Contact Published Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:03PM EST
A Hamilton police cruiser is featured in this file photo. (Andrew Collins)
SHARE
TORONTO — Hamilton, Ont., police say they have charged two organizers of an anti-mask protest group for holding events that allegedly violated public health rules.
Police say the events were held in downtown Hamilton on Jan. 3 and Jan. 10.
The force alleges that 40 people attended first event and 60 attended the second.
Current provincial restrictions limit gatherings to a maximum of 10 people outdoors.
Police say they informed the “Hugs Over Masks” organizers that the planned Jan. 10 gathering would result in charges, but they went ahead with the event.
They say a 27-year-old man and 38-year-old woman are facing charges under the Reopening Ontario Act that carry a minimum fine of $10,000 if convicted.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 12, 2021.
Bladez 2 Fadez, a barbershop in central Alberta, first opened its doors in August 2020. It’s a tough economy to open any small business, but especially now, during a time of ever-evolving pandemic restrictions on retail and services.
Bladez 2 Fadez was, until yesterday, a recently closed barber shop. Premier Jason Kenney made a mid-December decision to ban all personal care services, including hair and nail salons as well as barbershops, as part of his latest swath of COVID-19 restrictions on business.
However, Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m, Bladez 2 Fadez owner Natalie Klein served her first client in a month. Klein, despite the looming threat of fines, is opening her doors to the public. If that last name sounds familiar to you, it should. Klein is the niece of late, great Progressive Conservative Alberta Premier Ralph Klein.
I was on hand to talk with Natalie, her first customers and the locals from Innisfail and its surrounding communities — including Glen Carritt and Haley Wile of United We Roll, and Tracy Walker — a Red Deer salon owner who came to us at Rebel News’IWillOpen.com with her own story of lockdown defiance.
Natalie told me that people have a right to support their families, and she knows she can work safely in her shop.
I promised Klein that if she received a ticket for her act of survival and civil disobedience, Rebel News would help her fight it at FightTheFines.com.
The day ended with no fines issued, but with intense pressure from Facebook tattletales, Natalie expects one to come soon.
[Two comments here: First, note the growth of snitch culture — the woman was ratted out by some busybody neighbour; Two, the cops like to throw their weight around but remain silent when asked important questions. — Paul Fromm]
A mother dropping her kids off at their grandparent’s in order to pick up groceries is facing charges.
Yesterday, we told you about charges related to an illegal gathering in Delhi.
On Saturday, police received a call about several people seen at a residence in the community and were able to stop a car seen leaving the home.
As a result, police charged the operator of the vehicle, a 34-year-old of Simcoe under the Reopening Ontario Act.
Also charged was the 58-year-old homeowner of Norfolk County.
Through comments on Facebook and messages to our page, we were able to track down the woman who was in the vehicle – and she claims she was driving away after picking up her young children after getting groceries and running errands.
She told us that she has taken time off work to help with virtual learning, and with her significant others’ work schedule, she has been dropping her children off at the grandparents in order to run to the store and get items for the family.
She explained her youngest child likes to grab everything and that it is safer for everyone if the child simply stays with someone, so she drops the kids off with family.
That being said, from a legal standpoint, it is still two households interacting with each other and a larger gathering than allowed.
She is challenging the charges, as she felt it was essential.
Because of this, she has asked her name not to be released at this time.
We have reached out to the Norfolk OPP who told us it would be inappropriate to provide any additional details surrounding this investigation as that would stray into evidentiary information.
We are also reaching out to the province for more clarification on this as well, and what is deemed essential care, as many parents have also spoke about having grandparents assist with virtual learning while both parents had to leave the house for work.
Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13
Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was inserted at the last minute, in 1977, on the request of Jewish lobby groups and the then-Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, to “get” one man, John Ross Taylor who was using a telephone answering machine with a recorded message to spread his views. This was in the late 1970s, before today’s Internet technology. Sec. 13 stated: “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” These privileged groups included race, religion, sexual orientation or identity. Mr. Taylor and a number of others using telephone answering machines to spread their views were slapped with “cease and desist orders.” These had the force of a court order.
To broadcast the same or “similar” (whatever that is) messages was considered contempt and cold land you in jail. Happy Warrior John Ross Taylor, an honest and guileless man, was twice sentenced to a year in jail, the last time when he was 77 years of age.
