Hamilton Police, Who Gave You the Right To Police Speech?

Posted on by

Hamilton Police: Who gave you the authority to decide who gets to speak in Hamilton?

I have listened to the recorded conversation between WireTap Media and Inspector Darren Murphy of the Hamilton Police Service concerning the Dominion Society of Canada’s proposed conference in Hamilton, and I find what I heard deeply disturbing.

Let me be clear about something from the outset: my personal opinion of the Dominion Society’s political beliefs or messaging is completely irrelevant to this issue. I am not defending or attacking their politics. I am addressing what appears to be the use of police authority to interfere with a lawful political gathering.

According to Inspector Murphy, Hamilton Police are asking people to identify venues that have booked the Dominion Society so that police can contact those venues and make them “aware” of who they are booking. When asked why, Murphy referred to public safety and then stated that the Dominion Society is “not an organization that we would like holding a conference in the City of Hamilton.” He further described its messaging as something “that the Hamilton Police Service supports”—or, more precisely, does not support. When the caller summarized his position by saying, “You just said that we don’t want them in the City of Hamilton,” Murphy answered: “Absolutely.”

That should concern every Canadian, regardless of their political beliefs.

The police are not supposed to be political gatekeepers. Their job is to enforce the law, investigate crime and protect public safety. If they have credible information that someone intends to commit violence, investigate it. If there is a specific criminal threat, deal with it. If a venue needs security advice, provide it. But if the concern is simply that the police don’t approve of an organization’s political message, that is an entirely different matter.

And let’s deal with the semantic defence before it starts. Perhaps the police will say, “We aren’t ordering venues not to rent to them. We’re merely making them aware of who they are.” Fine. Then I have a very simple question: What is the purpose of making them aware?

Why are police contacting private businesses about a lawful political organization at all? If the purpose isn’t to influence the venue’s decision, what exactly is the purpose? And if the police are simultaneously telling those businesses that Hamilton Police don’t want this organization holding a conference in Hamilton, are we really supposed to pretend that carries no pressure whatsoever?

A police officer does not make a telephone call with the same authority as an ordinary citizen. The person answering the phone knows who is calling. The police have enormous institutional power. They don’t necessarily have to say, “You are ordered not to rent to them” for their intervention to have a chilling or coercive effect.

This is why the issue potentially engages the Charter protections for freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association. It may also raise questions of civil liability, including potential intentional interference with economic relations, depending upon the full facts and what can ultimately be established.

And this is much bigger than the Dominion Society.

If we allow police services to make it difficult for lawful political organizations to obtain meeting space because the police don’t approve of their message, what happens when the political winds change? Today it may be one organization. Tomorrow it could be a socialist organization, a religious organization, an environmental organization, a labour organization, an anti-government organization, or a political movement that you personally support.

The police do not get to decide which political ideas are acceptable.

That is not their job.

There is now going to be an interesting test of this principle. In light of what has happened, the Dominion Society intends to proceed with plans for a conference in Hamilton specifically to raise funds to pursue whatever legal remedies may be available, including a potential constitutional challenge and, where supported by the facts and law, a civil action concerning the conduct of the Hamilton Police Service.

So here’s the question I would like answered:

Will Hamilton Police try to interfere with that conference in the same way?

Will they again contact venues and tell them that the police don’t want the organization holding a conference in Hamilton? 

Will they again attempt to persuade private businesses not to provide a venue?

 And if they do, will they attempt to interfere with a political gathering whose specific purpose is to raise money to investigate and potentially challenge the conduct of the Hamilton Police themselves?

If Hamilton Police believe what they did was a legitimate exercise of their public-safety responsibilities, then they should have no difficulty explaining precisely what threat justified it, who authorized it, and what legal authority permits it.

If they cannot do that, then perhaps the question isn’t whether the Dominion Society should be allowed to hold a conference.

Perhaps the question is why the Hamilton Police Service believes it has any business deciding who is allowed to hold one.

I have written a full letter to Inspector Murphy, the Chief of Police and the Mayor of Hamilton laying out the issues and the questions I believe they need to answer.

Read the full letter here:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DAFiN3zJB/

OPEN LETTER TO INSPECTOR DARREN MURPHY, THE CHIEF OF THE HAMILTON POLICE SERVICE, AND THE MAYOR OF HAMILTON

Re: Hamilton Police Service Intervention Concerning the Dominion Society of Canada Conference

Inspector Murphy, Chief of the Hamilton Police Service, and Mayor of Hamilton:

I have listened carefully to the recorded telephone conversation between Inspector Darren Murphy of the Hamilton Police Service and Jason Willett of WireTap Media concerning the proposed Dominion Society of Canada conference in Hamilton. Having now heard the conversation, I believe the conduct described by Inspector Murphy raises serious questions about the proper exercise of police authority, the constitutional protection of political expression and peaceful association, and potentially the civil liability of those who deliberately interfere with lawful contractual and economic relationships.

Let me be absolutely clear about what this letter is and is not about. My personal opinion of the Dominion Society of Canada’s political beliefs or messaging is completely irrelevant to me, and I am not interested in debating those matters here. The organization is entitled to be judged by its conduct and by the law, just as every other organization is. The issue before us is considerably more fundamental: what gives a police service the authority to intervene with private venue operators because it does not want a lawful political organization holding a conference in its city?

That is not a rhetorical question. Inspector Murphy’s own statements have put it squarely on the table.

When asked why Hamilton Police were asking members of the public to contact police if they knew of a venue that had recently been booked, Inspector Murphy explained that police wanted to make venues and proprietors “aware” of whom they were booking. When pressed about why police considered this necessary, he referred to public safety and public awareness. But the conversation ultimately revealed something considerably more specific: the Hamilton Police Service did not want the Dominion Society holding its conference in Hamilton.

