Brian Peckford remains the last surviving member of Parliament who was part of the negotiations to draft the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Join him for this important interview as he describes exactly how s. 1 of the Charter was intended to be interpreted, and it is not the override position that Trudeau or other provincial governments continue to rely upon it for.
Thank you to all who joined us this past Saturday, January 29 for another huge display of opposition to Bonnie the Commie, and the Trudeau Communist Gov’t.
If one considers all those who support but couldn’t make it due to work or other reasons, those who are simply too scared to be in the public eye, or fearful of losing employment or family / friend relationships, it is clear that support to end t hese lockdowns is well over 50%!!
Ordering the media to not give us a platform as Castanet has admitted, has failed our corrupt governments. It has only delayed the inevitable.
We are getting closer and closer to have these restrictions removed. Many other countries have done so, and slowly, our provinces are doing the same – but only because of our continued pressure and public activities. But as evidenced by Bonnie the Commie’s recent extension of vaccine passports until June 2022, we have a way to go.
Remember however, our rallies cannot end until all four of these events happen:
1/ Bonnie the Commie, Farnworth, Dix and Horgan, and their Bureaucratic underlings, are criminally charged and removed from office;
2/ That those people taking their place do so on the knowledge and understanding that these rights and freedoms restrictions will never happen again; and,
3/ That all decision makers in the media are also charged for their part in covering up the facts that they knew would have exposed this fraud right from the beginning.
4/ All restrictions are removed – not just some. Plexiglass barriers are removed, people do not wear masks anymore, and no mandatory vaccines. ALL mandates are removed.
Here folks, is an inspiring picture and short video of the front of our Kelowna Convoy rally. Many hundreds more lined the sides and the Bear up top where this picture was taken, and up and down the streets supporting the hundreds of vehicles in the Kelowna Convoy.
As more people become active, the politicians are feeling the pressure. Events at Coutts, Ottawa and other locations are forcing politicians and health officials, to begin to back off.
Stay with us as winter begins to come to an end this month. And continue to join our support groups as we watch our victory this year come to fruition.
Jordan Peterson: Why I am no longer a tenured professor at the University of Toronto: The appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity is demolishing education and business
[How anti-White, anti-heterosexual “diversity” fanaticism is destroying our universities, turning them into indoctrination centres and swamps of mediocrity. A sad comment on the state of freedom on campus. — Paul Fromm] Author of the article: Jordan Peterson, Special to National Post Jan 19, 2022 • 1 day ago • 10 minute read • 1955 Comments
I recently resigned from my position as full tenured professor at the University of Toronto. I am now professor emeritus, and before I turned sixty. Emeritus is generally a designation reserved for superannuated faculty, albeit those who had served their term with some distinction. I had envisioned teaching and researching at the U of T, full time, until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office. I loved my job. And my students, undergraduates and graduates alike, were positively predisposed toward me. But that career path was not meant to be. There were many reasons, including the fact that I can now teach many more people and with less interference online. But here’s a few more:
First, my qualified and supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students (and I’ve had many others, by the way) face a negligible chance of being offered university research positions, despite stellar scientific dossiers. This is partly because of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity mandates (my preferred acronym: DIE). These have been imposed universally in academia, despite the fact that university hiring committees had already done everything reasonable for all the years of my career, and then some, to ensure that no qualified “minority” candidates were ever overlooked. My students are also partly unacceptable precisely because they are my students. I am academic persona non grata, because of my unacceptable philosophical positions. And this isn’t just some inconvenience. These facts rendered my job morally untenable. How can I accept prospective researchers and train them in good conscience knowing their employment prospects to be minimal?
Second reason: This is one of many issues of appalling ideology currently demolishing the universities and, downstream, the general culture. Not least because there simply is not enough qualified BIPOC people in the pipeline to meet diversity targets quickly enough (BIPOC: black, indigenous and people of colour, for those of you not in the knowing woke). This has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades. This means we’re out to produce a generation of researchers utterly unqualified for the job. And we’ve seen what that means already in the horrible grievance studies “disciplines.” That, combined with the death of objective testing, has compromised the universities so badly that it can hardly be overstated. And what happens in the universities eventually colours everything. As we have discovered.
All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant. They all lie (excepting the minority of true believers) and they teach their students to do the same. And they do it constantly, with various rationalizations and justifications, further corrupting what is already a stunningly corrupt enterprise. Some of my colleagues even allow themselves to undergo so-called anti-bias training, conducted by supremely unqualified Human Resources personnel, lecturing inanely and blithely and in an accusatory manner about theoretically all-pervasive racist/sexist/heterosexist attitudes. Such training is now often a precondition to occupy a faculty position on a hiring committee.