By the late 1990s, the Internet had replaced telephone answer machines. Sabina Citron, a bitter enemy of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel, made a complaint against him about the Zundelsite, which was located in the U.S. and run by an American citizen, educator and novelist Ingrid Rimland (who would eventually become Mrs. Zundel). This was a hard fought case, which lasted from 1997 to 2002. CAFE was an intervenor. On the censorship side were a number of Jewish groups. The defence argued, inter alia, that the Internet was not “telephonic communication”, as the section was then worded. Bill C-36, an omnibus anti-terrorism law covering many things was brought in as a response to 9/11. It gave control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and clarified that it did cover the Internet.
Along came Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and bitter enemy of free speech — he had earlier tried to get various venues for British author David Icke cancelled. Warman started filing a flurry of human rights complaints against various nationalist bloggers, historical revisionists and others. For a while he was even working for the Canadian Human Rights Commission , in a way, drumming up business for them.
Most of his victims were poor and few could afford a lawyer. CAFE assisted a number of these victims (Terry Tremaine, Glen Bahr, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, and others, and intervened in the Marc Lemire/Freedomsite case.
We witnessed a massacre. Along the way, it was ruled that truth was no defence, intent was no defence. No harm had to be proved. In one case, we proved that, prior to Warman’s complaint, only one person, anti-free speech offence hunter Richard Warman, had ever clicked on the offending comment. The wording of the Section “likely to expose” is very loose. What is “likely”? No evidence had to be presented that anyone actually saw the comments, believed them and started to hate a privileged minority. Hatred may be hard to define, but what about “contempt”? Contempt is a negative feeling toward a person.
As it turned out, ANY strong criticism of a privileged group, even if true or fair comment, could lower a person’s opinion of that group and, therefore, might “expose them to contempt.” We learned that there was no defence to a charge under Sec. 13. The anti-free speech complainants, the vast majority Warman’s, won in every case but one — a record only surpassed in North Korea. The press paid no attention to this bullzosing of freedom. Often, echoing the complainant they had demonized the victims as “neo-nazis” or “racists” or “White supremacists”.
Eventually, others decided to mimic the success of Jewish groups and Warman, who worked closely with them, to silence their critics. A group of Moslems, angry at Mark Steyn for his book on the Islamicization of Europe, which had been exerpted in Maclean’s made a Sec. 13 complaint against Maclean’s. Finally, the press paid attention and they learned that there basically was no defence to a charge and that the vast majority had been brought by one man.
Soon, religious groups began to pay attention. We had warned Real Women back in 1998 that having we their teeth on historical revisionists and immigration critics, the thought control freaks would move on to others — Christians who opposed abortion or the LGBTQ agenda. A groundswell of opposition arose to Sec. 13. A Conservative Party conference called for its repeal. A Conservative backbencher, Brian Storseth, introduced a private member’s bill repealing Sec. 13, which passed in 2014.
Warman no longer has his favourite toy. The enemies of free speech have smarted ever since. Now, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, on whose board sits Richard Warman and Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a decades-long advocate of censorship. Sadly this frenetically pro-censorship gropup has lucked into government money. Even worse, this summer they were the beneficiary of a $500,000 grant from the Bank of Montreal. [No, corporate Canada is no friend of free speech.]
Thus free speech supporters should be concerned by the following news from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.: “Earlier this month [December] we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.” The problem was views on the Internet dissenting from political correctness.
No injunction to save Christmas, but court action continues
Dec 21st, 2020
EDMONTON: The Justice Centre is reviewing a ruling from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which denied a preliminary application for a temporary injunction to restore Charter rights and freedoms being denied by restrictions imposed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) and Alberta Government.
The full hearing of the Justice Centre’s application will take place sometime in 2021. The date has not been set yet. The Court will be asked to consider fully all of the various harms which lockdowns have inflicted, and are inflicting, on Albertans. The CMOH and other government officials will be required to answer questions under oath, and to provide evidence to justify the violation of Charter freedoms to move, travel, associate, assemble and worship.
