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).

The Sixth Robert Faurisson International Freedom Prize Presented to Jurgen Graf in Vichy

Posted on by

PRIX INTERNATIONAL ROBERT FAURISSON 2026
(septième édition)

Ostuni, le 29 janvier 2026

Chers amis,
Je suis heureux de vous annoncer que la septième édition du Prix international Robert Faurisson 2026 s’est déroulée avec succès à Vichy le 25 janvier, sans aucune intrusion, entrave ou perturbation de la part de l’Ennemi (de l’homme, de la nature, du bien, du beau, du vrai).

Après l’hommage habituel, à 11 heures, à la tombe du Professeur, que nous avons constatée en bon état et embellie par la gravure du poème « Voyelles » d’Arthur Rimbaud, la célébration du Prix Faurisson a ensuite eu lieu dans un local de la ville.

Ursula Haverbeck (2019), Vincent Reynouard (2020), Wolfgang Fröhlich (2021), Monika et Alfred Schaefer (2022), Germar Rudolf (2023), Arthur Butz (2024)… Pour la première fois, le Prix a été décerné cette année à la mémoire d’un éminent chercheur révisionniste récemment décédé, Jürgen Graf*.

User images

Polyglotte de génie et chercheur redoutable, Jürgen Graf a apporté, avec lucidité, courage et dévouement, une contribution fondamentale et durable au révisionnisme historique.

User images

PRIX INTERNATIONAL ROBERT FAURISSON 2026

(septième édition)

À Jürgen Graf

(Bâle, 15 août 1951 – 14 janvier 2025),

chercheur-savant génial et intrépide qui a consacré une grande partie de son énergie au révisionnisme historique, dont il est devenu l’un des plus brillants représentants. In memoriam.

Peu avant sa disparition, un de mes grands amis, qui faisait partie du Comité du Prix depuis sa création et à qui l’on doit le site web qui rassemble les « Archives Faurisson » (https://robert-faurisson.com/), lui aussi nous a quittés : l’excellent Guillaume Nichols, secrétaire du Professeur.

L’Archive Faurisson / The Faurisson Archive Histoire | Politique Quarante ans ont passé… Le 29 décembre 1978 à Paris aura été, pour reprendre une expression bien connue de Stendhal, un coup de pistolet dans un concert. À la page 8 du journal Le Monde paraissait « Le problème des chambres à gaz » ou « La rumeur d’Auschwitz » La nette brièveté … robert-faurisson.com

J’imagine maintenant Jürgen, Guillaume et Robert se promenant ensemble, discutant, dans les prairies infinies des Champs-Élysées.

Joe Fallisi

* « Graf est né à Bâle, en Suisse alémanique, en 1951. Il a étudié les langues romanes, l’anglais et les études scandinaves à l’université de Bâle, où il a obtenu sa licence. Il a ensuite travaillé comme enseignant et traducteur en Suisse et à l’étranger. En 1991, grâce à son compatriote plus âgé Arthur Vogt, il a découvert le révisionnisme historique, auquel il a depuis consacré la majeure partie de son énergie créative.
En 1998, il a été condamné à Baden, en Suisse, à 15 mois de prison ferme pour ” discrimination raciale ” présumée en raison de ses livres révisionnistes et d’autres écrits relatifs au récit juif de l’histoire des Juifs en Europe pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, un récit soutenu en Occident et en Russie par le droit pénal ; son éditeur âgé et gravement malade, Gerhard Förster (décédé peu après), a été condamné à 12 mois. Graf n’a toutefois pas purgé sa peine, mais s’est exilé à Moscou en août 2000.
Après l’expiration du délai de prescription pour les poursuites pénales, Jürgen Graf est retourné dans sa ville natale, Bâle, en 2018, avec sa femme biélorusse. Il est décédé d’un cancer. » (https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Graf,_J%C3%BCrgen_(1951))

°°°°°°°°

ROBERT FAURISSON INTERNATIONAL PRIZE 2026 (seventh edition)

Ostuni, 29 January 2026

Dear friends,
I am pleased to inform you that the Robert Faurisson International Prize 2026, seventh edition, took place successfully in Vichy on 25 January without any intrusion, impediment or disturbance from the Enemy (of man, nature, goodness, beauty and truth).

