Activist Bill Whatcott found guilty of LGBT ‘hate’ on leaflets from 10 years ago
It’s beyond dispute that Canadian Bill Whatcott incorporated graphic images and language in his flyers but did so because he was engaged in a self-described ‘spiritual war’ to ‘strike against the dark forces’ of gay pride.
(LifeSiteNews) — Christian pro-family activist Bill Whatcott was found guilty of “Hate” against gay men by a Canadian court over flyers that he distributed during a Toronto pride event a decade ago.
While the court’s ruling has not yet been published, according to a report by the Toronto Star, Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy rejected Whatcott’s explanation that he is motivated by his Christian faith to evangelize those who face “eternal peril” if they do not repent.
Molloy reportedly said that the flyers go beyond “distaste, dislike, or merely being offensive. It is intense and extreme. It is hatred.”
“Looking at the whole picture, Mr. Whatcott, by his actions, has demonstrated a deep animus towards members of the gay community, notwithstanding his testimony that he wants only to save their souls by having them repent their sins. He is far from a simple Christian missionary seeking to convert sinners. He is an activist and an attention seeker. He loves the spectacle of what he did. He enjoyed the attention and he continues to do so,” wrote Judge Molloy, according to the Sun.
“Many of the things included in his flyer standing alone are merely offensive and would not amount to hate. However, the combined effect of the whole flyer, the length to which Mr. Whatcott went to deliver his ‘message,’ the range of people he gave it to and his gloating after the fact all support my ultimate finding that his intention in handing out the flyers at the parade was to vilify gay men. He knew that would be the effect of his actions” the judge said.
“Natural law is clear, homosexuality is incompatible with human nature. Disease, death and confusion are the sad and sordid realities of the homosexual lifestyle,” one of Whatcott’s flyers said.
In another flyer, Whatcott urged recipients to call or email him “if you are tired of your sin and want to come to your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and receive the free gift of eternal life.”
“It’s utterly remarkable how far ‘progressive’ authorities and fanatical LGBTQ activists in Canada have gone to persecute conservative Christian advocate Bill Whatcott. Ten years ago, Bill led a group of dressed-up ‘zombies’ into Toronto’s (perverse, nudity-filled) ‘gay pride’ parade and passed out gospel tracts masquerading as condom packages,” fellow activist Peter LaBarbera said on X of the judge’s ruling.
“In a ‘retrial’ after previously being found innocent (hello, double jeopardy!), Ontario’s highest court found Bill guilty of ‘willfully promoting hatred’ against homosexuals,” LaBarbera continued. “I know Bill: he may be unorthodox, but does not hate people caught up in homosexuality. Rather, he desires to minister to them by sharing the life-changing Truth of Jesus Christ. That takes real guts in increasingly ‘woke totalitarian’ Canada.”
It’s beyond dispute that Whatcott incorporated graphic images and language in his flyers, but he did so because he was engaged in a self-described “spiritual war” to “strike against the dark forces” of gay pride.
Using an odd choice of words, the Sun reported that as he left the courtroom Whatcott was “unrepentant” and said that the ruling represented “a terrible day for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.”
“Humanly speaking from my perspective the prognosis for religious liberty and free speech in Canada is poor and I will not be surprised to see Canada continue on a downward trajectory,” Whatcott wrote on his blog site.
“But of course God is in control and for those of us who believe in His promises we can take comfort in His promise that even as Christians are fired from their jobs, fined, marginalized, and sent to prison in Canada (all of the above is already happening) neither the Gates of Hell nor the taxpayer funded and state backed sodomite agenda will prevail against the Bride of Christ,” he continued.
“This period of perversion and unjust persecution in Canada will pass and the Word of God will endure forever,” he declared.
“Absolute bedlam at the Art Gallery where we tried to have a memorial vigil for Charlie Kirk.” – Frances Banannie, Facebook
A thirteen year old Canadian named Daniel Thiele took the initiative this week, and with the help of Naomi Chocyk and Fenton Travers, municipal candidates for True Blue Vancouver, organized a vigil for the late Charlie Kirk at the Vancouver Art Gallery. The event took place on September 10th, the anniversary of Kirk’s assassination. An angry mob of leftist activists showed up to disturb and disorder the event. The activists, who by all appearances acted, as they do, like the demon-possessed, screamed “rest in piss Charlie Kirk,” “Fuck Israel,” they booed and hissed, they banged on drums and blew airhorns. Initially mourners, unable to hear their own prayers, were confused by the maniacal hatred emanating from the activists, who appeared to have no organizing principle, no real purpose other than obstreperous disruption, and let’s face it, pure evil.
