Free Speech Warrior Gordon Watson Victim of A Trans Complaint

Posted on by

To : BROWN BROS. AGENCIES LTD.
ATTENTION Gurwinder Kaur
delivered by hand


Bill of Particulars
01 your letter to me dated January 23 2026 warns that I am in jeopardy of litigation. Therefore
it is important that BROWN BROS AGENCIES is aware of my 35 years’ political activity out of
which I got a legal education, the hard way. A Justice said of me “Mister Watson is a longtime
political activist”. I am one of the lay experts in Canada on the topic of contempt of Court.
Twice, in separate cases, I demanded the Prosecutor stipulate what they alleged I had done
wrong. Both times, they refused to do so. Each time I went before a judge who then directed
them to provide a Bill of Particulars. Similarly, I hereby demand something in the nature of a
Bill of Particulars itemizing precisely the complaint made by ‘Unit 1’ about me. And without
limiting the generality of such document, whether or not the tylerperson, or the other tenant in
Unit 1, told you that they are proceeding to the BC Civil Rights Tribunal.
Signage
02 I draw your attention to NO PARKING signs which appeared on the fence, shortly after
new residents moved in to Unit 1. My understanding is, that the road allowance goes from the
centreline to 40 feet South up to the lot line at 5177 William Head Road. Thus, those signs
mislead people to believe that the roadside where we park is private property. I think it’s public
space where anyone can park legally. By what authority was the signage posted ?
“Yes” ? or “no” ? did Unit 1 obtain permission from BROWN BROS. to post those signs?
03 the signage came off as presumptuous but I didn’t care. Why it matters at all, is, because it
told me that whoever put them up, did so to stake their territory. It was the first hint of the pattern
in which Unit 1 made herself obnoxious. After the ‘conflict’ ( your word ) of Jan 7 th 2026,
there is no doubt in my mind but that – from the start – the tylerperson was bent on asserting
herself so as to compel attention to her malady.
first impression of her
04 first time I saw the tylerperson she appeared to be a woman presenting herself as a man.
I find transgender people unsettling, sensing an element of the supernatural, which creeps me
out. But I don’t make a scene about it. At first, I was polite so there was no problem. Shortly
after she moved in, as I came across the lawn she was standing sideways. I noticed she had an
extraordinarily flat chest. Which told me that her breasts were removed, indicating she had
advanced to the next stage of gender dysphoria, i. e. the profound mental illness known as
Apotemnophilia.
incident in the laundry room
05 A couple of weeks before the “conflict” purported in the letter of Jan 23 2026, I was in the
laundry room ready to use the washing machine. The machine cycle was finished with clothes
still in it. The habit around this building – for the 7 years that I’ve been here – is, if someone
else’s laundry is in a washer or dryer in which the cycle has finished, we take them out and set
them aside on a chair. In this instance, I put what was in the washer on a chair right by it. Shortly
after, the tylerperson approached me, saying that they ‘had not finished… that they’d gone for a
walk down to the beach and hadn’t finished doing their laundry’. She was civil.
I decided I wouldn’t again take the chance of encountering her … I’d wait til it was completely

Page | 5

2

empty before using a machine. That is a bit more circumstantial evidence indicating that the
tylerperson arrived at 5177 William Head Road with a chip on her shoulder.
her misapprehension re the particular parking spot
06 about the beginning of January 2026 , the tylerperson spoke to me about a particular
parking spot out front of the property at 5177 William Head Road. She asked whose car was in it.
I told her that the car belonged to Robin’s father, that he usually stayed a few days and it would
be vacant when he left so she could use it. Considering what happened later, it seems she got the
notion that I had given her permission to use that particular parking spot from then on,
exclusively. But that isn’t what I said : what I did say, was, after Robin’s Dad left, anyone
could then use it. That conversation was civil.
her interaction with another tenant
07 It is important for BROWN BROS. to take in to account the incident – a couple of weeks before the
altercation about the trash and the parking spot – when the tylerperson encountered Robin Penfold in the
laundry room. Later, Robin told me that the Unit 1 tenant had said quite nasty things to her. … some kind
of modern woke perjorative about Robin being ‘an entitled white woman.’ Dave and Robin’s family are
the nicest people you’d want to meet. Ideal tenants, for a long time. A newcomer throwing their weight
around re something as basic as using the laundry, speaks volumes about their their attitude. This bit of
circumstantial evidence indicates that the life of the tylerperson is all about the politics of ‘gender’.
08 whereas your letter sez I “ … had a dispute with another tenant, Tyler, on January 7
2026”, in fact, nothing was in dispute. On the evening of Jan 7 th 2026, the tylerperson knocked
on my door. When I opened it, she backed away from me to the far side of the porch landing. At
the time, I though it odd, but it didn’t matter. In light of what happened after, I now believe that
she distanced herself , anticipating trouble. It started out OK, but degenerated. She asked
about the parking spot where my friend Stephanie was sitting in her Jeep using her phone at that
moment. , ‘you told me that place was ours”. Calmly, I said that the car there belonged to a
friend of mine. And that I would get her to move it right away. I explained ‘ it’s available to
everyone’. She persisted arguing that I’d allocated it to her and the other resident of Unit 1,
exclusively. I was bemused. I said “do you think you own that spot?” To which she replied
“I’m the master of the universe. I own that parking spot. I own everything” direct quote.
I took that as comic relief indicating she agreed that it was a small thing, not worth quibbling
about. Again, I said “OK I’ll go and get SL to move her Jeep right now.” direct quote
09 I met SL around 2022 at the precinct of the Legislature. In those days, she
and I and thousands of people were witnessing against imposition of medical martial law,
occasioned by the Covid19 HOAX. In late December 2025 I emailed her a photograph of her on
the sidewalk on Belleville Street in happier times. She replied asking what I’d be doing on New
Year’s eve. I told her to come on over if she felt like doing so.
10 At that time, she was homeless, living in her Jeep off and on. I invited her to stay at my
place, ad hoc. Which she did until the day of the “conflict” which is the premise for your letter to
me of Jan 23 2026. It is important for BROWN BROS. to appreciate that Stephanie Lockett is
not some drug-addled vagrant. She is a health-conscious young woman, employed by an agency
to clean houses, and is actively seeking a place of her own. BROWN BROS. is well aware of the
difficulty ordinary people are having finding decent shelter. Thus, I was happy to be able to
extend a bit of respite in the depth of the cold weather. Although SL did sleep on
the kitchen floor in my suite a couple of times, she found it more comfortable to bed down in her
Jeep while coming in to use the bathroom and do a bit of food prep. She would find the most
level place to park. Which is why she’d parked in that spot.

