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 by

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 by

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 by

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.

COPS & MOST MEDIA COVER UP TRANS NATURE OF TUMBLER RIDGE MAS MURDERER

Posted on by
Mentally Ill Man Shoots Up Canadian School; Mounties and Media Insist He’s Female
AP Images

Mentally Ill Man Shoots Up Canadian School; Mounties and Media Insist He’s Female

by Michael Tennant February 14, 2026

In one of Canada’s worst mass shootings to date, 18-year-old Jesse Strang on Tuesday killed eight people and injured more than 25 others before turning his gun on himself. Yet anyone getting his news from the mainstream Canadian media would think the killer was a woman with a different last name.

Why?

Because Strang identified as transgender, and in Canada, no respectable media outlet would dare call his self-selected identity into question — let alone give aid and comfort to “transphobes.” They would, however, use the tragedy to call for stricter gun laws.

They Always Get Their Woman

Strang, who began “transitioning” to female six years ago, first killed his mother and his 11-year-old stepbrother at home, then went to Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and murdered a teacher and five students, after which he committed suicide.

This would be a shocker anywhere, but in a British Columbia town of 2,400, it was devastating.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) responded to the shooting, issuing an active-shooter alert describing the suspect as “female in a dress” and charging into the school to stop the killing. Afterward, by which time they had to have known Strang was a man, the Mounties didn’t correct the record; instead, they referred to him as a “gunperson.”

European Conservative columnist Jonathon Van Maren wrote:

The term has never before been used in an official capacity, and it instantly made headlines in The Sun, The New York Post, Sky News, GB News, and elsewhere. When asked, an RCMP spokesperson stated, “We identify the suspect as they chose to be identified in public and in social media.”

When the RCMP finally identified the shooter — nearly 24 hours after the incident — they referred to him as “Jesse Van Rootselaar” and continued to obfuscate about his sex.

The Canadian press dutifully reported the official findings. “The CBC, the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Sun, CTV, Global News, the Globe and Mail, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Ottawa Citizen, the Montreal Gazette, and others all referred to the shooter as female” and as “Jesse Van Rootselaar,” Van Maren noted on LifeSiteNews.

Relative Truth

The truth, however, was waiting to be found. It just took journalists who didn’t subscribe to the woke religion to uncover it.

Juno News, for example, contacted the shooter’s father and maternal uncle, both of whom confirmed that his last name was Strang. His father, Justin Van Rootselaar, who was estranged from Strang’s mother, said in a statement, “[He] had a passport and the name on it is not Van Rootselaar.”

Van Rootselaar obviously sent the same statement to the CBC, But, rather than simply report it, the government broadcaster felt the need to “correct” him and to assert its own pro-trans bona fides:

In his statement, Justin VanRootselaar refers to his child as Jesse Strang and uses he/him pronouns to describe her. According to police, Jesse Van Rootselaar was assigned male at birth and began transitioning to female about six years ago.

The cops’ admission that Strang was born — and therefore always — male only came about “in response to reporters’ questions,” penned The Spectator’s Jane Stannus.

The Telegraph reported Friday that a witness claims Strang may have gone to the school with the intention of finishing off the rest of his family. The paper further wrote:

Police confirmed there was a “history of police attendance at the family residence,” some relating to mental health and others relating to firearms incidents.

He [Strang] was apprehended and taken for a health assessment more than once, but the last contact he had with police was last year. His gun license had expired in 2024 and he had no registered guns.

Mental Gymnastics

By referring to the shooter as Jesse Van Rootselaar, the authorities and their friends in the media may have hoped to forestall further investigation into his background. Stannus pointed out that his real last name “connected him and his mother to pro-trans social media posts,” including ones “in which he mentioned spending time in mental hospital, taking antidepressants, trying out psychedelic drugs, and awaiting hormone therapy.”

The New York Post’s Bethany Mandel observed:

The public is lied to in an attempt to force us to avert our eyes.

Yet when journalists knowingly discard biological reality and gloss over the link to mental health, they don’t just mislead readers; they actively interfere with our ability to understand reality, and therefore, assess danger. 

For years, the public has been told that identifying as the opposite sex is simply another harmless expression of one’s self-identity.