After the customary tribute at 11 a.m. at the Professor’s grave, which we found to be in good condition and embellished with an engraving of Arthur Rimbaud’s poem ‘Voyelles’, the award ceremony took place in a venue in the city.

Ursula Haverbeck (2019), Vincent Reynouard (2020), Wolfgang Fröhlich (2021), Monika and Alfred Schaefer (2022), Germar Rudolf (2023), Arthur Butz (2024)… For the first time, this year’s Prize was given posthumously to Jürgen Graf*, a distinguished revisionist scholar who recently passed away.

User images

A brilliant polyglot and formidable researcher, Jürgen Graf made a fundamental and lasting contribution to historical revisionism with his lucidity, courage and devotion.

User images

ROBERT FAURISSON INTERNATIONAL PRIZE 2026

(seventh edition)

To Jürgen Graf

(Basel, 15 August 1951 – 14 January 2025),

a brilliant and intrepid researcher and scholar who devoted much of his energy to historical revisionism, becoming one of its most luminous exponents. In memoriam.

Shortly before his passing, a great friend of mine also “moved on”, who had been part of its Committee since the creation of the Prize and to whom we owe the website that collects the “Faurisson Archive” (https://robert-faurisson.com/): the excellent Guillaume Nichols, secretary of the Professor.

L’Archive Faurisson / The Faurisson Archive Histoire | Politique Quarante ans ont passé… Le 29 décembre 1978 à Paris aura été, pour reprendre une expression bien connue de Stendhal, un coup de pistolet dans un concert. À la page 8 du journal Le Monde paraissait « Le problème des chambres à gaz » ou « La rumeur d’Auschwitz » La nette brièveté … robert-faurisson.com

Now I imagine Jürgen, Guillaume and Robert strolling together, conversing, in the boundless meadows of the Elysian Fields.

Joe Fallisi

* “Graf was born in Basel, German-speaking Switzerland, in 1951. He studied Romance languages, English and Scandinavian studies at the University of Basel, graduating with a licentiate degree. He then worked as a teacher and translator in Switzerland and abroad. In 1991, through his older compatriot Arthur Vogt, he became acquainted with historical revisionism, to which he has since devoted most of his creative energy.
In 1998, he was sentenced in Baden, Switzerland, to 15 months’ imprisonment without parole for alleged ‘racial discrimination’ due to his revisionist books and other writings related to the Jewish narrative of the history of Jews in Europe during the Second World War, a narrative upheld in the West and Russia through criminal law; his elderly and seriously ill publisher Gerhard Förster (who died shortly afterwards) received a 12-month sentence. Graf did not serve his sentence, however, but went into exile in Moscow in August 2000.
After the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution expired, Jürgen Graf returned to his hometown of Basel in 2018, together with his Belarusian wife. He died of cancer.” (https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Graf,_J%C3%BCrgen_(1951))

°°°°°°°°

PREMIO INTERNAZIONALE ROBERT FAURISSON 2026 (settima edizione)

Ostuni, 29 gennaio 2026

Cari amici,
sono lieto di comunicarvi che il Premio Internazionale Robert Faurisson 2026, settima edizione, si è svolto felicemente a Vichy il 25 gennaio senza alcuna intrusione, impedimento o disturbo da parte del Nemico (dell’uomo, della natura, del buono, del bello, del vero).

Dopo il consueto omaggio, alle 11, alla tomba del Professore, che abbiamo constatato in buone condizioni e abbellita dall’incisione della poesia “Voyelles” di Arthur Rimbaud, ha poi avuto luogo, in un locale della città, la celebrazione del Premio.

Ursula Haverbeck (2019), Vincent Reynouard (2020), Wolfgang Fröhlich (2021), Monika e Alfred Schaefer (2022), Germar Rudolf (2023), Arthur Butz (2024)… Per la prima volta il Premio è stato attribuito quest’anno alla memoria di un egregio studioso revisionista morto recentemente, Jürgen Graf*.

User images

Geniale poliglotta e formidabile ricercatore, Jürgen Graf ha dato, con lucidità, coraggio e devozione, un contributo fondamentale e duraturo al revisionismo storico.

