In one of Canada’s worst mass shootings to date, 18-year-old Jesse Strang on Tuesday killed eight people and injured more than 25 others before turning his gun on himself. Yet anyone getting his news from the mainstream Canadian media would think the killer was a woman with a different last name.
Why?
Because Strang identified as transgender, and in Canada, no respectable media outlet would dare call his self-selected identity into question — let alone give aid and comfort to “transphobes.” They would, however, use the tragedy to call for stricter gun laws.
They Always Get Their Woman
Strang, who began “transitioning” to female six years ago, first killed his mother and his 11-year-old stepbrother at home, then went to Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and murdered a teacher and five students, after which he committed suicide.
This would be a shocker anywhere, but in a British Columbia town of 2,400, it was devastating.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) responded to the shooting, issuing an active-shooter alert describing the suspect as “female in a dress” and charging into the school to stop the killing. Afterward, by which time they had to have known Strang was a man, the Mounties didn’t correct the record; instead, they referred to him as a “gunperson.”
European Conservative columnist Jonathon Van Maren wrote:
The term has never before been used in an official capacity, and it instantly made headlines in The Sun, The New York Post, Sky News, GB News, and elsewhere. When asked, an RCMP spokesperson stated, “We identify the suspect as they chose to be identified in public and in social media.”
When the RCMP finally identified the shooter — nearly 24 hours after the incident — they referred to him as “Jesse Van Rootselaar” and continued to obfuscate about his sex.
The Canadian press dutifully reported the official findings. “The CBC, the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Sun, CTV, Global News, the Globe and Mail, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Ottawa Citizen, the Montreal Gazette, and others all referred to the shooter as female” and as “Jesse Van Rootselaar,” Van Maren noted on LifeSiteNews.
Relative Truth
The truth, however, was waiting to be found. It just took journalists who didn’t subscribe to the woke religion to uncover it.
Juno News, for example, contacted the shooter’s father and maternal uncle, both of whom confirmed that his last name was Strang. His father, Justin Van Rootselaar, who was estranged from Strang’s mother, said in a statement, “[He] had a passport and the name on it is not Van Rootselaar.”
Van Rootselaar obviously sent the same statement to the CBC, But, rather than simply report it, the government broadcaster felt the need to “correct” him and to assert its own pro-trans bona fides:
In his statement, Justin VanRootselaar refers to his child as Jesse Strang and uses he/him pronouns to describe her. According to police, Jesse Van Rootselaar was assigned male at birth and began transitioning to female about six years ago.
The cops’ admission that Strang was born — and therefore always — male only came about “in response to reporters’ questions,” penned The Spectator’sJane Stannus.
The Telegraph reported Friday that a witness claims Strang may have gone to the school with the intention of finishing off the rest of his family. The paper further wrote:
Police confirmed there was a “history of police attendance at the family residence,” some relating to mental health and others relating to firearms incidents.
He [Strang] was apprehended and taken for a health assessment more than once, but the last contact he had with police was last year. His gun license had expired in 2024 and he had no registered guns.
Mental Gymnastics
By referring to the shooter as Jesse Van Rootselaar, the authorities and their friends in the media may have hoped to forestall further investigation into his background. Stannus pointed out that his real last name “connected him and his mother to pro-trans social media posts,” including ones “in which he mentioned spending time in mental hospital, taking antidepressants, trying out psychedelic drugs, and awaiting hormone therapy.”
The public is lied to in an attempt to force us to avert our eyes.
Yet when journalists knowingly discard biological reality and gloss over the link to mental health, they don’t just mislead readers; they actively interfere with our ability to understand reality, and therefore, assess danger.
For years, the public has been told that identifying as the opposite sex is simply another harmless expression of one’s self-identity.
Questioning it is dangerous, cruel — “bigotry.” Exploring whether transgender identity may signal deeper psychological distress is forbidden….
That dogma has consequences, as another community has learned the hard way.
In this regard, things are much worse in Canada than in the United States. There, by law, everyone must “affirm” a “trans” kid’s chosen gender. Trying to help the child overcome his gender confusion — even at the youngster’s request — is strictly prohibited. Good luck dealing with the kid’s probable other mental conditions under such a regime, even if those conditions could lead to murder.
As Stannus put it:
It just doesn’t seem right. Nine people, including 12- and 13-year-old children, have died. Many others are injured. Families are living through shock, loss and anguish. And instead of finding answers, the authorities are busy making sure transgender ideology isn’t tarnished by association. Are they sure they’ve got their priorities straight
Canadian mass shooting shows it’s high time for news outlets to stop bending the knee to transgender orthodoxy
Published on
It is a journalist’s duty to report the truth, yet so many news outlets covered themselves in shame by bowing and scraping to honour the “transgender identity” of the man who carried out of the deadliest mass shootings in Canadian history.
Jesse Van Rootselaar, 18, was born a man and he died a man. He spent his last day on Earth killing his 39-year-old mother, his 11-year-old stepbrother, a 39-year-old teacher, three 12-year-old girls, and two boys, 12 and 13, before taking the coward’s way out and turning the gun on himself. He reportedly wounded about 25 others at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and critically injured two more.
Initial reports on the shooting described Van Rootselaar as appearing female, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police erased all doubt Wednesday at a press conference.
“I can say that Jesse was born as a biological male who approximately six years ago began to transition to female and identified as female, both socially and publicly,” Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald said.
