Why Bill C-9 Is A Solution in Search of a Problem

Posted on by

In recent weeks, public discourse in Canada has turned sharply toward Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act. On its face, it sounds reasonable: strengthen our ability to address hate crimes and online hate speech.

But protecting Canadians from real harm is not the same thing as expanding criminal law into areas that are already covered by existing legislation — and that expansion carries real risks to charter rights, free expression, and ordinary citizens.

This isn’t a fringe concern. It’s a constitutional concern.

Canadian law already addresses hate conduct

Canada’s Criminal Code already contains robust provisions to deal with hate-motivated offences:

  • Section 318 prohibits advocating genocide.
  • Section 319 makes it a criminal offence to publicly incite hatred or willfully promote hatred against identifiable groups.
  • Separate provisions exist for threats, intimidation, and mischief based on protected characteristics.

Courts have used these provisions to convict individuals engaged in actual harm, not merely offensive speech. Law-enforcement agencies already have the tools they need to prosecute violent conduct, including hate-motivated violence.

In other words: we are not defending a legal vacuum. The current law already covers serious criminal conduct.

Bill C-9 expands, rather than clarifies, legal discretion

One of the most troubling changes proposed by Bill C-9 is the removal of the requirement that the Attorney General’s consent be obtained before hate-propaganda charges proceed.

For decades, this safeguard ensured that prosecutors would exercise legal judgment and discretion before bringing charges involving nuanced and sensitive issues of expression. Removing this gatekeeper opens the door to expanded prosecution — and potential misuse — of criminal laws against speech.

That’s not theoretical. It’s legal advice echoed by civil-liberties organizations who warn that discretion without checks inevitably leads to inconsistent and ideologically skewed enforcement.

This is not about protecting extremists — it’s about ensuring that ordinary citizens are not drawn into criminal proceedings for controversial but non-violent expression.

The definitions remain unclear — and that matters

Bill C-9 attempts to define “hatred” more precisely, but precision in law enforcement isn’t created simply by putting words on paper. Many terms remain subjective and open to interpretation.

What one person sees as strong political opinion, another might see as “hate.” Historically, courts have been cautious about defining these concepts because:

  • Context matters,
  • Intention matters,
  • And words have different meanings in different settings.

Yet Bill C-9 lowers the threshold for criminal charges and shifts the burden toward the speaker — not the listener.

That’s why legal scholars worry that the threat of prosecution — even if convictions are rare — can chill free speech, peaceful protest, and legitimate debate.

Removing the “good-faith” safeguard is dangerous

Currently, the Criminal Code contains a section — Section 319(3) — that protects statements made in a good-faith attempt to describe or discuss religious texts or beliefs, even if those statements might offend.

A recent committee vote accepted an amendment that would remove this defence entirely. This has profound implications:

  • Reading from religious scripture in a devotional context could be misinterpreted as “promoting hatred.”
  • Preachers, teachers, and authors could be exposed to criminal investigation for discussing sacred texts.

This “removal of the good-faith defence” isn’t a minor technical tweak — it’s a substantive change that affects how ordinary citizens engage in religious and philosophical discourse.

This matters because free expression is a foundation of Canadian democracy

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that freedom of expression is protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection includes speech that is controversial, offensive, or unpopular, so long as it doesn’t directly cause harm.

Bill C-9 tilts the balance toward criminalization of speech that is non-violent and controversial — and in doing so, it risks eroding confidence in our legal system as a protector of fundamental rights, not a weapon against dissent.

We do not have to choose between safety and freedom. But we do have to defend the established legal framework that already holds violent and threatening conduct to account.

What citizens can do now

Parliamentarians are elected to represent the views and interests of Canadians. When a bill touches on core freedoms, citizens have every right — and every reason — to engage:

Our rights are not granted by Parliament — they are protected by law and deserve protection from overreach.

In closing

Bill C-9 may be well-intentioned in its aspirations, but intention is not law.

We do not need legislation that duplicates existing protections.
We should not accept laws that expand criminal liability in ways that chill free expression and jeopardize civil liberties.

A strong democracy protects people from harm, but also from the overreach of its own institutions.

