Posted on February 28, 2026 by admin

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

Feb 19, 2026

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

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

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

⚖️ Canadian law already addresses hate conduct ⚖️

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The definitions remain unclear — and that matters

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

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

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

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

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

Removing the “good-faith” safeguard is dangerous

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

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

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

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

This matters because free expression is a foundation of Canadian democracy

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

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

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

What citizens can do now

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

Speak to your Member of Parliament.
Get involved!
Ask hard questions about charter rights.
Encourage thoughtful, evidence-based debate rather than reactionary politics.

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

In closing

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

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

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

Let’s defend both.

Anti-Democratic NDP Won’t Even Approve Traditional First Reading of Bill to Abolish Fanatical B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

Posted on February 28, 2026 by admin

Kelowna MLA’s bill to repeal BC Human Rights Code quickly voted down

Another Armstrong bill fails

Colin Dacre – Feb 26, 2026 / 1:22 pm | Story: 600905

Tara Armstrong in the BC Legislature on Thursday.

Photo: BC Legislative Assembly

Tara Armstrong in the BC Legislature on Thursday.

Another bill from Kelowna-area MLA Tara Armstrong has been voted down at the earliest possible opportunity.

Armstrong, independent MLA for Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream, tabled the Human Rights Code Repeal Act Thursday in the legislature.

“The purpose of this bill is to end the assault on freedom of speech by our human rights tribunal,” she said.

Armstrong’s bill was motivated by a recent $750,000 fine issued by the BC Human Rights Tribunal against former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld over his comments about LGBTQ people.

The ruling came after the BC Teachers’ Federation and Chilliwack Teachers’ Association filed the human rights complaint against Neufeld in 2017 on behalf of their members, specifically those who identified as LGBTQ from October 2017 through 2022.

They sought $750,000 to be distributed equally among those members, and the decision says the tribunal was satisfied the award was appropriate.

Armstrong, on Thursday, said the repeal of the BC Human Rights Code “is the only solution to this assault on our rights.”

“This bill will protect the freedom of speech of Canadians. It will abolish the Human Rights Tribunal, a kangaroo court, and repeal the Human Rights Code that the left is using to punish and profit from anyone who doesn’t adopt their views.”

Like several bills proposed by Armstrong so far, it was dead-on-arrival in the legislature and was voted down at first reading with 50 votes opposed and 37 in favour. The BC Conservative caucus voted in support.

First reading politicized

Legislation has traditionally been granted first reading in the house as a courtesy to encourage debate. Conservative MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson Ward Stamer, after his party voted in support of Armstrong’s bill last week to ban youth gender transitions, told Castanet News his party has decided to continue that practice in an effort to avoid the “politicization” of first reading and allow the public to see bills.

In a news release Thursday after the vote, the BC NDP acknowledged “it is rare to vote against bills at first reading,” but pointed to other issues—like a ban on land acknowledgements or to cancel the stat holiday for the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation—that the Conservatives voted against at first reading.(Castanet, February 26, 2026)

The BC Human Rights’ Tribunal’s Hetero-Hating, Christian-hating, Censorship-loving Rulings Have Cost Vancouver Visit By Comedian John Cleese

Posted on February 27, 2026 by admin

The BC Human Rights’ Tribunal’s Hetero-Hating, Christian-hating, Censorship-loving Rulings Have Cost Vancouver Visit By Comedian John Cleese

John Cleese is among the most gifted comic writers and actors of the late 20th Century. After last week’s hideous $750,000 penalty meted out to former school trustee Barry Neufeld for challenging the SOGI gender-bending school sex-education curriculum. The brutal penalty was assessed against an 80-year old man living on his pension in a 40-year old trailer with his 1990s car.
John Cleese, who, like Mr. Neufeld, believes that there are two sexes — man and woman — loves Vancouver but doesn’t want to risk persecution by the human rights STASI. Cleese said: “I won’t be able to risk doing any shows in British Columbia. ….Cleese has previously mocked the policy of self-identified gender. In 2020, he wrote in a social media post “deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?”

John Cleese says he’s now avoiding B.C. because of crackdown on gender ideology criticism

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal cases have been brought against non-citizens such as Cleese, and also against comedians making comments as part of a performance

British comedy elder John Cleese has announced that he will be steering clear of British Columbia on an upcoming Canadian tour, owing to fears that he will be prosecuted for non-adherence to gender ideology.

Cleese, 86, made the declaration in a Saturday social media post issued in response to a $750,000 fine being imposed on a former Chilliwack, B.C. school trustee who refuses to believe that gender is a “social construct.”