I understand the impulse to treat people with respect when they claim to identify as the gender opposite their sex. Many consider it common courtesy to refer to a person by preferred pronouns, rather than insisting on biological truth. In some circles, it is a faux pas — if not sacrilege — to state the naked truth that a man is still a man, regardless of what gender he claims to adopt.
But, if ever there were a situation where common courtesy need not apply, it would be here.
Do you really want to extend “common courtesy” to a school shooter? Do you really want to say, “I know he slaughtered children, and his own mother, but we’ve got to be nice and call him a girl, now”?
For crying out loud, let’s stop this insane charade.
The vast majority of mass shooters are male, so the initial news reports that the shooter was a woman immediately invited skepticism.
When the RCMP’s update clarified that the shooter was really a man dressed up as a woman, every journalist following the story learned the truth. There is no excuse, at that point, for calling the shooter a woman or using female pronouns for him.
Yet, outlet after outlet did it.
News outlets gaslight readers
CNN “reported” that “the suspect is an 18-year-old woman.” The very next sentence? “She was born biologically male and transitioned about six years ago, police said.” CNN also referred to the shooter as “an 18-year-old female resident of the town.”
The New York Times used female pronouns for the shooter, stating that “she killed her mother and stepbrother before fatally shooting several others, and later herself.”
The Associated Press merely referred to the shooter using female pronouns, without even disclosing to readers that police identified him as male.
Reuters’s headline ran, “Canadian police identify 18-year-old woman as suspect in mass school shooting.” Reuters did acknowledge that the shooter had been “born male,” but not until the 11th paragraph, and only after describing Van Rootselaar as a “woman” and using female pronouns for him throughout.
USA Today acknowledged the transgender identity in the second paragraph of the story, but still used female pronouns for the shooter throughout.
Why the pervasive bias in favor of the shooter’s ‘identity’?
Why did news outlets do this?
First, McDonald, the deputy commissioner, set the stage for it by saying that police would refer to the shooter as a woman because the shooter had presented himself that way. Apparently, accuracy about biological sex takes a backseat to political correctness, even when it means honoring the ravings of a mass murderer.
Second, The Associated Press Stylebook, which many outlets use as a benchmark for how to report the news, has taken an aggressively pro-transgender activist position.
The stylebook urges journalists to “identify people as transgender only when relevant, and use the name by which they live publicly.” It recommends avoiding “mention of a person’s gender transition or gender-affirmation surgery in news coverage” unless “it is central to the story.” Why? Because this might be “intrusive and insensitive.”
This guidance helps explain why The Associated Press appears to have considered the shooter’s transgender identity irrelevant enough to be excised from the coverage entirely. The AP, you see, didn’t want to be “insensitive” to Mr. Van Rootselaar.
Forgive me if I don’t care about being insensitive toward a mass murderer.
The AP Stylebook goes out of its way to silence dissent against transgender orthodoxy. While the “guidance” on transgender issues is steeped in transgender ideology, it flatly declares that journalists should “not use the term transgenderism, which frames transgender identity as an ideology.”
The Daily Signal appreciates the clarity of the AP Stylebook on matters such as spelling protester with an “er,” but we emphatically reject its “guidance” on issues like this where it takes a leftist partisan stance.
A reckoning on transgender insanity
This horrific shooting comes shortly after a jury ordered doctors to pay $2 million to a detransitioner who regretted having her breasts removed. It comes after the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommended against transgender surgeries for minors, and even said the data doesn’t support hormones for minors.
The tide is turning against transgender orthodoxy, and this moment should shame news outlets into reconsidering their near-religious devotion to it.
This article is reproduced by kind permission of the Daily Signal Media Group, Washington, DC.
About the author
Tyler O’Neil is senior editor of The Daily Signal, published by the Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, and the author of two books
To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada’s hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake.
Bill C-9, the Carney government’s combating hate act, would expand criminal prohibitions on expression and increase penalties for speech offences, including online speech. Now, the bill may also gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts.
Throughout the justice committee’s hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was a group prayer delivered by controversial imam Adil Charkaoui at a Quebec pro-Palestinian rally in 2023. In that prayer, Charkaoui asked God to “kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and take care of the “Zionist aggressors.”
Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted.
As Quebec’s director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.
One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.
And even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.
The religious defence has also been essential to the constitutionality of the hate-speech prohibition itself. In R v Keegstra, the Supreme Court wrote that the offence is a minimal impairment on the right to freedom of expression, in part because of “the presence of the Sec. 319(3) defences.” The courts upheld the law because the religious exemption exists. Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses.
But even beyond constitutional risk, removing the defence is a profound moral and civil liberties mistake. We should not want, let alone empower, prosecutors to criminalize any form of prayer.
Religious texts across traditions contain pleas for justice against enemies, metaphors for divine retribution and expressions of anguish, symbolism and cosmic struggle. This is not the realm of the police. If the state begins parsing Psalms or Hadiths line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all.
Advertisement 1
Trending
In practice, the defence is already exceedingly narrow. It has rarely been invoked and, based on my case law search, has never succeeded. Courts have also rejected attempts to cloak hateful speech in religious language.
In R v Harding, for example, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a lower court’s finding that the defence does not shield speech that wilfully promotes hatred merely because it is embedded with religious language, because then “religious opinion could be used with impunity as a Trojan horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by Sec. 319.”
Religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human. It concerns the nature of justice, suffering, good and evil — the most intimate dimensions of identity and conscience. These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread. We do not want the government parsing religious texts, or religious speech, especially given that most of our political leaders are absolutely ignorant of religion, including, in some cases, their own religion.