Let’s defend both — Michael Bator

Sefton Delmer & Destroying Germans by Black Propaganda

Posted on by

” Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war and we’re only really beginning with it now. We will continue this atrocity propaganda. We will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans. Until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed. And they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly, but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final.  Re-education needs careful tending like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence and the weeds crop up again, those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
****************
Sefton Delmer : BLACK PROPAGANDA – THE WORLD WAR 2 TOP SECRET BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE OPERATION:

Peter Brimelow Exposes Efforts to Prevent Publication of His Book “Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster” and of George Orwell’s Animal Farm

Posted on by
In a rich discussion of the publishing cartel that absolutely controlled the Narrative until recently, James Fulford notes that NEW YORK’s Jacob Weisberg denounced Random House for daring to publish my 1995 ALIEN NATION: COMMON SENSE ABOUT AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION DISASTER in 1995.

Back then, ANY criticism of immigration instantly provoked accusations of anti-semitism, for reasons that aren’t immediately clear.Before Andy Serkis Got Hold Of It, ANIMAL FARM Was Rejected In The 1940s By Pro-Communist PublishersJames FulfordMay 8 READ IN APP Please Sign Up As A PAID Subscriber: Remember, I’m only on Substack because VDARE was forced to suspend operations by NYAG Letitia James’s lawfare, so if you’re a free subscriber, please upgrade to paid!Andy Serkis (who played Gollum in THE LORD OF THE RINGS) has gotten hold of George Orwell’s great anti-Communist fable ANIMAL FARM, and is issuing a bowdlerized anti-Trump, anti-Musk animated version:Jesse Walker@notjessewalkerThe most endumbening pair of sentences that you will read today: “Animal Farm, classically, is a story without a happy ending. But Serkis’ interpretation gives viewers closure.”usatoday.comAndy Serkis explains why he changed Orwell’s iconic ‘Animal Farm’ ending for new movie4:07 PM · Apr 29, 2026 · 374K Views111 Replies · 87 Reposts · 656 Likes

According to the USA TODAY story linked above:When [Orwell]wrote “Animal Farm,” he intended it as an allegory for the Russian Revolution and rise of Stalinism. Barnyard animals overthrow their farmer to build a utopia, but by the end of the novel it has devolved into a corrupt power structure in which “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”Serkis approached the adaptation by asking himself what Orwell would write about if he wrote “Animal Farm” today. He didn’t want it to be a story about Stalinist Russia. Instead, he gravitated toward themes of capitalism, wealth and overconsumption. The billionaire antagonist, Pilkington (Glenn Close), drives what closely resembles a Cybertruck.You can watch the


trailer below:The USA TODAY story goes on about Serkis making it lighter and more comical:Serkis scrubs the story of its violence, at least in any graphic manner. Snowball (Cox), for example, is escorted off the farm rather than chased by hounds and torn to pieces like in the book. Boxer’s (Harrelson) horrific glue factory death is largely implied. It didn’t stop Serkis’ team from giving me a promotional bottle of craft glue with the horse’s face on it, though. I’m not sure how this bit of dark humor will go over with the kiddos.In fact, Snowball doesn’t die in the book. Snowball (who represents Leon Trotsky ) is chased away Napoleon’s [Stalin’s] dogs, resulting in Napoleon [Stalin] “effectively assuming supreme command.”The Fulford File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Upgrade to paidIn real life, on the other hand, Leon Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in 1940—not torn to pieces by dogs, but killed with an ice axe by a KGB agent.In 1945, when Orwell was trying to publish Animal Farm, he had difficulty doing it, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, because the publishing industry was controlled by Stalin’s friends. Publishing is nominally a capitalist industry, like Hollywood, but both will reject an obvious bestseller if it goes counter to the Narrative. On January 21, 2015, literary agent Jonny Geller tweetedHow can we not mark George Orwell’s death this day in 1950 by recalling Knopf’s priceless rejection of Animal Farm? And added that image:The text of that saysStupid and pointless fable in which the animals take over a farm and run it, and their society takes about the course of the Soviet Union as seen by Westbrook Pegler. It all goes to show that a parallel carried out to the last detail is boring and obvious. Even Pegler gets off a few smart lines now and then but this is damn dull. Very very NFK. [Not For Knopf]The point of this is that Knopf, a major publishing house which had at least one actual Communist editor, Angus Cameron—when a New York Times obituary is headlined “forced out during McCarthy era” (November 23, 2002), that generally means “Communist”—rejected Animal Farm because it reflects “Soviet Union as seen by Westbrook Pegler”.

