf.

The scope of the resulting proceeding is substantial. The Director of the Commission is expected to call an expert witness to testify about the physical and mental health of youth and marginalized populations. Ms. Pedersen will rely on expert evidence in response from an endocrinologist with experience treating transgender patients and a psychiatrist who specializes in gender dysphoria.

Back in May 2026, the Director brought a motion to prevent most of Ms. Pedersen’s proposed witnesses from testifying due to the Director’s position that her witnesses’ evidence was irrelevant. In July 2026, the Tribunal denied the Director’s motion to exclude those witnesses.

The case illustrates the broader concern with empowering administrative human rights bodies to investigate and punish expression. Political disagreements about controversial social issues should ordinarily be answered through debate and democratic participation, rather than through government proceedings seeking penalties against citizens for expressing their views.

“Albertans should be free to express their opinions on controversial topics without being accused of hatred and discrimination,” said constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic.

Wacky Judge Grants Bail to Hired Gunman

Posted on by
  • [Despite our elite’s detestation of lawabiding citizens owning guns, their courts are remarkably lenient on criminals who use guns. An Ontario judge released Zara Jabbi one of several gunmen hired by persons unknown to shoot up the U.S. Consulate on bail. Yet, political prisoner and dissident Les Bory spent 23 months in jail unable to get bail. All he did was shoot off his mouth on his Brantford News podcast and annoy privileged minorities.]

Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter

He should have been held in jail on the grounds of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice

Author of the article:

By Jamie Sarkonak

Published Sep 02, 2026

Last updated 21 hours ago

4 minute read

126 Comments

Toronto Police officers work around the scene of a shooting at the US Consulate in Toronto, Canada, on March 10, 2026.
Toronto Police officers work around the scene of a shooting at the US Consulate in Toronto, Canada, on March 10, 2026. Photo by Cole BURSTON / AFP via Getty Images

We can’t know exactly why Ontario Superior Court Justice Heather McArthur decided on Thursday to uphold bail for a man accused of shooting up the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, but her reasons can’t make much sense. Perhaps she was compelled by some kind of sob story, or perhaps she convinced herself that whatever stern warning she gave against disobeying bail conditions would resonate with the alleged gun-for-hire. Who knows; that’s all covered by a publication ban.

What is public inspires a whole lot of doubt in the justice system. The crime unfolded one morning in March at around 5:29 a.m.: shots were fired upon the U.S. Consulate by mystery men in a stolen car who filmed themselves in the act. It wasn’t until months later that those believed responsible were arrested.

t

Right?

e.

First to be caught was 18-year-old Sheldon Tracey-Stewart, who was nabbed in early June during a series of police raids targeting the crime ring connected with the consulate shooting. This triumph was overshadowed by tragedy, however: Toronto police Const. Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed by a subject of the raid, resulting in 19-year-old Nicholas Bennett being charged with murder.

It took another week to catch our man Zara Jabbi, who wasn’t home at the time of the raid. He was granted bail on July 7, just a few weeks later. (And thanks to Justice McArthur, he’ll continue to enjoy release.)

Despite the raids and arrests — and an increase in patrols — the U.S. Consulate was hit a second time. On July 27, at around 4:45 a.m., the occupants of another vehicle shot up the U.S. Consulate again. Police stationed nearby were able to respond right away, but the ensuing chase saw speeds above 140 km/h on the nearby expressway and police called the chase off. Toronto, in all its dysfunction, didn’t have a helicopter to deploy, so the offenders got away.

t

A week and a half later, the alleged shooters were brought in: 19-year-old Xen-Ul-Abdeen Syed and a nameless 15-year-old. These two were also suspected of pouring gas on a residential driveway in late July and lighting it on fire.

t

The U.S. has pointed to Iran being behind all this, and Canadian police have at very least connected this group to other crimes against synagogues and businesses. Both shootings at the U.S. Consulate involved payments being offered to the gunmen through encrypted messaging apps, according to police.

The upholding of Jabbi’s release would have been offensive if he was merely accused of being a lone-wolf shooter, but it is so much worse in its full context. The soup of allegations related to this group is unthinkable to regular Canadians. Stealing cars, shooting buildings, conducting hybrid warfare against allies, killing police, evading police, etc. It’s indicative of extremely dangerous men who will unleash violence and evade justice where they can.

Article content

As bail is a risk-management exercise, it shouldn’t have been hard to conclude that granting freedom to those accused of such crimes places unacceptable risk upon the public. But we are often cursed with judges, including possibly McArthur in this case, who believe too strongly in the obedience of those thought to be among the most dishonest and violent in the country. In court, they’ll give out a long list of bail conditions and deliver a very foreboding lecture to whatever family member or friend who has offered to ensure the compliance of the accused. And then they’ll be shocked when bail violations occur.

