– Druthers call to help! The September edition is online And now available at our rallies! Donations always needed.
– ——————————- o0o————————————-
In case you missed the rally last Sunday…
Thank you, Mike, for hosting last week’s rally ~ We APPRECIATE YOU!!
Dr. Mel Bruchet surprised everyone by showing up on his way through to the south Okanagan and the Kootenays. Always lots and lots of stories from Dr. Mel.
——————————- o0o————————————-
****Location Change****
We are back to the corner of Main Street and Warren Avenue where we will welcome the sun again during the colder seasons.
FREEDOM EVENTS – Penticton4Freedom – every Sunday from 1 to 3 p.m.
COMING UP THIS SUNDAY
~ Updates on the 1MillionMarch4Children event coming up next Wednesday – a cross-Canada protest to get SOGI123 OUT of public schools and libraries, and to restore Parental Rights regarding their children’s education.
~ Some interesting tidbits from Mary Lou’s attendance at the Capitalism and Morality seminar.
~ Local speakers always, and Surprise Guest Speakers frequently!
~ Open Mic
~~~~o0o~~~~
=============================================Future dates:Coming soon – Donald Lee touring BC with his new book and stopping by Penticton along the way.Miss a week and you miss a lot!
Fighting for freedom is more fun with friends. Bring a few.Suggest a topic or a speaker, and we’ll be happy to find someone to share their knowledge with us.——————————- o0o————————————- OTHERS’ EVENTS · Kelowna CLEAR Rallies – 1st Saturday of each month at noon – Stuart Park, Kelowna · Oliver Rally – in front of city hall – Saturdays at 12:30 p.m. · Local A4C – Every Tuesday at Noon Protesting with Purpose: Richard Cannings 301 Main Street Penticton · Check online for school board meetings and city council meetings in your area. They’ve been changing dates lately. ——————————————- o0o————————————————-EVENTS Sign-making parties are back! Join the fun! SIGNS are the best way to send a quick message to passersby. With the change back to the Main & Warren location, there’ll be lots of people driving by, so we’ll need lots of new signs. AND! Signs for the Million March 4 Children event on the 20th! So… WE’RE HAVING A COUPLE OF FUN SIGN-MAKING PARTIES!! Thank you to Derrie Selles for opening your studio to us for these events. Bring your own water or other beverage, and snacks to share, if you wish. Please make 4 or 5 signs each so we have a supply to hand out to other volunteers, students, and parents, on-site. LOCATION: Art Up Studios, 94 Ellis Street, Penticton. 250-462-8783 Thursday, September 14 at 3:30 p.m.Monday, September 18 at 6 p.m.——————————- o0o————————————-National Citizens Inquiry Interim Report to be Released Tomorrow!!
We are pleased to announce that the NCI’s Commissioners will be releasing an Interim Report, this Thursday, September 14th. The report is titled “In the Public Interest: An Interim Report on the Covid-19 Vaccine Authorization Process“.
There will be two press conferences that day, an English press conference at noon Eastern on Sept. 14; a French press conference at 1 pm Eastern on Sept. 14. These press conferences will be livestreamed on the website and social media for the public to watch. Mark it in your calendar.
Here are the links for both English and French press conferences.
Keep an eye out for more promotional material on the NCI’s social media channels.