At approximately the 2:15 mark, Inspector Murphy stated that the Dominion Society of Canada was “not an organization that we would like holding a conference in the City of Hamilton.” He then described the organization as “exclusionary” and said that its messaging was “not something that the Hamilton Police Service supports.” When the caller challenged him on the fact that the organization was not being identified as committing a crime, Murphy did not retreat from the position. When the caller subsequently summarized it by saying, “You just said that we don’t want them in the City of Hamilton,” Inspector Murphy answered, quite plainly, “Absolutely.”

That is not a minor statement. It is an admission of institutional opposition to a lawful political gathering.

The police are not a political party. They are not an advocacy organization. They are not a private pressure group entitled to use their public standing to persuade businesses which political organizations should be permitted to rent their facilities. The police are an arm of government, entrusted with coercive powers precisely because the public expects those powers to be exercised for lawful policing purposes and not according to the political preferences of individual officers or the institution itself.

Inspector Murphy may respond that the Hamilton Police Service did not order any venue to cancel a booking. Fine. That is not the question.

The question is why the police were contacting the venues at all.

If the purpose of these calls was not to influence the venue’s decision, then what exactly was the purpose? Why did police need to identify the organization to private venue operators? Why did they need to tell those operators about the organization’s political messaging? Why did the police need to communicate that the Hamilton Police Service did not want the organization holding its conference in Hamilton? What legitimate policing function was being served by doing this?

There is an obvious and entirely legitimate circumstance in which police should contact a venue about an upcoming event: where police possess credible information about a specific threat to public safety. If there is credible intelligence that someone intends to commit violence, investigate it. If there is a specific criminal threat, deal with it. If a venue requires additional security because of a demonstrable risk, tell the venue what that risk is so that appropriate precautions can be taken. Those are legitimate police functions.

But telling a venue that a lawful political organization is “exclusionary,” that its messaging is not supported by the Hamilton Police Service, and that the police do not want the organization holding a conference in Hamilton is something else entirely. That begins to look less like policing a threat and considerably more like policing a political message.

The distinction matters because people are permitted to have strong feelings about political expression. They are permitted to be offended by it, angry about it, disgusted by it, or vehemently opposed to it. They are permitted to protest it, criticize it, ridicule it, boycott it and attempt to persuade others not to support it. What they are not permitted to do is use the coercive authority of the state to suppress lawful political expression simply because they disapprove of the message.

That principle applies with particular force to police services. A police officer calling a private venue is not merely another citizen offering an opinion. The person on the other end of that telephone knows that the caller represents the police. The institutional authority of the police is present in that conversation whether or not the officer expressly threatens to exercise any police power.

This is why the distinction between ordering a venue not to rent to an organization and strongly discouraging the venue from doing so cannot simply be dismissed as a matter of semantics. A police service does not necessarily escape constitutional scrutiny by carefully avoiding the words “you are ordered not to do this.” If the practical purpose of the communication is to cause a private party to withdraw from or refuse a lawful arrangement, the absence of an explicit command does not answer the constitutional question.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression under section 2(b), peaceful assembly under section 2(c), and freedom of association under section 2(d). Those protections are not conditional upon the approval of the police. They do not protect only popular speech, respectable speech, politically convenient speech, or speech that happens to be consistent with the prevailing views of a police service. They exist precisely because governments cannot be trusted with unrestricted authority to determine which ideas citizens may assemble to express.

The potential constitutional problem becomes particularly acute where government attempts to interfere indirectly with expression by using a private intermediary. A government actor cannot necessarily do indirectly, through a private business, what the state itself could not lawfully do directly. If the police cannot simply prohibit a lawful political organization from holding a conference, then it is reasonable to ask whether they can accomplish substantially the same objective by contacting the private businesses upon which the organization depends and attempting to persuade those businesses not to provide the necessary facilities.

I am not suggesting that the recording, by itself, conclusively establishes a Charter violation. The full facts and applicable law would have to be examined by competent counsel and, if necessary, determined by a court. What the recording plainly does establish is that a senior representative of the Hamilton Police Service acknowledged that the Service did not want the Dominion Society holding a conference in Hamilton and acknowledged that police were contacting venues to make them aware of whom they were booking. Those facts are sufficient to raise a serious question about whether police authority is being used for a purpose that is inconsistent with the Charter’s protection of political expression, peaceful assembly and association.

There is also a potential civil-law issue that should not be ignored. If police intervention was undertaken deliberately for the purpose of causing venues to withdraw from contractual or prospective contractual relationships with the Dominion Society, and if the requisite elements can be established, that conduct may potentially give rise to a claim for intentional interference with economic relations or another applicable tort. Again, that is ultimately a matter for legal counsel and the courts, not something to be declared conclusively from a five-minute recording. But the possibility is sufficiently obvious that it deserves investigation rather than being waved away because the police chose not to issue a formal prohibition.

The semantic distinction between “we ordered them not to rent to you” and “we told them who you are and that we don’t want you here” is particularly unconvincing when one considers the position of the venue operator. Imagine being the proprietor of a hotel or conference centre and receiving a call from the police about one of your prospective customers. The officer does not need to say, “You will face consequences if you rent to them.” The proprietor already knows who is speaking. The police have deliberately inserted themselves into a private commercial relationship and have communicated their institutional opposition to the proposed customer.

The obvious question for that proprietor is: Why is the police service calling me?

The next question is: What does the police service expect me to do with this information?

And if the answer is, “Nothing; we are merely making you aware,” then we are entitled to ask why the police believe it is appropriate to spend police resources contacting private businesses about the political identity and messaging of their customers in the first place.

The Hamilton Police Service cannot have it both ways. If these calls were genuinely about public safety, then identify the specific public-safety concern. If they were about criminal conduct, identify the conduct. If they were about credible threats of violence, explain the nature of the threat. But if the purpose was to discourage venues from hosting the organization because the police do not support its messaging, then the public deserves to know why the police believe that falls within their mandate.