If you’ve forgotten, or never learned, about Westbrook Pegler, he was the 1940s equivalent of Glenn Beck, an anti-Communist, anti-New Deal syndicated columnist who worked for William Randolph Hearst. And in those days the pro-Communist Left (sometimes they would call themselves anti-anti-Communist) was very powerful.Slate thought it worthwhile to attack Pegler posthumously in 2004, [Dangerous Minds | William F. Buckley soft-pedals the legacy of journalist Westbrook Pegler in The New Yorker, By Diane McWhorter, March 4, 2004] and it was weird to see how when Sarah Palin quoted something innocuous Pegler said (about growing “good people in our small towns”) Leftists went and dug up hateful quotes Pegler said to attack her with.The point here: Knopf knew, institutionally, that it was supposed to reject books that challenged the Narrative. T.S. Eliot, not an actual Communist, also rejected this book in 1944 on behalf of British publishers Faber and Faber, on the principle that Stalin was Britain’s wartime ally:From the Guardian in 2009In a letter from 1944 explaining why he would not be publishing the work, Eliot told Orwell that he was not persuaded by the “Trotskyite” politics which underpin the narrative. To publish such an anti-Russian novel would jar in the contemporary political climate, explained the poet.“We have no conviction … that this is the right point of view from which to criticise the political situation at the present time. It is certainly the duty of any publishing firm which pretends to other interests and motives other than mere commercial prosperity to publish books which go against the current of the moment,” wrote Eliot, before going on to say that he was not convinced that “this is the thing that needs saying at the moment.”Eliot was also rejecting a book that challenged the Narrative, although he had the excuse that the Soviets were technically a wartime ally of Great Britain.But publishers enforcing the Narrative is very powerful.Thus in 1995, Jacob Weisberg, reviewing VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation in New York magazine, complained that Random House had failed in its duty protect the Narrative:Not so long ago, the literature of egregious bigotry was treated like pornography. You had to send for it by mail—from backwoods presses that advertised in the classified sections of conservative magazines—or frequent the political equivalent of dirty bookstores. Today, you just walk into any Barnes & Noble. The Free Press set the precedent last fall with Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein‘s The Bell Curve, which argued that blacks are genetically less intelligent that whites. Now comes Random House with Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation., another expression of intellectualized white rage that attempts to do for immigrants, and Hispanics in particular, what Murray did for blacks. Odds are it will enrage sensible folk, convince no one, and earn a small fortune. [Links added—the original was on paper.]Wait: “earn a small fortune”? Don’t publishers like a small fortune?You wouldn’t believe how many copies of Animal Farm the people who did publish it sold (20 million Signet paperbacks, and that’s just one edition) and both Alien Nation and The Bell Curve were bestsellers.I noted this when American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor published his 1992 book Paved With Good Intentions as a Kindle book—now the only format in which it is available. (The original publisher regrets having published it and won’t reprint it.)In the 90s, there was what we at VDARE.com called an “interglacial” period in which many books were published that couldn’t be published today, or previously, for that matter, in the 70s and 80s. Animal Farm shows what couldn’t even be published in the 40s. (They could have been published in the 1920s—in fact, they more or less represented the conventional wisdom. See historical examples like Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard.)Many of them earned small fortunes, as Weisberg suggested, and they did convince people.The most recent case is Ann Coulter’s great book Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, which convinced Donald Trump to run for President in 2015.White PapersADIOS AMERICA After Ten Years: The World Ann Coulter MadeIt’s been just over ten years since Ann Coulter’s great book ¡Adios, America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole was published. We are still living—happily—in the world she made…Read morea month ago · 36 likes · White Papers Policy Institute and James FulfordJacob Weisberg may have been right in 1995 to think that you could only buy politically incorrect books from “backwoods presses that advertised in the classified sections of conservative magazines.” (“Backwoods” here means anywhere outside New York City.)But now you can order the following books on your Kindle, iPhone, iPad or computer with a click of the mouse, and no one in New York can stop you:Alien Nation, by Peter BrimelowPaved With Good Intentions, by Jared TaylorWhite Identity, by Jared TaylorThe Birth Of Prudence, by Ryan AndrewsFrom The Dissident Right, By John DerbyshireOf course, those are books that you have to pay for. Additionally, you can also obtain many out-of-copyright works for free from Project Gutenberg and Archive.org.