User images

PREMIO INTERNAZIONALE ROBERT FAURISSON 2026
(settima edizione)
A Jürgen Graf
(Basilea, 15 agosto 1951 – 14 gennaio 2025),
geniale e intrepido ricercatore-studioso che dedicò gran parte delle sue energie al revisionismo storico, divenendone uno dei più luminosi esponenti. In memoriam.

Poco prima della sua scomparsa è “andato avanti” anche un mio grande amico, che fin dalla creazione del Premio aveva fatto parte del suo Comitato e a cui si deve il website che raccoglie l'”Archivio Faurissson” (https://robert-faurisson.com/): l’ottimo Guillaume Nichols, segretario del Professore.

L’Archive Faurisson / The Faurisson Archive Histoire | Politique Quarante ans ont passé… Le 29 décembre 1978 à Paris aura été, pour reprendre une expression bien connue de Stendhal, un coup de pistolet dans un concert. À la page 8 du journal Le Monde paraissait « Le problème des chambres à gaz » ou « La rumeur d’Auschwitz » La nette brièveté … robert-faurisson.com

Ora immagino che Jürgen, Guillaume e Robert passeggino insieme, conversando, nei prati sconfinati dei Campi Elisi.

Joe Fallisi

* “Graf è nato a Basilea, nella Svizzera tedesca, nel 1951. Ha studiato lingue romanze, inglese e studi scandinavi all’Università di Basilea, conseguendo la licenza. Ha poi lavorato come insegnante e traduttore in Svizzera e all’estero. Nel 1991, tramite il suo connazionale più anziano Arthur Vogt, è venuto a conoscenza del revisionismo storico, al quale da allora ha dedicato la maggior parte della sua energia creativa.
Nel 1998, fu condannato a Baden, in Svizzera, a 15 mesi di reclusione senza libertà vigilata per presunta ‘discriminazione razziale’ dovuta ai suoi libri revisionisti e ad altri scritti relativi alla narrazione ebraica sulla storia degli ebrei in Europa durante la seconda guerra mondiale, una narrazione sostenuta in Occidente e in Russia attraverso il diritto penale; il suo anziano e gravemente malato editore Gerhard Förster (che morì poco dopo) ricevette una condanna a 12 mesi. Graf non scontò la sua pena, tuttavia, ma andò in esilio a Mosca nell’agosto 2000.
Dopo la scadenza del termine di prescrizione per l’azione penale, Jürgen Graf è tornato nella sua città natale, Basilea, nel 2018, insieme alla moglie bielorussa. È morto di cancro.” (https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Graf,_J%C3%BCrgen_(1951))

Important Whatcott update: In court this week for “hate crime” and I will be running for Parliament in Toronto’s University-Rosedale riding, Lord willing

Posted on by

Important Whatcott update: In court this week for “hate crime” and I will be running for Parliament in Toronto’s University-Rosedale riding, Lord willing

Dear Friends,

The courthouse where I am standing trial for my so-called “hate crime,” May 25 -June 12, 2026, is located at 361 University Ave, Toronto, ON which is providentially located in Chrystia Freeland’s riding “University-Rosedale.” As many already know, Chrystia decided to ditch her constituents for much more important matters, like consulting Zelensky on Ukraine’s economy. Chrystia did such a fine job with the finances in Canada, not to mention she played a direct role in freezing people’s bank accounts when they protested her government’s draconian lockdown and coercive vaccine policies; I was actually delighted to see her go. I became even more enchanted with Chrystia’s departure when I realized the bylection to replace her is taking place approximately the same time my trial is happening, which lines everything up perfectly (perhaps providentially), as I am required to be in her riding when the byelection is happening to stand trial for my so-called “hate crime,” and really who is better suited and more qualified to represent this riding in Parliament than myself?

Anyways, here is my common sense, conservative Christian, Rural Albertan, election platform; tailored to meet the needs of downtown Toronto’s University-Rosedale riding. This riding seems to be populated by a diverse mixture of wealthy Liberal Anglo-Saxons (Rosedale), sodomites (downtown), university students and faculty (west end and downtown) and a mixture of immigrant cultures, Portugese, East Indian, Iranian, and not an insignificant minority of Chinese and Jews. Anyways, Christ and conservatism is the answer for all of them and indeed if they embrace my platform and vote for me, we could even help bring Toronto to its sense and in the process overcome some of the cultural and political divides driving Alberta separatism! Here is my Christian, conservative, common sense, election platform:

Anyways, God has provided me with an official agent who resides not too far from the riding and a couple potential helpers. It seems the Lord is bringing this worthwhile ministry and possible career advancement to fruition.