I therefore have the following questions for Inspector Murphy, the Chief of Police, and the Mayor of Hamilton:

    1. Did Hamilton Police Service personnel contact private venues concerning the Dominion Society of Canada or its proposed conference?

    2. How many venues were contacted, and over what period of time did those communications occur?

    3. Who authorized those communications? Was this Inspector Murphy’s initiative, a direction from a superior officer, an established Hamilton Police Service practice, or a directive from the Chief of Police?

    4. What specific public-safety threat justified contacting private venues about this organization and its proposed conference?

    5. What specific criminal conduct by the Dominion Society, its organizers, members, speakers, or prospective attendees was identified as the basis for those communications?

    6. What information were officers instructed to provide to the venues they contacted?

    7. Were officers instructed to tell venues that the Hamilton Police Service did not want the Dominion Society holding its conference in Hamilton?

    8. If so, why was that considered a legitimate policing function?

    9. Were officers instructed to encourage, recommend, suggest, or otherwise attempt to persuade venues to reconsider bookings with the Dominion Society?

    10. If so, what legal authority does the Hamilton Police Service rely upon for intervening in those private commercial relationships?

    11. Does the Hamilton Police Service believe that it is appropriate for police officers to contact private businesses and communicate institutional opposition to a lawful political organization’s message?

    12. Does the Hamilton Police Service believe that such conduct is consistent with the Charter protections for freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and freedom of association?

    13. If the Service believes that there is no constitutional problem, what legal authority and jurisprudence does it rely upon to support that position?

    14. Does the Mayor of Hamilton endorse this conduct by the Hamilton Police Service?

These questions matter because the precedent being established here is far larger than the Dominion Society or a single conference. If police services can decide that a political organization is “exclusionary,” decide that they do not want that organization holding a conference in their city, and then contact private venues to make those venues aware of the organization’s identity and messaging, we have moved into territory that should alarm every person who cares about civil liberties.

It is particularly dangerous because the mechanism is so easily disguised. Nobody has to issue an official ban. Nobody has to write a regulation. Nobody has to stand at the door and announce that the meeting is prohibited. The police merely need to make a few telephone calls, identify the organization, explain that they do not support its message, and leave the private proprietor to draw the obvious conclusion. The state can then wash its hands of the result and say, “The business made its own decision.”

That is not an adequate answer.

The question is not merely whether the venue technically retained the freedom to ignore the police. The question is whether the police used the authority and influence of their office to interfere with the ability of a lawful political organization to exercise rights that the Charter protects. That is a question worthy of serious legal scrutiny.

And there is a particularly disturbing irony in the position taken by the Hamilton Police Service. Police are supposed to protect the public from unlawful conduct, not protect the public from political ideas. They are supposed to enforce laws impartially, not determine which organizations are sufficiently ideologically acceptable to receive the benefit of ordinary commercial services. They are supposed to facilitate the peaceful exercise of lawful rights, not make the exercise of those rights more difficult because they disapprove of the people exercising them.

If a group is lawful, the police do not get to decide that it is unwelcome.

If its members commit crimes, investigate the crimes.

If individuals make credible threats, investigate the threats.

If violence occurs, arrest those responsible.

If a venue needs police assistance to keep an event peaceful, provide it.

That is what policing looks like in a free society.

What policing does not look like is contacting private businesses because the police have decided that they do not want a lawful political organization holding a conference in their city.

There is now an additional question that the Hamilton Police Service will have to answer. In light of the conduct described above, the Dominion Society of Canada intends to proceed with plans for a conference in Hamilton, with the purpose of raising funds to retain appropriate legal counsel and pursue whatever legal remedies may be available, including a potential constitutional challenge and, where the facts and law support it, a civil action arising from the conduct of the Hamilton Police Service.

That raises a rather obvious question: will Hamilton Police attempt to interfere with that conference in the same manner?

Will officers again contact prospective venues and tell them that Hamilton Police do not want the organization holding a conference in the city? Will they again attempt to persuade those venues not to provide a place for the gathering? And if they do, will they attempt to interfere with a political assembly whose specific purpose is to raise funds to investigate and potentially bring legal proceedings against the very police service attempting to prevent the assembly from taking place?

Because if the Hamilton Police Service considers its conduct toward the previous conference to be a legitimate exercise of its public-safety responsibilities, then presumably it should be prepared to apply that same standard consistently. If, however, the police now recognize that attempting to discourage venues from hosting a lawful political gathering because of its message is inappropriate, then perhaps the time has come to explain why it was considered appropriate in the first place.

Either way, the conduct of the Hamilton Police Service will be watched very carefully. If the Service again attempts to use its institutional authority to prevent a lawful political gathering from obtaining a venue, it will no longer be merely a question of what the police said they were doing. It will become additional evidence concerning precisely how the Service exercises its authority when confronted with political speech it apparently does not wish to see expressed in the City of Hamilton.

The Hamilton Police Service has an opportunity to explain itself. It can identify the specific threat, the specific criminal conduct, the specific policing purpose, the specific authorization, and the specific legal authority upon which these actions were based. If those things exist, then the public deserves to hear them. If they do not, then the Service needs to explain why its officers were intervening in the first place.

The Mayor has an opportunity as well. This is not simply an argument between one journalist and one police inspector. The police exercise public power on behalf of the community. The political leadership of that community therefore has an obligation to take seriously the possibility that the police have exceeded the proper boundaries of that power. Silence is not an adequate response to a police service apparently declaring that it does not want a lawful political organization holding a conference in the city and then intervening with private venues concerning that organization.

Nobody is asking the police to endorse the Dominion Society.

Nobody is asking the police to endorse its message.

Nobody is asking the police to agree with anything being said at the conference.