In an email exchange I asked Thiele to share his thoughts on the vigil and the activists efforts to sabotage it. At first the activists were up close to those attending, making proceedings nearly impossible. Eventually the police separated them from the vigil area. In the following video links — this from X, this and this from Facebook — you can hear the activists loud and clear off camera. Thiele, perhaps more generously than might otherwise have been warranted, went no further than calling their behaviour “annoying.”
He wrote:
“I organized the September 10 vigil as a chance for people to remember Charlie Kirk, hear a few remarks, and come together peacefully. There were counter-protesters nearby, which was upsetting for some attendees, but we continued with the memorial. I wanted the evening to remain respectful…with the help of the police we were able to mourn, though they were chanting and chanting…”
Most of the activists appeared to be of the type who brand as “residential school denialist” anyone who questions the purported story of 215 murdered aboriginal children buried in clandestine unmarked graves on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian residential school. The only connection between the unmarked graves story and the Charlie Kirk vigil was that Rebel News reporter, the crack gumshoe Drea Humphrey, reported on the Vigil. In Humphrey’s words, a vigil organized by a 13-year old Canadian on the inaugural observance of the political killing of an enormously influential Christian and public figure was something she deemed newsworthy.
However, the activists took Humphrey’s reporting to mean that she was “organizing” and “promoting” the event. Of course, neither of which she did. She reported on the thing and nothing more, as she does, as a matter of course, in her capacity as a journalist, and, as Humphrey was sure to mention, not at all unlike any of the other journalists who did the same. But the activists determined that since Humphrey was one of the first journalists to challenge the specious 215 unmarked graves claim, her association with (which was actually just reporting on) the Charlie Kirk vigil demanded that the Every Child Matters brigade with their hand drums, atonal Indian chants and unwarranted accusations of “Indian Residential School denialism” would be the perfect way to encounter other Canadians who had gathered to mourn the death by violent public execution of a man of unshakable Christian faith, who was a dedicated father and husband, and an inspiration to millions.
But there was more to why the activists zeroed in on Drea Humphrey; but that is better left to the tenacious reporter herself. Please see Humphrey’s video report below regarding the Charlie Kirk vigil.
Returning to the site of the vigil: the Vancouver Art Gallery. In a misguided commemoration for the 215 phantom Indian children falsely asserted to never have returned home from their Kamloops residential school, for almost two years the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery were strewn with 215 pairs of children’s shoes. However, in fact, those children never existed as there has never been a parent or family member who was or is actively searching for a missing named child. Instead of calling me a denialist for daring to write the previous sentence, how about produce a name of a disappeared child, then we might be able to put the issue to rest. Until then, consider the question up for challenge with the onus being on the activists to prove their implausible claims. I repeat, and in spite of the grip on the nation this faux claim may have, not one single named unaccounted for child has ever been identified as missing from an Indian Residential School. The shoes, along with other items like children’s stuffed animals, toys and candles, were removed from the steps on May 19th, 2023.
Barry Neufeld is a former school trustee from Chilliwack, British Columbia who in February 2026 was ordered to pay $750,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for statements made over several years opposing SOGI 123 (sexual orientation and gender identity) resources in schools. Neufeld was invited to speak at the vigil and was accompanied by conservative political organizer and writer Stuart Parker. The following was mined from Parker’s Facebook page where he was posting updates from the Vancouver Art Gallery during the vigil.
“The Left in which I grew up is well and truly dead. I cannot think of any environmental, socialist or trade union group of which I was part saying ‘hey… let’s go scream at and spit on conservatives attending a prayer vigil for a family man who was gunned down while giving a speech’.”
The expected hub-bub ensues:
“The Wokes are trying shut down the Charlie Kirk Vigil. They are drowning us out with air horns and are pushing us out of our space, screaming nonsense and drumming. The cops won’t hold them back.”
The hub-bub delays things, which of course is the purpose. The left know what they are doing:
“We persuaded the cops to enforce a perimeter. Now singing O Canada.”
Now the vigil can actually begin, shouts and air horns are mildly attenuated, mourners can at least hear each other now:
“We join hands in a moment of silence to remember Charlie Kirk. They scream ‘boo! Boo! Burn in hell. Fuck you! Fuck you!’ And then they laugh.
Something dark has taken the counter protest but our light shines brighter.”
But what really triggered the leftists:
“We just sang Amazing Grace. It drove the Wokes into white hot apoplectic fury to hear the anthem against slavery.”
It’s noteworthy that something as singularly beautiful and moving as Amazing Grace would cause such a vicious expulsion of rage amongst the woke ones. In an email exchange, I asked Barry Neufeld what the hell happened. The following is his entire response:
A radical aboriginal woman organized the counter protest, to condemn people who deny that 215 children were murdered at the Kamloops residential school. Because Drea Humphrey had reported that a vigil would be held for Charlie Kirk at the Art Gallery, they assumed that she had organized it.