“What a pity! I’m arranging a theatrical tour of Canada this Fall, and now I won’t be able to risk doing any shows in British Columbia,” wrote Cleese, adding, “I was really looking forward to coming.”

In a Feb. 18 ruling by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, former trustee Barry Neufeld was ordered to pay $750,000 to an unnamed consortium of transgender teachers because he had publicly questioned the province’s policy that an individual’s gender is whatever he or she declares it to be.

The 143-page decision specified that one of Neufeld’s chief violations was his stated belief that “separating gender identity from assigned biological sex is a fiction and an ‘ideology’ to be opposed.”

As such, Neufeld was declared to have engaged in “extremely serious and damaging” speech, as well as transgender “erasure.”

A long-serving trustee for the Chilliwack School District, Neufeld had been an early public critic of efforts to enshrine gender identity within the B.C. school curriculum. It’s for that reason that his case before the tribunal was brought by the B.C. Teachers Federation.

But the decision was not limited to Neufeld’s actions as a trustee. Under the terms of the decision, anyone in B.C. could presumably face similar sanction under the B.C. Human Rights Code for echoing the same views as Neufeld.

“A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian. However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth,” the tribunal decision read.

Cleese has previously mocked the policy of self-identified gender. In 2020, he wrote in a social media post “deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?”

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal cases have been brought against non-citizens such as Cleese, and they’ve also been pursued against comedians making comments as part of a performance.

In 2011, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered comedian Guy Earle to pay $15,000 to an audience member who had alleged “lasting physical and psychological effect” from her objection to his set.

Cleese is one of four surviving members of the legendary Monty Python sketch comedy troupe, and was the creator of the British sitcom Fawlty Towers.

B.C. has been a regular stop of his, particularly in recent years.

In 2013, he scheduled multiple sold-out Vancouver show dates as part of his Last Time To See Me Before I Die tour. In 2022, Vancouver was one of the stops on his An Evening of Exceptional Silliness tour.

“God I love this city,” he told CBC during a 2014 visit to Vancouver as part of a book tour. “It’s wonderful to have the sea around you… and wonderful Chinese food. It’s just a great place.” (National Post, February 25, 2026)

The BC Human Rights’ Tribunal’s Hetero-Hating, Christian-hating, Censorship-loving Rulings Have Cost Vancouver Visit By Comedian John Cleese

John Cleese is among the most gifted comic writers and actors of the late 20th Century. After last week’s hideous $750,000 penalty meted out to former school trustee Barry Neufeld for challenging the SODI gender-bending school sex-education curriculum. The brutal penalty was assessed against an 80-year old man living on his pension in a 40-year old trailer with his 1990s car.
John Cleese, who, like Mr. Neufeld, believes that there are two sexes — man and woman — loves Vancouver but doesn’t want to risk persecution by the human rights STASI. Cleese said: “I won’t be able to risk doing any shows in British Columbia. ….Cleese has previously mocked the policy of self-identified gender. In 2020, he wrote in a social media post “deep down, I want to be a Cambodian police woman. Is that allowed, or am I being unrealistic?”

John Cleese says he’s now avoiding B.C. because of crackdown on gender ideology criticism

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal cases have been brought against non-citizens such as Cleese, and also against comedians making comments as part of a performance

As such, Neufeld was declared to have engaged in “extremely serious and damaging” speech, as well as transgender “erasure.”

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal cases have been brought against non-citizens such as Cleese, and they’ve also been pursued against comedians making comments as part of a performance.

In 2011, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered comedian Guy Earle to pay $15,000 to an audience member who had alleged “lasting physical and psychological effect” from her objection to his set.

Cleese is one of four surviving members of the legendary Monty Python sketch comedy troupe, and was the creator of the British sitcom Fawlty Towers.

B.C. has been a regular stop of his, particularly in recent years.

Lisa Bildy: Human rights rules on gender ideology are just blasphemy laws https://

Posted on February 27, 2026 by admin

Lisa Bildy: Human rights rules on gender ideology are just blasphemy laws

$750,000 fine proves human rights tribunals cannot be saved

Last week, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered Barry Neufeld, a former school board trustee, to pay $750,000. Neufeld had boldly criticized curriculum for young children that embedded gender ideology. LGBTQ teachers in the Chilliwack school board, who make up about 16 per cent of the staff, will get the money. Blasphemy laws have returned to Canada.

They don’t resemble the blasphemy laws of old. Through much of history, the state’s powers were used to punish challengers to the religious orthodoxy of the day. The Enlightenment’s focus on individual liberties hastened their decline in Western societies. For a time, freedom of speech, thought, and religion were seen as antidotes to oppressively enforced beliefs.