Page | 5

3

11 Next on the agenda of the tylerperson was, complaint that someone else’s garbage had
been put in the bin for the residents of Unit 1. I said that it must’ve been my friend who had
done that, unknowingly. I assured her it wouldn’t happen again. I went back inside my suite,
put my shoes on, then came out and went downstairs to tell Stephanie who was sitting in her car,
using her phone. Tylerperson followed me down the stairs.
verbal conflict with her
12 As we walked under the porch, I assumed that I’d remedied the concerns she’d raised,
having made it perfectly clear that I don’t have authority to allocate who can park where. But she
went on talking about it. Again, I told her ‘people had regular spots in which they parked, but a
vacant spot was available to anyone’. Pointing at Lynn’s truck I said “for instance Lynn always
parks there”. Tylerperson remarked “Lynn doesn’t drive”. Direct quote Which struck me as a
nonsequitur. Exasperated by her relentlessly interrupting and talking over me, I said “are we
past that now?! look. it’s not up to me who parks where! It’s cold and wet out here. I just want
to get back inside.” Then, sarcastically, I said “What do you want? Shall we get our lawyers
and meet on neutral territory? !” direct quote hoping she would realize she was making a
mountain out of a molehill, and quit bitching. But Miss Bossyboots wasn’t finished … she
sneered “You’re raising your voice to intimidate me because you’re a man” direct quote.
I replied “I’m raising my voice and using repetition in order to get my message across to you!”.
direct quote. Mature people will appreciate that a man raising his voice when he’s reached the limit
of his patience with a nag is normal in female/ male interaction. In this case, me being the male
13 As I started walking to the parking spot, it dawned on me that she’d unloaded a classic
stereotype of male-female wrangling. I turned back and retorted
“it’s hard to tell if you’re a man or a woman!”
Immediately she came close alongside me, yapping-away as I strode up the hill. Political
activists with whom the tylerperson associates – Marxist commutards – are coached how to turn
confrontation with their enemies into full-on offences, which they exploit in court and in the
media. Their trick, is : insult the opponent into outrage so he pushes back. At which point, they
call the police, playing the victim. Intruding their body into the personal space of their
opponents is another tactic. I’ve seen it happen / experienced it during melees with my political
enemies. I worried she would literally “get in my face” provoking me to shove her out of my
way, then she’d have what she wanted, attention from the cops in which I’d be portrayed as the
villain of the piece. I ignored her. I did hear her say the words “you just misgendered me!
That’s illegal ! monster ! ”. direct quote
14 I determined to get-the-hell-away from her immediately thereafter have absolutely nothing
more to do with her. I went to the driver’s side of the Jeep. SL was opening the car door. I
said to her “you’ll have to move your Jeep”. Having heard the noise, SL was already
getting out, apologizing to the tylerperson, saying “It’s all my fault”. They continued speaking
as I walked away. The tranny then pursued me, calling out “coward !” repeatedly. Direct quote.
An intelligent person will grasp the irony of the accusation in the letter of Jan 23 2026 – i.e. that I
used “aggressive language” – contrasted with the vitriol spewed by the tylerperson. Reaching
the bottom stair, I stopped, saying to her “just so you know I’ve been through sixty court cases.
Sixty” direct quote Then went back inside my suite.
15 Contrary to your statement that
“during the meeting of January 16 the you acknowledged and expressed regret for the comments
and behaviour directed to your neighbour Tyler.” I do not regret the words of my retort to the
tylerperson. Reconsidering that bizarre encounter since the meeting, my response, now, is the modern

Page | 5

4

no-fault apology : ‘sorry not sorry’ Although it’s not hard to guess what sex she is … even with the
beard disguise … in fact, I did say “it’s hard to tell if you’re a man or a woman. NOTE BENE she’s the
one who provoked me, first, by voicing the sex-based stereotype.
materials in support of my position
16 The materials enclosed are integral to this my reply to the First Written Warning – Quiet
Enjoyment Conduct. They explain why people entranced in the trans-gender cult are hypersensitive to
an aspersion cast on how they identify themselves. I regret that the clash happened at all because the non-
sense resulting from it is wasting my time. First and last, I regret that I let her bullying drag me down to
her level. I resent your record making me solely at fault.
17 it is quite important that BROWN BROS. appreciate the fact that, neither of the vehicles driven by
the residents of Unit 1 has been parked in that spot since that night. Their vehicles are parked in places
farther down the road. Begging the question: what was that fuss about ?! It answers itself : the
“conflict” was a gambit in her dominance game. Because I outwitted her by acceding to her demand, she
then cranked up the drama. Comically in that stereotype = ‘a man using a loud voice to intimidate a
woman’ = she identified herself as female !
18 the transgender cult believes the absurd notion that a human being may be born in a wrong body.
They posit that masquerading as the opposite sex transmutes someone into a universe where human beings
are ‘non-binary’. After which they demand that everyone else must co-operate in such delusion. The main
thrust of the transgender industry, is, trolling normal people to pay attention to their malady. A friend of
mine worked at the clinic which treats transgender people. She said “they’re very unhappy people.”
Such insanity drives them to unload their own unhappiness on to normal folks. They are very active in
politics. Using the communist slogan “oppression is the root of all harm”, they agitate for laws to be
enshrined compelling compliance with their delusion. Transgressors suffer punishment at law for “wrong-
think”.
19 Trannies hate and fear guys like me because we refuse to go along with the doctrines of their cult.
According to her cult, I = a white Christian male = personify the “oppressor”. One of the tenets of my
religion, is, what Jesus said “who, by taking thought can add a cubit to his stature?” That device of
rhetoric compels one who hears it, to think for himself and consider it, so as to realize the limitation of a
human being. Parallel being “who by taking thought can change her sex ?” For those of us dwelling in the
real world, the answer is > a female does not become a male by imagining it to be so. The root cause of
the altercation was religious difference ; the tylerperson hates me because she’s already well aware I don’t
share her delusion that she’s a he.
20 Integral to this my rebuttal, is, the performance of George Carlin seen at
URL https://www.facebook.com/reel/2276177559787882
In one minute he speaks volumes : “when your ideology becomes your identity The incident on Jan 7 th
was a setup. She came to my door to play out a deepseated problem originating elsewhere in her own life.
21 whereas at the meeting Gurwinder Kaur faulted me for “aggressive talk”. In fact, the tylerperson
was the one bullying me in the first instance. Whereas your letter asserts that I “ understand that your
behaviour was unacceptable” … I do not so understand. What are you talking about?
Exactly what are the “ … comments and behaviour that were directed towards your neighbour Tyler ??”
One of the principles of British jurisprudence, is “audi alteram partem”. At the meeting at the office of
BROWN BROS. first thing I did, was, ask for the facts of what was alleged. Gurwinder Kaur refused that
much, as though her word “safety” said it all. The “comments” at issue were in context of a 2 way
exchange. Did Unit 1 tell you the whole story? … did she relate exactly what she’d said to me in the
“conflict”? I doubt it. Likely she unloaded a lie or 2 on you, presenting herself as the victim of a bigot.
Denied knowing what the complaint is, I cannot properly deal with it. At this point time, what I do know
for sure, is = a tranny lashed out at me with one of the patented insults of her cult, so I dished it back to
her. After which she pursued me, taunting. Nothing is so useless it can’t at least be used as a bad example
: that ‘teachable moment’ demonstrated a side effect of a woman injecting testosterone harvested from
pigs.