Remember what I said about Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant? Their books are available for free—and so is Paul Buck’s 1937 book The Road To Reunion, another book that couldn’t be published today, because its author failed to hate the South.I’ve been telling people for years on the internet that if you can read what I’m writing, you can read an e-book.And now, in 2026, we see Jonathon Keeperman’s Passage Press publishing all kinds of books that Jacob Weisberg, above, would not approve of. You know how people keep saying “It’s not your father’s America”? Well, it’s not your father’s New York publishing cartel either.James Fulford has been writing about the national question for over 20 years, mostly for VDARE.com, more recently for WhitePapers.

POLITICAL PRISONER BILL WHATCOTT’S UPDATE FROM THE MEAN STREETS OF TORONTO

Posted on by

Two short videos and one photo Whatcott Update

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bj_Bk36HYk0%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26fs%3D1%26hl%3Den%26autohide%3D2%26wmode%3Dtransparent
Bill shares a 3 minute video about some history and personal experiences in front on the now closed Cabbagetown Abortuary in downtown Toronto.

–

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OmJIzSImdjw%3Ffeature%3Doembed
Bill shares a 1 minute video about some history and personal experiences in front on the now closed Scott Abortuary in downtown Toronto.

–

After finishing my little chat in front of the two former abortuaries, I started bicycling back to my room and came across this guy. He is less than a block from Yonge Street, I think I am one or two blocks north of Queen St, basically in the heart of downtown Toronto. I have no idea how long he has been laying here. I observed him for a couple minutes from half a block away and his bum is fully exposed to oncoming traffic. Dozens of cars drove by and no one stopped. At least a dozen pedestrians walked by him and a few glanced at him, but all kept going by.

I decided to ride up to him with my bike and kicked his feet. He didn’t respond. I asked a couple folks if they would help me pull up his pants before I called an ambulance. They kept walking and didn’t respond. I decided I didn’t want to touch him without help, so I started calling an ambulance and thankfully, before I even hit the 9 on my phone an ambulance driving by stopped and the paramedics got out. They didn’t actually engage me, they just started dealing with the guy and as they shook him, he seemed to move a little, so I left.

You can see in the above picture this fellow is missing a shoe and he dropped what I think is a lighter. He definitely consumed something and is unconscious. I note he is close to the Fred Victor Centre, a taxpayer funded agency that offers so-called harm reduction, courtesy of the taxpayer. Fred Victor has this to say about their harm reduction program.

“Supervised consumption programs have reduced public drug use while improving connections to health services.”

Yup, Fred Victor’s taxpayer funded so-called “harm reduction” program did a great job in this guy’s case. I also note when I was picketing abortuaries in this neighbouhood before the advent of supervised consumption sites, I didn’t see guys lying on the sidewalks with needles and lighters lying around them. Now, there are thousands like him in Toronto that go unconscious and in some cases die each year.

Likely, one of the dozens of taxpayer funded “safe sites” gave him that fancy lighter to “safely” smoke his crack, or his meth, or his fentanyl, or whatever it was he was smoking. I think the reason no one stopped to help as most Torontonians who live and work in downtown Toronto are completely desensitized to scenes like this and I actually think you can overdose and die in full view of the public in downtown Toronto and you could potentially get rigor mortis before anyone would bother to get you off the street.

Please keep these dates below in mind and for those of you who pray for me please remember to do so as these dates are drawing closer. If you wish, you can attend my trial in person. I will ask my lawyer to provide me with links for those who wish to view online. The last time we requested links, I shared the link but the court did not allow anyone to view the hearing. My trial is subject to a publication ban, so I am not allowed to report on it.