Oppressively enforced beliefs are back. But those beliefs don’t emanate from pulpits. It’s no longer Christianity demanding adherence to beliefs, but the secular religion of social justice. Neufeld learned the hard way that gender identity is now an unquestionable tenet of this new faith. Human rights tribunals are its enforcers under the guise of punishing “discrimination.” The curriculum he criticized, introduced in 2016, roughly coincided with “gender identity” becoming a protected class under human rights codes across Canada.

Traditionally, discrimination meant denying access to services, employment, or accommodation based on immutable qualities. Now, human rights tribunals use state power to enforce progressive dogma.

This shift is not entirely new. In 2006, publisher Ezra Levant faced a discrimination complaint for reprinting the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. He and Mark Steyn, who faced similar complaints for commentary on Islam published in Maclean’s magazine, drew attention to tribunal overreach, leading to the repeal of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, which had empowered the tribunal to punish “hate speech.” But section 13’s proponents are becoming emboldened again. Court decisions rendered in the interim have only encouraged them.

Neufeld’s case, under provincial human rights law, is the kind you would expect under the federal Online Harms Bill, introduced by the previous Liberal government and floated again by the current government. It proposes to restore those hate speech enforcement powers to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Under this bill, individuals who feel “harmed” by online speech would have the power to drag the speaker through a costly, multi-year process, at no cost to themselves. But that’s obviously already happening, at least in British Columbia. In an interim decision in Neufeld’s case, B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal decided that, although previous decisions of the tribunal had found otherwise, it actually does have the power to regulate online posts under its existing legislation. Other provinces have similar legislative powers.

Those who follow free speech cases are no longer surprised by such decisions. Over the past two decades, courts, governments, and tribunals have expanded the limits on free expression, rarely reinforcing broad conceptions of this fundamental freedom. The balancing act is often couched in phrases like, “Free speech is sacrosanct in our democracy, but of course there are limits …”

This case expands limits on freedom of expression in two significant ways. First, disparaging gender ideology — even when targeting ideas, not people — was found to be discriminatory. B.C.’s human rights commissioner argued that’s the way it should be. Excluding opinions on matters of “legitimate public interest” from the tribunal’s authority, she argued, created a loophole that should be closed. Mark Steyn avoided punishment for his commentary on Islam, also litigated in B.C., because it was considered political commentary within the bounds of free expression. Today’s human rights functionaries won’t abide such limits on their power.

Second, the expanded interpretation was applied to an elected trustee, whose role is to challenge policies and raise concerns about educational changes. Bureaucrats now dictate what elected officials can say on public policy matters.

The tribunal’s decision also included a passage chastising those who do not believe in gender identity, positing that failure to do so constitutes discriminatory “erasure” of transgender people. Expressing beliefs against gender identity — such as skepticism about changing one’s sex or concerns about males entering women’s spaces — may therefore be severely penalized if deemed “discriminatory” or “hateful” by the administrative state.

The $750,000 fine against Neufeld is unprecedented in the human rights context. While framed as compensation for “harm” to LGBTQ teachers, it was clearly intended to financially ruin him for his speech and refusal to embrace gender identity. It also serves as a warning to anyone considering criticism of the new faith. Blasphemy laws are back.

Public outrage is growing, and politicians are being pressured to act. Reining in these star chambers is no longer good enough. Legislatures must abolish them, along with the human rights codes that they enforce. That requires political backbone, so don’t hold your breath. Instead, call, write, or sign a petition like ours at the Free Speech Union to let your political leaders know how many Canadians oppose financial ruin for expressing opinions on issues affecting themselves and their children. (NATIONAL POST, February 26, 2026)

Lisa Bildy is a lawyer and executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. She can be found on X at @LDBildy.

Inclusiveness

Posted on February 26, 2026 by admin

The Philosophy of Information, Interview With Paul Fromm, Canadian Association for Free Expression, With Andre Meloche

Posted on February 26, 2026 by admin

Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, with Andre Meloche.

Posted on February 23, 2026 by admin

Thea Coburn: The Latest Victim of of Woke Censorship & Canadian Anti-Hate Network’s Sordid Spy Tactics 11015

Thea Coburn: The Latest Victim of of Woke Censorship & Canadian Anti-Hate Network’s Sordid Spy Tactics

Thea Coburn is a violinist and, until February 18, the operations manager for the Prince George Symphony Orchestra. Thanks to a gutless employer and the sleazy tactics of a taxpayer-funded hit squad, she’s now out of work. Back in July, she attended “Exiles of the Golden Age’ a meeting that some have branded a “White nationalist” event hundreds of miles away in Vancouver. Skulking around was someone taking pictures for the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN). CAHN is largely funded by the federal government and, during the orgy of Black Lives Matter nonsense in 2021, by the Bank of Montreal to the tune of $500,000. CAHN is a severe threat to freedom of speech. It’s not “hate” they oppose but right-of-centre ideology.