A few years ago, 215 pairs of shoes were displayed on the Art Gallery steps for 2 years, while activists collected donations, so I guess they thought they owned the place.
There was incessant banging on their drums. It reminded me of an angry child banging pots and pans together. No discernible rhythm or musical quality. Hoop drums are not traditional instruments of Canadian Aboriginals. They expropriated them from Irish Settlers.
They were chanting “Every Child matters!” Of course, everyone can agree with that. They called me and Charlie supporters Nazis. But they were waving Palestinian flags and shouting “Free Palestine!” I couldn’t figure out what side they were on and what point they were trying to make: they had no guiding principle.
They kept interfering with the vigil by incoherent screaming, catcalls, sirens whistles and bullhorns. It made me worry about demonic possession.
But they really got angry when those in the vigil began to sing “Amazing Grace,” the hymn that marked the end of the slave trade in the British Empire.
It is hard to sympathize with the plight of our ‘First Nations” when they participate in such disrespectful behaviour of anarchists who want to destroy our country.”
At the vigil, Neufeld gave a moving speech full of wisdom, hope and encouragement (see below). It is one of the key moments people came for. The loss of Charlie Kirk is still very much present and painful for many of us, we desperately need the guidance of Christian elders like Barry Neufeld. However, from Stuart Parker:
“Barry Neufeld speaks while the mob sings obscene songs celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death.”
Sigh…the lost ones, those who walketh in the counsel of the ungodly, who standeth in the way of the sinners, and who sitteth in the seat of the scornful, as our first psalm teaches, “are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.” Pray for them.
With not a demon around to scream or hiss, I present the timely and essential words of Barry Neufeld:
We gather today to commemorate the life of Charlie Kirk, a young man who was the embodiment of courage over prudence. He was willing to stand bravely for freely speaking the truth when there were threats against his life.
Charlie had the most influential microphone in the Culture wars. But he willingly shared it with his most vocal opponents, because he believed in true dialogue. That is not the action of a fascist!
Around the world, people of goodwill were horrified and saddened by his brutal murder in front of thousands of students. But we were shocked by the reaction of many who rejoiced at his violent death, leaving his beautiful wife Erica a widow and his two lovely children fatherless. A year later, some sick people are still celebrating his murder. (and many are here today)
We must continue to send encouragement and condolences to Erica and the Kirk family for their incredible loss. And we condemn the efforts of influential people, on the left and the right for the horrible ways they have attacked her with false accusations and malicious conspiracy theories. It is despicable how people both right and left have been bashing her.
It is the reaction of Charlie’s supporters that is significant: unlike the reaction to the death of George Floyd 5 years earlier, there were no riots in the streets, no carnage, no looting and no burning of cars and buildings. Instead, there was respectful mourning, and a call for other young men to rise up and take Charlie’s place. Nobody ever said we need more people like George Floyd!
I think we have a Canadian replacement for Charlie Kirk right here in our group today. Daniel Thiele is only 13 years old, a young man just emerging from childhood, but has shown leadership and courage beyond his years.
Charlie was given one of the most beautiful, largest and moving funerals of any American leader in history. The New York Times stated that 200 thousand people turned out and millions more watched the livestream around the world. I watched all 5 hours of the service, and the most moving was Erica Kirk’s expression of forgiveness to her beloved husband’s killer.
What were the most important aspects of Charlie’s life? Just like our Canadian hero, Dr. Jordan Peterson, he was focused on sharing his message of truth with discouraged young men. College aged young men, who were becoming demoralized by the toxic D.I.E. atmosphere on college campuses. Like BillBoard Chris Elston, Charlie went right into the public squares, especially the liberal college campuses and mingled and conversed with the young people.
There were three aspects to Charlie’s message.
The Church
The Government
The Family.
Charlie believed, as I do that these institutions were founded by God the Creator. While Charlie was a Protestant evangelical, Erica was raised Roman Catholic. He had an exalted view of the Church, which he believed is the only institution that protects freedom. He believed that the church is called to give counsel to the rulers. He was not a clergyman; he was only a layman. In a country with a church on nearly every street corner, he did a watchman’s work which many pastors have neglected. And he had a profound influence on many churches. When Glen Hansman, president of the BC Teachers Union told me I had to leave my faith outside the door when I walked into the School Board room, I refused, because Charlie reminded me that I must be the same person in public as I was in private.
Regarding the separation of Church and State, he pointed out that the State has intruded into nearly every facet of our lives while most churches retreated. Charlie asked what gave state health officials the authority to go into churches and shut them down and then stand by idly while they were burned down? He believed that if God doesn’t exist, there is nothing right or wrong, everything is just a matter of your own opinion. Freedom is not sustainable if you try to remove the Christian religion.