In December, the Justice Centre filed a court challenge to Orders made by the CMOH, including an injunction application seeking a temporary suspension of certain lockdown measures until the Court fully considers the case. The Justice Centre is representing two churches and two individuals, alongside Rath & Company, who represents another individual.
Among other things, the Justice Centre argued that the Court should lift restrictions that effectively outlaw friends and family from gathering at each other’s homes to celebrate Christmas, and the public health order that prohibits outdoor hockey and other gatherings. Under this Order, grandparents cannot visit their grandchildren, and immediate family cannot be together if they do not live in the same household.
Since March 16, 2020, Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) has pronounced 42 public health orders that have violated constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the heart of the case is a challenge to the constitutionality of Orders issued by one person without any consultation or review by the Alberta Legislature, contrary to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
The latest CMOH Order declares illegal the celebration of Christmas among friends and family in a private home, restricts weddings and funerals to only 10 people, and completely prohibits all outdoor gatherings.
“On this application for a temporary injunction, the government was not required to demonstrate that its violation of Charter freedoms were justified. The fact the injunction was not granted does not mean the lockdown measures that violate people’s Charter rights are justified – that will be decided at the main hearing, to come in 2021,” states Justice Centre staff lawyer James Kitchen.
“The Court upheld the CMOH Orders simply by presuming that the Orders must be in the public interest. In regard to this application, the Court did not consider evidence as to whether the Orders actually are in the public interest or not. This, too, will be ruled on in 2021,” continues Mr. Kitchen.
“Dr. Deena Hinshaw swore and filed a cursory affidavit, with very little evidence in support of her opinions. Cross-examination prior to the injunction hearing was not possible, but will take place in 2021,” continues Mr. Kitchen.
“Justice Kirker agreed that Albertans are suffering irreparable harm – harm that cannot be remedied or compensated for – from the indoor and outdoor gathering restrictions imposed by the CMOH Order,” notes Mr. Kitchen.
What do a wrestler, protester, and a teenager have in common? ENORMOUS COVID-19 fines
We’re trying to help as many people as possible fight their COVID violation fines. Every day we receive more and more “Fight the Fines” cases through our online portal at FightTheFines.com. It’s almost impossible to keep up, but we haven’t stopped trying to take on every single one of those tickets. We’re also crowdfunding on that site so we can pay the legal fees associated with fighting each case.
The fines are often much less than the legal fees, but that’s the price we have to pay to stand up for our civil liberties. If you would like to chip in to help us recoup those costs, please click here.
I have three crazy stories for you today.
The first brings two of my biggest passions together: fighting government overreach and professional wrestling.
“Hotshot“ Danny Duggan is a professional wrestler and wrestling promoter. His business depends on travelling from venue to venue and, more importantly, on fans buying tickets to go to his live events. Needless to say, all that is illegal now in every province and territory in Canada.
So Danny got creative — he filmed his wrestling event in a closed facility in full compliance with the existing laws. But someone decided to report Danny’s production through the COVID snitch line, summoning police and bylaw enforcement to issue Danny a $1,300 fine!
Next, we have Chris Schmidt. Chris and his friends recently attended an anti-lockdown protest in Red Deer, Alberta.
They tried to keep to themselves, but that didn’t stop a Segway cop from chasing them down and asking for their information. Chris reluctantly agreed and since he didn’t receive a ticket at the event, he didn’t think much of the interaction.
But wouldn’t you know it, nearly a week later, police showed up at his house to hand him a $1,200 ticket.
Finally, I want to introduce you to the real-life version of the Footloose town: Winkler, Manitoba. Winkler just might be ground zero of heavy-handed COVID enforcement.
That’s where police have been issuing COVID tickets to maskless seniors picking up their prescriptions at the store, fining teenagers for hosting socially distant birthday parties and Christmas carolers singing in a public park.
Winkler is also where the RCMP pulled over Bailey Friesen and his friends for no other reason but to issue each of them a $1,296 COVID fine.
They weren’t speeding, drinking, or doing anything else noteworthy — they were simply driving.
If you get a ticket, make sure you submit your story to FightTheFines.com so we can pair you with one of our excellent civil liberties lawyers.
Despite what our health officials want us to think, pandemics do not override our Charter rights. But to preserve those rights, we have to defend them, especially when they’re actively being trampled on.