Back in December, CAHN published the photos of attendees they couldn’t identify and urged their supporters to rat out anyone there they knew. ” Our investigation included images of over 50 organizers and attendees of the conference, 20 of whom we were able to identify. We asked for the public’s help in making more identifications, and were overwhelmed by the response,” says their website. The STASI would have been proud. Thea was duly outed, her employer sus[pended her and “investigated.” This week, she was gone. Evan Balgord, executive director of CAHN boasts: ” “We always hope that the end result of this is that it sends a broader message to the whole community that this kind of behavior is unpopular and unacceptable.” In other words, the price of holding views CAHN disapproves of is poverty and being fired.
Artists, whether painters, poets,musicians or writers, of all people should appreciate the importance of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.The termination of Thea Coburn means orchestra employees can only hold”acceptable” views. That’s not freedom. Oh, yes, the PGSO, boasts that it “values diversity and inclusion.” Well, not diversity of values pursued on one’s own time, away from the workplace, and clearly not inclusion of loyal hard working employee Thea Coburn!

A Prince George symphony manager leaves role after presence at white nationalist event

Canadian Anti-Hate Network identified Thea Coburn walking to July event alongside conference organizers

A woman in a green skirt holding coffees and carrying a violin case on her back crosses the street alongside two men dressed in black. — Prince George Symphony Orchestra operations manager Thea Coburn was filmed carrying a violin case while walking into the Exiles of the Golden Age conference with organizers Robertson De Chazal and Karsen Miller in July 2025. (Canadian Anti-Hate Network)

The Prince George Symphony Orchestra (PGSO) says its operations manager is no longer with the organization following her apparent attendance at a white nationalist conference that took place in Vancouver last summer.

In January, the PGSO placed its operations manager, Thea Coburn, on paid administrative leave as it investigated her presence at the conference.

PGSO executive director Ken Hall said the organization has now terminated Coburn’s current contract without cause.

“Parting in the end was amicable. We both decided we needed to go in a different direction,” he said.

The non-profit Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), which studies far-right extremism in Canada, filmed Coburn, who’s also a violinist, walking into the Scottish Cultural Centre in Vancouver, where a conference called Exiles of the Golden Age was taking place on July 26, 2025.

The organization identified her walking alongside two of the conference’s organizers, including Robertson De Chazal, whom CBC News has previously reported on as the co-owner of a white supremacist clothing brand.

The video, which has been viewed by CBC News, shows Coburn carrying a violin case as she walks into the event.

CAHN says some of the organizers of the conference are affiliated with the Hammerskins. … CBC’s visual investigations team worked to identify some attendees of the event including MMA coaches and gym owners, in a story published last year.

Coburn was one of four more people identified by CAHN after the network asked members of the public to help identify the remaining photographs it had of attendees.

Evan Balgord, executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, said they asked Coburn for comment but she did not respond or offer any explanation. CBC News has also repeatedly asked Coburn for comment, but received no response.

A woman in a long green skirt walks down the street with two bald men dressed in black. — Thea Coburn was identified by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network after she was filmed entering the event with organizers Robertson De Chazal and Karsen Miller, carrying a violin case. (Canadian Anti-Hate Network)

Publicly funded organization

Coburn was listed on the PGSO’s website as their operations manager, as well as a violinist. In a Facebook video introducing her in the role in September 2024, Coburn said she helped run the box office as well as handled contracts and production for both rehearsals and performances.

The PGSO is a professional, community-based orchestra that receives grant funding from the City of Prince George. In a statement, the organization said it had no prior knowledge of the CAHN report or of Coburn’s attendance and was only made aware of the report by a patron on the afternoon of Dec. 22, 2025.

“We ask for the public’s patience during our investigation process but reaffirm that the PGSO values diversity and inclusion. We are committed to upholding the values of universal human rights, fair treatment, and equal opportunity for all,” the organization said in a statement to CBC News, during its internal investigation.

It has now completed the internal review and said that as of Feb. 10, Coburn is “no longer with the organization” and that temporary arrangements have been made to ensure continuity of operations. The PGSO said that as this is a personnel matter, the organization will not be providing further comment.

In 2025, the PGSO was one of four arts organizations to receive an equal share of $200,000 in arts funding from the city. It also receives grants from the provincial and federal governments and practises and performs in Vanier Hall, an auditorium connected to Prince George Secondary School.

The City of Prince George said it was not involved in the internal investigation and that its funding agreement with the organization is focused on maintaining the symphony’s not-for-profit status and compliance with B.C.’s Societies Act.