Need I point out that implicit attitudes cannot — by the definitions generated by those who have made them a central point of our culture — be transformed by short-term explicit training? Assuming that those biases exist in the manner claimed, and that is a very weak claim, and I’m speaking scientifically here. The Implicit Association test — the much-vaunted IAT, which purports to objectively diagnose implicit bias (that’s automatic racism and the like) is by no means powerful enough — valid and reliable enough — to do what it purports to do. Two of the original designers of that test, Anthony Greenwald and Brian Nosek, have said as much, publicly. The third, Professor Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard, remains recalcitrant. Much of this can be attributed to her overtly leftist political agenda, as well as to her embeddedness within a sub-discipline of psychology, social psychology, so corrupt that it denied the existence of left-wing authoritarianism for six decades after World War II. The same social psychologists, broadly speaking, also casually regard conservatism (in the guise of “system justification”) as a form of psychopathology.
Banaji’s continued countenancing of the misuse of her research instrument, combined with the status of her position at Harvard, is a prime reason we still suffer under the DIE yoke, with its baleful effect on what was once the closest we had ever come to truly meritorious selection. There are good reasons to suppose that DIE-motivated eradication of objective testing, such as the GRE for graduate school admission, will have deleterious effects on the ability of students so selected to master such topics as the statistics all social sciences (and medicine, for that matter) rely upon completely for their validity.
Furthermore, the accrediting boards for graduate clinical psychology training programs in Canada are now planning to refuse to accredit university clinical programs unless they have a “social justice” orientation. That, combined with some recent legislative changes in Canada, claiming to outlaw so-called “conversion therapy” (but really making it exceedingly risky for clinicians to do anything ever but agree always and about everything with their clients) have likely doomed the practice of clinical psychology, which always depended entirely on trust and privacy. Similar moves are afoot in other professional disciplines, such as medicine and law. And if you don’t think that psychologists, lawyers and other professionals are anything but terrified of their now woke governing professional colleges, much to everyone’s extreme detriment, you simply don’t understand how far this has all gone.
Just exactly what am I supposed to do when I meet a graduate student or young professor, hired on DIE grounds? Manifest instant skepticism regarding their professional ability? What a slap in the face to a truly meritorious young outsider. And perhaps that’s the point. The DIE ideology is not friend to peace and tolerance. It is absolutely and completely the enemy of competence and justice.
And for those of you who think that I am overstating the case, or that this is something limited in some trivial sense to the universities, consider some other examples: This report from Hollywood, cliched hotbed of “liberal” sentiment, for example, indicates just how far this has gone. In 2020, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the Oscar people) embarked on a five-year plan (does that ring any historical bells?) “to diversify our organization and expand our definition of the best,” They did so in an attempt which included developing “new representation and inclusion standards for Oscars,” to, hypothetically, “better reflect the diversity of the movie-going audience.” What fruit has this initiative, offspring of the DIE ideology, borne? According to a recent article, penned by Peter Kiefer and Peter Savodnik, but posted on former NY Times’ journalist Bari Weiss’s Common Sense website (and Weiss left the Times, because of the intrusion of radical left ideology into that newspaper, just as Tara Henley did recently, vis a vis the CBC): “We spoke to more than 25 writers, directors, and producers — all of whom identify as liberal, and all of whom described a pervasive fear of running afoul of the new dogma. … How to survive the revolution? By becoming its most ardent supporter. … Suddenly, every conversation with every agent or head of content started with: Is anyone BIPOC attached to this?”
And this is everywhere — and if you don’t see it, your head is either in the sand or shoved somewhere far more unmentionable. CBS, for example, has literally mandated that every writers’ room be at least 40 per cent BIPOC in 2021 (50 per cent in 2022).
We are now at the point where race, ethnicity, “gender,” or sexual preference is first, accepted as the fundamental characteristic defining each person (just as the radical leftists were hoping) and second, is now treated as the most important qualification for study, research and employment.
Need I point out that this is insane ? Even the benighted New York Times has its doubts. A headline from August 11, 2021: Are Workplace Diversity Programs Doing More Harm than Good? In a word, yes. How can accusing your employees of racism etc. sufficient to require re-training (particularly in relationship to those who are working in good faith to overcome whatever bias they might still, in these modern, liberal times, manifest) be anything other than insulting, annoying, invasive, high-handed, moralizing, inappropriate, ill-considered, counterproductive, and otherwise unjustifiable?
And if you think DIE is bad, wait until you get a load of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scores . Purporting to assess corporate moral responsibility, these scores, which can dramatically affect an enterprise’s financial viability, are nothing less than the equivalent of China’s damnable social credit system, applied to the entrepreneurial and financial world. CEOs: what in the world is wrong with you? Can’t you see that the ideologues who push such appalling nonsense are driven by an agenda that is not only absolutely antithetical to your free-market enterprise, as such, but precisely targeted at the freedoms that made your success possible? Can’t you see that by going along, sheep-like (just as the professors are doing; just as the artists and writers are doing) that you are generating a veritable fifth column within your businesses? Are you really so blind, cowed and cowardly? With all your so-called privilege?