For example, in a shocking display at the justice committee, Liberal committee chair Marc Miller claimed to Derek Ross, executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, that portions of the Bible are “hateful.” Miller then doubled down on X, writing, “I say this, in particular because I am a Christian,” which is in itself mind-boggling.
It’s dangerous for politicians to believe they can use statutes to sanitize scripture they don’t even properly understand. Criminal law is the state’s most violent instrument. It should not be swung at the human soul.
The Bible is the most banned book in history, precisely because it is powerful and points to an authority beyond the reach of government. A government that fears religious speech is not fighting extremism — it’s fighting competition.
The proposed amendment to Bill C-9 would take Canada down a dark path. We should never have criminalized belief in the first place. Strip away the religious defence, and Canada will not be combating hate, it will be criminalizing faith. The defence must be maintained. (National Post, December 4, 2025)
This isn’t a typical email. It’s an update on what’s happening behind the scenes at The Maple. Below, opinion editor Davide Mastracci shares how he found himself investigated by the RCMP, simply for doing journalism.
A couple months ago, we revealed that The Maple had been the target of a campaign to take us offline. Today, I can tell you the campaign has escalated, with critics wanting me in prison. In February, I published Find IDF Soldiers — a database of Canadians who have joined the Israeli military, based entirely on public information. With a list of 163 current and former IDF soldiers, it’s the largest in Canada, and offers rare insight into this group.Israel’s supporters have tried everything to get the site taken down, including hacking, suspension demands, discussing lawsuits, email campaigns, a multi-country media assault and death threats.
I recently learned something even more troubling: the RCMP investigated me.Documents I obtained show that someone complained to the RCMP about the project and called for me to be charged. The RCMP received the bogus complaint, screened it and rather than deciding to end things there, chose to investigate.They assigned an analyst to the complaint, who then ran my name through law enforcement databases, searched for information about me online and compiled a report.Unsurprisingly, the RCMP concluded I wasn’t a threat to “national security,” and that my journalism didn’t break any laws.
But the damage was done. My name is now in a police database used by at least 25 law enforcement agencies across Canada.Experts say this could follow me for years, and that it sends a message to other journalists: reporting on the wrong topic may land you in a police database. It’s chilling.Most journalists would stop here.I’m not one of them. I’ve spent years writing about Palestine. If threats and intimidation tactics were going to stop me, it would’ve happened a long time ago.And thankfully, I work at a publication that isn’t vulnerable to pressure the way most outlets are.
The Maple doesn’t depend on funding from advertisers, grants or major donors that can be scared off. That makes us hard to intimidate — but only if we have readers backing us.If we’re going to keep publishing this sort of work, we need to be able to withstand the tough moments that defang other publications. If we have you on our side, we can.If you believe in what we’re doing — fearless, independent journalism that can’t be bullied —then consider becoming a Maple member. Every membership is a lifeline. And if we’re going to keep publishing, we need more of them.
Because, the thing is, the threat isn’t over. I’m waiting on very overdue ATIP requests from CSIS, Ontario’s Solicitor General and Toronto Police. I don’t know what they’ll return, but I’m increasingly confident these agencies and departments looked into me because of complaints from powerful Israel supporters about my journalism.If that ends up being the case, we may have to finally hire a criminal lawyer. They’ve been willing to help me pro bono so far, but that can’t last forever.And if we want to keep publishing, we need to be ready — not scrambling after the fact.Your support doesn’t just help us do the journalism we want to — it helps protect it, and protect us. It ensures I can move forward with this work without being afraid. It makes me feel confident that you’ll have my back should anything happen.If you believe in independent journalism that won’t cower — even when it’s under attack — I hope you’ll support it. Already a member? Thank you. Your support has kept us alive, and I hope you’ll stay with us. If you’re in a place to do more, you can also make a one-time donation here.— Davide Mastracci Opinion editor, The Maple
B.C. Public Safety Minister and Solicitor General Garry Begg announced on Friday (July 4) that the province is putting up $734,000 for five more RCMP officers and an intelligence analyst to be added to the hate crime unit.
“Funding will also strengthen efforts to address hate-motivated crimes throughout our criminal justice process by ensuring that prosecutors have the necessary evidence for charge approvals,” said Begg, a former RCMP officer.
The hate crime unit will now consist of seven officers.
Statistics presented by the B.C. government show that police-reported hate crimes rose 23 per cent from 2022 to 2023. Of these, hate crimes related to religion rose 50 per cent, and hate crimes linked to sexual orientation rose 43 per cent.
This funding is part of a $230 million provincial investment in the RCMP.
B.C. is the only province with a dedicated hate-crime unit.
Please join us to save 400 HEALTHY ostriches in Edgewood
They were scheduled to be slaughtered by the CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY on the first of February.
An injunction was granted by the courts to delay this for 30 days.This issue is currently before the courts.