Questioning it is dangerous, cruel — “bigotry.” Exploring whether transgender identity may signal deeper psychological distress is forbidden….

That dogma has consequences, as another community has learned the hard way.

In this regard, things are much worse in Canada than in the United States. There, by law, everyone must “affirm” a “trans” kid’s chosen gender. Trying to help the child overcome his gender confusion — even at the youngster’s request — is strictly prohibited. Good luck dealing with the kid’s probable other mental conditions under such a regime, even if those conditions could lead to murder.

As Stannus put it:

It just doesn’t seem right. Nine people, including 12- and 13-year-old children, have died. Many others are injured. Families are living through shock, loss and anguish. And instead of finding answers, the authorities are busy making sure transgender ideology isn’t tarnished by association. Are they sure they’ve got their priorities straight



Posted on by

UN agencies call to censor pro-life speech

UN agencies call to censor pro-life speech

Published on

Digital platforms should be held accountable for allowing misinformation on abortion. These agencies working in tandem say pro-life speech is tantamount to “misinformation” and should be stopped.

By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. at C-Fam

The UN’s human reproduction program (HRP), housed in the World Health Organization (WHO), recently published the first of a series of papers examining the impact of abortion “misinformation” as it relates to human rights.  Their analysis requires their own idiosyncratic understanding of both misinformation and human rights.

For instance, they accept without caveat that abortion access is a right as part of “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, a term never defined or adopted in any international negotiated outcome.

The paper also cites independent experts and committees as sources of human rights standards. Such experts and committees offer recommendations and opinions on human rights treaties, though they have no authority to create new human rights apart from the plain language of the various human rights treaties.

At the same time, the article makes no mention of the consensus position of the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) that the legal status of abortion is solely for individual governments to determine.

The authors define misinformation as “false, inaccurate, or misleading information shared without intent to deceive,” while disinformation is spread with knowledge and intent to deceive, and “a particularly harmful form of misinformation, with the potential to deliberately erode human rights protections and restrict access to evidence-based care.”

As an example, the authors cite an article claiming that “inaccurate beliefs about fetal pain were linked with antiabortion views, shaping attitudes toward access and policy.” However, the article they cite bases its view of when unborn children can first feel pain on a “current medical consensus” that simply does not exist, while labeling survey participants who support abortion restrictions based on fetal pain as “anti-choice,” a clearly partisan—and derogatory—label.

The article also expressly calls out the U.S.-based Project 2025 project for containing “strategies to embed misinformation into federal governance by altering agency mandates and rewording policies to stigmatize and delegitimize [sexual and reproductive health.]”  Here, the citation is to an article in the feminist and pro-abortion Ms. Magazine.

Another example of misinformation offered by the HRP article is the fact that a Canadian Catholic hospital blocked access to the websites of abortion clinics.  The article is broadly critical of traditional cultural and religious views; it expresses alarm that a “a rising anti-rights movement in Ethiopia, aligned with the US Christian Right, is working to dismantle the right to safe and legal abortion.”  It takes for granted that the nonbinding opinions of UN human rights experts take precedence over religious beliefs. “Human rights standards related to equality and nondiscrimination are routinely impacted” by misinformation, they write, “particularly when gender stereotypes, religious ideologies, or cultural beliefs are used to delegitimize SRHR.”  In other words, anything that casts abortion in a negative light is misinformation.

The article does offer some examples of what would commonly be understood as misinformation and disinformation, such as scammers purveying “miracle drugs” and clearly unqualified people offering spurious medical advice on TikTok.  However, the HRP authors’ credibility is undermined by their own ideological biases and overreliance on citing others who share them.  Ultimately, whatever policy and legal solutions they recommend will have the effect of stifling pro-life voices and censoring conservative viewpoints if they are implemented.