And it’s not just the universities. And the professional colleges. And Hollywood. And the corporate world. Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity — that radical leftist Trinity — is destroying us. Wondering about the divisiveness that is currently besetting us? Look no farther than DIE. Wondering — more specifically — about the attractiveness of Trump? Look no farther than DIE. When does the left go too far? When they worship at the altar of DIE, and insist that the rest of us, who mostly want to be left alone, do so as well. Enough already. Enough. Enough.
Finally, do you know that Vladimir Putin himself is capitalizing on this woke madness? Anna Mahjar-Barducci at MEMRI.org covered his recent speech. I quote from the article’s translation: “The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags, as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs, and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion, and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones — all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.
“This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices — which we, fortunately, have left, I hope — in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past — such as Shakespeare — are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood, memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what color or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.”
This, from the head of the former totalitarian enterprise, against whom we fought a five decades’ long Cold War, risking the entire planet (in a very real manner). This, from the head of a country riven in a literally genocidal manner by ideas that Putin himself attributes to the progressives in the West, to the generally accepting audience of his once-burned (once (!)) twice-shy listeners.
And all of you going along with the DIE activists, whatever your reasons: this is on you. Professors. Cowering cravenly in pretence and silence. Teaching your students to dissimulate and lie. To get along. As the walls crumble. For shame. CEOs: signalling a virtue you don’t possess and shouldn’t want to please a minority who literally live their lives by displeasure. You’re evil capitalists, after all, and should be proud of it. At the moment, I can’t tell if you’re more reprehensibly timid even than the professors. Why the hell don’t you banish the human resource DIE upstarts back to the more-appropriately-named Personnel departments, stop them from interfering with the psyches of you and your employees, and be done with it? Musicians, artists, writers: stop bending your sacred and meritorious art to the demands of the propagandists before you fatally betray the spirit of your own intuition. Stop censoring your thought. Stop saying you will hire for your orchestral and theatrical productions for any reason other than talent and excellence. That’s all you have. That’s all any of us have.
He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind. And the wind is rising.
Bruce Pardy: B.C. courts asking for ‘correct pronouns’ is state-mandated identity politics
Author of the article:Bruce Pardy, Special to National PostPublishing date:Feb 09, 2021 • 2 hours ago • 4 minute read
When courts issue practice directions, usually only litigation lawyers pay attention. No one else needs to know when counsel should wear gowns or how commissioners should be identified on affidavits. But recently, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a direction like no other. Practice Direction 59, released on December 16, advises parties and their lawyers, when introducing themselves in court, to provide their “correct pronouns” to be used in the proceeding. People look to courts to protect their fundamental freedoms, but in B.C., the courts themselves now encroach upon freedom of speech by expecting litigants to use pronouns that their opponents prescribe.
The previous month, a judge of the Court gave a preview of the implications. The Court was hearing the case of a 17-year-old who wanted to transition from female to male. The father and provincial authorities supported a plan to have an operation to remove both of the teen’s breasts, but the mother had brought an action trying to prevent it. The mother regarded the teen as a girl, and it was the transition to male that was the very issue before the court. Yet the judge challenged the right of the mother and the mother’s counsel to refer to the teen as “her”. According to the transcript, the judge said, “there has been a request that counsel refer to (the youth) as he or him … are you refusing to do that?” Translation: You may be arguing that your client’s daughter should remain a girl, but please acknowledge that he is a boy.
The practice direction, along with an almost identical notice applicable to B.C. provincial courts, was the product of consultation with the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community (SOGIC) of the Canadian Bar Association (B.C. chapter). One of its purposes, according to announcements, is to improve experiences within the legal system for gender diverse parties and lawyers. The direction does not merely clarify that parties and their counsel may advise the court of their pronouns — litigants were free to do that before the direction was issued — but that they may require other parties to comply. By making declared pronouns “correct”, the direction makes other pronouns, by default, incorrect.
Under the direction, correct pronouns are “to be used” in the courtroom. Even identifying your own pronouns is compulsory. Any parties or lawyers who decline to do so will be prompted by a court clerk. While practice directions do not constitute the law in the same sense as statutory enactments and regulations, they do reflect the Court’s expectations on practice and process. Besides, the last thing litigants wish to do is irritate their judge. For practical purposes, the practice direction is the law inside the courtrooms of British Columbia.
People are apt to believe that the law will protect them from the irrationality of mobs. They may think that courts are in the business of assessing evidence and applying laws to facts, and that they will be neutral in every dispute, insulated from the influence of politics. Instead, B.C. courts are insisting that litigants say things they may not believe. They validate subjective identities of parties by legitimizing the proposition that everyone must declare their own pronoun that other people must use.