Page | 5

5

22 this my response is not exhaustive. What I said to Gurwinder Kaur at our meeting was not all of what
I have to say regarding the “conflict”. At that meeting I could not properly make my full answer because
she refused to tell me. I was left guessing after the brief phone conversation we had the previous day.
Heading to her office that morning I had made up my mind to abandon the meeting unless she gave me all
the information I needed in order to defend my position. She point blank refused to do so. In the meeting,
I changed my mind and asked her to record what I said. Which she did. I have more to say once I get
legal advice, and after I get more information about the political activity of the tylerperson, her criminal
record and lawsuits to which she has been party. I require and hereby demand a precise, complete
statement on paper, of what was conveyed to Gurwinder Kaur by “Unit 1” regarding the purported “conflict
“ of January seventh 2026 at 5177 William Head Road.
first, the identity of the complainant,
and second, the total complaint
23 up til Jan. 07 2026, I did not have a problem with a tranny living near me : I do now. The
tylerperson is the one who spoiled the quiet enjoyment which I had previously. BROWN BROS, too,
has a problem > the resident in Unit 1 threatened to go to court so as to upset the quiet enjoyment of the
other residents of this building.
24 finally, I point out the expectation at the end of your letter re “co-operation”. I am now
hypervigilant to stay away from all individuals who appear to be “transgender”. The extent of my own co-
operation will be to give both of them in Unit 1 a very wide berth. Since you say
“any further incidents of this nature will be considered a serious and
continuing breach of your Tenancy Agreement”,
that cuts both ways. I expect BROWN BROS. to warn them to do the same about me.
Gordon S Watson
Enclosures
PHOTOS OF SIGNAGE
Trish Wood WHY ARE CANADIANS SO VULNERABLE TO TRANSHYSTERIA
J D HALL VOICES VISIONS and SCALPELS : TRANSGENDERISM AND DEMON POSSESSION
EMILY JOFFE THE RISE AND FALL OF YOUTH GENDER MEDICINE
JAMES SEARS ACCEPTING “TRANSGENDERISM” AS REALITY PROMOTES MENTAL ILLNESS
MARGARET WENTE THE GREAT AWOKENING
JAMIE REED I THOUGHT I WAS SAVING TRANS KIDS
DETRANSITIONERS TESTIFY IN US GOVERNMENT HEARINGS

Holocaust Summit 2026, A Great Success Despite Sabotage Attack

Posted on by

Heritage & Destiny, [2/10/2026 5:31 AM]
Speaking at the Holocaust Summit 2026 – a live online event that was the first international revisionist conference for many years – H&D’s assistant editor Peter Rushton begins by revisiting what he calls “The Professor’s Last Case”: the story of Swiss politician Jean-Marie Musy and his negotiations with Heinrich Himmler during 1944-45.
Peter’s attention was first drawn to the Musy story during a conversation over breakfast in London in October 2018 with the pioneering revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson, on what turned out to be the last day of the Professor’s life.
In the second part of this conference presentation, Peter discusses another intermediary with Himmler – the British academic and secret agent Ronald Seth. This video reveals for the first time the full text of the peace proposal given to Seth by Himmler.

Heritage & Destiny, [2/10/2026 5:32 AM]
And finally Peter turns to the broader analysis of Himmler’s SS by British intelligence in 1944: does this in any way support the Hollywood version of history? Thanks to some relaxation of secrecy in the UK National Archives, we can read some of the highest-level British intelligence and diplomatic analysis of Himmler’s SS (and its intelligence arm under men like Schellenberg and Kaltenbrunner). Looking especially at the last year or two of the war – the period which according to what Holocaustianity tries to teach us, saw an ever-intensified mass murder machine directed by the SS – do we see this reflected in serious contemporaneous British analysis?
This video is dedicated to the memory of a great friend and comrade – Professor Faurisson’s righthand man and translator Guillaume Nichols, who died in December 2024.



Posted on by

London’s blind panic

London’s blind panic

Alex KrainerFeb 8
 
READ IN APP
 

As I discussed it in last week’s TrendCompass report, the recent release of Epstein files caused quite a panic in the ranks of UK’s political establishment, prompting the Prince of Darkness, Lord Peter Mandelson to resign from the Labour Party and from the House of Lords.

Yes, that’s Elon Musk and Sir Keir Starmer is right to be scared. Bear with me…

Lies on top lies and sign language

Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer faced the public and offered a profuse apology to Epstein’s victims:

I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him. … It had been publicly known for some time that Mandelson knew Epstein. But none of us knew the depth, and the darkness of that relationship.

It was awkward and painful to hear. Interestingly, BBC’s footage of Starmer’s speech featured a sign language interpreter – a throwback to the bad old days of the Covid19 pandemic when sign language interpreters were included without fail, as a visual distraction whenever and wherever public officials had to lie through their teeth and mislead the public.

Gay old time: Mandelson and Starmer in better times

Of course, Starmer too, was lying. His pretence that he appointed the Prince of Darkness as Ambassador to the U.S. because he believed his lies is simply inconceivable.

“It’s usually small boys!”

Even for much less important appointments in government, the official vetting process is extremely rigorous, conducted by multiple agencies, reviewers and interrogators. No stone is left unturned to make sure that the “right” candidate is selected. Craig Murray, who was appointed as Ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2002 (a bit less important than Ambassadorship to the U.S.), described the process, which was conducted by MI5.

Murray explained that the interviewing officer spent “four months of his life doing nothing but investigate me full time.” Incidentally, this officer told Murray, regarding his “extensive” love life, that it “makes a change to be looking at relationships with women in a Foreign Office case. It’s usually small boys!” Sir Keir Starmer would have us all believe that he appointed Lord Peter Mandelson as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington simply because in his innocence, he believed Mandelson’s lies. He was deceived, you see. We were all deceived. Mistakes were made.

Always looking for the brightest and the best

The truth is that in our Empire of Lies, compromised individuals are the most favored candidates for key positions of power. The obvious benefit of recruiting such individuals is that they are easily controlled. This is not unique to Great Britain. In 2017, in the aftermath of the “Pizzagate” scandal, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds recounted what she learned from an FBI colleague who worked for four years (1993-1997) running background checks on candidates for federal judges. He said that individuals with most “skeletons in their closets” were systematically appointed to become federal judges. Those with unblemished records were not considered.

Sir Keir Starmer is himself the product of this same process: a pliable, compromised sock puppet in the service of oligarchic power which is deliberately concealed from view. When such low-calibre, compromised individuals find themselves in positions of power, they’ll do whatever their superiors demand, without asking too many questions.

Epstein files are only the tip of the iceberg

Sir Keir proved his loyalty to the party and to the establishment particularly between 2008 and 2013 when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). During that time, the “grooming gang” scandal had gained notoriety in the U.K. As the British public learned, or should have learned, between the 1980s (some say 1970s) and early 2010s, gangs of men of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent systematically groomed, drugged and serially raped girls from disadvantaged backgrounds in English towns across the country.

The abuse was reported in 50 towns and cities, including Oxford and Bristol. Hundreds of thousands of English girls were targeted, at least 15,000 of them were raped and a number of them were murdered in what was described as, “the biggest peacetime crime and coverup in British history.” For some reason however, this crime was being systematically covered up at every level of the British system, including the media, and Sir Keir played the key role in the coverup.

Almost as soon as he became DPP, the Crown Prosecution Services imposed reporting restrictions on the case, shielding the criminal gangs and their members from public scrutiny and from prosecution. Nine months into the job, Starmer inexplicably dropped all charges against members of the notorious Rochdale grooming gang, in spite of incriminating DNA evidence and hours of video testimony collected by the investigators. The rapists walked free and the case was closed.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, another vulgar product of the Empire’s system of negative selection, said that money spent on investigating child abuse crimes was money “spaffed up a wall.” For their part, the British media have worked incessantly to shove the grooming gangs scandal down the memory hole and stigmatize anyone who complained about it as a racist and Islamophobe, showing zero concern about the gangs innocent victims.