Kindest regards, The NCI Team SIGN UP FOR NCI EMAIL TO BE ALERTED TO NEW TESTIMONIES SUCH AS… Dr. William Makis, a distinguished nuclear medicine radiologist, and oncologist, on September 18 at 5 PM PST / 8 PM EST will share deeper insights into the decisions that shaped the pandemic response and the potential data that may have been concealed from the public eye. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/live/Also on Twitter, Facebook, and Rumble——————————- o0o————————————-TELL THEM TO LEAVE OUR KIDS ALONE!September 20, 20231MillionMarch4Children.com – September 20 – Action CountdownVolunteer! Join Us! Help make signs! Hand out invitations to Parents at schools.Team up with other volunteers. Be There, at the main event next Wednesday !!780-908-0309
——————————- o0o————————————-
Private Donor Lunch and Dinner in Penticton with John Carpay
——————————- o0o————————————-
——————————- o0o————————————-
October 8th, 5-7 pm
——————————- o0o————————————-ACTIONS OF THE WEEKThis week we ask you to attend an event!!!!———————————— o0o————————————-Worth A LookHold Strong Against Forced Masking, Lockdowns and Boosters Dr. Peter McCullough inspires thousands on the ReAwaken America Tour in North Las Vegas. (17:13) WATCH———————————— o0o————————————-
Freedom Rising Newsletter – Issue 56 – Legal Updates HERE
——————————- o0o————————————-
IS IS IT! If you have been waiting for an extra powerful issue of Druthers to have delivered to your community, this is the one. Druthers Neighbourhood Mail service is truly the easiest way to make a tremendous difference in your own local area. Just tell us which postal code area you would like delivered to, how much of a budget you have to invest in waking up your community, and then let us know. We will handle the rest and within a week or two, your neighbours will have this important issue of Druthers delivered anonymously to their mailboxes. Order here or get more info: https://druthers.net/neighbourhood CAN WE MAKE IT ANY EASIER? Yes we can! To make this as simple as possible, you don’t even need to place an order on the website. Just send us an etransfer for one of the amounts referenced below, include a postal code as a note in your etransfer and we will manually enter the order. Send etransfer to admin@druthers.net YOU WILL REMAIN ANONYMOUS! Your neighbours & Canada Post will NOT receive your info, meaning the papers will be delivered and nobody will know it was you who ordered it for them. BONUS OFFER: To give you a little more encouragement and a bit of an extra thanks, everyone who orders neighbourhood mail service this month will be offered the 1st year of our collectors’ packs for free. (See the collectors packs here) This is a great way to explore the roots of this project. You will receive a reprint of each of our first 12 issues from December 2020, to November 2021. To receive your collectors pack, be sure to email us your mailing address after you place an order for Neighbourhood Mail.
The Church is the society of faith that Jesus Christ founded through His Apostles on the first Whitsunday (the Christian Pentecost, the successor to Succoth the Jewish Pentecost) when in accordance with His promise given on the eve of the events through which He established the New Covenant that would become the basis of that society, the Father sent down the Holy Ghost upon His disciples, uniting them into one body, with Christ as the head. Into this one organic body, was joined the Old Testament Church, the Congregation of the Lord within national Israel, whose faith looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ and who were taken by Him, from Hades, the Kingdom of Death, in His Triumphant descent there after His Crucifixion, and brought by Him into Heaven when He ascended back there after His Resurrection. The Church does many things when she meets as a community but first and foremost among them she worships her God. In this, the Church on earth, or the Church Militant as she is called, unites with the Church in Heaven, also known as the Church Triumphant.
Throughout her history those who have led, organized, and structured her corporate worship have been guided by the principle that our worship on Earth should resemble than in Heaven. It is a Scriptural principle. The Book of Hebrews discusses at length how the elaborate religious system given to national Israel in the Mosaic Covenant was patterned on Heavenly worship, the Earthly Tabernacle (the tent that was the antecedent of the Temple in the days when Israel was wandering in the wilderness before entering the Promised Land), for example, was patterned on the Heavenly Tabernacle. Indeed, Hebrews uses language strongly suggestive of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to describe the relationship between the Earthly Tabernacle and the Heavenly Tabernacle. Since Hebrews also uses this kind of language to describe the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New the only reasonable conclusion is that if the worship of the Old Testament Church was to be patterned after worship in Heaven, how much more ought the worship of the New Testament Church to be patterned after the same. Now the Bible gives us a few glimpses of worship in Heaven. These are generally found in visions in the prophetic and apocalyptic literature. The sixth chapter of Isaiah is the classic Old Testament example. The vision of St. John in the fourth and fifth chapters of Revelation is the classic New Testament example. In these chapters we find a lot of praying, a lot of singing, a lot of incense, an altar and a lot of kneeling. The Scriptural depiction of worship, in other words, is quite “High Church”. Indeed, since the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus, in His role of High Priest, entered the Heavenly Holy of Holies with His blood, which unlike that of the Old Testament bulls and goats effectively purges of sin and the New Testament elsewhere tells us that Jesus on the eve of His Crucifixion commissioned the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated in His Church until His Second Coming, which was practiced daily in the first Church in Jerusalem and which is Sacramentally united with Jesus’ offering of Himself, the way the pre-Reformation Churches – not just the Roman, but the Greek, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian and other ancient Churches as well – made this the central focus of their corporate worship is also very Scriptural.