Public visibility and pressure is needed to ensure a court decision that is favorable to these beautiful creatures. CFIA refuses to test them. This message is short and to the point. It is not possible to review all of the information available.Please go to this web page for more complete details clearbc.org/sooTHIS IS THE PLAN. The CFIA has an office in Kelowna and Vernon – see posters below.We want to have several people outside of these offices at opening time Monday morning, with coverage to the end of the day – this means 8am to 4pm – until this issue is resolved. Please attend as you are able – even a random half an hour is helpful.We are not looking for a major extended commitment. Everyone’s time is precious – contribute what you can.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENTBe polite and courteous – we are the good guysDo not engage with CFIA staff, BY LAW, RCMP or Media if you are uncomfortable dealing with these peopleREMEMBER THIS the authorities are legally obliged to identify themselves. If you are behaving you do not have to identify yourselfIt’s important to remember that the media may attempt to draw you into a conversation that may be distorted to disparage what we are doingWe will prepare a press statement asapYou have a legal right to be there, as long as you are not breaking any lawsThere is plenty of legal public parkingDo not park in any of the CFIA spotsQUESTIONS ?Reply to this email
Is there anyone in VERNON interested in acting as a local contact / organizer ? Please reply to this email.”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world.In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Ex-Political Prisoner Brad Love Faces Death Threats; RCMP Do Nothing
This has not been an easy summer for political prisoner Brad Love. Even before the Fort McMurray man was released from prison on July 31, he received bad news. He was informed by the prison authorities that his car had been stolen. A former resident of the house he shares with several others, returned, broke into Brad’s room and stole his car keys and made off with his car. When he was released, the authorities made no effort to provide transportation from the Peace River across the province to his Fort McMurray home. Fortunately, a friend travelled to the prison and gave him a ride. On reaching Fort McMurray, he learned more bad news. The police reported that his car had been found, but it had been totally trashed. Mr. Love was not even allowed to examine HIS OWN property in the pound by the the local RCMP until he paid a fee for storage. He has still not paid and has yet to see his car. More bad news awaited Brad when he tried to access his bank account. The car thief had made off with Brad’s cheque book and written cheques for over $10,000 — until the account was emptied. Brad castigated the bank’s sloppy security. He seldom writes cheques and the signature bore no resemblance to Brad’s. The bank will eventually reimburse Brad as cashing this raft of cheques was their fault but they are taking their time. And the car thief, forger? You would think even Inspector Clouseau could solve this case, The RCMP know his name, they have copious evidence of his thefts and forgeries. Yet, they tell Mr. Love nothing! He calls the RCMP frequently. They don’t return calls. On August 20, a late model car with four men pulled up and confronted Mr. Love at his front door. “We’re going to fucking kill you, Love,” they threatened. Mr. Love describes them as shady truck pusher types. He got their licence plate number. A few minutes later, another car appeared. It stopped and its scruffy looking occupants repeated the same threat: “We’re going to fucking kill you, Love.” Brad immediately called the police on 911. It took 90 minutes for the Mounties to answer this “emergency call.” Their only excuse was: “We were waiting for backup.” The Mounties explained that the threats were, well, not really actionable threats. Mr. Love could only remember the numerous times and a phone call with persistent questioning of an MPP or newspaper editor resulted in a quick visit from the RCMP and, sometimes, charges of harassment. Three weeks have passed. No action has been taken by the RCMP against those who made threats whose licence number and address Mr. Love has provided. And, of course, they don’t return phone calls. “Those were death threats. Who’s going to protect me?” a frustrated Brad Love asks.
As usual, I still receive receipts that you, Michelle E, and Diane King have sent me. [Letters seized by prison censors and not given to Mr. Love.] Why so much attention devoted to me here in Nowheresville in beyond me.
In Toronto, on June 11, a Tibetan immigrant who set a Chinese girl on fire on a bus at the Kipling subway station is sent to a looney bin. After what China did to Tibet, wasn’t this a revenge-motivated hate crime. No one brought that up. Or would this upset the swell cultural mosaic where only Whites are capable of hate?
NEWS FLASH: Guards on the weekend handed me a Stolen Auto Report Form — say what? So, I try calling my brother [in Ontario] for hours in a panic. Sure enough, a moved out former housemate [in Fort McMurray] returned and drove off in my Hyundai. My landlord called the cops. So, the Fort Mac RCMP are hot on the trail. Yeah, I’ll bet. Shit! Just what I need to interrupt my already interrupted sleep in here. I was almost through an 11 month term without any personal losses, but now, shit! I had no theft insurance on my car and my insurance was up last week. So, I had by brother call in to pay the $850 yearly for me and they REFUSED to let him pay it. Stupid, eh? But no more stupid than their refusal to call out the massive auto theft problem as an “immigration problem” as the media tells us clearly that it is. Duh! This country is digging its own grave. [Recently, Brad learned that his car had been found abandoned and seriously trashed.] — Brad Love
As usual, I still receive receipts that you, Michelle E, and Diane King have sent me. [Letters seized by prison censors and not given to Mr. Love.] Why so much attention devoted to me here in Nowheresville in beyond me.
In Toronto, on June 11, a Tibetan immigrant who set a Chinese girl on fire on a bus at the Kipling subway station is sent to a looney bin. After what China did to Tibet, wasn’t this a revenge-motivated hate crime. No one brought that up. Or would this upset the swell cultural mosaic where only Whites are capable of hate?