Enter Elon Musk

The whole story might have fallen into oblivion if it wasn’t for the Trump 2.0 administration and Elon Musk. Soon after Trump won the 2024 elections, Musk started posting pointed jabs at the British establishment in general and Sir Keir in particular. Here’s how Euronews commented on the scandal last January:

A raft of erratic social media posts by the billionaire tech mogul has put a decades-long child sexual abuse scandal back under the political spotlight.

Elon Musk has reignited a political debate in the UK around the crimes of gangs of men who systemically groomed and raped children in English towns over several decades.

In a flurry of posts on his social platform X, the billionaire has taken aim at senior UK Labour figures, claiming prime minister Keir Starmer was “deeply complicit in the mass rapes in exchange for votes.”

He also called safeguarding minister Jess Phillips a “rape genocide apologist” and called for her to be imprisoned.

One of the many posts read, “Starmer must go and he must face charges for his complicity in the worst mass crime in the history of Britain.” Another: Starmer “repeatedly ignored the pleas of vast numbers of little girls and their parents…” And another: the Prime Minister was “deeply complicit in the mass rapes in exchange for votes.”

Should America liberate the people of Britain?

But perhaps his most interesting post was a poll, asking his 234 million followers the following question: “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.” It was a yes/no question to which 58% of his respondents answered in the affirmative.

At the time, I enjoyed Musk’s posts but I thought they were little more than mischievous trolling. By today I suspect there was a lot more to them, especially the statement in Musk’s poll, which could explain the blind panic in the ranks of Britain’s political establishment. It may also explain their vicious crackdown on free speech, especially against those who are less than enthusiastic about the uncontrolled immigration.

Deathly afraid of its own people

British “elites” have truly dug themselves into a deep hole. They’ve been poking the Russian bear and angered it. They gutted Britain’s economy with the hare-brained net zero policies. They went to war against their own people, arresting over 12,000 in 2025 for social media posts. The figures below are for 2023:

Image

It is still more interesting to consider these figures in relative terms – the number of arrests per 1 million inhabitants:

British establishment fears the British people

Sir Keir seldom misses the chance to extol Britain’s complete devotion to free speech, but, as Stalin used to say: when the British say something, they actually mean exactly the opposite. The truth is that apart from Belarus, Britain is the world’s undisputed champion of censorship and repression of free speech. One would almost think that the establishment is deathly afraid of their own people.

Master alienates the Blaster

On top of all this, the British government has managed even to lose their close ally, the United States. That “special relationship” was perhaps their main assurance, allowing them to misbehave so arrogantly and so confidently on the world stage.

And now, even the tide of public opinion at home is turning against them. I suspect that if Elon Musk ran his poll about liberating the British people today, the proportion of positive responses would probably be substantially higher than 58%.

These circumstances explain the unconvincing, “it was the Russians,” counter narrative in a desperate attempt to deflect public anger toward the bad, no good, evil tyrant from the East. If only they could somehow convince the British people to go to war against Russia and sacrifice their children en masse, the London cabal might still have a fighting chance to rescue themselves and their pathogenic system.

Political Prisoner & Free Speech Warrior Bill Whatcott’s Opposition in the University-Rosedale Riding Byelection

Posted on by

Whatcott’s opposition in the University-Rosedale riding

Here is Danielle the Liberal Party candidate for University-Rosedale riding in downtown Toronto in her own words. The media is fawning over Danielle and she will most likely be the next MP replacing the largely absent, Chrystia Freeland for the University-Rosedale Downtown Toronto riding. Danielle is a physician, is an ardent supporter of Canada’s socialist medicare system, and she is a true lover of abortion and sodomy. Here is Danielle in her own words:

“New abortion methods are on the horizon.

A third issue affecting Canadian women’s reproductive health is the potential approval of the drug mifepristone for abortion. The drug was first available in France in 1988 and is now used by women in 57 countries. If approved by Health Canada, mifepristone would be available by prescription to terminate pregnancies of up to nine weeks. Currently, most women seeking an abortion in Canada require a surgical procedure that may not be offered close to home. Having a non-surgical choice has the potential to greatly expand not only women’s access to timely abortion care but also the number of providers who feel comfortable offering women a full range of options.” Danielle Martin

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI3taA8NikG/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=14&wp=822&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fbillwhatcott.wordpress.com&rp=%2F2026%2F02%2F07%2Fwhatcotts-opposition-in-the-university-rosedale-riding%2F#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A2335%7D

NDP candidate Serena Purdy ran last election and is seeking to run again. Serena is a hardcore pro-abortionist and pro-homosexualist. In her video above she rails against “misinformation” and claims she is all about the “science,” yet Serena believes the state was justified in using coercion to force Walmart face diapers on to people’s faces for years on end to allegedly keep them safe from an airborne virus called Covid. She championed this cause notwithstanding actual peer reviewed evidence that showed no statistical differences in Covid transmission between those who wore permeable, non-fit tested masks, and those who didn’t. Serena also believes Bruce Jenner is a woman. Serena is a hard left activist and like her party is the antithesis of science or any real intellectual inquiry.

St George Hospital study on mandatory masking here: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/985233

In her video above Serena seems to support pro-Palestine protesters and defends their calls for a real genocide of Israeli Jews as being “free speech,” but it is her party that sent me to jail for 6 months for praying in front of an abortuary in 1994 and it is her party that currently wants to criminalize honest debate on whether Christian residential schools were genocidal, which the evidence is overwhelming they definitely were not.

Liz Grade will likely be the Conservative candidate for University-Rosedale. An extensive search of her background on Google and Duck Duck go revealed nothing on her personal views on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality. In the last election it seems she took no stand on these issues. However, though many Christians refuse to believe it, the official position of the Conservative Party of Canada is to maintain abortion on demand for all three trimesters as the law of the land.

Liz definitely did not upset the large LGBT voting block in the University-Rosedale riding when she ran last time, though most of the sodomites supported Chrystia Freeland, rather than her. Liz is not socially conservative and the video below shows her party is unwilling to protect even children from genital mutilation and cross sex hormones.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=a5_FVZZs39A%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26fs%3D1%26hl%3Den%26autohide%3D2%26wmode%3Dtransparent

Last election there were two smaller parties and one independant who ran. The small parties were the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada and the Communist Party of Canada. A quick Google informs me the difference between these to parties is the Marxist Leninists are Maoists and see themselves as being more true to Marxist-Leninist principles than the Canadian Communist Party. The Marxist-Leninists reject the Soviet Union’s “revisionism” in the 1960’s under Nikita Khrushchev. The Canadian Communist Party of Canada is apparently loyal to Soviet communism and I guess they aren’t so upset at Krushchev. The Independant was an interesting fellow named Adam Golding. He is a self described “Barefoot, Anarchist, piano teacher” and avowed socialist.