My “hate crime” trial is slated to run: May 25, 2026 – June 12, 2026, 9 am – 4:00 pm

Ontario Superior Court, 361 University Ave, Toronto, ON

I was informed the Crown Prosecutor is asking I serve 1 year in prison for my life saving and life affirming ministry to the sodomites and their supporters at the 2016 Toronto unGodly pride parade.

I’ve got two weeks from my trial and am unable to work until this thing is over. If you wish to help with my food and lodging expenses until then you can do so here:

https://www.lifefunder.com/whatcott

In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.  For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:19,20

Chronic Complainer Jessica Simpson/Jonathan Yaniv Complains to B.C. Human Rights Tribunal That Journalist Barbara Kaye Misgendered the Complainant

Posted on by

VANCOUVER, BC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers funded by the Justice Centre are representing Canadian journalist Barbara Kay in response to multiple human rights complaints filed by Jessica Simpson (formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv) with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

Ms. Kay, an award-winning columnist and writer for the National Post, Epoch Times, and Post Millennial, has received two individual complaints and one retaliation complaint arising from her social media posts and public commentary. The complaints allege discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression and sex.

The first complaint arises from Ms. Kay’s social media posts in March 2025. It alleges that her use of a prior name, male pronouns, and commentary on gender identity constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression and sex, and that these statements caused reputational harm and psychological distress.

The second complaint, filed the following day, alleges retaliation. It claims that Ms. Kay’s public response to the initial complaint—including her characterization of it as trivial and her continued use of male pronouns and a prior name—was intended to undermine and discourage the complainant from pursuing legal action.

The third complaint relates to a March 30, 2026 interview and published content featuring Ms. Kay. It alleges that her statements rejecting the complainant’s gender identity and her refusal to use preferred pronouns amount to discrimination, and that these views contributed to stigma, reputational harm, and emotional distress.

The complaints form part of a broader pattern of litigation. Jessica Simpson has previously been described by courts as a “prolific litigant” and has been involved in numerous unsuccessful human rights and civil proceedings. [Simpson/Yaniv complained against Christian leader Bill Whatcott a decade ago. About the same time Simpson/Yaviv complained against a number of Vancouver aestheticians who had refused to give this person a “Brazilian wax” on learning that Jessica had a penis.]

Ms. Kay defended her position, stating, “I would never give credence to something as a reality when it is not a reality.”

Constitutional lawyer Marty Moore said, “Compelling people to affirm one’s own identity rather than reality is a gross violation of the Charter guarantee for freedom of expression. Solutions for societal debates, including about the appropriate protections for women and girls, require that people be able to speak honestly and accurately.”

He added, “Sacrificing the integrity of the debate to the subjective feelings of others is unconscionable.”

The Tribunal has not yet decided whether it will accept the complaints.

British Minister Convicted for Preaching Near Abortion Clinic

Posted on by

British Minister Convicted for Preaching Near Abortion Clinic

Pastor Clive Johnston has been convicted under the United Kingdom’s buffer zone laws after preaching near a hospital abortion facility.

According to reports, Johnston referenced John 3:16 during an outdoor Sunday service held within a restricted zone. Authorities argued the gathering violated laws designed to limit certain activities near abortion clinics.

“This is a dark day for Christian freedom,” Johnston said after the ruling. “The buffer zones law is so broad that holding a Sunday service has been found to be a criminal offence.”

The case is drawing concern from free speech and religious liberty advocates across the UK.

Foot Soldiers of Censorship: A Brantford “Community Organizer” Tears Down Dominion Society Anti-Immigration Posters

Posted on by

‘I’m appalled’: Residents tear down anti-immigrant posters in Simcoe

Dominion Society of Canada advertising has locals concerned about spread of ‘hate-based ideology’

Save

Simcoe posters
Simcoe residents Josh Parsons, right, and Andrew Peach took down posters advertising for the Dominion Society of Canada. J.P. Antonacci/The Hamilton Spectator
jp-antonacci-spec

By J.P. AntonacciReporter

Seeing a poster advertising a white nationalist group in downtown Simcoe last week filled Josh Parsons with “visceral disgust.”

“I recognized the group immediately and thought, ‘Oh jeez, this isn’t good,’” said Parsons, a community organizer who has studied the rise of far-right hate groups in Canada.