Schools, Shootings and Stuff

Posted on by

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, February 13, 2026

Schools, Shootings and Stuff

In the days since the shooting spree at Tumbler Ridge in British Columbia the legacy media in Canada which is overwhelmingly liberal and the neoconservative alternative media have been spatting over the incident.  The source of the contention is primarily the fact that the eighteen year old male who killed himself, a couple of relatives, and six people at the local high school and wounded several others, seems to have thought himself to be female.  The legacy media appears to think that publicizing his state of confusion would instigate a wave of hatred toward people who mistakenly think that they are not of their biological birth sex.   This is pretty much typical of their level of mendacity and stupidity.  The alternative media such as Juno News which Candace Malcolm rebranded her True North News around this time last year has done a fairly decent job of exposing this duplicity.  I acknowledge this with reluctance because I have been loath to give them credit for anything since the rebrand for while True North and Ezra Levant’s similar Rebel News have always been too Americanist and too Zionist for the liking of this Tory (High Church royalist), they have been absolutely intolerable for the past year as they have continued to embrace the MAGA movement long after it degenerated into a dangerous leader cult.

In my opinion the transgender angle is the least interesting facet of the Tumbler Ridge incident. (1)  About the only interesting thing about transgenderism is the question of who is crazier, the boy who thinks he is a girl, the girl who thinks she is a boy, the boy or girl who thinks he or she is something different altogether, or the people who think that the appropriate way to handle the previous is to indulge the fantasy to the point of insisting that everyone pretend the fantasy is reality or even trying to force reality itself to conform to the fantasy.  I’m inclined to think that the answer, if not six of one, half a dozen of the other, is that the last group is the craziest.  In my lifetime we have come to this point from one in which ninety-nine times out of a hundred if a girl said she was a boy or a boy said he was a girl, it was a short-lived phase which the parents might humour rather than indulge until it passed and if it didn’t would only then take it seriously which meant finding the kid help in adjusting to reality than trying to force reality to adjust.  I think everybody involved in this farcical phenomenon should be made to read Hans Christian Anderson’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew and George Orwell’s 1984 and asked where they see themselves in these stories.  If necessary, this should be repeated until they get it right.  Of course, these are all stories with which they would already be familiar had they been properly educated, but I am getting ahead of myself.

Every time incidents like this occur, politicians of all stripes and their partisans in the media seek to politicize the narrative in a way that benefits them and their party’s clients.  In the midst of this a number of important questions are asked and while it is difficult to extract the questions and proffered answers from the politicization process it is vital that it be done.  The most important of the questions are “Why did this happen?” and “What can be done to prevent this from happening again?”  Clearly, any answer given to the second of these questions must depend upon the answer given to the first.

The first question is actually several different questions rolled into one.  The person asking it could be asking what are the circumstances which brought about this particular incident and this can only be answered by looking at the motivations of the perpetrator and the specific circumstances which led to their development.  He could also be asking, however, why incidents of this general nature occur.  Someone asking this question in this way is looking for things that are common to most or all such shootings sprees.  One example of asking and answering the question in this manner is that of the North American liberal.  She will often answer the question with “guns” and use this answer to bolster her call for further gun control measures as the solution to the problem.  The flaw in her reasoning is that while guns are indeed common to all mass shootings their role in each of these shootings is that of the instrument not that of the agent.  The agent controls the instrument and not the other way around.  A better answer to the question asked this way is that suggested by Peter Hitchens years ago, that drug abuse is the factor that is both common and causal.  Tumbler Ridge was not an exception to this, the perpetrator was a frequent user of mind-altering drugs.

Let us consider this with specific application to school shootings.  While the first school shootings on record were in the nineteenth century, they were quite rare, with the exception of the 1960s, until the 1990s.  In the 1990s a wave of school shootings began that has yet to abate with each successive decade seeing a larger number than the previous.  The drug factor is at least a partial explanation for the temporary spike in the 1960s.   It undoubtedly a factor in the later wave as well.  The 1990s was the beginning of the opioid crisis in the United States, coming immediately after two decades in which the American government was heavily pushing the “War on Drugs.”  The drug crisis has escalated alongside the school shooting crisis.  Perhaps more significantly, the 1960s, apart from the rise in drug abuse associated with hippie culture, was the first decade in which methylphenidate was administered to children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and the 1990s was the decade when this really caught on.  Indeed, this entire growing wave of school shootings has coincided entirely with a period in which either a) the number of cases of children with ADHD has skyrocketed, b) doctors have become better at diagnosing ADHD or c), the option preferred by skeptical cynics like myself and Peter Hitchens, doctors, under pressure from the companies that produce methylphenidate, have recklessly been making diagnoses of ADHD and writing prescriptions over ordinary childhood rambunctiousness and have gotten away with it because parents and teachers have been to quick to pass off dealing with the children under their care when they act up to the medical profession.