There was no actual conservative and certainly no pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian voice in the University-Rosedale riding last election and so far there is no pro-life, social conservative voice seeking to run in this coming byelection. If God enables me to get the helpers (I don’t need many) and the signatures required to run (I need 100, it is recommended by Elections Canada I get 150) I will be the only candidate with an unapolegetic pro-life (except for the crow I guess), pro-family, Christian, conservative candidate in University-Rosedale. Here is my election flyer which articulates my platform here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3toa5xo4ijf6xbjygjrvs/Vote-Bill-Whatcott-Your-common-sense-social-conservative-candidate.pdf?rlkey=q7tzatrvcozc1oqce97wyyrn9&st=er7pxlq4&dl=0

My next court date for my so-called “Hate” crime is April 20th. My court house is in the University-Rosedale riding, The byeelection will likely be called by then, so I expect to be campaigning and will likely be attending court in person. This will be the last hearing before I go to trial for the second time on this politically motivated, homofascist charge.

My trial goes from May 25 -June 12, 2026.

I will hopfully have an official bank account for the election by April, but for now I still have to raise money to get myself to Toronto and to sustain myself while I am on trial there. If God puts it on your heart to help me with this need you can donate here:

https://www.lifefunder.com/whatcott/

In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

If you would like to discuss volunteer opportunities for my campaign you can contact me at: Ph: 403-598-0478, E-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com

“You who love the Lord, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 97:10

SUBMISSION OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC. 

Posted on by

TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 RE: BILL C-9 , THE COMBATTING HATE ACT

SUBMISSION OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC. 

TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 RE: BILL C-9 , THE COMBATTING HATE ACT

                   The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. (CAFE) was formed in 1983 and is incorporated by Letters Patent as a non-profit organization under the laws of the Province of Ontario. CAFE has intervened in many court cases and human rights cases, especially Canadian Human Rights Commission prosecutions under the old and now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. CAFE stands for the maximizing of freedom of speech within Canadian society. We believe that bad speech can be counteracted by good speech, not suppression.

                    CAFE is utterly opposed to Bill C-9 as an outrageous infringement on free speech.

                            “ I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” These inspiring words of former PrimeMinister John Diefenbaker form the opening of the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960). What an inspiring vision of a free and constructive society! The trade off for being able to freely express one’s own thoughts and beliefs is to tolerate the same freedom in expression from others.

                  However, that is not the Canada of the last decade. Canada has descended into a cancel culture, where certain views are deplatformed. Last summer U.S. Gospel country singer Sam Feucht had numerous municipal venues cancelled because officials did not approve of his conservative religious views. “

                “Cities across Canada have canceled tour performances from Sean Feucht, a right-wing Christian musician with ties to the Trump administration and the Republican Party.

The cancellations include Quebec City, where the city said it pulled a contract for Feucht’s planned free Friday show at the ExpoCité venue due to “new elements.” (The Independent, July 25, 2025) 

            Under the Emergencies Act, now ruled  by the Federal Court of Appeal  as having been  unjustifiably invoked by the Government, protests were declared illegal and people who had supported the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy had their bank accounts seized.

              Several years ago, Parliament plunged into the world of history and declared that holocaust denial was a form of hate punishable by two years in prison. Emboldened, others have tried to declare one view of history to be ensconced in law. NDP MP Leah Gazan has three times introduced a private member’s bill which would make it illegal to question or deny accounts of death and abuse at residential schools.

                Increasingly, there is only one correct progressive view on controversial social issues. Contrary views are to be silenced or suppressed. Many of the provisions of C-9 follow this pattern of thought control

                Writing in the National Post (January 23, 2026), Terry Newman captures this atmosphere of suppressed and forbidden speech:   “In 2016, Jordan Peterson, who was a University of Toronto psychology professor at the time, expressed his concern that proposed federal human rights legislation would treat his refusal to use alternate pronouns like “they” “ze” and “zir” as hate speech. This led to protests, a loss of funding and an endless stream of hit pieces.The following year at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsay Shepherd, who was a teaching assistant at the time, showed a short clip of Peterson debating gender-neutral pronouns in front of her communications class.Shortly afterwards, she was brought into a closed-door meeting, where she was accused of a number of ridiculous things, including “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler,” and was told that even showing the clip and asking the students to discuss it was legitimizing Peterson’s views.

               These are all high-profile events, which might lead you to believe that, if this is all that’s happening on university campuses, things aren’t really that bad. But several campus surveys have suggested otherwise. A 2025 survey found that more than half of students were reluctant to discuss transgenderism and the Israel-Hamas conflict. Almost half wouldn’t even talk about politics, and a majority were in favour of limiting free expression on campuses.This kind of thinking isn’t limited to universities. A 2023 Angus Reid survey found that 58 per cent Canadians believed it was acceptable for universities to ban speakers who promote offensive views on race and gender.”

         In a recent article, John Carpay, Director of the Centre for Justice and Constitutional Freedoms highlighted censorship on campus: “Since the 1990s, the cancer of censorship has been tolerated and coddled by university officials across Canada. Predictably, this cancer has spread. It is no longer limited only to pro-life groups.

              Today, the vast majority of Canadian universities have a strong commitment to “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” in their mission, vision, and values statements. They impose woke ideology on all students and faculty. They have a very limited willingness to uphold free expression, open inquiry, and the pursuit of truth.

                      The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Institutional Capacity-Building Grants of the federal government also undermines free speech and the pursuit of truth. In order to qualify for these grants, universities must impose mandatory training for students, faculty, and staff on “anti-oppression” and “unconscious bias” strategies. However, the biggest funders of public universities are Canada’s provincial governments, not the federal government.

                  It would take not just a book, but a large encyclopedia set, to document all the cases of Canadian universities and student unions censoring speech on campus in the past 30 years. The following are just a few examples.

                    In 2017, McMaster University in Hamilton allowed a loud, angry mob to shout down Jordan Peterson, then a professor at the University of Toronto, and prevent him from speaking. The university’s president has not apologized.

               Mount Royal University, in addition to firing Widdowson because of her public disagreement with woke ideology, also cancelled its instructor Mark Hecht, in response to people claiming to be offended by his 2019 Vancouver Sun column that criticized diversity.

                In 2019, Simon Fraser University cowered to extremists by cancelling a panel discussion titled “How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate.” The panelists included Meghan Murphy and Jonathan Kay, and moderator Lindsay Shepherd. In violation of the Criminal Code, trans activists threatened to physically disrupt the event by engaging in property destruction and false fire alarm activation. SFU, like so many other universities, practiced cancel culture under the guise of “safety and security.” (Real Women of Canada Newsletter, January 30, 2026)

The Hate Law

            It must be clearly understood that the “hate law”, Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, which became law in 1971 was never about suppressing hate — a human emotion, but about suppressing certain political or religious points of view.

              Its very origins were steeped in politics. The Canadian Jewish Congress had been lobbying for several decades for anti-free speech legislation to suppress expressions highly critical of Jews. Accordingly, the fix was in, when the Royal Commission on Hate Propaganda consisted of two former presidents of the Canadian Jews Congress,including its Chairman Dean Maxwell Cohen. Not surprisingly, the Royal Commission proposed serious restrictions on freedom of opinion, which became the “hate law”, passed by Parliament in 1971.