When Jordan Peterson objected to the proposal to add “gender identity or expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2017 on the grounds that people could be required to use prescribed pronouns, he was ridiculed for scaremongering. Only a handful of lawyers agreed with him, or at least few said so publicly. We were derisively told that this and similar provisions in provincial human rights codes would have no effect upon free speech, notwithstanding the advice of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that “refusing to refer to a trans person by … a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination” in employment, accommodation, and education. Now prescribed pronouns have become compulsory in British Columbia courts too.
Proponents of the practice direction argue that using a person’s personal pronoun is merely to treat that person with respect, and that doing so should be regarded as part of a lawyer’s professional responsibility to be civil in the courtroom. However, when courts enforce prescribed pronouns, they are not merely requiring civility but taking sides in a legal, political, and philosophical dispute. To compel pronouns is to insist that people can own and control how others regard them, and to force them to reflect a particular view of reality.
Story continues belowThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content continued
The agenda is to force social change by making dissent illegitimate. Last week, when Canadian Lawyer Magazine published an opinion piece by B.C. lawyer Shahdin Farsai critical of the direction, an enraged mob of social justice lawyers descended, threatening over social media to boycott the magazine and demanding retraction. The editors obliged, removing the article and pleading that it “did not reflect the views” of the magazine, as though that has ever been the criterion for publishing op-eds. Such is the present state of open debate on these issues within B.C.’s legal community.
Free people make their own choices. Women are at liberty to have their breasts removed and identify themselves as men if that is what they want. But true freedom is universal and reciprocal, and other people are not bound to go along. They may express their reactions in their own words and refer to others as “him” or “her” as they see fit. No one should be obligated to affirm someone else’s self-image.
Reciprocal freedom is not now what we have. Today’s “human rights” put words in the mouths of some for the benefit of others. The Supreme Court’s practice direction represents state-mandated identity politics on the road to perdition. Social justice activism has captured the courts of British Columbia.
Bruce Pardy is professor of law at Queen’s University
Major New Zealand bookstore bans Jordan Peterson’s book in shocking act of censorship
Whitcoulls, a major New Zealand bookstore with 50 shops nationwide, has removed Dr. Jordan Peterson’s best selling self-help book 12 Rules for Life from their shelves in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack in the country’s history.
On March 15, a gunman attacked tw12 rULESo mosques in Christchurch in an act of Islamaphobic hate. It didn’t take long for the politicization of this unspeakable tragedy to begin. Within minutes, politicians, pundits, and keyboard warriors were attacking each other based on ideological differences.
Now the mob is once again coming after Dr. Peterson—another major cultural influencer. The decision to ban Dr. Peterson’s book can not be seen as anything other than a straight-up power grab by authoritarians who wish to use a period of mourning and deep human suffering for their own censorious gain. And it comes directly after Cambridge University’s decision to rescind their offer of a two-month visiting fellowship for Peterson.
Nick Monroe, an independent, Twitter-based journalist found the evidence of the banning on Reddit and put in on blast in a tweet early Thursday morning:
The tweet features a screenshot of a customer service rep’s email to an enquiring customer. In it, the rep named Erica writes, “Unfortunately, 12 Rules for Life is currently unavailable, which is a decision that Whitcoulls has made in light of some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during, and after the Christchurch attacks. As a business which takes our responsibilities to our communities very seriously, we believe it would be wrong to support the author at this time.”
Monroe pointed in the same Twitter thread that Hitler’s Mein Kampf remains on Whitcoulls shelves. A brief browse of Whitcoulls’ inventory reveals that they are selling Mao’s Little Red Book. They also haven’t pulled all of the books Peterson is associated with, just the major sellers. Vox Day—an actual member of the alt-right—still has his book available in Whitcoulls stores.
Though Peterson is the farthest thing from an alt-right figure, wasn’t even remotely involved in the attacks, actively discourages violence, and, in fact, wrote 12 Rules for Life in order to help people figure out how to get their lives in order, he has been smeared again and again by leftists who associate his message of competence and responsibility with one of “violence.” For Peterson’s readers and listeners, this hasn’t made any sense, and continues to be perplexing. The only logical reason for ideologues to do this is to remove his influence from our culture.
This dangerous trend banning books, and associating relevant and meaningful ideas with violence and destruction must reverse, though it seems like it’s just beginning. Ideas are not the enemy, books are not the enemy, reasonable thought and discourse are the way out of mayhem, not what is standing in the way. People are not going to get on board with a given perspective simply because alternatives are denied to them. Intellectual exploration is what makes peaceful democracies, open minds, and reasonable thinkers who do not advocate for hate and exploitation. Assuming that Peterson is more dangerous than Nazi ideology, or even to associate his scholarship with anything like that, is to give credence to authoritarianism.