NEWS FLASH: Guards on the weekend handed me a Stolen Auto Report Form — say what?. So, I try calling my brother [in Ontario] for hours in a panic. Sure enough, a moved out former housemate [in Fort McMurray] returned and drove off in my Hyundai. My landlord called the cops. So, the Fort Mac RCMP are hot on the trail. Yeah, I’ll bet. Shit, Just what I need to interrupt my already interrupted sleep in here. I was almost through an 11 month term without any personal losses, but now, shit! I had no theft insurance on my car and my insurance was up last week. So, I had by brother call in to pay the $850 yearly for me and they REFUSED to let him pay it. Stupid, eh? But no more stupid than their refusal to call out the massive auto theft problem as an “immigration problem” as the media tells us clearly that it is. Duh! This country is digging its own grave. — Brad Love
Individual (him/his/he) goes into a public building and was informed that his presence was not allowed. Someone presses up against him for a split second. He gets charged with assault. Copied below is his account of the incident and what shamefully occurred in court.
This individual, a private self-taught citizen, has successfully argued on behalf of himself, others,”the law”, and ultimately us, in courts across Canada. He deserves our respect & support [the Kelowna court, arguing over an assault charge against him proven false by video recording requires him to obtain transcripts at outrageous costs].
If deciding to forward this email – please delete my email address. Thanks.
Falsified assault charge
Kelowna Courthouse
R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault
So, Dec. 13, 2021 was D-day. Judgments in the falsified assault charges against me, were to be rendered by Judge Heinrichs on the following issues:
The merits of the case of whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I assaulted two security guards;
My RCMP Challenge – claiming that the RCMP Act was unconstitutional because only the Provinces can pass legislation in relation to policing in the Province, and,
The Crown’s application to have me cited for contempt.
I anticipated #1 would go first, for if I won on the merits of the assault charge (ie: not guilty) the RCMP Challenge would not require a hearing, and if I lost (ie: guilty) only then it would have to be dealt with. This procedure was not to be. The alleged offence date was August. 19, 2021.
First – brief history. We were having a series of protests at the Interior Health building at 505 Doyle Ave. in Kelowna in 2021 as a result of new mask orders from the health officer Sue Pollock located in that building. This brought huge publicity in the public eye of what they were doing and our opposition to mask requirements. I was trying to talk to reception on Aug. 11, 2021 to arrange for an official to talk to us. I had been told on August 4, 2021 that an official would come out and talk to us but never did. Security manager Greg Smith (the Professional Liar) assaulted our video reporter Leo and physically forced him out of the building while I talked to reception. Then they forced me out. All of this is on video and we were peaceful at all times; the only violence was Greg Smith’s assault on Leo. Despite this, Greg Smith purported to issue a no trespass order to me for one month.
We came back on Aug. 19, 2021. The Professional Liar and two Paladin security officials were there to block my right of entry into the Interior Health reception area. Police later arrived and Greg Smith the Professional Liar lied to the police and told them that I had been banned from the building for a month because I was causing a disturbance inside the building that morning. As said, the videos confirm that no such disturbance was ever caused by me or anyone else. Another lie from the Professional Liar.
I tried to exercise my right to enter the building and security officials used their upper torso to physically block me from entering. We touched briefly for about 1.5 seconds. Make no mistake…the video clearly shows THEM pushing into ME to block my right of entry.
Notwithstanding their assault on me, one has to look at this video to see just how trivial this incident was – lasting as it did about 1.5 seconds, with no injuries. 8:20-8:48. Admittedly now, Interior Health may not be a Crown corporation, but they are a government body and subject to the Charter. Thank you for posting this Marcel!! Jason Davis is in the middle and Taj Smith on the end, from Paladin as well. Davis no longer works there.
See also 4:43-5:54 where Raymond Bacolod, a private security official, stomps on Leo’s hands as he attempts to plug the extension cords back into the generator that Bacolod unplugged to shut down Linda’s freedom of speech. We charged Bacolod with assault. The Crown told us directly that we had a very good case yet then stayed the charge!! This assault was much more violent than any alleged 1.5 second touching in my case, and with a lot more people around as well. Marcel follows up with other assaults that were allowed to go unpunished by the Crown.
Charges were laid of assault on Dec. 8, 2021. Mr. Grabavac for the Crown, wanted an endorsed warrant to bring me before a judge. He only got an unendorsed warrant, meaning the police could release me – and they did a couple of weeks later, because of an alleged communications error between himself and the Informant.
Here are Mr. Grabavac’s only words, when he applies to the Court to try and get this reversed two days later on Dec. 10, 2021:
“So, it’s not the Crown’s intention to have Mr. Lindsay detained, however the Crown wants specific conditions put on, and specifically with respect to prohibiting his conduct at – potentially at these – there was a rally going on when the assaults occurred, so we would like an opportunity to make the submission to a judge on that.
That’s – yes, and the Crown is also seeking other no-go conditions that have no – that are less related to Interior Health than this. We’d also be asking for a condition that he not attend to any school district location – School District 23 property in Kelowna, and also not to attend any parks. So that’s the concern that really – that’s a little bit extensive…”
Read what Grabavac is saying just two days after the charges were laid. As a condition of my release, he wants me banned from all schools and parks in Kelowna, even though he admits that they have nothing to do with the alleged (unproven) offences at an Interior Health (IH) building downtown!!!!
Why would a prosecutor ask for such draconian relief if not for improper purposes? Because they wanted me banned from all parks to prevent me from conducting the rallies, as Grabavac admits, which as the RCMP admit have all been peaceful. So, the fix was in from the beginning on what Grabavac’s true ulterior intentions and motives were. He knew there was no real assault, but it was the perfect opportunity to try and ban me from the rallies, falsely thinking they would stop without my presence. What does a park in Mission or by the airport in Kelowna have to do with the IH building in downtown Kelowna? Nothing.