Indeed, it was just early August when a woman was sentenced to a year of jail for giving her brother scissors to cut off his ankle monitor while he was on bail, and helping him escape the police who were searching for him. She had been his surety at the time of the crime, meaning she made a promise in court to supervise her brother’s bail compliance and report any breaches. The brother, who was facing gun charges, had been released on “very strict” conditions because she had assured court she was a “strong woman” who would carry out her duty. Little good that did.

Alas, even if Jabbi’s defence lawyers came up with a supposedly iron-clad release plan, his judge had a final card that could have been played to keep him in custody. The Criminal Code says that bail can be denied “if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances.” And then it rattles off some of those circumstances: the strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offence, whether a gun was used, whether a long jail term is on the table.

Jabbi is accused by police of using a gun to shoot up a diplomatic site while being allegedly involved with a gang that killed a police officer. If a judge doesn’t consider the release of such a man to be an assault upon public confidence in the administration of justice, she is extremely out of touch. Canadian courts have a weak reputation for ensuring order as is; decisions like these only bring it lower.

Anti-Free Speech Tyranny in Europe

Posted on by

A wild story: The EU sanctioned a Swiss colonel for his words. They didn’t judge Jacques Baud. They unplugged him.

On December 15, 2025, the European Union places a 70-year-old Swiss man on a sanctions list, Jacques Baud. Former staff colonel, intelligence, UN, NATO missions in Ukraine.

Why? Because he writes books and speaks on TV. Official reason: “spokesperson for pro-Russian propaganda.” The cited example: he would have accused Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion to join NATO.

Ten lines in the Official Journal, no judge, no lawyer, no hearing.

He lives in Brussels. The next day, everything dies, accounts, credit cards, transfers. A friend is no longer allowed to send him money. Ban on entering and leaving the EU. He’s already inside.

So open-air prison.

For seven weeks, strangers bring him bread. He can check his balance. He can’t pay for anything. Not rent. Not food. Not metro.

Switzerland refuses to take back the sanction. In February 2026, Belgium, “for humanitarian reasons,” restores his right to use HIS money to eat and pay rent.

Then UBS, Swiss bank, cuts everything off anyway.

There you have it. In Europe, in 2025, you can freeze a man for a sentence, turn bread into an exemption, and let a bank do what a State refused.

That’s the story. They didn’t prove a crime. They sanctioned an analysis.

A man was unplugged for words. Bread became an exemption and the bank account, a favor.

See less

Dominion Society Speakers Harassed by Canada Border Services & Anti-Free Speech Agitators Funded by Taxpayers’ Money

Posted on by

Dominion Society Speakers Harassed by Canada Border Services & Anti-Free Speech Agitators Funded by Taxpayers’ Money

The City of Hamilton through its failed Mayor Andrea Horwath announced it wouldn’t rent facilities to the Dominion Society to hold its DOMCON immigration conference, August 29. The Mayor wrote venues warning them against holding the conference. The Hamilton Police said the Dominion Society wasn’t welcome because their message was “divisive.”They even urged people to call a snitch line if they knew where the conference was being held, after two venues cancelled under pressure. So, Hamilton became Cuba North without the palm trees. 


To add insult to injury much of the agitation against the conference  originated with the Anti-Racism Resource Centre and the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion. The latter is closely tied to the former. 

The Hamilton Anti-Racism Resource Centre has lucked into big dollops of taxpayers’ money to fund its advocacy. In 2023, it received $286,000; in 202, $75,000 and in 2025 and guaranteed until 2029, $190,000 a year. These were the people agitating to have the Dominion Society denied a venue. So, taxpayers were paying to have agitators work to deny them the right to hear a controversial immigration reform group.


The federal thought police also got into the act. Austrian activist Martin Sellner, founder of the Identitarian Movement in Austria and a leading proponent of remigration was denied a visa. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, ever eager to restrict what Canadians can say or hear, had agitated for Sellner’s exclusion. The Jerusalem Post (August 30, 2026) reported:  ” Richard Robertson, B’nai Brith Canada’s Director of Research and Advocacy, said, ‘Extremists such as Sellner have no business coming to Canada to attack our multicultural society and incite hate and intolerance.’”


Meanwhile English firebrand Charlie Downes, spokeman for Restore Britain, was held up for three hours crossing into Canada from the United States. A drug sniffing dog was set loose on the car in which he was travelling. The Western Standard (August 30, 2026) reported: ” He said that Canadian border officers asked about his group’s funding, its deportation policy, and alleged “links to neo-Nazism.” Why should a British group’s funding be of any interest to Canadian border authorities.

Charlie Downes