The laminated poster bore the name and logo of the Dominion Society of Canada, an anti-immigrant group founded in 2025 that calls for the “remigration” — or mass deportation — of anyone not descended from Canada’s original Anglo and French settlers.

The group’s website blames “mass immigration” for low wages, a lack of jobs and housing, and overstretched health-care and education systems.

Some of the posters that appeared in downtown Simcoe promoting the Dominion Society of Canada co-opted historical images of Canadian soldiers from the First World War. J.P. Antonacci/The Hamilton Spectator

A report from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network calls the Dominion Society the “incorporated political arm” of a white nationalist movement that includes Diagolon — a far-right extremist group that held a rally in Jarvis in 2024 — and the more “militant” Second Sons.

Dominion Society founder Daniel Tyrie — former executive director of the People’s Party of Canada — rejects that characterization and says the group is “a non-partisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting Canadian identity, heritage and nationalism.” 

But the anti-hate network maintains the Dominion Society is trying to get the idea of “remigration” into mainstream political discourse as what Parsons called “the suit-and-tie arm” of Canadian white supremacy.

Parsons ripped the poster off an electrical box on Robinson Street and scoured the downtown core in search of others.

Not finding any, he hoped that was the end of it.

But things “escalated” on April 27 when he discovered seven more Dominion Society posters pasted to utility poles near the Simcoe library, a hockey arena and the public high school.

Parsons believes the group is using the posters to recruit new members. 

“These groups particularly focus on communities they perceive to be struggling. And they specifically target young men and boys with the intent of radicalizing them toward their hate-based ideology,” he said.

Some of the posters — which The Spectator has seen — feature what appear to be historical photographs of Canadian soldiers during the First World War and the Latin phrase “Populus Noster, Domus Nostra,” which translates to “our people, our home.”

“To have people use Canadian heroes who quite literally fought directly against what this group is preaching … they’re really flattening Canadian identity,” Parsons said.

“They completely ignore the genocide of the First Nations people and describe themselves as ‘heritage Canadians.’”

Standing against racism

Masked groups of white nationalists held demonstrations in downtown Hamilton and London in recent months, while posts on Reddit indicate Dominion Society posters were spotted — and taken down — in Winnipeg and the Niagara region.

“I’m appalled that this rhetoric is rearing its ugly head in our community,” Norfolk County councillor Kim Huffman told The Spectator. 

“Preying on vulnerable members of our community shows that these groups who preach hate, violence racism and intolerance know that the majority of Canadians do not support them,” Huffman said. 

“I am vehemently opposed to everything they stand for and will use my voice to protect our community.”

Const. Andrew Gamble of Norfolk County OPP said while it may not be a criminal offence to put up posters, depending on their content and location, the police service “encourages community members to promote respect and understanding, both in person and online.”

Gamble told The Spectator the OPP “remains committed to the safety and well-being of all individuals in Ontario, regardless of race, ancestry (or) place of origin.”

He invited residents to report hate-motivated or discriminatory incidents to the police or Crime Stoppers.

Parsons and fellow Simcoe resident Andrew Peach said they did not hesitate to cut down the “detestable” posters and are ready to act should more turn up.

“They have to engage in these clandestine, in-the-shadows acts in order to recruit,” Parsons said.

“So the less time that these posters stay visible in the community, the less effective they are. And it’s my full intent to make it not worth their time to come here.”

Peach said standing against hateful ideology should not be a partisan issue.

“If you don’t take action, it festers. You have to show them that the community will not stand for this,” he said.

“It doesn’t matter if you sit on the right or the left or smack dab in the middle. This is something we should all denounce.”

From British Political Prisoner & Free Speech Martyr Sam Melia

Posted on by

I’m back!

After two years away, what can I say? I’m filled with feelings of relieve as this ordeal finally comes to a close, we’ve had a full five years of the state breathing down our necks since my initial arrest back in 2021, I even missed the birth of my second daughter while inside! What a weight off our shoulders to be here now, free at last.