In the Reformation, Rome’s abuses with regards to the Sacrament and her neglect of the preaching ministry, led many of the Reformers to de-emphasize the Sacrament and make the sermon the central focus of their corporate worship. The more extreme wing of the Reformation confused the New Testament ideas of a preaching ministry in the Church, which is a didactic ministry, teaching the faithful, with that of evangelistic preaching, which is the Church’s external ministry of proclaiming the Gospel to the world, and worse, developed unhealthy ideas about the preaching ministry, such as that the Word is inert and lifeless unless it is explained in a sermon, which are susceptible to the same charges of idolatry that the Reformers themselves made against Rome’s late Medieval views of the Sacrament. More to my point, however, the glimpses the Scriptures provide us of worship in Heaven do not mention a Heavenly pulpit, and, indeed, the closest thing to a sermon in Heaven I can think of in the Bible, is the reference to the everlasting Gospel in Revelation 14:6. The same verse, however, specifies that while the angel carrying it is flying in the midst of Heaven, it is to be preached “unto them that dwell on the earth”. Curiously, the Bible does make mention of a sermon that was preached to an otherworldly congregation. St. Peter, in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of his first Catholic Epistle, talks about how Jesus “went and preached unto the spirits in prison”. There is, of course, a lot of debate about what St. Peter meant by this. Did he mean that Jesus preached the liberty He had just purchased them to the Old Testament saints when He descended into Hades? Or that He preached to those who would be left in the Kingdom of Death when He took His saints with Him to Heaven? If the latter, as the verses following might suggest, to what end? We cannot answer these questions dogmatically, interesting though the long-standing discussion of them be. My point, with regards to sermon-centric worship, is best expressed in another question. Whoever thought that worship on Earth as it is in Hell was a good idea?
The State?
I prefer the term Tory to the term conservative as a description of my political views, even if that always requires an explanation that I do not mean “big-C party Conservative” by the term, but Tory as Dr. Johnson defined it in his Dictionary, a pre-Burke conservative if you will. Today, the word conservative in its small-c sense, is mostly understood in its American sense, which is basically the older, nineteenth-century kind of liberal. I don’t disassociate myself from this out of a preference for the newer, twentieth and twenty-first century types of liberalism over the older. Quite the contrary, the older type of liberalism is far to be preferred over the newer. I disassociate myself from it because the older type of conservatism, the British Toryism in which Canada’s original conservatism has its roots, is to be preferred over either type of liberalism.
Some explain the difference between a Tory and an American type conservative by saying that the Tory has a high view of the state, the American conservative a low view of the state. While this is not entirely wrong – Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary mentioned earlier defines a Tory as “One who adheres to the antient constitution of the state, and the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England, opposed to a whig” – it can be very misleading, because “the state” has several different connotations.
The basic error of liberalism – classical liberalism – pertains to human freedom. Classical liberalism was the theory that man’s natural condition is to be an individual, autonomous with no social connections to others, that this natural condition is what it means to be free, that society and the state were organized by individuals on a voluntary contractual basis in order to mutually protect their individual freedom, and that when society and the state fail to do this individuals have the right and responsibility to replace them with ones that do. Liberalism was wrong about each and every one of these points, failing to see that man’s natural is social not individual – an individual outside of society is not a human being in his natural condition – that society and the state are extensions of the family, the basic natural social unit, rather than extensions of the marketplace based on the model of a commercial enterprise, and that attempts to replace old states and societies with new ones, almost always result in tyranny rather than greater freedom.