If you would like to donate to my political campaign you will be able to do so in a couple months or so. I am reading through the election regs and my official agent and I will open an election account when I get to Ontario, but at this point we are both sort of incompetent when it comes to this sort of thing, so please bear with us until we figure it out and get it done.

I am still in need of some volunteers for signature gathering and helping at all cadidate meetings. I need 100 signatures (and a few extra after that number is recommended by Elections Canada for a margin of error). The signatures need to be gathered in the riding before the election starts. Over 105,000 people reside in the riding, so we should be able to get 130 signatures or so without too much trouble, especially if I have a few helpers.

Here is a map of the riding: https://www.elections.ca/map_02.aspx?lang=e&p=06_ON&t=/1Dis/35112&d=35112

I have a good friend in Hamilton willing to host me for my hate crime trial. If I could get some accomodations closer to my riding that would be a blessing and I might have one good friend from the United States willing to come up and help me so I need a spot for him too.

Anyway, my hearing for the verdict on whether or not homosexual activist Nick Mule’ will be allowed to give “expert” testimony on my Gospel flyer distributed in the Toronto Homosexual unGodly Pride Parade in June 2016, will be rendered this coming Thursday at 10 am (Toronto time).

The link for the courtroom is here: Link:   VIRTUAL COURTROOM A (2-1)

Anyways, you can read Nick Mule’s “expert” paper that cost Ontario taxpayers $10,000 and was excluded from my last trial by Justice Goldstein by clicking the link below. Justice Lorne Sossin (he/him) overturned Goldstein’s acquittal and ordered a second trial because Nick Mule’ and his paper was excluded from my last trial: https://billwhatcott.wordpress.com/2024/02/02/whatcott-prayer-request-and-hearing-coming-up-this-monday-february-5th-900-am-toronto-superior-court/

My election will be somewhat low budget (the biggest expense will be looking after my friend from the United States and my above election flyer). What I really need help with is money for myself to get to court in Ontario and to find a place to stay closer to the riding and my courthouse if possible. If you would like to help with these important needs you can do so here:

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

In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” Ephesians 6:12-13 

Share this:

A rights rul­ing to be cel­eb­rated

Posted on by

Invoc­a­tion of Emer­gen­cies Act was illegal https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=10945

Police take a demonstrator into custody in Ottawa in February 2022 using powers granted by the Emergencies Act, legislation the Federal Court of Appeal has affirmed was invoked illegally.
National Post - (Latest Edition)

Christine Van Geyn20 Jan 2026

A gen­er­a­tional civil liber­ties vic­tory has been upheld. On Jan. 16, the Fed­eral Court of Appeal held that the Trudeau gov­ern­ment illeg­ally invoked the Emer­gen­cies Act in 2022 in response to the Free­dom Con­voy.

The unan­im­ous judg­ment, which upheld the lower court’s decision in 2024, is metic­u­lous, dev­ast­at­ing and leaves little room for doubt. Future gov­ern­ments facing polit­ical tur­moil have been put on clear notice: they can­not cas­u­ally reach for emer­gency powers to solve a domestic protest.

The case was brought by the Cana­dian Con­sti­tu­tion Found­a­tion (CCF) and the Cana­dian Civil Liber­ties Asso­ci­ation, along with sev­eral indi­vidu­als dir­ectly affected by the emer­gency meas­ures. The court accep­ted the CCF’S argu­ment that the Emer­gen­cies Act was never meant to be easy to use.

The act was delib­er­ately craf­ted as a response to the abuses of the War Meas­ures Act, infam­ously deployed by Pierre Trudeau dur­ing the Octo­ber Crisis in 1970. Par­lia­ment replaced that law with one designed to restrain exec­ut­ive power, not expand it. As the Fed­eral Court of Appeal emphas­ized, “one must not lose sight … of the his­tory of the Act and of the con­text in which it was adop­ted.” Par­lia­ment, the court noted, “pre­cisely cir­cum­scribed Cab­inet’s dis­cre­tion” to pre­vent the cas­ual or polit­ical use of emer­gency powers.