If reasonable ideas are banned, if forthright authors are prohibited, what happens when people discover them on their own? When you deem a perfectly reasonable book worthy of censorship, what does that do to society’s conception of truly dangerous ideas? The worst ideas of mankind should be shown for what they are, in the fluorescent light of bookshop displays.
The idea that a Canadian psychologist with classically liberal views and a desire to help young people lead authentic lives should be in any way associated with the horrific act of violence that happened in Christchurch is an insult to him, to reasonable minded people everywhere, and to the western concept of a free society.
We must put a stop to this Orwellian madness before it’s too late.
This is a preview of the upcoming short documentary ‘Whatcott vs. Globohomo Mafia’. Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial …
Bill Whatcott is the first person in Canadian history to be put on trial for “hate speech” for witnessing to the traditional Christian view of human sexuality and denouncing the highplaced politicians promoting the LGBTQ agenda. . He is also being sued for $104 million dollars in a class action lawsuit for handing out Bible scripture at a gay pride parade in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The media has barely mentioned these historical cases, churches throughout Canada have been largely silent, and alleged “free speech activists” such as Jordan Peterson have not said a word about any of this. Bill Whatcott is potentially facing up to $100,000 or more in fines from the BC Human Rights Tribunal. He is accepting donations to help cover his legal fees and keep a roof over his family’s head during this time of hardship: https://gogetfunding.com/christian-pe… You can contact Bill Whatcott by posting on his web forum at: http://freenorthamerica.ca/ An article with more details about Bill Whatcott’s persecution: https://www.americanthinker.com/artic…
I Supported & Probably Still Do Support Tanya Granic Allen for PC Leader of Ontario
On Friday, February 23, I received this invitation from Tanya Granic Allen, a Grey County-based social conservative who has denounced the Red Tory policies of ex-leader Patrick Brown: specifically, his support for an offensive sex-ed curriculum at least partially designed by a man since convicted of possessing kiddie porn (and once a close advisor to then-Education Minister Kathleen Wynn); his support for a punishing carbon tax based on junk science; his support for the police state anti-free speech bubble zones around abortion clinics and abortion practitioners., She was aggressive and articulate and did well on the February 15, TVOntario debate.
So, when I received this request, I tweeted my endorsement and mailed her off a cheque for $100!
“PC” stands for “politically correct” and is suggestive of a sort of censorship that currently afflicts the western world.
By coincidence, P.C. are also the initials for Progressive Conservative, the name of the largest “conservative” political party in Ontario.
One of my main reasons for running to be the PC Party leader is my opposition to “PC” as political correctness. And my inspiration for the fight against “PC” politically correct censorship is Ontario’s very own Jordan Peterson.
Although he is a tenured professor at the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson knows about grassroots Canadians. He grew up in a farming community. And he hasn’t abandoned his commitments to common sense and plain-speaking.
And thank goodness for Lindsay Shepherd, a 24-year-old Wilfrid Laurier University grad student. Lindsay Shepherd was taken to task by the university administration for playing a recording of Jordan Peterson’s talking good, common sense about culture, families and human nature.
But on our university campuses and too often in the broader culture, good common sense about culture, families, and human nature is all too UNCOMMON.
Our universities – once bastions of free speech in Western society – have become dens of political correctness. Dens in which anyone who speaks principled, common sense is thrown to the lions!
Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepherd are bona fide, Ontario free speech heroes. They inspire me to speak plainly on behalf of families, children, and seniors, against the flood of warped cultural madness.
That is why in the TVO debate I spoke very plainly without dancing around the truth.
That is why as PC Leader I will tell you the unvarnished truth, and hold to common sense commitments about human nature, families and culture.
I want to be the PC Party leader who will oppose “PC” (politically correct) censorship.
That is why as a PC Party Premier I will bring implement policies in support of these commitments.
And that is why I need your support and your vote in this leadership election.
Then, this misleading blast appeared and the Toronto Star (February 25, 2018) did a story and got no comment from the Granic Allen campaign. That was the right approach. Candidates aer in the business of trying to win over support and voters. It hardly makes sense to turn away a supporter. As to campaign policy, that’s for Mrs. Granic-Allen to speak to. I never pretended to suggest I spoke for her campaign.
Just to set the record straight, the Klan hasn’t existed in Canada for over a decade. In its ups and downs in the late 70’s, 80s, and 90s, I never joined the Klan, was asked to join the Klan or wanted to join the Klan in Canada. As for Representative Dr. David Duke, who is a dear and longtime friend of mine, he hasn’t been in the Klan since he was 23 — well over 40 years ago!
Not surprisingly, that reddest of Red Tories, establishment parachute candidate Caroline Mulroney weighed in:
So, White nationalism — putting the European founding/settler people of Canada first — is racist and wrong. What does that make Zionism — putting Israel first? Anti-racist actually means putting OTHERS first. Her father Brian Mulroney was a big Zionist. He played a big role in continuing the massive Third World demography-changing immigration policies followed by his Liberal predecessor Pierre Trudeau. I’m not surprised she opposes White nationalism. What a constipated view! Mulroney doesn’t even want me to vote or be a member of the party.