If you agree and want to help us continue taking on these cases, please click here or visit FightTheFines.com today.
For most Americans, there hasn’t really been time to stop and process what happened at the Capitol last Wednesday. Instead, we’re just trying to survive, fighting off daily waves of crackdown and retribution — punishment for a crime the vast majority of conservatives didn’t commit or condone. The people in power, the same ones who called the summer riots “the American Way,” are coming for our rights, our speech, even our livelihoods. Who will be left standing? If history is any indication — we will.
Right now, it’s a little hard to see beyond the present crisis, but our country has been at similar crisis points before. A generation who’s been robbed of the privilege of learning history can’t look backward — but if they could, they’d see that when our voice is threatened, the church always finds a way to respond. That doesn’t mean the next two years will be easy. What we’re witnessing in this moment may be the most dangerous corporate-political alignment this nation has ever seen. “Silencing, blacklists, social credit scores, threats…” We’ve woken up to an American where you support the wrong political ideology and suddenly, Tucker Carlson shakes his head, “you can’t communicate, and you have no legal representation, and you can’t fly in an airplane, and you can’t put your money in a bank.”
But the beauty of the American system is that we have the ability to correct this. In fact, that’s our nation’s story: the great obstacles and the greater comebacks. Our movement is a vital part of that. We can shrink back and wait for our powerlines to be cut or we can use the weapons we have: the airwaves, our broadcast booths, and any other means for getting our message out. Religious broadcasters still have reason to be concerned, attorney Craig Parshall agreed on “Washington Watch.” But this isn’t the first time an army of the Left has tried to cut off our microphones.
It wasn’t that long ago, Craig reminded everyone, that Bill Clinton tried to get a federal agency to create a definition of “hate speech” that they could use to shut down certain radio and television broadcasters. Of course, that fell flat when the agency, after about a year of work and public money, couldn’t come up with an accurate definition of the term. Then, Barack Obama took a crack at it with the FCC, floating the idea of local commissions that could enforce “community standards” and decide if content was appropriate. “That failed to gain traction,” Craig explains, “but it was threatened.”
For decades, liberals have tried to crack down on religious and conservative talk. We’re seeing it right now with Mark Levin. Cumulus Media is demanding that its host stop talking about a “stolen election.” “If you transgress this policy,” its memo warned, “you can expect to separate from the company immediately.” This same thing happened back in the communist era of the 1950s. People who wanted to preach the good news banded together, and look at the result! There’s more Christian programming out there today than there was 40 or 50 years ago when it was attacked. Obviously, there are bullies out there who think they can stop the truth or the gospel from going out. But I’ve got news for them: they never win.
Look at what happened with the Fairness Doctrine. It was entirely dismantled under the Reagan administration — and conservative talk flourished. Why? Because it goes to the heart of the American people who share these traditional values. “You just [have to] wonder,” Craig said, “what is the motivation for not having an open marketplace of lawful ideas?” And the answer is, the far-Left can’t compete with those ideas. So they want their opponents cowed, humiliated, and muted. “We’ve been marked as the enemy, because we oppose the idea that the state is superior to God… But there are those who believe that they have a better plan — and they [think] that we are better off under their soft totalitarian hand than we are with liberty.”
At the end of the day, we need to keep doing what we’ve been doing, regardless of how they mischaracterize us and our intentions. The battles are going to come — they always do — but we have to be just as resolute and unyielding. We’re going to continue to speak the truth in love, seek the face of God and His power, and rely on his strength to sustain us in what is going to be a very challenging chapter in the history of our country.
“The Great Commission is called ‘great’ for a reason,” Craig insisted. “When the apostle Peter got arrested, unlawfully dragged in before the council in Jerusalem, he said, ‘Look, you can do whatever you want to with me, but I can’t stop talking about what I have seen and heard in terms of the Savior, because I walk with him. We have the same commission today.” And that’s the determination the church needs right now. No matter what the other side does to us, no matter what they call us, we’re not going to be quiet.
MAXIME BERNIER ON CANCEL CULTURE Ten months ago I discussed freedom of speech and cancel culture with @ezralevant on my show. It’s a good time to watch it if you haven’t already. https://youtu.be/-SiyIe0wfJI