Yet that is exactly what happened in Feb­ru­ary 2022.

The Trudeau gov­ern­ment invoked the Emer­gen­cies Act in response to noisy and dis­rupt­ive protests in Ott­awa and block­ades at sev­eral bor­der cross­ings. The court rejec­ted, point by point, the gov­ern­ment’s attempt to jus­tify that decision.

To invoke the act law­fully, cab­inet had to reas­on­ably believe that Canada faced a “threat to the secur­ity of Canada” — a term Par­lia­ment delib­er­ately impor­ted from the Cana­dian Secur­ity Intel­li­gence Ser­vice (CSIS) Act and asso­ci­ated with ser­i­ous viol­ence. The gov­ern­ment attemp­ted to dilute that mean­ing, arguing that eco­nomic dis­rup­tion and protest activ­ity could qual­ify.

The court flatly rejec­ted that argu­ment. “To claim that the threshold for declar­ing a pub­lic order emer­gency … could be lower than the threshold for using the sur­veil­lance powers … under the CSIS Act would make little sense,” it wrote. “If any­thing, it should be the reverse.” Emer­gency powers, the judges made clear, demand more jus­ti­fic­a­tion, not less — par­tic­u­larly when they author­ize “a vast array of dra­conian powers without any prior author­iz­a­tion.”

Even more dam­aging was the court’s assess­ment of the evid­ence. Aside from the situ­ation in Coutts, where a weapons cache was dis­covered but resolved using ordin­ary law before the Emer­gen­cies Act was invoked, there was no cred­ible proof of ser­i­ous viol­ence: “When prop­erly under­stood as requir­ing bod­ily harm, the evid­ence is quite simply lack­ing.”

CSIS ITSELF HAD ASSESSED THERE WAS NO THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

CSIS itself had assessed that there was no threat to national secur­ity, and the gov­ern­ment invoked emer­gency powers before a reques­ted altern­at­ive threat assess­ment was com­pleted.

The court’s con­clu­sion was blunt: “As dis­turb­ing and dis­rupt­ive as the block­ades and protests could be, they fell well short of a threat to national secur­ity.”

The gov­ern­ment also failed the Emer­gen­cies Act’s “last resort” require­ment. Emer­gency powers may be used only when exist­ing laws are insuf­fi­cient. Yet the protests were ulti­mately cleared using the Crim­inal Code — the very tools already avail­able at the time. The RCMP com­mis­sioner at the time had even advised the gov­ern­ment that police had not exhausted their exist­ing powers.

What was lack­ing in Ott­awa, the court observed, was not legal author­ity but poli­cing resources and co-ordin­a­tion. That is not a national emer­gency. It is a fail­ure of gov­ernance.

Equally damning was the gov­ern­ment’s dis­reg­ard for pro­vin­cial oppos­i­tion. Most provinces warned that invok­ing the Emer­gen­cies Act would be unne­ces­sary and divis­ive. Cab­inet failed to mean­ing­fully engage with that oppos­i­tion.

“In a fed­er­a­tion,” the court wrote, “provinces should be left to determ­ine for them­selves how best to deal with a crit­ical situ­ation, espe­cially when it largely calls for the applic­a­tion of the Crim­inal Code by police forces.” The judges emphas­ized that if the situ­ation does not exceed capa­city or author­ity of the provinces, “they should be left to their own devices.”

The reg­u­la­tions enacted after the declar­a­tion fared no bet­ter under con­sti­tu­tional scru­tiny.

The court ruled that the sweep­ing ban on assem­blies viol­ated free­dom of expres­sion by crim­in­al­iz­ing mere attend­ance at protests, includ­ing peace­ful expres­sion on Par­lia­ment Hill. Indi­vidu­als could face up to five years in prison “not because of any­thing they were doing,” but because someone else nearby might breach the peace. That, the judges held, was grossly over­broad and uncon­sti­tu­tional.

Per­haps most chilling was the rul­ing on the fin­an­cial meas­ures. Banks were com­pelled to share Cana­dians’ private fin­an­cial inform­a­tion with police without a war­rant, without notice, and without recourse. Fin­an­cial insti­tu­tions were effect­ively dep­u­tized as agents of the state and told to “lever­age the news” and social media to identify sus­pects.