The police are being asked to do something considerably simpler: enforce the law impartially and leave lawful political expression to the citizens whose rights are protected by that law.

That is not a radical demand. It is the minimum that should be expected of a police service in a constitutional democracy.

The issue here is therefore not whether the Dominion Society deserves anyone’s political approval. It is whether a police service is entitled to become an active participant in determining whether that organization can obtain a place to assemble and communicate its political views. If the answer is yes, then the Hamilton Police Service needs to explain where that extraordinary power comes from and what prevents it from being used against the next organization whose politics it dislikes.

If the answer is no, then the Service needs to explain why this happened.

And if the Service’s position is that it was merely “making venues aware,” then it should explain what it expected those venues to do with that information, why police resources were used to deliver it, and why Inspector Murphy expressly acknowledged that Hamilton Police did not want the organization holding its conference in Hamilton.

Those are not unreasonable questions.

They are questions the public has a right to ask.

And given the constitutional rights potentially implicated by the conduct described in this recording, they are questions that the Hamilton Police Service, its Chief, and the Mayor should answer before anyone becomes comfortable with the precedent being established here.

Because once a police service acquires the practical ability to make a lawful political gathering disappear without ever formally banning it, the distinction between a free society and a society in which political expression requires the tacit approval of the state becomes dangerously thin.

That is not a power that should belong to the police.

Not in Hamilton.

Not anywhere in Canada. — Robert Menard

Hamilton’s Socialist Mayor Relies on Discredited Canadian Anti-Hate Network to Smear Dominion Society

Posted on by

Leaked email shows Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath sourced the discredited Anti-Hate Network to sabotage DomCon 2026 and the Dominion Society of Canada.

On August 7, Mayor Andrea Horwath sent Hamilton venue owners a letter urging them to think twice about hosting DomCon 2026. She cited the Dominion Society’s own site — then pointed them to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network as the authoritative source they should “review.”

The same CAHN that an Ottawa judge found “did in fact assist Antifa,” a group known for violence and now listed as a terrorist entity.

CAHN has since had its funding removed by the Federal government after internal memos flagged partisan investigations, anti-Catholic bias, polarization, and false reporting.

Yesterday, Inspector Darren Murphy told us Hamilton Police were not running CAHN’s line. Then he hung up when asked who ordered the venue hunt.

The mayor already named the source. The letter is attached. –Wiretap Media

More to come.

Justice Centre Sends Legal Warning to Hamilton Mayor & Police for Pressuring Venues Not to Rent to the Dominion Society

Posted on by

Lawyers funded by the Justice Centre have sent a warning letter to Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath and Hamilton Police after they attempted to prevent a political conference organized by the Dominion Society of Canada from taking place in Hamilton.

Mayor Horwath urged local businesses not to host the conference. Hamilton Police then asked the public to report possible venues to police, despite identifying no crime.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said, “The City of Hamilton and Hamilton Police are using both direct action and their influence to exclude a viewpoint they disagree with from the entire city. This is unconstitutional and fundamentally at odds with the way a free and democratic society operates.”

The legal warning letter calls on Hamilton officials to cease and retract their actions and respect Charter freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. 🇨🇦

The Alternative Forum Kicked Out of the Legion

Posted on by

in Long Branch

The Alternative Forum Kicked Out of the Legion

in Long Branch

The Alternative Forum has run monthly meetings in Toronto,
since January, 1979. It’s an institution but, from time to time, its
meeting space has been cancelled, often by those with high ideals
– the Toronto Public Library, the Royal Canadian Legion. In
February, 2025, when we moved our regular venue to Legion
101, after being abruptly cancelled – no reason given – by a hotel
we’d used for some years, we always knew we were on borrowed
time. The Royal Canadian Legion has had a vile reputation for
cancelling meetings, despite the bumph you’ll hear around
Remembrance Day about fighting for basic freedoms in two
world wars. After putting himself of the line, at his own expense,
to promote support for the Legion hockey commentator Don
Cherry was fired by Sportsnet owned by Rogers. His sin was
that he appeared to be lecturing newcomers to get with the
programme and support the poppy campaign. The cowardly
Legion promptly tossed their benefactor under the bus. “Mr.
Cherry’s personal opinion was hurtful, divisive and in no way
condoned by the Legion,” a smarmy statement said. The Legion
cancelled or refused several bookings by the Canadian National
Party in 2019. After years of playing her violin and often
volunteering at the Jasper, Alberta Legion, Monika Schaefer
was banned from the Legion in Jasper after her video Sorry,
Mon, I was Wrong About the Holocaust became known. This
was ruinous for her. The Legion was the venue for several
musical groups she was in. Even controversialist and Zionist
Ezra Levant was deplatformed. In 2019, he was launching his
book The Libranos. He chose the Legion on North Yonge Street
but was banned as “too controversial.”


On July 7, as Director of the Alternative Forum, I received an
e-mail from Cindy Prentice, Head of Operations for Legion
101: “I was contacted by Legion Command who has told us we
are not permitted to rent to you and your group going forward.” I
inquired: “Is there a specific reason given by Legion Command
for this decision? We’ve always paid our bills and, I trust, left the
place in good order.” Her response was about as clear as fog:
“They did not explain, just told us to cease and desist renting to
you.” I inquired further: “I am truly mystified. Both my late
parents served in WW II. Can I contact anyone higher up?” No
response. They stand on guard for ?????? – Paul Fromm

In Case You Missed Cuba: Hamilton Mayor & Political Cops Lean on Venues Not to Host Dominion Society Conference

Posted on by
, Today has been a whirlwind. The establishment is desperate to make sure DOMCON26 doesn’t happen. They are pulling out all the stops. They are completely weaponizing the system against us.  They know that if our ideas get any oxygen they will spread off like wildfire. After weeks of smears by anti-Canadian activists, hit pieces in the press, attacks from politicians, and getting censored by Instagram, now the Hamilton Police is involved.