There is your background to these falsified charges. And it gets worse when you realize the professional liars on the witness stand.
On Dec. 13, 2023, Judge Heinrichs first denied my application that she was biased. Can you imagine the consequences of a judge ruling him/her self to be biased? It is self-incrimination – an admission that you were breaking the law…no judge is going to do this.
Judge Heinrichs then began her next judgment by dismissing my RCMP challenge. Admittedly there was an error in my Challenge, asking the Judge to strike the legislation that she has no power to do. What she can do, is simply not apply it. So, by not applying the RCMP Act and agreements, the RCMP officers had no power to investigate and obtain evidence. This is an irregularity and is permitted to be amended at any time. Judge Heinrichs refused this simple amendment, on the following flawed and defective basis below.
Judge Heinrichs claimed the Challenge was manifestly frivolous as it would have no effect on the case, because the Informant could still lay the charge as a regular person (“any one”) under s. 504 of the Code. That may be so, but “any one” did not lay a charge, an RCMP officer did, in that capacity. If the RCMP did not have the jurisdiction to exist, an RCMP officer could not use that capacity to lay charges. The charges would have to be re-sworn by him personally and by now they are well out of time to so do.
When asking me for my response after her decision, I told her she completely omitted the primary factor that I told her in my submissions, that if the RCMP have no jurisdiction to exist, they have no power to investigate criminal complaints and obtain the evidence in this case. Once all evidence is struck for want of jurisdiction, the case fails, whether or not the Informant could still lay a charge as a private citizen or not. Further, absent evidence under s. 507 of the Criminal Code, the JP would have had no power to even issue a summons or warrant.
Judge Heinrichs’s analogy was that if someone is charged under the Criminal Code and applies to strike the Motor Vehicle Act, that it would not have any relevance. That may be, but not where it goes to the jurisdiction of the person or police force laying the charges, or if evidence was obtained illegally as it was here.
She looked at me after my comments about her omission for a few silent seconds, ignored me and said she was going to move to her next judgment. This issue was intentionally omitted to get this BS judgment. The only place the RCMP should be is above the Arctic Circle – Constitutionally speaking.
This is similar to what the Court has done to me on several occasions, where there is incriminating evidence or arguments. The judges simply ignore them and says, “move on,” thus perpetuating an injustice and from exposing their errors or corruption.
Judge Heinrichs then moved on to the merits of the assault charge. I have maintained throughout the trial that the Crown and witnesses controlled the Judge, not the reverse and one had to be there to see it. Grabavac for the Crown answering my questions to the Judge, the Judge depending on the Crown for the law instead of knowing it herself, witnesses who refused to answer my direct questions, or would answer with circular, non-responsive answers and the Judge would refuse to compel them to answer. Virtually every discretionary decision was made in favour of the Crown, unless the Judge admitted that she would allow it because it made no difference anyway.
From the initial bail hearing two years ago, Grabavac for the Crown has tried to have me banned from all city parks and schools. This of course, was to prevent me from having our protest rallies.
During the initial bail hearing, and throughout disclosure and the trial, Grabavac insisted on advancing the evidence from all his witnesses that on Aug. 11, 2021 one week prior to the Aug. 19 alleged offence date, I was banned from entering Interior Health (IH) by Greg Smith the Professional Liar, security manager for IH. One witness, Taj Smith from Paladin Security, admitted without that no trespass order, they had no power to physically stop me from entering and would have had to allow me in.
Despite this, Judge Heinrichs repeatedly denied me the right to cross examine them on this issue and introduce video evidence to show that the no trespass order was unlawful and Greg Smith lied to the police, and sustaining Grabavac’s ongoing opposition that it had no relevance to whether an assault was committed. If that is so, why was he allowed to lead evidence of this from all witnesses on this point? And if it is relevant evidence to committing the assault, it is relevant for me to prove it was unlawful. Anything raised in evidence is entitled by law to be cross examined upon…including this, and Judge Heinrichs denied this to me, denying me full answer and defence in the process.
Judge Heinrichs allowed evidence from the Crown of being banned as a basis for the charges, but refused to allow me to cross examine and prove the no trespass order was unlawful, and to show my video to prove that Greg Smith was lying on the witness stand, when he told the police on Aug. 11, 2021 that I was banned for causing a disturbance. Just showing Greg Smith was a liar would have been beneficial just for credibility purposes. The video clearly shows that Greg Smith was a professional liar. When Greg Smith says on the stand:
“I have about 30 years experience doing this…I know how to answer questions.”,
you know he means that he is saying he knows how to lie on the stand and get away with it.
On May 25, 2023, I filed a Charter Challenge that the no trespass order was a violation of my s. 2 Charter freedoms. Greg Smith was a gov’t official. Judge Heinrichs subsequently dismissed it without a hearing saying I should have filed this earlier in the year, without saying when of course. How can I file this earlier when I only just heard the evidence in court over the previous few days? Grabavac argued that is the standard for lawyers, and they applied this to me, claiming Charter challenges are usually filed at the beginning of case. But that certainly is not always true – many challenges are brought on during the middle or end of a trial depending on when the evidence gets on the record. It is not a hard rule and there is no law that says all Charter applications must be brought at the beginning of a case. Just read s. 24 of the Charter – it refers to evidence obtained illegally – in many cases this is unknown until a gov’t witness takes the witness stand.