“There is nothing within the city’s grant guidelines or the multiyear funding grant agreement (this is the agreement that the City signs with organizations that receive existing/on-going multiyear funding such as the PGSO) that would warrant us to be involved with reviewing the funding relationship with PGSO at this stage,” the city said in a statement.

The name of the conference Coburn attended, “Exiles of the Golden Age,” appears in a passage from The Lightning and the Sun, a 1958 book by Savitri Devi, a writer who espoused a cyclical view of history where humanity will once again enter a “golden age” after going through a period of darkness and decay. …

According to Balgord and CAHN, the event was advertised almost exclusively online in white nationalist sites and social media.

Balgord says the CAHN’s goal in naming attendees of the conference is to discourage people from joining far-right extremist movements.

“We always hope that the end result of this is that it sends a broader message to the whole community that this kind of behavior is unpopular and unacceptable.” (CBC News, February 18, 2026)

Committed Traditional Christian & Former School Trustee Barry Neufeld Fined A Crushing $750,000 By BC Human Rights Tribunal For Criticizing the LGBTQ Agenda

Posted on February 22, 2026 by admin

Committed Traditional Christian & Former School Trustee Barry Neufeld Fined A Crushing $750,000 By BC Human Rights Tribunal For Criticizing the LGBTQ Agenda

Committed Traditional Christian & Former School Trustee Barry Neufeld Fined A Crushing $750,000 By BC Human Rights Tribunal For Criticizing the LGBTQ Agenda[Since our beginning in 1983, CAFE has warned that one of the most sinister enemies of free speech and opinion are human rights commissions. The Charter’s weak guarantees of freedom of expression, belief and religion mean nothing to them. Infected with hatred for traditional Christians and obsessed with gender bending LGBTQ ideology, they tolerate no dissent from the LGBTQ agenda and punish dissenters with fines more in keeping with a shipping company guilty of an environment wrecking oil spill. The complaint against Neufeld was made by the B.C. Teachers’ Federation. There was a time when the teaching profession stood for free speech and inquiry. In B.C., the BCTF is committed to leftist indoctrination of their young charges and pushing the the radical, anti-Christian LGBTQ agenda. BCTF president Carole Gordon gloated at the victory and crowed: ” The BCTF will always stand firmly in support of 2SLGBTQIA+ students, families, and teachers. Today’s outcome sends a clear message: inclusion and respect are not optional in British Columbia’s schools.” Dont let the touchy feely words “respect and inclusion” fool you. There’s no respect for traditional Christians in the BCTF’s opinions and, if you dissent from the LGBTQ agenda and the glorification of transgenderism, you will not be included. It’s our sincere hope that this totalitarian and vengefuldecision will be the subject of a judicial review (appeal).]

“A B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has released its decision against former trustee Barry Neufeld on Feb. 17, 2026. (Progress file) A B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has released its decision against former trustee Barry Neufeld on Feb. 17, 2026. (Progress file) Former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld has been ordered to pay $750,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for violating the Human Rights Code with “heated public speech” exposing LGBTQ people to hatred or contempt. The tribunal issued its final decision this week, issuing two sets of costs orders in the matter of the BCTF (on behalf of) the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld, one ordering the payment of $750,000 in costs to the CTA, and a concurrent order of $10,000 for improper conduct during the lengthy process. The decision finally rendered after years of deliberations determined that Neufeld violated sections 7(1)(a), (b), and 13 of the Human Rights Code and the orders constitute the remedies against him.

But more than the costs orders, the final decision on the hate speech pinpoints that the case before the Human Rights Tribunal ultimately asked its three members “to navigate the application of the Human Rights Code to heated public speech.” They were referring to Neufeld’s language “that debates the rights and recognition of this protected group, in a context where transgender people in particular often find themselves disproportionately in the spotlight.” They concluded that six of Neufeld’s publications could “expose gay, lesbian, and trans people to hatred or contempt based on their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Viewed objectively and in context, these publications have the potential to lead to their discriminatory treatment. These publications violate s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.”
One of his publications was a social media post on Dec. 18, 2017 in which Neufeld claimed he’d been “thrown into the role of a prophet: speaking out to the lawmakers in Victoria and trying to motivate lukewarm Christians who are sitting idly by as all of society ‘Slouches towards Gomorrah’. He urged his followers to “push back” against the “powerful” LGBTQ+ lobby group and he labelled gender fluidity as “delusional thinking.” In the lengthy post, Neufeld accused LGBTQ+ people of seeking priority status as “the most downtrodden of victims” and that “the many new categories that are included in the long list of letters now added after LGBTQ are a new ‘Caste system’.”