Charlie believed that courage is only moral when it is grounded in truth. He pointed out that fear is being used to silence truth. He believed in that famous quote from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” He called for Christians to be courageous enough to govern themselves and then govern their country. This is similar to Jordan Peterson’s dictum: “Before you attempt to change the world, start by cleaning up your bedroom.” He urged Christians, especially young persons to be courageous and show up at School board meetings. Oppose the depravity of progressive curriculum and pornographic books and demand the release of documentation through freedom of information processes.
But Charlie warned that being brave, courageous and moral rarely comes without a cost. His life proved that. So has mine.
Regarding the government, Charlie truly loved his country and was enthusiastically patriotic. Here in Canada, we are ashamed of being seen as patriotic. Our children are being taught to be ashamed of our history, embarrassed about our heritage and humiliated about the color of our skin. Here in Canada our conservatives no longer love our country: they want to leave it, tear the country apart or just turn it over to the Aboriginals. We need more young leaders like Daniel Theile to encourage us to Make Canada Great again.
Charlie was passionate about Free Speech, which he believed was bestowed by the Creator, and any attempt to impose hate speech laws denied the humanity of the speaker. People without power must be given the right to speak. Our provincial politicians could learn from Charlie, who had the rare gift of maintaining coalitions. He knew how to love his neighbor— even those who disagreed with him. He mobilized young voters in their 20’s to elect Donald Trump.
Charlie’s highest priority was his family: his beautiful wife, formerly Miss Arizona and their two lovely children. He understood why young men were reluctant to get married due to the lack of demand for college graduates and the greed of developers which makes it impossible for young people to ever own a home big enough to raise a family. But nevertheless, he encouraged young people to find happiness by finding a wife, getting married and having more children than they could afford. Charlie knew that the biggest challenge to traditional family values was radical feminism. The idea that a career was more important than raising a family. We have recently seen the results of unhinged feminism in the scandalous trial of Lindsay Clancy. When a man goes to prison for harming children, he becomes the immediate target of the other inmates. Because for violent criminals, hurting children is too low— even for them.
But when a woman harms children, she gets a fan club and a million dollars.
Moral of the story: even violent criminals have a stronger moral compass than feminist women.
Charlie had a solution for toxic feminism. He upset and even angered some of his evangelical supporters when he recently said Christians should pay more attention and honor to The Virgin Mary as the archetype of true womanliness.
Some of the most enthusiastic praises for Charlie Kirk have come from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Clergy. They agree that Charlie Kirk, a Protestant qualified for a Martyr’s crown for the cause of Christ. Metropolitan Tikhon of Russia and Bishop Robert Barron of America think he should be venerated as a saint: recognized by the church as a Model of Holiness: Saints provide practical examples of how to live out faith, courage, and virtue through real-life challenges.
We are gathered here for a vigil which is a period of staying awake during normal sleeping hours to pray and honor the dead. What is the significance of lighting a candle? In the early years of the Christian faith, believers were hunted down jailed, tortured and killed, so they were forced to meet in caves under the city of Rome, which are called catacombs. They needed candles for light. Candles represented to them their prayers and praises rising to the heavens and have become an indispensable part of Traditional Christian Worship.
Our Lord Jesus said: “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” ~ Matthew 5:16
Charlie Kirk allowed his light to shine brightly and it dispelled a lot of Darkness in the world. May we also follow his example and shine the light of truth.
Will you join me in singing that old Sunday School song, “This Little Light of Mine?”
Hate Crime Verdict, Wednesday, September 16th, prayer request, and a lovely song made for me from a Missionary in Angola
Naked sodomites and a small child at the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade, July 3, 2016. Criticizing the homosexual shame parade in Toronto can lead to criminal prosecution and while truth is a defense in theory it may not prevail in reality as the Canadian and Ontario governments prefer pro-homosexual narratives over what is true.
Dear Friends,
I talked to my lawyer about trying to get access for those who are interested in attending my court by zoom.`I guess Justice Malloy wants to be the final arbiter of who is allowed to view the proceedings and who isn’t. During the trial she rejected 100% of my friend’s requests, rejected MassResistance even though they have been covering my case for years, and she allowed a couple media outlets and a couple lawyers who were out of province to view the proceedings. It seemed to me the Crown liked the restrictions on the observers, who were overwhelmingly sympathetic to my cause and who were for years were well behaved and did not disrupt the court in any way.