Here one might have hoped for some of the leadership Tanya had promised — standing up against political correctness and censorship.
But, no! On Sunday, her campaign veered into full panic mode. She did not call me to inquire if the smear from a rabid anti-free speech, far leftist group which would NEVER support her was correct. Instead, she tweeted out a near hysterical denunciation:
Actually, as already explained. I’m not a “KKK guy” and she was panicked into denouncing someone her campaign had approached for support and who had never been given a chance to refute the lies of the anti-White left. Her behaviour was disturbingly “politically correct”.
Well, I still have a soft spot for her and hope she can learn from Donald Trump who never succuumbed during the campaign to the mugs game of denouncing his own supporters.
A clip in which Professor Jordan B. Peterson explains why his free speech is more important than the risk of a transgender person being offended is going viral.
Peterson was previously embroiled in a controversy as a result of his refusal to comply with Canada’s draconian Bill C-16, which makes it a hate crime to not use someone’s preferred gender pronouns.
The video features Peterson, who is currently doing a series of lectures in London, being interviewed by far-left UK broadcaster Channel 4.
Host Cathy Newman asks the professor, “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”
First of all, the idea that someone has a right to not be offended is hilarious. No such right exists.
Peterson’s comeback is brutal.
“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive – I mean look at the conversation we’re having right now – you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth – why should you have the right to do that?”
“You get my point, you’re doing what you should do,” Peterson continues. “Which is digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on and that is what you should do, but you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine, more power to you as far as I’m concerned.”
The host is dumbfounded, stammering, “So you haven’t sat there and….I’m just trying to work that out” before she falls silent and completely loses the ability to speak.
Peterson leans back and takes a sip of water having achieved a simple yet crushing victory.
Respondents to the video expressed their glee.
“They should probably go back to smearing him on their clickbait blogs. Debating him probably wasnt a very smart idea,” commented one.
“Absolutely demolished,” added another.
“This is legendary,” remarked another.
“I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer,” wrote author Douglas Murray.
Channel 4 is obviously not too keen on seeing the clip go viral. It’s completely blocked on Facebook.
Times of Triumph and Challenge for Free Speech in Canada
It’s been six months since I wrote to you. What a wild time it’s been for freedom of speech in Canada!
Canadians are heading in two different directions. On the one hand, more and more people are speaking up for freedom of speech. Almost every weekend, somewhere in Canada there is a protest against immigration or radical Islam and prominent in these protests are concerns about Motion-103, now before the Commons Heritage Committee. M-103 was a condemnation of Islamophobia by Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani who is a Mississauga Liberal MP. People rightly fear that out of this will come even more restrictions on freedom of speech. On the other hand, a panicking cultural Marxist elite is striking out in all directions trying to suppress criticism of special minorities — Moslems, Jews, the sexually unusual — LGBTQ etc.
Ottawa Library Folds & Cancels Showing of Movie Critical of Islamic Invasion of Europe
Almost every day, it seems, there is a new issue requiring a response from CAFE and very often a timely video on You Tube. We are amassing a growing audience. Just as I sat down to write this letter to you, I was made aware that the cowardly Ottawa Public Library had cancelled a meeting of Act! For Canada because they were going to screen the movie Killing Europe. Chronic busybody Richard Warman, who apparently had not seen the movie, declared it was “hate propaganda”. Needless to say, it has never been the subject of a “hate” charge or a conviction. CAFE quickly sent complaints to the Ottawa Library and provided our list with the contact e-mails of the Board.
Thought Control Forces Lose One: Professor Tony Hall Returns to U of Lethbridge
The day before, we got good news. Professor Tony Hall of the University of Lethbridge was back in the classroom. Changes in provincial law — yes, Rachel Notley has managed to do one thing right — forced the university to cancel its suspension and BANNING from, campus of Professor Hall. He had criticized Zionism and insisted that there should be open debate on the holocaust. B’nai Brith, one of Canada’s most strident anti-free speech group, howled and Tony Hall, a tenured professor, was banned from campus last year and faces charges before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. CAFE wrote a number of letters supporting him and I know many of you did too.
Lindsay Shepherd — Free Speech Heroine
More good news. A creepy story from Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. Lindsay Shepherd is a very brave 22 year old woman. She is a graduate student and was teaching a class in communications. She was talking about the issue where some sexual dysfunctionals insist on being called “zir” or “they” instead of he or her. She played part of a TVO debate between University of Toronto psychologist Prof. Jordan Peterson who opposes such nonsense and another professor who supports the use of these made-up terms. All hell broke loose. Some anonymous student complained. She was hauled before her superiors and, in an interview she recorded, she was denounced as a White supremacist and transphobic. She bravely held her ground even when she was advised — incorrectly — that even screening Professor Peterson’s remarks might be illegal. Her future classes would be monitored by her superiors. She held her ground and insisted universities are places for people to explore and debate ideas and that controversy does not create a ‘”toxic” environment. When her recording went viral on the Internet many people rushed to her defence. The thought police at WLU became a laughingstock. Even leftish papers condemned the university’s behaviour.