Yesterday, executive officer Darren Murphy reached out to me threatening to impose any additional police expenses on the Dominion Society to try and get us to back down. Today we learn the Hamilton Police service has been going venue-by-venue telling owners they cannot host us. These are straight up mafia intimidation tactics! It’s one thing when it was just angry activists campaigning against us, but the police? We have committed no crimes. We are holding a peaceful political gatherings in line with our fundamental democratic rights and the police is doing everything they can to cancel our event.

This is the state of Canada. As a result of the actions of Hamilton Police, two venues have now cancelled on us. But we’re not backing down. All day we have been scrambling to solve the problems they keep throwing at us. Every challenge has been overcome. We will not be stopped.

It is a crucial that DOMCON26 takes place, not only for our organization but for the country.  We need to demonstrate to the establishment that the nationalist movement cannot be stopped, that they can’t just oppress us because they disagree with our politics. We have been forced to incur many last minute expenses to ensure DOMCON26 goes on as planned. We were already organizing the event at cost to provide an affordable but premium experience for our audience. If you can spare anything during this challenging time, please donate today. Despite their best efforts, DOMCON26 will be historic. Long Live Canada, Dominion Society Team

‘We Don’t Need A Political Police,” Says Fromm

Posted on by

‘We Don’t Need A Political Police,” Says Fromm
HAMILTON, August 27, 2026. “We don’t need a political police in Hamilton. This is not communist Cuba,”  Mayoralty candidate Paul Fromm said tonight on learning that the Hamilton Police has posted a message asked  ” Anyone with information regarding a recent venue booking for  August 29 [for the Dominion Society conference] is asked to contact Hamilton Police at 905-546-4707 or email dmurphy@hamiltonpolice.ca“
“The duty of the Hamilton Police is to preserve law and order, not to censor opinion,” Fromm adds.
A voice message from Hamilton Police explains that the Dominion Society’s message is not “one we approve.” 
“The police are not tasked with approving political opinions, at least not in a democratic society,” Fromm insists. “Their statement that the Dominion Society’s messaging ‘is divisive and exclusionary’ is outrageous nonsense and irrelevant,” Fromm says.
“Any disagreement is divisive. Canada’s recent immigration policies which are replacing the European founding/settler people are ‘divisive’,” Fromm adds. “Recent mass immigration has stressed our medical, welfare and transportation systems,” Fromm says. “Even former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau admitted his policies had been too much too fast.”
“Nearly 16 per cent of Hamilton’s high tax burden goes to support the police,” Fromm explains. “Of course, policing is necessary and I’m not part of the defund-the-police crowd, but taxpayers have the right to expect politically neutral policing and policing that upholds the right of free speech.”
Paul Fromm is the director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.______________________________________________________________________________STATEMENT FROM THE HAMILTON POLICE

DomCon Continues to Search for Hamilton Venue

Hamilton Police are aware that the Dominion Society of Canada continues to seek venues within Hamilton to host its DomCon conference, despite its statement to media indicating it will be moving the conference out of town.

An alternate booking had been secured at another local venue but was cancelled by the venue earlier this morning.

Hamilton Police continue to encourage venues to consider the impact this event and its messaging may have on the broader community when making decisions about hosting it. Anyone with information regarding a recent venue booking for August 29 is asked to contact Hamilton Police at 905-546-4707 or email dmurphy@hamiltonpolice.ca.

Hamilton Police are working closely with our local partners and have developed an operational plan to ensure appropriate resources are in place should the event proceed in Hamilton.

The messaging associated with DomCon is divisive and exclusionary and can negatively impact the sense of safety and belonging within our community. We have heard those concerns from members of the community and take them seriously.

Our priority remains the safety of everyone in Hamilton, and we will continue to monitor the situation and respond as appropriate

Former Political Prisoner Brad Love Handcuffed to Hospital Gurney for Having Canadian Immigration Hotline in His Pocket

Posted on by

Former Political Prisoner Brad Love Handcuffed to Hospital Gurney for Having Canadian Immigration Hotline in His Pocket

Fort McMurray, August 19, 2026 He had fainted on a sidewalk. A nosey ambulance driver searched his jacket pocket (not his pants) for a wallet. He found a copy of my Canadian Immigration Hotline newsletter. He freaked out and called police. The RCMP showed up, accompanied Brad to the local hospital and handcuffed this dissident to a gurney.
I spoke to dissident citizen journalist Brad Love today. Mid afternoon, he was returning from shopping with a six-pack of beer and a few groceries. As he  exited the bus, he fainted near an ambulance station. Two attendants, one White, one Black, came to help. At first, he could not say his name. The White man went through his jacket pocket searching for ID but found a copy of the Canadian Immigration Hotline newsletter which I edit. “Do you see who’s caring for you?” the belligerent White attendant hissed at the groggy Love, pointing at the Black man. The righteous White attendant phoned the police.
The constabulary showed up at the hospital and handcuffed the owner of the newsletter to a gurney.
Love was diagnosed as “lactose deficient.”
Mr. Love escaped the clutches of the super woke and returned home by cab about eight hours later. Both his carton of beer and his watch had disappeared.
Paul Fromm​

Canada’s Largest Food Bank Excludes PPC Candidate From A Debate on Hunger in Beaches-Woodbine Byelection

Posted on by

Tomorrow night in Toronto, Canada’s largest food bank is hosting a debate about hunger and food prices — while banning the PPC candidate who wants to challenge the dairy cartel.

Daily Bread Food Bank is hosting the Beaches—East York all-candidates debate.

There are six candidates on the ballot. Only four are being allowed on stage.

PPC candidate Michel Lachance is one of the two being excluded.

And here’s what makes this especially outrageous.