The court found that this ad hoc sys­tem “lacked pro­ced­ural safe­guards” and allowed pri­vacy to be invaded based on “poten­tially unfoun­ded, sub­ject­ive beliefs.” It viol­ated the Charter’s pro­tec­tion against unreas­on­able search and could not be jus­ti­fied.

This decision now stands as bind­ing pre­ced­ent. It places real legal con­straints on future gov­ern­ments and ensures that the Emer­gen­cies Act can­not be repur­posed as a polit­ical con­veni­ence. It restores the act to what Par­lia­ment inten­ded: a nar­row, excep­tional tool, not a blunt instru­ment against dis­sent.

The gov­ern­ment spent mil­lions defend­ing the indefens­ible. It lost com­pletely. And in doing so, it handed Cana­dians one of the most import­ant civil liber­ties rul­ings in a gen­er­a­tion.

That is worth cel­eb­rat­ing. (National Post, January 29, 2026)

Christine Van Geyn is the lit­ig­a­tion dir­ector for the Cana­dian

Con­sti­tu­tion Found­a­tion.

A rights rul­ing to be cel­eb­rated

Invoc­a­tion of Emer­gen­cies Act was illegal

Police take a demonstrator into custody in Ottawa in February 2022 using powers granted by the Emergencies Act, legislation the Federal Court of Appeal has affirmed was invoked illegally.
National Post - (Latest Edition)

Christine Van Geyn20 Jan 2026

A gen­er­a­tional civil liber­ties vic­tory has been upheld. On Jan. 16, the Fed­eral Court of Appeal held that the Trudeau gov­ern­ment illeg­ally invoked the Emer­gen­cies Act in 2022 in response to the Free­dom Con­voy.

The unan­im­ous judg­ment, which upheld the lower court’s decision in 2024, is metic­u­lous, dev­ast­at­ing and leaves little room for doubt. Future gov­ern­ments facing polit­ical tur­moil have been put on clear notice: they can­not cas­u­ally reach for emer­gency powers to solve a domestic protest.

The case was brought by the Cana­dian Con­sti­tu­tion Found­a­tion (CCF) and the Cana­dian Civil Liber­ties Asso­ci­ation, along with sev­eral indi­vidu­als dir­ectly affected by the emer­gency meas­ures. The court accep­ted the CCF’S argu­ment that the Emer­gen­cies Act was never meant to be easy to use.

The act was delib­er­ately craf­ted as a response to the abuses of the War Meas­ures Act, infam­ously deployed by Pierre Trudeau dur­ing the Octo­ber Crisis in 1970. Par­lia­ment replaced that law with one designed to restrain exec­ut­ive power, not expand it. As the Fed­eral Court of Appeal emphas­ized, “one must not lose sight … of the his­tory of the Act and of the con­text in which it was adop­ted.” Par­lia­ment, the court noted, “pre­cisely cir­cum­scribed Cab­inet’s dis­cre­tion” to pre­vent the cas­ual or polit­ical use of emer­gency powers.

Yet that is exactly what happened in Feb­ru­ary 2022.

The Trudeau gov­ern­ment invoked the Emer­gen­cies Act in response to noisy and dis­rupt­ive protests in Ott­awa and block­ades at sev­eral bor­der cross­ings. The court rejec­ted, point by point, the gov­ern­ment’s attempt to jus­tify that decision.

To invoke the act law­fully, cab­inet had to reas­on­ably believe that Canada faced a “threat to the secur­ity of Canada” — a term Par­lia­ment delib­er­ately impor­ted from the Cana­dian Secur­ity Intel­li­gence Ser­vice (CSIS) Act and asso­ci­ated with ser­i­ous viol­ence. The gov­ern­ment attemp­ted to dilute that mean­ing, arguing that eco­nomic dis­rup­tion and protest activ­ity could qual­ify.

The court flatly rejec­ted that argu­ment. “To claim that the threshold for declar­ing a pub­lic order emer­gency … could be lower than the threshold for using the sur­veil­lance powers … under the CSIS Act would make little sense,” it wrote. “If any­thing, it should be the reverse.” Emer­gency powers, the judges made clear, demand more jus­ti­fic­a­tion, not less — par­tic­u­larly when they author­ize “a vast array of dra­conian powers without any prior author­iz­a­tion.”