Some Winnipeg Hotels Won’t Let A Controversial Figure Even Rent a Bedroom: Pyongyang on the Prairies
My recent visit to Winnipeg did not end as well. After two well attended and enthusiastic meetings in Victoria and Regina, I arrived in Winnipeg to discover I had been the subject of a three day smear in the Winnipeg Free Press. I enclose one of these articles. Typical soap opera journalism, the article is full of name calling and denunciation. You’d have no idea what I believe and am presented mostly in the words of anti-free speech activists. I had booked a suite at the Airport Hilton for the meeting, thus, a bedroom. As long as I am sober, orderly and can pay the bill, they cannot deny me lodging. However, I was met by the manager who told me he would not let me enter. He was backed up some grotesquely fat East Indian who refused to give his name. When asked for reasons, the manager said “circumstances”. I quickly arranged for another location and started contacting my list. About 20 minutes before the meeting, the second hotel manager said he’d spoken to the police and was throwing me out of the hotel. Friends drove me to two more hotels. As soon as I presented my ID, they refused to let me stay. The bald bouncer-like night manager with an ear ring of the Assiniboine hotel said he “had a bad gut feeling” about me. Clearly, they had been contacted by people high up — we suspect the police — and ordered to violate my civil rights. I am consulting a lawyer and am planning to take action. However, the publicity won us three new supporters who read through the garbage. Because of Donald Trump increasing number of people see the media as liars and purveyors of fake news.
Democracy in Ontario: Uninvited to Testify to Legislative Committee
On October 10, I learned that the Ontario Legislature was expediting passage of Bill 63 — a draconian measure that would create 150-metre bubble zones around abortion clinics or abortion providers’ residences. Displaying any sign, slogan even a facial gesture critical of abortion within this zone could result in 6 months in prison or a $10,000 fine. This was definitely a free speech issue, I thought. I called the Legislature and registered for a spot at 2:15 on October 12. That was the only day for the hearings. Meanwhile enemies of free speech and open debate like Warren Kinsella sent protests to the Legislature. The morning of the hearing, the clerk advised me that the committee had voted unanimously — and that included the Tories — NOT to hear me. We circulated our brief anyway.
Prior Restraint: Toronto Public Library Bans Victor Fletcher Meeting
Joining the thought control crew is the Toronto Public Library. They refused to let us book their facilities to host Toronto Street News publisher Victor Fletcher in October. Toronto Street News is a publication that looks at conspiracies and has since 1999. “Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation and a violation of the provisions of the Library‘s Rules of Conduct. The Library cannot allow its facilities to be used to support such activities and we have, therefore, denied the booking on these grounds.” Libraries have often stood bravely for making controversial views available to the public. Not any more. One can only argue from past behaviour. Neither the meeting’s sponsor nor Mr. Fletcher nor his paper has ever been charged, much less convicted, under Sec. 319 — Canada’s ‘hate’ laws. I will be appearing at the December 11 meeting of the Toronto Library Board as a delegation to protest.
YOUR WARD NEWS Postal Ban Review Continues
The review as to whether Judy Foote had reasonable grounds to issue the Interim Prohibitory Order, banning YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine from sending mail — any mail — in Canada resumes today. CAFE is taking an active role and will continue to do so. On November 2, the Committee issued a series of preliminary rulings. First, they decided that the minister had not provided reasons for her decision. They also ruled they could consider the constitutionality of both the minister’s arbitrary actions and of those sections of the Canada Post Corporation Act itself. More hearings will be held.
YOUR WARD NEWS Charged With “Hate”
After several years of fevered agitation, especially by Jewish censorship groups like the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, with active assistance from anti-free speech meddlers like Warren Kinsella and Richard Warman, the Moslem Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi — he comes from a country (Pakistan) that doesn’t much value free speech — laid his second “hate law” charge in six months. The victims this time, Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine, publisher of YOUR WARD NEWS. This is going to be an important battle and CAFE is already on board as an active participant in the defence. Dr. Sears intends to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 319 as well. Prune face Canada is actually charging a satirical paper for making people laugh. Our grim guts rulers would fit right in with the tyrants in Pyongyang.