Daily Bread lists Dairy Farmers of Ontario among its largest in-kind food donors, while every party it is allowing on stage supports supply management — the government-protected system that keeps milk, eggs and poultry artificially expensive.

The PPC is the only party that wants to end it.

At a debate supposedly about hunger and food affordability, the one party willing to challenge this system is the party they don’t want Canadians to hear from.

That’s why we need your help tomorrow.

First, send Daily Bread an email demanding they open the stage to all six candidates.

We’ve created a simple form that takes about 60 seconds:

→ Email Daily Bread and demand they open the stage:action.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/hungerhasnoparty

Then, if you’re anywhere in Toronto or the surrounding area, come to the debate yourself.

Register for a free ticket, fill the room, and ask the organizers — and the other candidates — why they continue to prop up the dairy industry and supply management while trying to silence the only party willing to challenge it.

→ Register for the debate:

BLOGGER RICH ANGEL WARNS

Posted on by

WARNING CANADIANS: WATCH WHAT YOU SAY OR POST ONLINE

I’m seriously concerned about where Canada is heading, and I think Canadians need to start paying attention to how all these pieces are coming together.

This isn’t about something that might begin someday.

Canada already has criminal hate-speech laws. Police already investigate communications, including online communications, when they believe they may cross into criminal hate or other offences. The RCMP itself publishes an investigator’s guide explaining how police investigate hate crimes and incidents.

And now we’re building even more specialized machinery around it.

In April 2026, Ontario’s Legislature passed a motion calling for the establishment of a specialized Hate Crime Prosecutions Unit.

Supporters say specialized Crown prosecutors will provide expertise for complicated hate-motivated cases and better protect targeted communities.

But I’m asking a different question:

WHO GETS TO DEFINE HATE?

Because whoever controls that definition holds enormous power.

Think about it.

Speeding is measurable. If the speed limit is 100 km/h and you’re doing 130, there’s little debate about what happened.

Words aren’t that simple.

Political arguments aren’t that simple.

Religious beliefs aren’t that simple.

What one person considers offensive, another considers legitimate criticism.

What happens when somebody strongly criticizes immigration policy?

What about criticizing Christianity, Islam or Judaism?

What about criticizing Israel or another foreign government?

What about gender policies?

What about quoting religious scripture?

What about criticizing government policies, politicians or political movements?

Under Canadian law today, simply offending somebody or expressing a controversial political opinion does not automatically make it criminal hate speech.

That distinction matters.

The Criminal Code sets specific thresholds. Section 319 includes public incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. The law also contains specific defences for the wilful-promotion offence, including truth, certain good-faith religious arguments and certain public-interest discussions.

But here’s something Canadians should understand:

The criminal penalties are real.

Public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred can each carry a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment when prosecuted by indictment.

And Canada has recently gone even further in defining hatred in federal law. In June 2026, stronger federal hate-crime legislation became law, defining hatred as an emotion of an “intense and extreme nature” associated with vilification and detestation. The government says this reflects the standard Canadian courts were already applying.

So yes, there is a legal definition.

But that doesn’t end my concern.

Because laws change.

Governments change.

Definitions can change.

Enforcement priorities can change.

And institutions created by one government are inherited by the next.

That’s why I’m looking at the whole picture, instead of each development separately.

We already have hate-speech offences.

We already have police investigating allegations involving communications.

We already have the possibility of criminal prosecution and imprisonment when the legal threshold is crossed.

Now Ontario is specializing prosecutors to handle hate-crime cases.

That’s where 1984 starts coming into my mind.

I’m not saying Canada literally became George Orwell’s 1984 overnight.

I’m saying people should remember how government power grows.

A law here.

A new definition there.

A specialized unit.

Another enforcement tool.

Another amendment.

Every individual step can be presented as reasonable and necessary.

Then five, ten or twenty years later, Canadians could find themselves living under a system very different from the one they originally agreed to.

And there’s another consequence that concerns me almost as much as prosecution:

SELF-CENSORSHIP.

Government doesn’t have to put millions of people in jail to change how millions of people speak.

If Canadians become afraid to discuss immigration, religion, gender, war, protests, vaccines or government policy because they’re wondering whether somebody will report their Facebook post, people will start policing their own words.

That’s when free expression begins disappearing without anybody officially announcing that free expression has been taken away.

Today you may completely agree with the government about what constitutes unacceptable speech.

But governments don’t last forever.

Political power changes hands.

So ask yourself a very simple question:

Would you still support giving government that power if your biggest political opponent controlled it tomorrow?

That’s the test we should apply to every government power.

Real threats should be prosecuted.

Violence should be prosecuted.

Genuine criminal hatred that meets the legal standard should be dealt with according to law.

But Canadians must defend lawful freedom of expression just as fiercely.

Because freedom of expression was never meant only to protect popular opinions.

It’s most important when somebody says something controversial, offensive or unpopular while remaining within the law.

So I’m watching this very closely.

Watch the laws.

Watch the definitions.

Watch the institutions being built around them.

Watch what happens to the line between offensive speech and criminal speech.

And never stop asking the most important question:

WHO GETS TO DEFINE HATE, AND WHO WATCHES THE PEOPLE WITH THE POWER TO DEFINE IT?

Because whoever controls the boundaries of acceptable language can hold tremendous power over everyone else.

Free Speech: Five Centuries of Struggle and One Forgotten Hero

Posted on by

From Magna Carta to Tyndale’s Bible, how Christian conviction built the liberties we now take for granted

Right Times with Kathy Gyngell

Aug 07, 2026

A guest post by Bob Robinson.

FREEDOM of speech is under threat from authorities seeking to impose international rules on nation states and deny access to information. This is not the first time English people have been called upon to oppose the centralisation of power and control of knowledge. Civil wars were fought in defence of the principles of Magna Carta. The Reformation removed the corrupt and stifling influence of the Catholic Church. International wars have been fought against the ambitions of authoritarian regimes.