The drug factor, however, is not the whole story.   We have considered two ways in which the question “Why did this happen?” can be asked, both of which focus on the perpetrator.  The question can also be asked with an eye on the schools in which case it could be paraphrased “What happened to the schools that they have become places where these shootings are likely to occur?”

The answer is that over the last century they have largely ceased to be places where education in the traditional sense of the word takes place and have become something else entirely.  What that something is could be described as factories that turn out diploma-holders on the assembly-line principle.  Alternatively today’s schools might be described as laboratories for the experiments of professional educators on the students, their Guinea-pigs.  Either description is of an institution that has a dehumanizing effect on those who go through it.  This is the opposite of what traditional education is supposed to do.  Traditional education was designed to humanize people, to take the barbarians or savages we are each born as, and civilize us.

By the time Hilda Neatby wrote So Little for the Mind in 1953, a devastating critique of the direction Canadian education was headed due to the influence of the rotten ideas of John Dewey from south of the border, North American education had already largely become the experimental laboratory of the professional educator.  Dewey’s vision was of an educational system in which professional experts would accomplish progressive social engineering by indoctrinating children with liberalism.  In this education pretty much reached the terminus of the downward path upon which Joseph Lancaster had set it and on which it had previously been advanced by Horace Mann. (2)  In the decades since Neatby’s book (3) the restraining influences on the educational experts of the remnants of traditional education were gradually removed as the courts, first in the United States then in Canada, removed the Bible and prayer from the schools, and the control of local school boards themselves controlled by the parents of students was leached away by state and provincial educational authorities.  As this happened, the professional educators grew increasingly to resent parental attempts to influence the education of their children, just as their, that is the “experts’” ideas of what ought to be taught became increasingly cockamamie and screwball.

By the 1990s, especially in urban areas, the schools had become so dehumanizing and spiritually dead that this combined with the new fad of doping kids with methylphenidate to treat the condition of childhood (especially boyhood) to produce the ever growing wave of school shootings.

 (1)   An interesting, although entirely unimportant aspect, is that the school where the shooting took place actually has “Secondary School” in its name.

(2)   It was greatly assisted down this path by the achievement of the “universal education” plank of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.  As with most of Marx’s bad ideas, liberalism and especially American liberalism, was far more effective at putting it into practice than the actual Communist movement.  Universal education is a bad idea for a number of reasons such as, but not limited to, that it involves the state confiscation of what is the natural property of the parent and it requires dropping the standards of education to a lowest common denominator.

(3)   In 1947, Dorothy L. Sayers wrote an essay “The Lost Tools of Learning” which points out the path back to sound education. — Gerry T. Neal

M

Canadian mass shooting shows it’s high time for news outlets to stop bending the knee to transgender orthodoxy

Posted on by

Canadian mass shooting shows it’s high time for news outlets to stop bending the knee to transgender orthodoxy

Published on

It is a journalist’s duty to report the truth, yet so many news outlets covered themselves in shame by bowing and scraping to honour the “transgender identity” of the man who carried out of the deadliest mass shootings in Canadian history.

by Tyler O’Neil 

Reprinted, by kind permission, from
The Daily Signal (Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC),
February 12, 2026.
URL: https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/02/12/shameful-news-outlets-refer-man-who-massacred-children-woman-transgender/

Jesse Van Rootselaar, 18, was born a man and he died a man. He spent his last day on Earth killing his 39-year-old mother, his 11-year-old stepbrother, a 39-year-old teacher, three 12-year-old girls, and two boys, 12 and 13, before taking the coward’s way out and turning the gun on himself. He reportedly wounded about 25 others at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and critically injured two more.

Initial reports on the shooting described Van Rootselaar as appearing female, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police erased all doubt Wednesday at a press conference.