The Evangelist versus the Transgendered: Whatcott Human Rights Tribunal — The Opening Shots
Across the country in Vancouver the hearing of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal into a complaint by Ronan Auger who says he is transgendered against evangelist Bill Whatcott for critical leaflets he distributed during last May’s provincial election is still in its preliminary stages. We are supporting Mr. Whatcott’s motion to dismiss this complaint as frivolous and petty. CAFE also supported the successful application of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms to join us as an intervenor supporting Mr. Whatcott’s rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Indeed, a very busy Fall. All of this takes money and, as always, we must rely on you. Please help Christmas to arrive early for CAFE and send us your most generous support to continue to make all this possible. We are at a dangerous crossroads in Canada with many people speaking out against our suicidal immigration policies and in defence of free speech. But, equally those trying to change our country beyond recognition and impose diversity and special rights for privileged minorities are desperate and dangerous as they try to squelch those who speak up. More than ever, CAFE’s work is vital.
Merry Christmas! my fellow truth seeker and friend of free speech,
Paul Fromm, Director
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
___ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE fund its interventions in the YOUR WARD NEWS case (denial of mailing rights and now “hate law” charges).
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, and to produce more timely You Tube videos in this age of Internet alternative media.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2018 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#____________________________________________________________
Laurier university accused of censorship after TA reprimanded for playing gender pronoun debate clip
By Rebecca Joseph and Mike Drolet Global News
Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University, is speaking out after the school accused her of violating their policies of trans-phobia for playing a TVO segment featuring featuring polarizing University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson.
At Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, there are some viewpoints which aren’t.
The question came up after a Lindsay Shepherd, a T.A. and a master’s student, played a controversial YouTube clip during a debate about gender-neutral pronouns in her tutorial.
The clip in question featured University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who has famously refused to use gender pronouns other than “he” or “she,” defending his position against a professor who argued it was necessary to use the pronouns that a person prefers to be called.
She was called into a meeting in which Laurier faculty and administration told her that playing the clip without condemnation legitimizes the viewpoint, which they don’t support.
“In a university, all perspectives are valid,” she said in the meeting, which took place at the beginning of November.
“That’s not necessarily true,” a staff member responded.
The meeting, which Shepherd secretly recorded, left her in tears after staff said playing the clip created a toxic environment for transgender students and called her transphobic.
Shepherd defended her position saying she wanted to expose her students to opinions which are in the real world.
“I don’t get how exposing people to the idea makes me transphobic,” Shepherd said in the meeting.
LISTEN: Excerpts from secretly recorded meeting between Wilfrid Laurier University grad student and faculty
Shepherd said the clip of Peterson debating another U of T professor, Nicholas Matte, was meant to demonstrate ways in which the existence of gender-specific pronouns has caused controversy.
Shepherd said she presented the clip of the debate neutrally and without bias, but she was told her approach to the clip was tantamount to remaining neutral on other objectionable views such as those of Adolf Hitler. She was told that she should have provided more background on Peterson’s views, including his connections to the alt-right and Canada’s Rebel Media, and condemned him.
“The thing is, when you start off saying ‘This guy sucks don’t listen to anything he says,’ there’s people right there who are not going to say anything, you’ve silenced them,” Shepherd explained.
“I just wanted to open with ‘Any ideas are welcome here.’”
WATCH: Wilfrid Laurier TA says University censored her for showing clip on gender pronouns
While the university said the meeting took place, they didn’t comment on it or respond to a request for interview from Global News. In a statement released by the president and vice-chancellor, Deborah MacLatchy, she said that the university champions “The civil debate of competing ideas, free speech, and freedom of expression.”
“The real question, however, is how do we encourage and implement these fundamental ideals in a world that’s more aware of the importance of inclusivity and yet, at the same time, is growing more polarized?” she wrote in the statement.
Support for Shepherd is growing, with people saying the issue is close to censorship.
“If we as a university really believed in free speech, and if we’d been underlining that all the way along, this wouldn’t have been an issue, but increasingly here at Laurier and at other universities, we are censoring students,” Sociology professor David Haskell told Global News.
He also took exception to the comparison to Hitler, saying people use the argument to “silence others.”
“I see increasingly many of my colleagues using those kind of dramatic comparisons to Hitler, to other totalitarian regimes, but they do it in order to silence others,” he said.
WATCH: Wilfrid Laurier Professor comes to defence of censored TA Lindsay Shepherd
Katherine Fierlbeck, a political science professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, told the Canadian Press that she encourages genuine debate in the classroom.
She said failure to do so not only shortchanges students by leaving them without the skills to think critically in real-life debates, but may also drive those who feel their views are not welcome to seek out more receptive audiences, such as communities of online agitators or active proponents of hate.
Shepherd’s approach of neutrally presenting a debate to prompt further discussion was exemplary, she said, adding it was in keeping with the true spirit of academic freedom.
“Some … understand academic freedom to mean that they can say anything about anybody at any time, but that’s certainly not the case,” she said. “It has to be germane to your area, and there has to be a good reason offered for what you are doing.”
Shepherd now has to put forth her lesson plans to her supervisor before her tutorials, and faculty members will be monitoring her lesson plans going forward.