            Also, the Canadian elite, especially the Liberal Party were in the process of fundamentally changing Canada’s immigration policy with the long range view to replace the European founding/settler people. Massive Third World immigration would predictably generate resistance as it had in Britain; for instance, Enoch Powell’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech of 1968. A “hate” law would help mute strong opposition. Indeed, that’s what happened. The first convictions under the hate law were Don Andrews and Robert Smith of the Western Guard for publishing strident anti-immigrant views in a newsletter which, it was indicated at trial, had all of 106 subscribers. Both were sentenced to six months in prison.

              A survey of the application of the “hate law” demonstrates how intensely political it has been. No person on the left has ever been charged under this law. The victims have been exclusively Whites and people with views that might be seen as “right wing.” Only two non-Whites have ever been charged under the “hate law.” None has been convicted. 

             In 2025 Ron Banerjee of Toronto, a vocal Hindu nationalist and associate of the Jewish Defence League, was charged for inflammatory statements he made during a confrontation at a Sikh Gurdwara in Brampton. Mayor Patrick Brown had demanded that Banerjee be charged. Late in 2025, the charges were quietly dropped. 

            The only other non-European ever charged was Chief David Ahenakew of Saskatchewan. He was a founder of the Assembly of First Nations and a Cree chief. In 2002, he made controversial statements about Jews, based on things he’d heard while serving with the Canadian Armed forces in post-war Germany. On appeal, he was acquitted.

        There are plenty of virulent anti-American  statements but no proponent of this form of hatred has ever been charged. There are numerous defamatory statements about Christianity and, in the wake of the discovery of anomalies in the soil near the old Kamloops Residential School, over 150 Christian churches have been the victims of serious vandalism or arson. There have been few charges and none for hate.Scandalously, then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all but excused the hatred and the arsons directed against Christian churches: ” Trudeau on July 2, 202 stated: “I understand the anger that’s out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real and it’s fully understandable, given the shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians.”[The Catholic Register, January 13, 2024]

                   In many of its publications, the Government of Canada, especially Heritage Canada defames Canada’s founding/settler European people as racists and occupiers who all but stole Native land.

                 Under Canada’s ‘hate law” regime Christians and Europeans or Whites can expect no protection. The Supreme Court made it clear in Whatcott 2013 that the anti-hate provisions, at least in terms of Human Rights Commissions do not apply to Whites or Christians as they are not “vulnerable minorities.”

                   Thus, the “hate law” is not really about fighting hate nor is it about providing equal protection to all Canadians. It functions to limit criticism of certain privileged groups.

                  We submit that Bill C-9 will make a bad situation even worse.

                  Specifically,

                 1. CAFE opposes the proposal to not require the provincial Attorney General’s consent for laying charges under this law. The original “hate law” required the consent of the Attorney-General as a check against hasty police action resulting from the prejudice of senior police officers or public pressure. For two years, for instance, there have been strident demands by Jewish lobby groups that more “hate” charges be laid. The consent of the Attorney-General is by no means a failsafe protection of free speech and dissent but it IS something. That there are demands that this safeguard be done away with illustrates an unhealthy desire to silence dissent.

               2. CAFE is vehemently opposed to the banning of the display of certain symbols in public places. It is explained that these would be symbols of various terrorist groups and the swastika. This latter symbol makes our point that this law is entirely political. If the swastika is to be banned why not the flags of such odious regimes as North Korea which has brutalized its people or the hammer and sickle, the emblem of communism, which, in the 20th century piled up over 100-million victims, many time the number of victims attributed to the National Socialists who flew the swastika.

            Flags and symbols are important means by which people express their identity and affiliation. Many people in Regina sport the green and yellow of their hometown Roughriders. Canadians travelling abroad often make certain they have  a Canadian flag as a lapel pin or badge so that they are not mistaken for Americans. An expression of one’s affiliation may be odious to a person of the opposite affiliation. Israeli flags are offensive to many Palestinians, just as the emblems of Hamas are offensive to fervent Zionists. Curbing the display of certain symbols because they are offensive to some people is an outrageous and discriminatory assault on one’s freedom of belief and expression. As noted, not all offensive symbols would be banned — an impossibility as the capacity to feel offended is unlimited.

             The social contract for free expression requires the toleration of the opposite view. Annoyance or offence never justifies violence.

           3. Perhaps the most outrageous and totalitarian measure in this bill is that it will   “create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors.” Here clearly it is opinions that are being targetted. A person who commits an offence punishable by 14 years in prison could, if the offence was motivated by hatred of a privileged group, have an additional sentence of up to LIFE IN PRISON, even, if he did not receive the maximum of 14 years. This is criminalizing opinion. 

             For instance, a man is drunk and exits a bar in a foul mood. He dislikes homeless people. He sees a homeless person, hollers “take this, you bum!” and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and causing injury. He might be sentenced to, say, six months in prison for assault causing bodily harm. Homeless people are not a privileged group under the “hate law.”

           Take the same scenario. The drunk, in this case, dislikes homosexuals. On exiting the bar, he sees a homosexual, hollers “that this, you fag!” and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and causing injury. He is sentenced to six months for assault causing bodily harm. However, homosexuals are one of the privileged classes and, under C-9, the sentence could be increased on the basis that the crime was committed because of hatred against a privileged group.

           Yet, in both cases the injury is the same — a broken nose and facial injuries. The homeless victim suffers no less pain than the homosexual victim. This provision is offensive to any notion of equality.

We ask that the Committee accept these respectful submissions and those of many other critics of the Bill and urge its defeat. — Paul Fromm, Director

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.,

P.O. Box 332,

Rexdale, ON.,

M9W 5L3,

CANADA.

416-428-5308

Nationalist Firebrand Isabel Peralta Sentenced to Year in Jail for Telling A Moroccan: ““Spain is Christian, not Muslim.”

Posted on by

Isabel Peralta was sentenced to a year in jail April of 2025 for making the statement: “Spain is Christian, not Muslim.” Publicly to a Moroccan immigrant

Fast forward to 2026, and Spain is about to enact the most draconian limitations on speech on the planet, with the heaviest penalty for anything deemed antisemitic or anti Muslim

It’s hard to fathom that the land which, in 1492, fought a Christian war against the Muslim invaders, and expelled the Jews from its land for treasonous acts, it’s now punishing their own on behalf of their historical enemies.

Truly this is racial suicide.

In memoriam Guillaume Nichols (1958-2024)

Posted on by

Nous nous souvenons

parRedaction Jeune Nation

17 janvier 2025

dans Actualité nationaliste, Histoire

2

In memoriam Guillaume Nichols (1958-2024)

1

PARTAGES

C’est avec tristesse que nous avons appris la mort le 22 décembre 2024 au soir tout près de Trieste en Italie, à l’âge de 66 ans, du révisionniste Guillaume Nichols qui fut le fidèle secrétaire, le précieux collaborateur et l’actif webmestre du Professeur Faurisson. Né le 5 mars 1958 à New York, où il fut témoin de la mainmise des Juifs sur l’Amérique, d’un père américain d’origine irlando-italienne, Giuseppe Fappiano, connu sous le nom de Joseph C. Nichols (1905-1984), un journaliste sportif, chroniqueur au New York Times pendant cinquante ans, spécialiste du hockey, de la boxe et des courses de pur-sang, et d’une mère, d’origine italienne, Guillaume Nichols, qui obtint la nationalité française, une fois installé dans notre pays, connaissait parfaitement l’anglais, le français et l’italien et était traducteur de métier.