Anyways, if you want to try to convince the judge to allow you to view the verdict on zoom you can send an e-mail to:
CriminalTrialOffice-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca
Address the heading of your e-mail with: “Request to Attend a Virtual Proceeding” and ask for the link to “R v Whatcott” for Wednesday, September 16, 2026 and make your argument as to why you should be allowed to attend via zoom. Last time the judge said she needed a good reason to allow someone to attend via zoom and she wasn’t too differential in regards to my desire to have my supporters present. It seemed her own kind, lawyers and the media were allowed. People who donated thousands of dollars to my legal defense over the years and who had a clear interest in my case were not given any consideration.
The most guaranteed way to hear the verdict is to attend in person:
Ontario Superior Court, 361 University Ave, Toronto, ON
Please pray for Monday. Justice Malloy will be holding a case conference with my counsel and with the Crown Prosecutors Monday Morning, I think 9:00 am Eastern Standard Time. I am not sure why. A conference only two days before the verdict date is not something I have seen before. Please keep me in your prayers as the sentencing draws near.
A missionary friend from Angola made this song for me. I didn’t solicit the song, but when he sent it to me, it sure was nice…..
Some of the pictures in this video are genuine that he got from my updates or from the internet and some he created I think. My missionary friend is a blessing. Sometimes out of the blue God puts it on his heart to do something like this and that makes me feel blessed….
Land acknowledgments have become standard at academic and political events, including the opening of the Obama Presidential Library and a recent Michigan Democratic event. While supporters insist it merely shows respect for original inhabitants, critics argue it is the ultimate virtue signaling and is increasingly being forced on both speakers and audiences. One critic is Professor Stuart Reges, who teaches at the computer science and engineering school of the University of Washington. He has now received a settlement from the University of Washington, which spent a significant amount of time and resources in response to his mocking of the school’s land acknowledgment.
We previously discussed the case of Professor Reges, who was disciplined because he refused to post the school’s “land acknowledgment” and instead posted an alternative statement. Professor Reges sued the university and various officials in 2022. Professor Reges has declared “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”
The defendants included Nancy Allbritton, the Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington, Magdalena Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, UW President Ana Mari Cauce, and the Allen School’s Vice Director Dan Grossman.
After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgment” statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own statement. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people.
The school provided a recommended statement for all faculty to post and/or read to their students at the first of every course:
“The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”
Professor Reges disagreed with that statement and expressed his doubts to the faculty while also noting that “Magda” did not want the faculty to discuss such reservations on the email system. That may refer to the Director of the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Magdalena Balazinska.
Reges’ alternative statement read:
“I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”
The labor theory (which I teach) generally refers to John Locke’s theory. In his Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature, where all was created in common by God. Reges declared that these tribes, indigenous people, “can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land and that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people. That acknowledged group is a broad collection of different groups with ethnic or linguistic associations.”
In his lawsuit, Professor Reges says that, after he stated his own views, the university moved against him.
“On January 4, 2022, the day after Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class met for the first time, Defendant [Magdalena] Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, sent Professor Reges an email ordering him to remove the statement from his syllabus because it was ‘offensive’ and created a ‘toxic environment.’“
Reges noted that the university allowed other professors “to include modified statements in their syllabi that were more consistent with the University’s recommended statement.” The operative point is that “other faculty at the Allen School continue to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi that differ from the University’s own statement, so long as they express a viewpoint consistent with the University’s recommended version.”
According to the complaint, Balazinska then allegedly removed his dissenting statement, and the university emailed his students to apologize for their professor’s “offensive” land acknowledgment opinion and advised them on “three ways students could file complaints against” him. The students were later allegedly told by Balazinska that, according to the complaint, “all students in Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class section [can] switch into a new ‘shadow’ class section, which would meet at the same time as Professor Reges’s class section.”
Reges notes that the alternative class was a series of recorded lectures, but viewed as a reasonable alternative to being in a class with a professor with a dissenting view on land acknowledgments. Some 170 out of his 500 students took the alternative course.
I previously wrote how universities can use course assignments and other collateral means to isolate dissenting professors in an effort to get them to resign. This is especially true of tenured faculty.
I wrote that:
The Reges case could prove a major challenge to that orthodoxy. All university faculty should have condemned the university’s actions as an attack on academic freedom and freedom of speech, regardless of how they feel about land acknowledgment. The silence, however, is a reflection of how much has changed in higher education.”
It has now resulted in a $600,000 settlement after the university spent massive amounts of public money over four years to fight this lawsuit over the abusive treatment of Professor Reges.
The university settled only after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in December that administrators were “liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.”
Unfortunately, there is no indication that the university officials who created this fiasco will be held accountable in any way. Millions were spent, and years of litigation were triggered by the orthodoxy of the university. However, these officials will likely be heralded by their colleagues, and nothing is likely to change in the University of Washington’s intellectual echo chamber.