The post continued: “But the scary thing is that [promoting this gender bending theory] has already demonized people of faith who believe that God created humans male and female: In the Image of God. Here is my prophecy to the Church: If you don’t get off your duffs and push back against this insidious new teaching, the day is coming (maybe it is already here) when the government will apprehend your children and put them in homes where they will be encouraged to explore homosexuality and gender fluidity.”

There were many other examples. In their press release in reaction to the decision, the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association chronicles how the CTA and the BCTF initiated a human rights complaint against Neufeld, who was then serving as a Chilliwack School trustee, for the many public statements that “discriminated against 2SLGBTQIA+ teachers in Chilliwack and were likely to expose them to hatred or contempt.” CTA president Reid Clark emphasized the importance of a discrimination-free workplace. “This ruling recognizes the very real harm experienced by 2SLGBTQIA+ teachers in Chilliwack and reinforces that they have the right to work in an environment free from discrimination and fear,” Clark said. “We are hopeful that this ruling will lead to more inclusive working and learning environments for all 2SLGBTQIA+ folks in schools and beyond.”

In the decision released Feb. 17, the tribunal found that Neufeld violated the Human Rights Code, stating: “For five years, Mr. Neufeld inundated public discourse in Chilliwack with speech that degraded and denied trans people, sought to eliminate public policies for their inclusion, and sounded alarms about an imaginary threat posed by their social acceptance. “He spread misinformation and inflamed anti-LGBTQ animus in the district,” the reason said.
The tribunal determined that school trustees have a role in upholding positive school environments and anti-discrimination policies. Instead, Neufeld’s numerous public posts, which “demonized and delegitimized trans people,” were likely to expose all LGBTQ to hatred or contempt based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. Neufeld is described as “one of its loudest critics” after SOGI resources were introduced, and during his tenure as trustee, waged a “high profile public campaign against SOGI 123 and the values underlying it.” The campaign was expressed in publications including social media posts, board meetings statements at rallies, and in online interviews, said the tribunal, in the reasons.

Throughout Neufeld’s “publications,” that were reviewed, “30 of which formed the basis of the human rights complaint,” in at least six, the school trustee was sending out the message that SOGI 123 is a “weapon of propaganda” which threatens “traditional family values” and instructs children that “gender is not biologically determined, but a social construct.” The BCTF release notes that SOGI 123 was launched during the 2017-2018 school year, as a set of tools and resources aimed at supporting an inclusive learning environment for all students. It provides information and resources for policies and procedures, creating inclusive environments, and functions as a classroom resource. It’s not curriculum, nor is it mandatory for educators to use in their classrooms, they underlined.

Rather it acknowledges the reality and existence of 2SLGBTQIA+ people, different family structures, and the fact that one’s gender may not be the same as the sex they were assigned at birth. It recognizes that teachers are equipped to determine what information is age-appropriate for their students. In the tribunal was asked by the complainants to analyze, Neufeld attacked “each of these three pillars” of SOGI-inclusive education. “In doing so, he repeatedly and publicly reaffirmed his intention to perform the duties of a school trustee in a way that discriminated against LGBTQ people, especially trans people,” the tribunal said. “In some publications, he expressly stated that he is using his position as a trustee to ‘speak out’ against SOGI-inclusive education before proceeding to do so in a discriminatory way.

“Even where not expressly stated, his intention is clear. Mr. Neufeld invoked negative and insidious stereotypes about LGBTQ people, especially trans people, which denied their inherent dignity and, in some cases, reflected the hallmarks of hate against them as a group.” The decision underscores the impacts of the endless attacks on SOGI 123 and the risk for 2SLGBTQIA+ people who work with children, including teachers. “Critically, the decision affirms that trans people exist—and that claiming to believe that gender identity is not separate from sex assigned at birth is a form of existential denial. This denial pushes the idea that trans people have an agenda rather than being just another demographic group,” the CTA said in their release. ”As this decision illustrates, such terms can create the ‘conditions for discrimination and hatred to flourish,’ as the Tribunal found.”

The complaint was heard by a panel of three members of the BC Human Rights Tribunal over several days in 2024 and 2025, concluding on May 21, 2025. BCTF president Carole Gordon is calling it a “huge win” for human rights in the context of public education. “Today’s decision is a huge win for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights. It affirms that discriminatory and hateful rhetoric has no place in our public education system – especially when it comes from someone entrusted with a leadership position. “The ruling highlights the value of SOGI 123, an evidence-based teaching resource for reducing discrimination-based harm. The BCTF will always stand firmly in support of 2SLGBTQIA+ students, families, and teachers. Today’s outcome sends a clear message: inclusion and respect are not optional in British Columbia’s schools.” (Chilliwack News, February 20, 2025)

The ruling will allow a number of LGBTQ teachers in the Board to cash in at Mr. Neufeld’s expense. The CBC (February 20, 2026) reported: “The BCTF and Chilliwack Teachers’ Association sought an award of $750,000 in compensation to teachers’ association members who identify as LGBTQ between October 2017 through 2022 for injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect.