On doit à ce grand lecteur, au carnet d’adresses impressionnant dans la mouvance révisionniste et nationaliste, la traduction pour le monde anglo-saxon de très nombreux textes de Robert Faurisson dont la brochure Le Révisionnisme de Pie XII mais aussi Un cas d’insoumission de Georges Theil, alias Gilbert Dubreuil. Ayant poursuivi des études universitaires à New York, puis à Paris, en droit, en littérature, en anglais, il fut chargé d’enseignement du droit et des institutions politiques britanniques et américaines à l’Université de Paris I et II (dont la Sorbonne) de 1991 à 1998 (il a perdu cet emploi à la suite d’une dénonciation ou d’une enquête interne), puis à partir de 2004, fut enseignant d’anglais et conseiller linguistique auprès des cadres juridiques et des employés de la société Assicurazioni Generali à Trieste en Italie où il passa les vingt dernières années de sa vie. Il traduisait des procès-verbaux d’assemblées générales ou de conseil d’administration de sociétés ou des notices commerciales. La crise covidesque le condamna au chômage technique à partir de 2020.

Militant nationaliste, membre successivement du PNFE de Claude Cornilleau et du PNF fondé par l’équipe du journal Militant, Guillaume Nichols sacrifia toute sa vie et sa carrière au combat révisionniste. Il vécut bien souvent dans la pauvreté, voire dans la misère, connut moult déboires, mais resta inébranlablement fidèle jusqu’au bout à ses idéaux. Récemment, il avait ainsi complètement refondu et complété, en ajoutant de nouveaux textes non encore publiés du Professeur, le blog de Robert Faurisson (robert-faurisson.com) qui est toujours en ligne et qui constitue une mine d’informations de tout premier ordre. On peut y lire ainsi de très nombreux textes s’étalant sur près d’un demi-siècle, de 1972 à 2018, année de la mort du Professeur, y visionner aussi des vidéos, y écouter des enregistrements audio. En 2018, Nichols avait accompagné le Professeur Faurisson à Shepperton en Angleterre pour sa dernière conférence (il est mort à son retour en France, à Vichy, le 21 octobre, à 89 ans).

Guillaume Nichols faisait partie par ailleurs depuis sa création en 2019 du jury du Prix International Robert Faurisson composé de lui-même (en tant que vice-président), de son ami Joe Fallisi (président, actuellement assigné à résidence à son domicile en Italie après avoir été embastillé une quinzaine de jours en décembre 2024 pour son aide active aux Palestiniens) et de Lady Michèle Renouf (vice-présidente) qui remet chaque année, à Vichy, le 25 janvier, jour de la naissance du Professeur, une récompense à un chercheur révisionniste en vie (au moment du Prix) jugé particulièrement valeureux. Ont ainsi été primés lors des six premières éditions l’Allemande Ursula Haverbeck en 2019 (décédée le 20 novembre 2024 à 96 ans), le Français Vincent Reynouard en 2020 (qui comparaît devant la XVIIème chambre du tribunal judiciaire de Paris les 8 et 22 janvier 2025 pour trois nouveaux procès), l’Autrichien Wolfgang Fröhlich en 2021, dix mois seulement avant sa mort à 70 ans, le 29 novembre 2021 après quinze ans (!) passés derrière les barreaux et qui l’avaient épuisé, les Germano-Canadiens Monika et Alfred Schaefer (lequel resta cinq ans en prison) en 2022, l’Allemand Germar Rudolf en 2023 (qui a été arrêté aux Etats-Unis par le FBI à la mi-décembre 2024 et qui est actuellement en détention, après avoir déjà passé trois ans et demi en prison en Allemagne il y a quelques années et où il risque de retourner) et l’Américain Arthur Butz (né le 10 novembre 1933) en 2024.

Nichols est mort dans une polyclinique à Aurisina qui jouxte Trieste des suites d’un foudroyant cancer de la vessie qu’il a contracté en 2021 et qui a fini par se généraliser. Comme le disait le Professeur : « L’avenir est au révisionnisme mais il n’est pas aux révisionnistes ». 

L’équipe de RIVAROL adresse aux proches de Guillaume Nichols ses condoléances attristées. Que cet homme sincère et courageux, entièrement dévoué à la cause du révisionnisme historique, repose en paix

The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use
cash as much as possible. As recognized by Freedom Rising, there are
many inherent dangers of using digital currency. What do you do, not if,
but when:
The internet is down
There is a power outage
The card reader malfunctions
Your phone battery dies or doesn’t work for other reasons
WE SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS WELL:
Your phone is stolen
Your passwords are co-opted
Your credit/debit card strip is damaged – needs replacing
There are errors in relation to the quantum of $$ on your card
Gov’t limits your purchases/CRA liens the balance on your card
AND MANY OTHER DANGERS
CLEAR has promoted the non-use of digital currencies and
credit/debit cards as much as possible, for years.
Suggested Solution:
Withdraw money on Saturday/Sunday from the bank or bank
machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared
to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each
day’s purchases for the week.

NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!
USE CASH $$$$$$$$$
Do you want to be the next person to be
“unbanked” because of your political
beliefs????
Another sample: (thanks Adele)

————————————–

Sunday Paper
Deliveries
Next delivery
day:
Sunday, February
8, 2026
(Weather Permitting)
A small group of dedicated volunteers have been spreading the truth via
Druthers deliveries every Sunday for over 2 years now. This is one of the
most powerful things a freedom activist can do to help inform the public.
Please email us if you wish to help spread the word of Freedom!
Thank You!
————————————–

Freedom Rallies
Visibility = Credibility
“It ain’t over till it’s over”
Next Kelowna Rallies:
Saturdays 12:00 noon
February 7, 2026
Stuart Park – with Svetlana
from Ezra Health in Kelowna
February 14, 2026
Hwy 97 & Cooper
Your presence at public rallies/protests opposing gov’t
activities – IS the message!!
Help us give away hundreds of Druthers every week to
supporting drivers and public!

February 7, 2026 12:00 noon
Vernon Freedom Rally
12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. @ Polson Park
Join Ted for the Largest rally in the North
Okanagan, and growing weekly!