“I can say that Jesse was born as a biological male who approximately six years ago began to transition to female and identified as female, both socially and publicly,” Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald said.

I understand the impulse to treat people with respect when they claim to identify as the gender opposite their sex. Many consider it common courtesy to refer to a person by preferred pronouns, rather than insisting on biological truth. In some circles, it is a faux pas — if not sacrilege — to state the naked truth that a man is still a man, regardless of what gender he claims to adopt.

But, if ever there were a situation where common courtesy need not apply, it would be here.

Do you really want to extend “common courtesy” to a school shooter? Do you really want to say, “I know he slaughtered children, and his own mother, but we’ve got to be nice and call him a girl, now”?

For crying out loud, let’s stop this insane charade.

The vast majority of mass shooters are male, so the initial news reports that the shooter was a woman immediately invited skepticism.

When the RCMP’s update clarified that the shooter was really a man dressed up as a woman, every journalist following the story learned the truth. There is no excuse, at that point, for calling the shooter a woman or using female pronouns for him.

Yet, outlet after outlet did it.

News outlets gaslight readers

CNN “reported” that “the suspect is an 18-year-old woman.” The very next sentence? “She was born biologically male and transitioned about six years ago, police said.” CNN also referred to the shooter as “an 18-year-old female resident of the town.”

The New York Times used female pronouns for the shooter, stating that “she killed her mother and stepbrother before fatally shooting several others, and later herself.”

The Associated Press merely referred to the shooter using female pronouns, without even disclosing to readers that police identified him as male. 

Reuters’s headline ran, “Canadian police identify 18-year-old woman as suspect in mass school shooting.” Reuters did acknowledge that the shooter had been “born male,” but not until the 11th paragraph, and only after describing Van Rootselaar as a “woman” and using female pronouns for him throughout.

USA Today acknowledged the transgender identity in the second paragraph of the story, but still used female pronouns for the shooter throughout.

Why the pervasive bias in favor of the shooter’s ‘identity’?

Why did news outlets do this?

First, McDonald, the deputy commissioner, set the stage for it by saying that police would refer to the shooter as a woman because the shooter had presented himself that way. Apparently, accuracy about biological sex takes a backseat to political correctness, even when it means honoring the ravings of a mass murderer.

Second, The Associated Press Stylebook, which many outlets use as a benchmark for how to report the news, has taken an aggressively pro-transgender activist position.

The stylebook urges journalists to “identify people as transgender only when relevant, and use the name by which they live publicly.” It recommends avoiding “mention of a person’s gender transition or gender-affirmation surgery in news coverage” unless “it is central to the story.” Why? Because this might be “intrusive and insensitive.”

This guidance helps explain why The Associated Press appears to have considered the shooter’s transgender identity irrelevant enough to be excised from the coverage entirely. The AP, you see, didn’t want to be “insensitive” to Mr. Van Rootselaar.

Forgive me if I don’t care about being insensitive toward a mass murderer.

The AP Stylebook goes out of its way to silence dissent against transgender orthodoxy. While the “guidance” on transgender issues is steeped in transgender ideology, it flatly declares that journalists should “not use the term transgenderism, which frames transgender identity as an ideology.”

The Daily Signal appreciates the clarity of the AP Stylebook on matters such as spelling protester with an “er,” but we emphatically reject its “guidance” on issues like this where it takes a leftist partisan stance.

A reckoning on transgender insanity

This horrific shooting comes shortly after a jury ordered doctors to pay $2 million to a detransitioner who regretted having her breasts removed. It comes after the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommended against transgender surgeries for minors, and even said the data doesn’t support hormones for minors.

The tide is turning against transgender orthodoxy, and this moment should shame news outlets into reconsidering their near-religious devotion to it. 

This article is reproduced by kind permission of the Daily Signal Media Group, Washington, DC. 

About the author 

Tyler O’Neil is senior editor of The Daily Signal, published by the Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, and the author of two books

Free Speech Warrior Gordon Watson Victim of A Trans Complaint

Posted on by

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


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

Page | 5

2

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

Page | 5

3

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

Page | 5

4

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

Page | 5

5

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

Holocaust Summit 2026, A Great Success Despite Sabotage Attack

Posted on by

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

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