The tribunal agreed with the award, saying Neufeld “poisoned” the workplace with anti-2SLGBTQ+ discrimination.

The tribunal said the $750,000 will result in individual awards between around $4,600 to $16,667 per class member, according to the decision.”

They Sent Him to Prison for One Year … For Speech!

Posted on February 20, 2026 by admin

They sent him to PRISON for 1 year…for speech!

Once the state starts policing words, don’t be surprised when it begins auditing your thoughts…

Senator Babet Feb 19

READ IN APP

My thoughts in 5 dot points:

The Danger of Overreach – His jail sentence signals a shift from policing actions to auditing thoughts and words.
Selective Enforcement – Why one man is jailed while politicians and other activists using similar rhetoric remain free.
Subjectivity as a Weapon – “Hate speech” is defined by shifting “vibes” rather than clear laws, making it easy to weaponise against any dissenting opinion.
Criticism Over Incarceration – In a free society, “ugly” or “moronic” speech should be met with public debate, not a prison cell.

The jailing of Brandan Koschel for mouthing off in a 40 second speech at a rally is being hailed as a triumph of virtue. In reality, it’s Exhibit A in the case for scrapping hate speech laws altogether.

Thanks for reading Let’s Talk About It! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

Because once the state starts policing words don’t be surprised when it begins auditing your thoughts.

Brandan has been sentenced to a year in prison for declaring to a Sydney crowd that Jews are “the greatest enemy.” It was ugly, the sort of thing usually confined to the darker corners of the internet. Was it distasteful? Sure.

Should it be illegal? That’s a far more dangerous question.

If Brandan goes to jail for declaring Jews the enemy, then consistency demands we start measuring everyone else’s rhetorical excesses with the same ruler. Does Pauline Hanson get a cell for suggesting there are no good Muslims? Do I start packing a toothbrush for suggesting Islam has ideological problems? Should half of social media be marched off in cuffs before lunchtime?

You cannot empower the state to jail people for “hate” and then act shocked when the definition of hate turns out to be elastic, political, and exquisitely selective.

And here is the line that matters, in a free society people must be allowed to speak, even crudely, even offensively, so long as they are not calling for direct violence. The moment speech becomes a criminal offence simply because it is unpleasant or unpopular, freedom becomes a privilege granted by government rather than a right possessed by citizens.

Hate speech law isn’t a scalpel it’s a vibe. What counts as “harm”? Who decides? Today it’s an individual shouting nonsense into a microphone, tomorrow it’s someone questioning gender ideology or climate science.

And what about Grace Tame leading chants of “From Gadigal to Gaza, globalise the intifada”?

Or Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi declaring, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”?

Why are they free to walk around while Brandan is not?

This isn’t a defence of Brandan he sounds like a fool. But in a free society fools are not sent to prison. We should let foolish people say foolish things, and then criticise them mercilessly.

The real danger isn’t that a moron said something moronic, it’s that the state now claims the authority to decide which morons are permissible and which are prosecutable.

Once you hand the government power to criminalise speech, don’t be surprised when the category of “criminal speech” expands with remarkable creativity.

Democracy requires free speech, especially the kind that makes you uncomfortable. If you won’t defend that principle now, don’t be shocked when the law turns on you later.

These hate speech laws must all be repealed.

Senator Ralph Babet, Senator for Victoria, United Australia Party.

Edit: It has also been brought to my attention that a pedophile in Melbourne who was in possession of videos of children as young as 10 being violently raped was given a 3 months prison sentence. Make it make sense. You can’t. Read that article here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15571813/Outrage-weak-sentence-school-principal-paedophile-sick-messages-exposed.html

DON’T EVER LET THEM TELL YOU THERE’S FREE SPEECH IN AUSTRALIA: BRANDAN KOSCHEL JAILED FOR A YEAR FOR CALLING A PRIVILEGED GROUP — JEWS — THE ENEMY

Posted on February 18, 2026 by admin

Father, 31, jailed for one year for calling Jews ‘the enemy’ in Australia Day speech
February 18th 2026A Sydney father has been jailed for one year for calling Jews the “greatest enemy to this nation” in a 40-second Australia Day speech.