North Okanagan Shuswap
Freedom Radio
http://s1.voscast.com:11464/stream
—————
February 7, 2026 12:00 noon
Kamloops Freedom Gathering
Valleyview Centennial Park
—————
February 7, 2026 12:00 noon
Oliver Freedom Rally
12:00 p.m.
Town Hall

WEAPONIZED WORDS: Interview with Cynthia Hodges

Posted on by

WEAPONIZED WORDS: Interview with Cynthia Hodges

Conversations are directed by words, obviously. Words that are weaponized, close down all possibility of communicating important facts and history which control the preservation or annihilation of humanity. Why else would words be censored, used to imprison and harm people? Cynthia Hodges’ extensive study and life experience pertaining to words, history and today’s looming Communist overthrow, exposes how words are used to direct the minds and emotions of those unaware of the intended grimoire of words.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JsBa6QL5AAmy Part 1

Part II
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1MR4xNAwO6LT

Denying Freedom of Speech at Canadian Universities

Posted on by
Denying Freedom of Speech at Canadian Universities

Below is an excellent article written by lawyer John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, located in Calgary, Alberta.   The article discusses the tragedy that is taking place at Canadian universities, where, shockingly, freedom of speech and thought are prohibited. Instead, the universities insist that only Marxist left-wing concepts are to be heard in their institutions. Freedom of Speech is a right protected by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is also included in Section 2 of Canada’s Constitution, the Charter of Rights.   The time has come for the provincial governments that provide billions of dollars to support universities, to withdraw financial support from universities until such time as they permit freedom of speech and thought in their institutions.   Since this issue has such a detrimental effect on our future generations, we are bringing it to your attention.   Please contact the Premier of your province and your Minister of Education/Colleges, Universities (see below for contact information) and request that your province withdraw funding from universities unless they agree to protect freedom of speech and thought.
_________________________
  It’s Time to Defund Universities that Censor Speech on Campus By: John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. President Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms  

It’s high time for Canadians to start demanding that provincial governments stop giving billions of tax dollars to public universities which demonstrate by their actions that they have no love for inquiry, debate, and truth.   The arrest of Frances Widdowson at the University of Victoria for seeking to engage students in debate on campus is the latest example of an aggressive anti-intellectual trend that grows worse on campus every decade.   On Dec. 2, 2025, Widdowson was charged with trespassing after attempting to engage in an open dialogue with students at UVic. She showed up on campus with a sign that read simply “What remains?” She hoped to engage students in discussions about whether they believe that 215 children are buried at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.   To this day, not one body has been found at the site in Kamloops. Canadian taxpayers have provided more than $12 million for excavations at Kamloops and other former residential school sites in B.C. that could tell us the truth. However, the local Kamloops aboriginal council continues to refuse to conduct an excavation, despite receiving all this money. Yet government, media, and academic narratives persist about the “genocidal” nature of residential schools. Widdowson, a former professor at Mount Royal University, is one of the few academics in Canada who isn’t afraid to challenge dominant but unsupported narratives like this one.  

Initially, the only targets of censorship, harassment, and bullying were campus pro-life groups.  For example, the Simon Fraser Student Society revoked club status from the pro-life club SFU LifeLine after declaring that all clubs must take a pro-choice stance under a new “Reproductive Rights” policy. The University of Alberta condoned the bullying, censorship, and intimidation of one of its own student groups, UAlberta Pro-Life. The university was ultimately rebuked by the Alberta Court of Appeal for imposing a $17,500 “security fee” that no student club could afford. The University of Calgary found pro-life students guilty of non-academic misconduct for having peacefully expressed their unpopular opinions on campus, but was rebuked by the court in Wilson v. University of Calgary.  

Since the 1990s, the cancer of censorship has been tolerated and coddled by university officials across Canada. Predictably, this cancer has spread. It is no longer limited only to pro-life groups.   Today, the vast majority of Canadian universities have a strong commitment to “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” in their mission, vision, and values statements. They impose woke ideology on all students and faculty. They have a very limited willingness to uphold free expression, open inquiry, and the pursuit of truth.   The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Institutional Capacity-Building Grants of the federal government also undermines free speech and the pursuit of truth. In order to qualify for these grants, universities must impose mandatory training for students, faculty, and staff on “anti-oppression” and “unconscious bias” strategies.

However, the biggest funders of public universities are Canada’s provincial governments, not the federal government.   It would take not just a book, but a large encyclopedia set, to document all the cases of Canadian universities and student unions censoring speech on campus in the past 30 years. The following are just a few examples.  

In 2017, McMaster University in Hamilton allowed a loud, angry mob to shout down Jordan Peterson, then a professor at the University of Toronto, and prevent him from speaking. The university’s president has not apologized.   Mount Royal University, in addition to firing Widdowson because of her public disagreement with woke ideology, also cancelled its instructor Mark Hecht, in response to people claiming to be offended by his 2019 Vancouver Sun column that criticized diversity.  

In 2019, Simon Fraser University cowered to extremists by cancelling a panel discussion titled “How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate.” The panelists included Meghan Murphy and Jonathan Kay, and moderator Lindsay Shepherd. In violation of the Criminal Code, trans activists threatened to physically disrupt the event by engaging in property destruction and false fire alarm activation. SFU, like so many other universities, practiced cancel culture under the guise of “safety and security.”   Canadian universities ignore the fact that threats to safety and security come uniquely from intolerant thugs who violate the Criminal Code, and not from those who peacefully express their views. Yet universities routinely reward those who threaten criminal actions (e.g. disrupting and obstructing events) and punish the innocent by cancelling events.   The University of British Columbia Free Speech Club booked space to host journalist Andy Ngo on Jan. 29, 2020. Ngo was to speak on the topic of antifa violence. The club paid a room booking deposit in November, but UBC rescinded the event in December with a vague mention of “safety” and “security.” More than five years later, this matter is still before the courts.   In 2020, the University of Alberta fired anthropology professor Kathleen Lowrey, who describes herself as a gender-critical feminist, from her position as associate chair of undergraduate programs, because anonymous complainants said she made the learning environment “unsafe.” Neither Dean of Students André Costopoulos nor the UAlberta department of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and Human Resources Services would speak to the question of how many individuals complained about Lowrey and what the complaints alleged.   In 2020, evolutionary ecologist and Dean of Graduate Studies at Laurentian University David Lesbarrès sent out a tweet that included a hashtag considered contentious among the activist class: “#AllLivesMatter.” Lesbarrères was removed from his position as dean by the university’s president, who claimed that his tweet “hurt many people.”   In 2021, the University of Winnipeg kicked a student out of its education program for having attended a peaceful, outdoor, off-campus rally against lockdown restrictions that violated Charter freedoms. The university only reinstated the student after receiving a legal warning letter from a Justice Centre lawyer.   Patrick Provost, professor of microbiology and immunology, was suspended and ultimately fired by Laval Université. An expert in micro-RNA, the small molecules that help regulate genes, Provost criticized the COVID vaccines in December 2021. He argued that the risks of COVID vaccination in children outweighed the benefits because of the potential side-effects from mRNA vaccines. Rather than facilitating debate, the university fired him in 2022.   The University of Lethbridge is currently being sued over its decision in 2023 to cancel Widdowson’s lecture, “How Woke-ism Threatens Academic Freedom.”   The presidents of Canadian universities, along with their boards and senior staff, have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of restoring free expression on campus. They appeal to “academic freedom” as somehow conferring on them a right to censor unpopular views on campus. They impose woke ideology on students and staff. They want to continue receiving billions of dollars from taxpayers each year, even while refusing to facilitate the pursuit of truth through open inquiry and debate.   Provincial governments can start fixing this problem tomorrow. It’s not complicated. The ministers of advanced education or post-secondary learning in each province can inform university presidents that continued taxpayer funding will be provided only on the condition that universities protect free speech and facilitate the pursuit of truth through open inquiry and debate. Provincial legislation can be modified if necessary. If a university refuses to meet this fair and basic standard, it is free to seek out funding from sources other than government.   Taxpayers and their elected representatives have been far too tolerant of egregious misconduct, for far too long.   John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. has defended campus free speech in courts of law and in the court of public opinion for more than two decades. He is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).