This year marks the 500th anniversary of William Tyndale’s English translation of the New Testament. Its impact on the development of the English language, religious liberty, and national identity was immense. Tyndale, a multi-lingual scholar from Gloucestershire, translated the Bible into English from its Latin, Greek and Hebrew versions, enabling more people to read and understand Scripture for themselves. Before then, religious teaching had been restricted to an elite group of learned men deemed to be ‘best qualified’ to decide how Scripture should be interpreted and explained to the majority.

The invention of the printing press dramatically increased access to information in books and pamphlets. In a similar way, the internet has democratised knowledge and the seeking of truth. When the printing and distribution of his Bible was banned in England, Tyndale travelled to Germany where a clandestine printer produced hundreds of pocket editions of his translated Bible. These were then smuggled into England. He was hunted across Europe and eventually captured in Antwerp, where he was executed by strangulation and then burned at the stake. Today, Tyndale should be remembered as one in a long line of Englishmen who stood up for freedom of conscience and the right to free speech.

Share Right Times with Kathy Gyngell

Christianity has a remarkably long association with the people of the British Isles. Folklore tells of Christ visiting England alongside his metal-trading uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. According to Orthodox tradition the first Bishop of Britain was Saint Aristobulus, one of the Seventy Apostles sent around the Roman Empire. He arrived in Britain shortly after the Roman invasion in AD 43. At this time, Christians who proclaimed their faith were persecuted by the authorities; nevertheless, they remained defiant and refused to stay silent about their beliefs. The early Church was characterised by cults built around local Romano-British martyrs, such as Saint Alban. Many of these saints have since been lost to the Anglican Church, but are still celebrated by the Orthodox Church.

Following the Roman withdrawal in AD 410, indigenous Romano-Britons were unable to prevent the widespread settlement of Anglo-Saxon pagans. Christianity was confined to the western and northern parts of the British Isles, and was introduced to the Anglo-Saxons in England in the early 7thcentury. Biblical principles and Christian moral guidance underpin English common law, which developed from a series of legal precedents taken from the wisdom, customs, and traditions of the Anglo-Saxons. For hundreds of years, this legal system has provided a defence of individual freedoms and rights.

The ‘Golden Rule’ in the Gospel of Luke ‘to do unto others as you would have them do to you’ is lost on many in the modern secular age. Unnecessarily abusive social media posts considered ‘hurtful’ are used as an excuse by authorities to clamp down on freedom of expression and speech. This has been helped by the English legal system moving away from flexible, common-sense case law and towards poorly defined statutory codes that are open to subjective interpretation by social media platform moderators and unelected judges.

Magna Carta was sealed by King John in 1215. Its principal author, Stephen Langton (Archbishop of Canterbury at the time), opposed the notion that monarchs could act above the law. He believed that morally upstanding citizens were a prerequisite for a just and prosperous Christian society. Individuals needed to operate with honour and integrity to find their true sense of spiritual and secular purpose. For this to happen they had to be free, and a system of law based on truth, fairness and transparency had to underpin these freedoms. If all people were treated were treated equally under the law, individual rights and freedoms would be respected across society. Today, this basic concept, the cornerstone of Western civilisation, is at risk from legally enforceable protected characteristics which have created a hierarchy of victimhood and ill-defined differentiation.

In the 14th century, English dissenters challenged the authority and corruption of the Catholic Church. The Lollards (a ‘proto-Protestant’ movement) included academics such as John Wycliffe (the first translator of the English Bible), and radical priests including John Ball (one of the leaders of the Peasants’ Revolt). Although many dissenting Lollards were hunted down by the authorities, their ideas never disappeared. Wycliffe’s work would later influence reformers such as Martin Luther. In the 16th century, a new Protestant theology based on a deep understanding of the Bible emerged in parts of Europe and in England.

Tensions between Catholicism and various strands of Protestantism existed at this time. Christian attitudes towards religious tolerance were influenced by the 17th century English philosopher John Locke, who argued for a separation of government and religion. This was based on a recognition that individuals could not be forced into a particular faith or way of thinking, as this only came with a genuine change of mind. Furthermore, while governments have powers to impose laws by force, they have no power to change what an individual believes to be true. The Toleration Act 1689 put much of this reasoning into law.

Western nations have since thrived in an atmosphere of tolerance, underpinned by the right to freedom of speech. For Christians, the role of nations is integral to God’s redemptive plan, and in the Gospel of Matthew there is reference to Jesus telling his disciples to ‘go and make disciples of all nations’. The new covenant in the New Testament is a promise from God that does not just apply to one specific group. Anyone in any nation who believes can be part of the covenant, and each nation should protect the right of every person to have a faith if they chose to.

Share Right Times with Kathy Gyngell

English missionaries spread Christianity across northern Europe during the early Middle Ages. In the 18th and 19th centuries, they took the Gospel message around the world, helping to end slavery, human sacrifice and widow-burning. English Christians developed a just legal system, reformed a corrupt Church, and introduced greater religious and political toleration. It is worrying that modern-day secular leaders fail to acknowledge our Christian heritage. The freedoms and liberties we enjoy today did not just arrive overnight. They have been fought for over many generations. While we remember the sacrifice made by William Tyndale some 500 years ago, we should also remember that it takes only one or two neglectful generations to erase a historic legacy that represents the pinnacle of human achievement.

Bob Robinson is the author of
Identity Lost, Identity Regained: The Story of England and the English People.

Thank you for reading and supporting us. Please

Free Speech: Five Centuries of Struggle and One Forgotten Hero

From Magna Carta to Tyndale’s Bible, how Christian conviction built the liberties we now take for granted

Right Times with Kathy Gyngell

Aug 07, 2026

A guest post by Bob Robinson.