However, according to FIRE, the settlement “stipulates that the university cannot take any further action against Reges.”
Congratulations to Professor Reges and FIRE for a well-fought case with potentially lasting implications in protecting free speech and academic freedom.
City crusading against anti-immigrant conference
JOHN CARPAY John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
8 Sep 2026Rewind 15 secondsListenForward 15 secondsSwitch to focused listening
The mayor and police in Hamilton have decided that some Canadians have the wrong kind of opinions and should not be allowed to rent public facilities.
Last week, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath declared the Dominion Society is not entitled to rent city-owned property to hold a conference. The predictable result was to force the group to seek a private venue in which to hold its meeting.
The Hamilton Police Service then diverted some of its stretched resources to impeding the efforts of the Dominion Society, issuing a political statement denouncing it as “divisive and exclusionary,” and as negatively impacting “the sense of safety and belonging within our community.” The police even asked the public to contact them with information about any efforts the group might make to secure a venue.
Hamilton’s police and mayor are behaving much like Quebec’s former tourism minister, Caroline Proulx. In 2023, she ordered the Centre des congrès de Québec, which is owned by a Crown corporation, to cancel its contract with Harvest Ministries to hold a Christian conference. The sole reason for cancelling the contract was that Proulx vehemently disagreed with the Christian group’s beliefs about abortion.
The Superior Court of Quebec recently ruled Proulx had abused her authority and violated the Charter-protected freedom of expression of Harvest Ministries. The court awarded general and punitive damages to Harvest Ministries.
The Dominion Society describes itself as “dedicated to promoting Canadian identity, heritage and nationalism.”
It advocates for remigration: sending immigrants back to their countries of origin. Neither Hamilton’s mayor nor its police force have accused it of being violent, criminal or terrorist. It therefore has the same right as every other non-profit in Canada to operate peacefully within the law, and to advocate for its beliefs.
Polls have shown roughly half of Canadians believe immigration levels are too high. Let’s say for argument’s sake only eight per cent of Canadians support remigration, and 92 per cent oppose it. Should having only eight per cent support for your opinion mean losing your right to rent government-owned facilities, and to use public spaces like parks and sidewalks?
If yes, then no government facilities should be available for rental by the NDP, which garnered only 6.3 per cent of the popular vote in Canada’s most recent federal election. Almost 94 per cent of Canadians rejected the NDP in 2025. Yet the NDP is not disqualified from being able to exercise its Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Politicians and police officers have every right to express their political opinions for or against various groups and causes. At the same time, Canada’s mayors, cabinet ministers and police forces have no right to treat government property as though it were their own private property, available only to “good” people who have the “correct” political beliefs.
The Hamilton Police Service has a solemn duty to fight crime. Its decision to waste its scarce resources on politics is a betrayal of taxpayers and free citizens alike. Indeed, unlike other professions, police have a legal duty to enforce the Criminal Code, as well as numerous non-criminal laws (such as traffic safety).
The politicization of the British police should serve as a stark warning to Canadians. What began with the monitoring and recording of “non-crime hate incidents” quickly led to British citizens being criminally charged for what essentially amounted to thought crimes.
Their crimes included sharing opinions about topics like immigration and transgenderism. David Wootton was sentenced to two years in prison for an “offensive” Halloween costume. This is why police should be 100 per cent focused on fighting crime and zero per cent focused on politics.
If Canada is to remain a free society, the government should uphold the law equally for all Canadians, including those who hold unpopular beliefs. Otherwise, there will be little to separate us from Fascist, theocratic, Communist or national socialist regimes, under which the government decides which views are correct.
This is why taxpayer-funded facilities like convention centres, and public spaces like sidewalks and city parks, are — and must always be — available to all citizens, regardless of their political beliefs.
WESTLOCK, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers funded by the Justice Centre will appear before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal beginning September 14, 2026, to defend Westlock resident Benita Pedersen against a human rights complaint arising from a political flyer she distributed opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk.
Witness testimony is scheduled for September 14–18, September 28–29, and October 2. The proceeding will involve as many as 15 witnesses, including expert evidence from both sides.
The complaint dates back more than three years and concerns a flyer Ms. Pedersen distributed in June 2023 after learning that the Town of Westlock planned to paint a rainbow crosswalk incorporating the colours of the transgender pride flag.
Ms. Pedersen is a Westlock resident who works as a DJ, children’s entertainer, event coordinator, and workshop facilitator. She opposed the proposed crosswalk because of her concerns about transgender ideology and children.
Her flyer discussed potential consequences of gender transition, including infertility, and encouraged residents who opposed the crosswalk to contact their elected representatives. It included the statement, “Cancel the rainbow crosswalk.”