Brandan Koschel, 31, pleaded guilty last week to publicly inciting hatred on the grounds of race, and appeared in Downing Centre Local Court on Wednesday by videolink from custody.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Sharon Freund said if not for his early guilty plea, she would have sentenced Koschel to 16 months’ imprisonment for the statements, saying a custodial sentence was necessary to deter similar offending and “protect social cohesion”. (Protect social cohesion? In a world where the lunatic inmates run the asylum?)

She said Koschel had not apologised or shown remorse or contrition, and set a non-parole period of nine months, backdated to Koschel’s arrest on January 26, making him eligible for release on October 25.

Koschel’s arrest after the speech: https://twitter.com/i/status/2015679698379084170
The court heard Koschel got on stage during the open-mic section of Sydney’s March for Australia rally in Moore Park, where he spoke out about new federal “hate speech” laws that were passed days earlier.

Koschel was not charged under those laws, but under NSW legislation brought in early last year, which the magistrate emphasised was passed in response to an “uptick in anti-Semitism” to protect the Jewish community.

“All these politicians that came up here, spoke about bravery, all that bullshit, because they don’t know what it means, they came up here, gave you a bunch of words, but none of them called out the fact that the hate speech laws were pushed by the Australian, uh, the Jewish lobby groups in Australia,” Mr Koschel said in his speech, which was read to the court by Ms Freund in sentencing.

“They were behind it all. The Jews are the greatest enemy to this nation, they always have been, they are an enemy to Western civilisation, and for thousands of years, s Christians and Anglos, the White man, has known that the Jew is our greatest enemy. Free Joel Davis, hail White Australia and hail Thomas Sewell.”
The magistrate noted that the charges only applied to the phrases calling Jewish people “the enemy”, but said Koschel’s final three statements added to the seriousness of the offence, and said they referred to “high profile neo-Nazis”.

“The offender’s use of the term ‘hail’ is a deliberate invocation of language associated with Nazi ideology, and a tool of racial propaganda with harmful and powerful resonance; its use in the present context was offensive and serious,” she told the court.

“Public denunciation of anti-Semitic expression is essential to the court’s commitment to equality before the law and protection of vulnerable groups.

“General deterrence is paramount to protect social cohesion.”
The court heard Koschel had only been able to contact his family twice during his 23 days on custody so far, which had been spent in “onerous” conditions due to being housed in reception until February 9 because of jail overcrowding, and classified as high security by the government.
Koschel’s lawyer, Daniel Grippi, told the court on Tuesday that his client’s family had been followed and harassed by the media, and the coverage of Koschel’s offending had impacted his young daughter, and argued that those circumstances would help to prevent reoffending.
But in sentencing Ms Freund said she disagreed with the lawyer’s assessment, and said Koschel’s concerns for his family highlighted his lack of remorse.

“There is no evidence he shows any remorse or contrition except for the impact on family; his lack of insight is relevant to the sentence, increasing the need for the sentence to reflect denunciation and deterrence,” she said.

The offending included deliberate anti-Semitic hate speech of an overt nature, which occurred on Australia Day, when people come together for unity and social cohesion.

“Without evidence of remorse, I can’t reassess the prospect of rehabilitation; only a sentence of full-time imprisonment is suitable.”

On Tuesday Mr Grippi asked the court to impose a non-custodial sentence, citing the subjective nature of the term “hatred” in the legislation, and saying “one man’s hatred is another man’s love”.

Ms. Freund said she “dwelled on this statement overnight” but came to the conclusion that Koschel’s statements were not a matter of “taste” and were the type of language the “hate speech” laws were devised to punish.

“The laws were made in response to anti-Semitic acts, the legislative response and the introduction of [the racial hatred offence] was to target this conduct on the basis that violence starts with language,” she said.

“In context, Mr. Koschel used the phrase ‘hail White Australia’ and ‘hail Thomas Sewell’; the words were divisive and designed to provoke the type of hatred the offence was designed to prevent.

“Mr Koschel’s speech was clearly anti-Semitic and directed towards the Jewish community, which is particularly vulnerable, and that the legislation was designed to protect them, and after the Bondi massacre.

“The indication or normalisation of hatred directed at the Jewish people … will not be tolerated and [the sentence] must be used to deter others.”

She found the speech, therefore clearly targeted the Jewish community to cause them to fear harassment, intimidation, or violence, and that Mr. Koschel “used a mic to amplify his words on an iconic day that should have been about unification” with the “intention to incite”, and was “motivated by hate and prejudice”.

Last week Ms Freund sentenced paedophile soccer coach Tullio ‘Tony’ Giacomo Cigana to one year’s jail with a seven-month non-parole period for possessing child abuse material.

She noted every video and photo he was caught with depicted real child victims aged between seven and 12, ABC News reported.