I want to express my sincerest thanks to everyone who’s supported my family and me over that time, it blew me away. Every letter and book I received was so valuable, I can’t tell you how much it meant to know that I was on peoples minds and that they’d taken the time to write to me, the screws had never seen so much mail coming in! On top of that everyone was so unbelievably generous to contribute to the fundraiser for Laura and the girls while I was away, it was a great relief to not have their welfare playing on my mind while I was in that cell.

I also want to thank everyone who kept my case alive as an example of Britain’s two-tier justice and the brutal oppression of speech in this country. Whether it was the demonstration in Leeds that I saw via another prisoner’s smuggled phone, the one outside the prison that I briefly heard from my cell window before I was dragged off to isolation or the frequent online mentions that led to it being repeatedly highlighted by Elon Musk over the years. The anti-White state took a black eye on this one and we all played a part.

My time away hasn’t dimmed my spirit in the least, quite the contrary. Interrogated by both National Security Division’s probation service, as well as Counter-Terrorism’s Desistance and Disengagement Programme, the weakness of their arguments was breathtaking. Frequently breaking down to, ‘yeah, all that’s true, but why do you care?’
We care because this is existential and we’re the only barrier to their sick replacement plan coming to fruition. I rejoin the fray with renewed zeal, this whole experience, dealing with these people, has been the single most radicalising thing I’ve ever been through.

From here, I’ll be quickly getting my feet back under me, the world and the political conversation has change a hell of a lot over the last 2 years, frankly, it’s staggering. I’m resuming my work and role within Patriotic Alternative as soon as possible and I can’t wait to see all my friends and compatriots in the coming weeks. I can only hope I did you all proud and can continue to represent our people in the best possible way.

I’ll shortly be making my first appearance on Mark Collett’s PWR on Wednesday, you’ll find it here: www.rumble.com/c/MarkCollett

I’ve also been secretly working on a book detailing my time away; the crazy prison stories and characters, alongside my knock-down, drag-out arguments with state agents. I’m on track for a mid-March release.
Pre-orders are available here: www.grandmatowlers.co.uk/product/legal-truthful-guilty-paperback/

Posted on by
SPLC: It’s All Happening!Discovery will be a bear for them (I know!). And it could find evidence of tortious interference
SPLC: It’s All Happening!Discovery will be a bear for them (I know!). And it could find evidence of tortious interference.Lydia BrimelowMay 1
∙
Guest post 


READ IN APP 

My husband Peter and I stayed with family friends recently in their beautiful PA home. As our hostess serenely prepared a homecooked meal over the heads of her five blonde children (all under the age of 9) she admitted to me, “I’m pretty solidly on team ‘Nothing Ever Happens’.”Since that dinner, President Trump survived his third assassination attempt and the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] was caught passing money to the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.PeterBrimelow.com is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Upgrade to paidWe’re So Back

In the Baltimore crime drama “The Wire,” Stringer Bell announces that his drug business will resume from its new location in the back of a funeral home. Relatable!As I continue to mull the DOJ’s indictment against the SPLC last week, I keep coming back to my feelings of eager anticipation of details unearthed in the forthcoming discovery.Non-combatants in modern lawfare may not be familiar with legal discovery, but, having been forced to comply with subpoena demands so onerous that the expense and labor involved shuttered my main project, VDARE.com, I am very aware.So far, the DOJ has done what is sometimes referred to as a “snapshot investigation,” or, just enough investigation of the SPLC to earn an indictment. Real discovery, presumably launching in earnest this summer, will be ongoing in real time. If the indictment investigation was a screenshot, real discovery will be a livestream.Assuming the case goes forward, the SPLC will start to gather any evidence it has for its own defense. It is required to share that evidence with the DOJ whether it hurts or harms their case. As the DOJ receives those materials, it is required to share with the SPLC what of it they plan to use for the prosecution, thus making it public on a rolling basis.Included:Internal memos, emails, and financial records to which the prosecutors didn’t have access during the initial probe.Witness lists and expert reports, likely revealing new individuals or documents.The outcomes of private investigations, which may uncover transactions or communications unknown to federal agents.
Whatever happened to that private investigation the SPLC promised when founder Morris Dees was fired?