On June 19, 2023, local resident Laurie Hodge filed a complaint against Ms. Pedersen under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging that distributing the flyer constituted discrimination based on gender, gender expression, and gender identity.
Ms. Hodge was not a member of Westlock Town Council when the flyer was distributed. Both women subsequently ran for council in a January 2024 by-election. Ms. Pedersen finished second and Ms. Hodge third. Ms. Hodge was later elected to council.
On October 7, 2025, the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal for a hearing under section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. The provision prohibits certain publications that indicate discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or that are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on protected characteristics. The Director has since taken carriage of the complaint on Ms. Hodge’s behalf.
The scope of the resulting proceeding is substantial. The Director of the Commission is expected to call an expert witness to testify about the physical and mental health of youth and marginalized populations. Ms. Pedersen will rely on expert evidence in response from an endocrinologist with experience treating transgender patients and a psychiatrist who specializes in gender dysphoria.
Back in May 2026, the Director brought a motion to prevent most of Ms. Pedersen’s proposed witnesses from testifying due to the Director’s position that her witnesses’ evidence was irrelevant. In July 2026, the Tribunal denied the Director’s motion to exclude those witnesses.
The case illustrates the broader concern with empowering administrative human rights bodies to investigate and punish expression. Political disagreements about controversial social issues should ordinarily be answered through debate and democratic participation, rather than through government proceedings seeking penalties against citizens for expressing their views.
“Albertans should be free to express their opinions on controversial topics without being accused of hatred and discrimination,” said constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic.
[Despite our elite’s detestation of lawabiding citizens owning guns, their courts are remarkably lenient on criminals who use guns. An Ontario judge released Zara Jabbi one of several gunmen hired by persons unknown to shoot up the U.S. Consulate on bail. Yet, political prisoner and dissident Les Bory spent 23 months in jail unable to get bail. All he did was shoot off his mouth on his Brantford News podcast and annoy privileged minorities.]
Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter
He should have been held in jail on the grounds of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice
Toronto Police officers work around the scene of a shooting at the US Consulate in Toronto, Canada, on March 10, 2026. Photo by Cole BURSTON / AFP via Getty Images
We can’t know exactly why Ontario Superior Court Justice Heather McArthur decided on Thursday to uphold bail for a man accused of shooting up the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, but her reasons can’t make much sense. Perhaps she was compelled by some kind of sob story, or perhaps she convinced herself that whatever stern warning she gave against disobeying bail conditions would resonate with the alleged gun-for-hire. Who knows; that’s all covered by a publication ban.
What is public inspires a whole lot of doubt in the justice system. The crime unfolded one morning in March at around 5:29 a.m.: shots were fired upon the U.S. Consulate by mystery men in a stolen car who filmed themselves in the act. It wasn’t until months later that those believed responsible were arrested.
First to be caught was 18-year-old Sheldon Tracey-Stewart, who was nabbed in early June during a series of police raids targeting the crime ring connected with the consulate shooting. This triumph was overshadowed by tragedy, however: Toronto police Const. Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed by a subject of the raid, resulting in 19-year-old Nicholas Bennett being charged with murder.
It took another week to catch our man Zara Jabbi, who wasn’t home at the time of the raid. He was granted bail on July 7, just a few weeks later. (And thanks to Justice McArthur, he’ll continue to enjoy release.)
Despite the raids and arrests — and an increase in patrols — the U.S. Consulate was hit a second time. On July 27, at around 4:45 a.m., the occupants of another vehicle shot up the U.S. Consulate again. Police stationed nearby were able to respond right away, but the ensuing chase saw speeds above 140 km/h on the nearby expressway and police called the chase off. Toronto, in all its dysfunction, didn’t have a helicopter to deploy, so the offenders got away.
t
A week and a half later, the alleged shooters were brought in: 19-year-old Xen-Ul-Abdeen Syed and a nameless 15-year-old. These two were also suspected of pouring gas on a residential driveway in late July and lighting it on fire.
t
The U.S. has pointed to Iran being behind all this, and Canadian police have at very least connected this group to other crimes against synagogues and businesses. Both shootings at the U.S. Consulate involved payments being offered to the gunmen through encrypted messaging apps, according to police.
The upholding of Jabbi’s release would have been offensive if he was merely accused of being a lone-wolf shooter, but it is so much worse in its full context. The soup of allegations related to this group is unthinkable to regular Canadians. Stealing cars, shooting buildings, conducting hybrid warfare against allies, killing police, evading police, etc. It’s indicative of extremely dangerous men who will unleash violence and evade justice where they can.