Grabavac repeatedly told Judge Heinrichs, who repeatedly parroted his comments, that there were only four defences to a charge of assault – self defence, automatism, intoxication and accident. This limited my questions of course to only these issues. But there are other defences, and I was lied to by Grabavac and the Judge was ignorant enough to follow him.
Judge Heinrichs dealt with the duties of the Crown to prove its case and how he proved that my moving forward to enter the building was the assault, but failed to address the fact that I was denied full answer and defence because I could not cross-examine on this issue.
Section 265, 266 of the Criminal Code applies where there is an intentional application of force to someone else, without their consent. There is no requirement to prove harm. Legally, this section criminalizes every intentional touching including on buses, subways etc.
Judge Heinrichs relied upon the Crown’s mischaracterization of the incident as being me intentionally touching the security guards. In fact, as I showed in slow motion on the videos, when I attempted to exercise my right of access, they used their upper body torsos to push me back, including Greg Smith’s left arm.
The Judge relies in her decision that the Crown proved that I was not welcome, I knew I was not welcome and that whether this banning was lawful or not, was not part of her decision and she would not rule upon it. Of course not, as it would show THEY assaulted me.
Then she addressed my defence of di minimus which was unknown to me during the trial and which Grabavac lied to the Court by saying there were only four defences. This was the fifth. I provided dozens and dozens of case law that I spent over 100 hours researching, showing that if an assault is so minimal, or trivial, the court will not address it and will find people not guilty. I had case law of a husband assaulting his wife in the home, of people actually getting injuries, and many others that the court all claimed were pretty trivial and dismissed, and yet were much worse than this case.
As you can see in the video I linked to above, there is no violence, no hostility, and everyone including myself, is peaceful. A bit of sound from someone’s boom box and that is all. Police are present, but only because it is standard for these dumb-ass, wimpy security guards to call the police whenever they want. Police have shown up to dozens of our protests, without any problems. They show up at many other protests such as BLM and the LGBTQ protests as well. There is nothing unusual about their presence.
In fact, on Aug. 11, RCMP Corp. Lobb, after talking with Greg Smith, admitted in her evidence that she told me I had this right of access and I could use any time I wanted to talk to reception. I exercised my right of access in part because this senior cop told me I had a right of entry, after she discussed with Smith the Professional Liar. Then they charge me!!
Judge Heinrichs would not apply di mimimus because she claimed it would be a risk to the public interest – without defining that that actually is – as it would sanction an act of defiance to authority, and I could be a catalyst for others. Really?
Judge Heinrichs claimed that a police officer told me he would arrest me if I tried to enter, only because he believed that Greg Smith lawfully told him I was banned. Smith of course never verified this or that it was lawfully done. I am under no obligation to obey any police officer’s threats of arrest if I had not broken the law. Besides, he told me I would be arrested for entering the building (ie: trespass), not for an assault.
Think about this – the Crown’s entire case is based on the Crown’s evidence that Greg Smith the Professional Liar issued a no trespass warning a week earlier to support their actions to block my right of entry and lied to the police, I am prohibited from attacking and cross-examining on this, and Judge Heinrichs then rules that I am defying authority on this unlawful no trespass order as the basis for refusing to apply this applicable defence??? No judge can be this dumb. It can only be pure, 100% bias or compromise.
50+ middle aged peaceful protestors, most of whom were not even in this area, with a peaceful history of protesting for three years and somehow my action of exercising my right of access is going to be a catalyst for others to defy authority? This is a fiction – it is deeming. There was no evidence put to the court that anyone else was going to defy authority, or of any history of so doing. And who is authority? Greg Smith? He had no power to arbitrarily ban me for no reason at all, and the cops never did either.
Judge Heinrichs claims by analogy that this is not like jostling on a bus – where there is no intent. This is wrong – many people on buses and subways, intentionally push people out of the way in a rush to get on the transportation, or to get off. This happens every day. This really is a stupid and inapplicable analogy. But not surprisingly.
Judge Heinrichs ignored the defence of officially induced error in her judgment, by Corp. Lobb telling me on Aug. 11, that I had a right of entry and could do so even at the Aug. 19 protest. She told me this after she talked to witness Greg Smith, so he knew she would be telling me this too and never told me Smith, the Professional Liar, opposed it.
Importantly, Judge Heinrichs completely left out the fact that there was no evidence of any animus, or hostility on my part – another element of the offence that Grabavac intentionally left off the court record. I provided case law to the Judge that the Crown must provide evidence of some form of hostility or anger on my part to assault someone to get a conviction. The Judge admits that me and the security guards were having a calm discussion at this time. The videos all confirm that there was no evidence of hostility which is why Judge Heinrichs intentionally did not address this in her judgment. The Crown failed to prove this requirement – and even refused to bring it to the attention to the Judge during the trial. Grabavac thought I would not discover this, but I did.
Everything that could be done to convict, was done. The fix was in from the very beginning.
Mr. Grabavac repeatedly lied to the Judge and me, by claiming in court that there were only four defences to an assault charge. He lied by failing to let the Judge know he had to prove hostility as well. The Judge sanctioned this, sending the message to all prosecutors that lying in Court is acceptable by refusing to even hear my application to have Grabavac cited for contempt, and even refusing to read my Affidavit evidence to support this. I spent a lot of time preparing this, not for her to just dismiss it without even considering my evidence.