Statements by the defense, like depositions etcPhysical evidence, office equipment, personal effects. Notebooks, paycards, cell phones, burner phones, hard drives, stolen property, etc.The prospect of these details becoming public are almost too delicious. The trail, including all pretrial motions and discovery disputes will be overseen by Judge Emily Marks, a white Catholic Alabaman Trump appointee who specialized in labor disputes and civil rights litigation while in private practice.

Please, Judge Marks. Give the people what they want!Just as there is never just one cockroach, it’s impossible to believe that employees of the SPLC who were comfortable engaging in fraud and money laundering for what is one of the world’s nastiest organizations didn’t also feel comfortable bending and breaking other rules.I am particularly interested in evidence of “tortious interference. “Tortious interference is when A and B have a contractual relationship and C comes along and blows it up, causing damage. Like, to choose an example at random, if VDARE had a conference scheduled at the Cheyenne Mountain Lodge in Colorado Springs, CO, with deposits fully paid up and tickets sold, and the SPLC or their minions intentionally disrupted that conference, causing the Lodge to pay out liquidated damages and VDARE to lose its conference. If that happened, the SPLC could be prosecuted for tortious interference.

We just don’t have the hard evidence.Successful litigation against tortious interference happens all the time.Although the SPLC is perhaps the biggest player in the Cancel Culture game, lawsuits against tortious interference filed by D.A. King and Gavin McInnes/Proud Boys haven’t gotten any traction in the courts. The SPLC has successfully claimed that their “Hate Map” and malicious labeling are “rhetorical hyperbole,” purely subjective in nature, and protected by the First Amendment.But if the DOJ were to discover direct communications between the SPLC and a bank, platform, venue or other contractual partner where the SPLC specifically mentioned one of their victims, that could be a game changer. Or even if internal documents were discovered that discuss an SPLC policy to intentionally trigger cancellations, it could break things open.

Me moderating a debate at West Virginia’s Berkeley Springs Castle, bought because the SPLC kept bullying hotels into cancelling VDARE.com conferences.It’s So OverOf course, there is the terrible possibility that the SPLC’s crimes may skitter away into the walls just as Letitia James’s have (so far). In my experience, Leftists have gotten shockingly arrogant about what they can get away with, crime-wise, because they pretty much do always get away with it.The justice system in most of the United States is broken and even where it isn’t exactly broken, it is slow. According to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the SPLC investigation was started years before Trump but was put on ice by the Biden Administration. If things drag on, yet another change in leadership could turn down the heat again.The SPLC, never one to let a good crisis go to waste, will likely raise a ton of money to defend themselves against what they are already framing as a political persecution. They have between 200-500 employees and some number of those employees are actually lawyers. The American Civil Liberties Union is politically sympathetic, as are any number of enormous NGOs that could decide to circle the wagons in their defense.Already, the SPLC has filed a motion requesting the transcripts of the grand jury testimony, because“…the indictment suffers from obvious legal infirmities— including the omission of essential elements of intent and a failure to reconcile the charges with recent Supreme Court precedent. These particularized irregularities suggest that the grand jury was not merely misled by the government’s presentation of the law, but likely that it was actively weaponized to facilitate such charges.”Grand jury proceedings are typically secret, so it will be interesting to see what happens there. But we can already see that they’re planning to argue the DOJ lied to the grand jury. They haven’t presented anything yet about their First Amendment rights, but they characterized their actions as “tradecraft” and Trump’s attitude toward the prosecution as a “naked display of politicization and partisanship.” Their next step will likely be a motion to dismiss the charges entirely. Maybe it will be granted, who knows? Judge Marks, the world is watching!There are doomers and naysayers on our side, too. The charges are flimsy, some say. The DOJ is pulling punches and will be guarded about outing their own. They are, in short, not sending their best.

It’s All Happening!The time Peter and I spend fighting for the Historic American Nation is often a grind. Losses hit hard. It’s tempting to want our troubles to resolve in a flash of drama.But I’m reminded of a character in Flannery O’Connor’s Temple of the Holy Spirit, who “could never be a saint, but she thought she could be a martyr if they killed her quick.”I’m not impatient for martyrdom. Like in the development of virtue, or raising a family, or building an institution, the nature of the commitment is the on-and-on-ness of it. That’s why it is important to celebrate the wins when they come, and to celebrate them unconditionally.This indictment is a WIN. Are you celebrating?