FREEDOM of speech is under threat from authorities seeking to impose international rules on nation states and deny access to information. This is not the first time English people have been called upon to oppose the centralisation of power and control of knowledge. Civil wars were fought in defence of the principles of Magna Carta. The Reformation removed the corrupt and stifling influence of the Catholic Church. International wars have been fought against the ambitions of authoritarian regimes.

This year marks the 500th anniversary of William Tyndale’s English translation of the New Testament. Its impact on the development of the English language, religious liberty, and national identity was immense. Tyndale, a multi-lingual scholar from Gloucestershire, translated the Bible into English from its Latin, Greek and Hebrew versions, enabling more people to read and understand Scripture for themselves. Before then, religious teaching had been restricted to an elite group of learned men deemed to be ‘best qualified’ to decide how Scripture should be interpreted and explained to the majority.

The invention of the printing press dramatically increased access to information in books and pamphlets. In a similar way, the internet has democratised knowledge and the seeking of truth. When the printing and distribution of his Bible was banned in England, Tyndale travelled to Germany where a clandestine printer produced hundreds of pocket editions of his translated Bible. These were then smuggled into England. He was hunted across Europe and eventually captured in Antwerp, where he was executed by strangulation and then burned at the stake. Today, Tyndale should be remembered as one in a long line of Englishmen who stood up for freedom of conscience and the right to free speech.

Share Right Times with Kathy Gyngell

Christianity has a remarkably long association with the people of the British Isles. Folklore tells of Christ visiting England alongside his metal-trading uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. According to Orthodox tradition the first Bishop of Britain was Saint Aristobulus, one of the Seventy Apostles sent around the Roman Empire. He arrived in Britain shortly after the Roman invasion in AD 43. At this time, Christians who proclaimed their faith were persecuted by the authorities; nevertheless, they remained defiant and refused to stay silent about their beliefs. The early Church was characterised by cults built around local Romano-British martyrs, such as Saint Alban. Many of these saints have since been lost to the Anglican Church, but are still celebrated by the Orthodox Church.

Following the Roman withdrawal in AD 410, indigenous Romano-Britons were unable to prevent the widespread settlement of Anglo-Saxon pagans. Christianity was confined to the western and northern parts of the British Isles, and was introduced to the Anglo-Saxons in England in the early 7thcentury. Biblical principles and Christian moral guidance underpin English common law, which developed from a series of legal precedents taken from the wisdom, customs, and traditions of the Anglo-Saxons. For hundreds of years, this legal system has provided a defence of individual freedoms and rights.

The ‘Golden Rule’ in the Gospel of Luke ‘to do unto others as you would have them do to you’ is lost on many in the modern secular age. Unnecessarily abusive social media posts considered ‘hurtful’ are used as an excuse by authorities to clamp down on freedom of expression and speech. This has been helped by the English legal system moving away from flexible, common-sense case law and towards poorly defined statutory codes that are open to subjective interpretation by social media platform moderators and unelected judges.

Magna Carta was sealed by King John in 1215. Its principal author, Stephen Langton (Archbishop of Canterbury at the time), opposed the notion that monarchs could act above the law. He believed that morally upstanding citizens were a prerequisite for a just and prosperous Christian society. Individuals needed to operate with honour and integrity to find their true sense of spiritual and secular purpose. For this to happen they had to be free, and a system of law based on truth, fairness and transparency had to underpin these freedoms. If all people were treated were treated equally under the law, individual rights and freedoms would be respected across society. Today, this basic concept, the cornerstone of Western civilisation, is at risk from legally enforceable protected characteristics which have created a hierarchy of victimhood and ill-defined differentiation.

In the 14th century, English dissenters challenged the authority and corruption of the Catholic Church. The Lollards (a ‘proto-Protestant’ movement) included academics such as John Wycliffe (the first translator of the English Bible), and radical priests including John Ball (one of the leaders of the Peasants’ Revolt). Although many dissenting Lollards were hunted down by the authorities, their ideas never disappeared. Wycliffe’s work would later influence reformers such as Martin Luther. In the 16th century, a new Protestant theology based on a deep understanding of the Bible emerged in parts of Europe and in England.

Tensions between Catholicism and various strands of Protestantism existed at this time. Christian attitudes towards religious tolerance were influenced by the 17th century English philosopher John Locke, who argued for a separation of government and religion. This was based on a recognition that individuals could not be forced into a particular faith or way of thinking, as this only came with a genuine change of mind. Furthermore, while governments have powers to impose laws by force, they have no power to change what an individual believes to be true. The Toleration Act 1689 put much of this reasoning into law.

Western nations have since thrived in an atmosphere of tolerance, underpinned by the right to freedom of speech. For Christians, the role of nations is integral to God’s redemptive plan, and in the Gospel of Matthew there is reference to Jesus telling his disciples to ‘go and make disciples of all nations’. The new covenant in the New Testament is a promise from God that does not just apply to one specific group. Anyone in any nation who believes can be part of the covenant, and each nation should protect the right of every person to have a faith if they chose to.

Share Right Times with Kathy Gyngell

English missionaries spread Christianity across northern Europe during the early Middle Ages. In the 18th and 19th centuries, they took the Gospel message around the world, helping to end slavery, human sacrifice and widow-burning. English Christians developed a just legal system, reformed a corrupt Church, and introduced greater religious and political toleration. It is worrying that modern-day secular leaders fail to acknowledge our Christian heritage. The freedoms and liberties we enjoy today did not just arrive overnight. They have been fought for over many generations. While we remember the sacrifice made by William Tyndale some 500 years ago, we should also remember that it takes only one or two neglectful generations to erase a historic legacy that represents the pinnacle of human achievement.

Bob Robinson is the author of
Identity Lost, Identity Regained: The Story of England and the English People.

Thank you for reading and supporting us. Please