Sadly, it gets worse. In Jordan, the SCC ruled 18 months to judgment for a hearing on a summary conviction matter. Charges were laid Dec. 8, 2021, and 18 months ended June 8, 2023. The judgment was issued Dec. 13, 2023 or over 24 months later. Judge Heinrichs denied my Jordan s. 11(b) Charter delay application because she wanted me to pay almost $5 000.00 in transcripts, to the monopolistic J.C. Word Assist transcribers, who have an exclusive contract with the Province that only they can produce criminal transcripts. I have a friend who is a court accepted, certified transcriber and I could have done this for a tiny fraction of this cost and was denied this ability to so do. This is pure theft and selling justice, contrary to our common law and Constitution.
When I advised Judge Heinrichs I could not afford them, she wanted me to provide proof of my private and confidential, financial situation. That is not going to happen. This right to justice then becomes a qualified privilege and further then becomes part of the public record, open for all the world to see. Think about this in your life how you would feel if anyone, anyone, knew of your personal financial situation, especially people you didn’t know. Or other government agencies. This can haunt you for decades even if there is nothing to hide, so to speak.
So, she allowed the Crown to break the law because I won’t give up my privacy rights for the possibility (she could still refuse my request to order the Crown to pay for them anyway) of her ordering the Crown to pay for them, and agree that they can sell justice.
The judge are in on this too. The Supreme Court judges do not want to hear myriads of appeals from minor traffic tickets, or summary conviction Provincial offences matters. So, they rely upon these super high, thieving transcripts fees to deter people from appeal them to they don’t have to hear this minor stuff – but which of course is incredibly important to the accused. Who can afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer on a traffic ticket, then more thousands for an appeal if they are screwed in trial court, plus thousands of dollars in transcripts, where the fine may only be less than $1000, but may have serious repercussions in others areas of one’s life? Judges bank on these transcripts fees (as does the Crown) to keep us out of the court system as much as possible.
The Crown got caught further lying here, by telling the Judge that a large part of the delay was my fault for refusing to be available for a June 22, 2022 trial date that was proposed in May, 2022. What Grabavac intentionally failed to mention, as I have the documents to prove and he admits he has a copy, was that on May 18, 2022, Judge MacParland ordered us to set trial dates, yes, but they had to be at least one month ahead of the hearing of my disclosure request to be set (see a copy of this below). So, we could not legally set a trial date for June 22, 2022 because another Judge ordered one month earlier that we could not do so. That was the true reason and Grabavac again got caught lying to the Judge and was allowed to get away with it. It was not possible on May 18 to set a disclosure review hearing to be heard within four days by May 22, to allow for a June 22 two day trial.
Grabavac tried to file new materials on Monday December 11, 2023, which the Judge did not allow because she had her ruling done in his favour anyway. But these submissions contained further lies that I have more documents to prove were false. There is no low that Grabavac will not stoop to, in order to convict and jail me. Because the Judge would not allow him to provide his written submissions, I was unable to show how and where Grabavac was lying to the Judge again.
The allegation of contempt of court, is being remedied by permitting me to purge the contempt by a written apology. I have done this. This is a catch-22 set up. If I don’t agree, they will sentence me to further time in jail. If I provide this apology, which must include comments that I will obey court orders in the future, then when the Crown applies at sentencing for a DNA sample and I refuse to provide one, they will lay further charges of failing to comply with a court order and possibly reinstitute the contempt charge again too. The trap is being set yet again.
Sentencing hearing will be April 12, 2024 at 9:30 at the Kelowna Law Courts. Sentencing may be that day or on a future date, but all submissions will be on this day. Crown wants an unspecified jail term, unspecified probation order (likely to ban me from all parks and schools so I can’t appear at the rallies), a no weapons order, and a DNA sample. Grabavac is seriously abusing his power and breaching the duties of his office for this non-offence which is completely, politically motivated.
We will see what happens in this new year. I simply join the ranks of Pastor Art, Tamara Lich, the Coutts boys, and many others who have been falsely attacked in the “just-us” system, for opposing the corruption in our governments. (George Carlin: “It’s a big club, and YOU ain’t in it!”) But if jailed, I will get out and continue in our quest for freedom against the tyrannical governments and just-us system participants.
An appeal is being filed this week to this conviction. Unsure about a sentencing appeal until the sentence is actually delivered.
Legal assistance
Despite my efforts, they are still demanding now $16 000.00 in transcripts fees for this appeal. Some of these fees are up to $1 800.00/day!!! I am fortunate that I do not have any lawyers involved and am able to do all this work on my own. Having lawyers on this stupid, falsified charge, for eight (8) days of trial and more appearances prior to trial, would have easily run another $20 000.00+. It does not appear yet that I can have these transcripts paid for by the Court/Government. Unfortunately, as a result, I will have no choice but to begin seeking assistance to help pay for these transcripts over the next few months. I am grateful we already have some gifts provided to assist with this. I will let everyone know once this is all set up. Believe me, no one hates paying for these transcripts to these glorified extortionists more than I do and I have fought them for 20+ years on this monopolistic, obstruction of justice tactic. However, I (we) must get justice and it can now only be done on appeal. The implications are astounding where in the future the Crown will charge everyone for merely touching someone, even if they are in the wrong.
They should have a law that upon any successful appeal, the Crown and Judge must bear all the costs. I suspect that there would not be as many appeals and more justice would happen in the court of first instance, as is our right.
We will also now begin to have some transcript production costs in response to the Petition to ban our rallies. So far we have kept costs to a bare minimum, again thanks to not having legal fees, but there will some associated costs in the new few months to begin to have our opposition heard.