Article content
As bail is a risk-management exercise, it shouldn’t have been hard to conclude that granting freedom to those accused of such crimes places unacceptable risk upon the public. But we are often cursed with judges, including possibly McArthur in this case, who believe too strongly in the obedience of those thought to be among the most dishonest and violent in the country. In court, they’ll give out a long list of bail conditions and deliver a very foreboding lecture to whatever family member or friend who has offered to ensure the compliance of the accused. And then they’ll be shocked when bail violations occur.
Indeed, it was just early August when a woman was sentenced to a year of jail for giving her brother scissors to cut off his ankle monitor while he was on bail, and helping him escape the police who were searching for him. She had been his surety at the time of the crime, meaning she made a promise in court to supervise her brother’s bail compliance and report any breaches. The brother, who was facing gun charges, had been released on “very strict” conditions because she had assured court she was a “strong woman” who would carry out her duty. Little good that did.
Alas, even if Jabbi’s defence lawyers came up with a supposedly iron-clad release plan, his judge had a final card that could have been played to keep him in custody. The Criminal Code says that bail can be denied “if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances.” And then it rattles off some of those circumstances: the strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offence, whether a gun was used, whether a long jail term is on the table.
Jabbi is accused by police of using a gun to shoot up a diplomatic site while being allegedly involved with a gang that killed a police officer. If a judge doesn’t consider the release of such a man to be an assault upon public confidence in the administration of justice, she is extremely out of touch. Canadian courts have a weak reputation for ensuring order as is; decisions like these only bring it lower.
A wild story: The EU sanctioned a Swiss colonel for his words. They didn’t judge Jacques Baud. They unplugged him.
On December 15, 2025, the European Union places a 70-year-old Swiss man on a sanctions list, Jacques Baud. Former staff colonel, intelligence, UN, NATO missions in Ukraine.
Why? Because he writes books and speaks on TV. Official reason: “spokesperson for pro-Russian propaganda.” The cited example: he would have accused Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion to join NATO.
Ten lines in the Official Journal, no judge, no lawyer, no hearing.
He lives in Brussels. The next day, everything dies, accounts, credit cards, transfers. A friend is no longer allowed to send him money. Ban on entering and leaving the EU. He’s already inside.
So open-air prison.
For seven weeks, strangers bring him bread. He can check his balance. He can’t pay for anything. Not rent. Not food. Not metro.
Switzerland refuses to take back the sanction. In February 2026, Belgium, “for humanitarian reasons,” restores his right to use HIS money to eat and pay rent.
Then UBS, Swiss bank, cuts everything off anyway.
There you have it. In Europe, in 2025, you can freeze a man for a sentence, turn bread into an exemption, and let a bank do what a State refused.
That’s the story. They didn’t prove a crime. They sanctioned an analysis.
A man was unplugged for words. Bread became an exemption and the bank account, a favor.
Dominion Society Speakers Harassed by Canada Border Services & Anti-Free Speech Agitators Funded by Taxpayers’ Money
The City of Hamilton through its failed Mayor Andrea Horwath announced it wouldn’t rent facilities to the Dominion Society to hold its DOMCON immigration conference, August 29. The Mayor wrote venues warning them against holding the conference. The Hamilton Police said the Dominion Society wasn’t welcome because their message was “divisive.”They even urged people to call a snitch line if they knew where the conference was being held, after two venues cancelled under pressure. So, Hamilton became Cuba North without the palm trees.
To add insult to injury much of the agitation against the conference originated with the Anti-Racism Resource Centre and the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion. The latter is closely tied to the former.
The Hamilton Anti-Racism Resource Centre has lucked into big dollops of taxpayers’ money to fund its advocacy. In 2023, it received $286,000; in 202, $75,000 and in 2025 and guaranteed until 2029, $190,000 a year. These were the people agitating to have the Dominion Society denied a venue. So, taxpayers were paying to have agitators work to deny them the right to hear a controversial immigration reform group.
The federal thought police also got into the act. Austrian activist Martin Sellner, founder of the Identitarian Movement in Austria and a leading proponent of remigration was denied a visa. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, ever eager to restrict what Canadians can say or hear, had agitated for Sellner’s exclusion. The Jerusalem Post (August 30, 2026) reported: ” Richard Robertson, B’nai Brith Canada’s Director of Research and Advocacy, said, ‘Extremists such as Sellner have no business coming to Canada to attack our multicultural society and incite hate and intolerance.’”
Meanwhile English firebrand Charlie Downes, spokeman for Restore Britain, was held up for three hours crossing into Canada from the United States. A drug sniffing dog was set loose on the car in which he was travelling. The Western Standard (August 30, 2026) reported: ” He said that Canadian border officers asked about his group’s funding, its deportation policy, and alleged “links to neo-Nazism.” Why should a British group’s funding be of any interest to Canadian border authorities.
Shutterstock