Even more dam­aging was the court’s assess­ment of the evid­ence. Aside from the situ­ation in Coutts, where a weapons cache was dis­covered but resolved using ordin­ary law before the Emer­gen­cies Act was invoked, there was no cred­ible proof of ser­i­ous viol­ence: “When prop­erly under­stood as requir­ing bod­ily harm, the evid­ence is quite simply lack­ing.”

CSIS ITSELF HAD ASSESSED THERE WAS NO THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

CSIS itself had assessed that there was no threat to national secur­ity, and the gov­ern­ment invoked emer­gency powers before a reques­ted altern­at­ive threat assess­ment was com­pleted.

The court’s con­clu­sion was blunt: “As dis­turb­ing and dis­rupt­ive as the block­ades and protests could be, they fell well short of a threat to national secur­ity.”

The gov­ern­ment also failed the Emer­gen­cies Act’s “last resort” require­ment. Emer­gency powers may be used only when exist­ing laws are insuf­fi­cient. Yet the protests were ulti­mately cleared using the Crim­inal Code — the very tools already avail­able at the time. The RCMP com­mis­sioner at the time had even advised the gov­ern­ment that police had not exhausted their exist­ing powers.

What was lack­ing in Ott­awa, the court observed, was not legal author­ity but poli­cing resources and co-ordin­a­tion. That is not a national emer­gency. It is a fail­ure of gov­ernance.

Equally damning was the gov­ern­ment’s dis­reg­ard for pro­vin­cial oppos­i­tion. Most provinces warned that invok­ing the Emer­gen­cies Act would be unne­ces­sary and divis­ive. Cab­inet failed to mean­ing­fully engage with that oppos­i­tion.

“In a fed­er­a­tion,” the court wrote, “provinces should be left to determ­ine for them­selves how best to deal with a crit­ical situ­ation, espe­cially when it largely calls for the applic­a­tion of the Crim­inal Code by police forces.” The judges emphas­ized that if the situ­ation does not exceed capa­city or author­ity of the provinces, “they should be left to their own devices.”

The reg­u­la­tions enacted after the declar­a­tion fared no bet­ter under con­sti­tu­tional scru­tiny.

The court ruled that the sweep­ing ban on assem­blies viol­ated free­dom of expres­sion by crim­in­al­iz­ing mere attend­ance at protests, includ­ing peace­ful expres­sion on Par­lia­ment Hill. Indi­vidu­als could face up to five years in prison “not because of any­thing they were doing,” but because someone else nearby might breach the peace. That, the judges held, was grossly over­broad and uncon­sti­tu­tional.

Per­haps most chilling was the rul­ing on the fin­an­cial meas­ures. Banks were com­pelled to share Cana­dians’ private fin­an­cial inform­a­tion with police without a war­rant, without notice, and without recourse. Fin­an­cial insti­tu­tions were effect­ively dep­u­tized as agents of the state and told to “lever­age the news” and social media to identify sus­pects.

The court found that this ad hoc sys­tem “lacked pro­ced­ural safe­guards” and allowed pri­vacy to be invaded based on “poten­tially unfoun­ded, sub­ject­ive beliefs.” It viol­ated the Charter’s pro­tec­tion against unreas­on­able search and could not be jus­ti­fied.

This decision now stands as bind­ing pre­ced­ent. It places real legal con­straints on future gov­ern­ments and ensures that the Emer­gen­cies Act can­not be repur­posed as a polit­ical con­veni­ence. It restores the act to what Par­lia­ment inten­ded: a nar­row, excep­tional tool, not a blunt instru­ment against dis­sent.

The gov­ern­ment spent mil­lions defend­ing the indefens­ible. It lost com­pletely. And in doing so, it handed Cana­dians one of the most import­ant civil liber­ties rul­ings in a gen­er­a­tion.

That is worth cel­eb­rat­ing. (National Post, January 29, 2026)

Christine Van Geyn is the lit­ig­a­tion dir­ector for the Cana­dian

Con­sti­tu­tion Found­a­tion.