Nor did the liberals understand how their view of things depersonalizes people. “The individual” is not Bob or Joe or Mary or Sam or Sally or Anne or Herschel or Marcus or George or Bill or Leroy or Susie, each a person on his own earthly pilgrimage, distinct but not disconnected from others, but a faceless, nameless, carbon copy of everyone else, identifiable only by the rights and freedoms that he shares equally with each other individual, in other words, a number. When our primary term for speaking about government is the abstract notion of “the state” this tends to depersonalize government in the same way liberal autonomous individualism depersonalizes people. In twentieth century liberalism, which envisioned a larger role for government than the earlier classical liberalism, and in that offshoot of liberalism that has gone by the name “the Left” or “progressivism”, “the state” is very impersonal, a faceless bureaucracy which views those it governs as numbers rather than people, a collective but a collective of autonomous individuals rather than an organic society/community. I would say that the traditional Tory view of “the state” in this sense of the word is even lower than that of an American style, classical liberal, neoconservative.
What the Tory does have a high view of is government in the sense of traditional, time-proven, concrete governing institutions, particularly the monarchy and Parliament. Note that Dr. Johnson spoke not of “One who adheres to the state” but “One who adheres to the antient constitution of the state”. What monarchy and Parliament, which complement each other, have in common, is that they are both very personal ways of thinking about government. The king reigns as father/patriarch over his kingdom(s), an extension of his family, as his governing office is an extension of the family as the model of society and state. Parliament is the where the representatives of the governed meet to have their say in the laws under which they live and how their taxes are spent. The conversation between these two personal governing institutions has contributed greatly to the most worthy accomplishments of our civilization, and both have long proven their worth, so it is of these that I prefer to say that I as a Tory have a high view, rather than the impersonal state. I have a higher view of the monarchy than of Parliament, and not merely because those who currently occupy the seats of Parliament leave much to be desired, but for the very Tory reason that if the Church should be worshipping on Earth as in Heaven, government ought to be modelled after the Heavenly pattern as well. God is the King of Kings, and governs the universe without the aid of elected representatives. Monarchy is the essential form of government. Parliament accommodates the model to our human condition.
Capitalism or Socialism?
There is a popular notion that unless one has no opinion on economics at all one must be either a capitalist or a socialist. Those who have studied economic theory will point out that that this is a little like the dilemma posed in the question “Did you walk to work or take a bagged lunch?” – a capitalist, in the terms of economic theory, is someone who owns and lives off of capital, whereas a socialist is someone who believes in the idea of socialism. Since, however, for most people, the term capitalist now means “someone who believes in capitalism” we will move on. A more nuanced version of the popular nation postulates a spectrum with capitalism, in the sense of pure laissez-faire with no government involvement in the market whatsoever as the right pole, and pure socialism, where the government not only controls but owns everything, as the left pole, with most people falling somewhere between and being identified as capitalists or socialists depending upon the pole to which they are the closest. The terms “left” and “right” in popular North American usage have been strongly shaped by this concept even though their original usage in Europe was quite different – the “left” were the supporters of the French Revolution, which, although it was the template of all subsequent Communist revolutions, was not a socialist undertaking per se, and the “right” were the Roman Catholic royalists, the continental equivalent of the English Tories. To complicate matters there is the expression “far right” which is usually used to suggest the idea of Nazism, which makes no sense with either the old continental European or the new North American usage, although the less commonly used “far left” for Communists makes sense with both.
The conservatives who think civilization began with the dawn of Modern liberalism and have little interest in conserving anything other than classical liberalism tend to accept this idea of a socialist-capitalist, left-right, economic spectrum and to identify as capitalists. This makes sense because it is liberalism they are trying to conserve and the Adam Smith-David Ricardo-Frédéric Bastiat theory of laissez-faire that we commonly identify as capitalism is more properly called economic liberalism.
With us Tories it is a bit more complicated and this has led, in my country, the Dominion of Canada, to the idea held by some that classical conservatives or Tories, unlike American neoconservatives, are closer to socialism than to capitalism. To come to this conclusion, however, one must accept the American notion of a socialist-capitalist economic spectrum and the idea contained within it that any move away from laissez-faire is a move in the direction of socialism. That idea is nonsense and does tremendous violence to the historical meaning of the word socialism. Historically, several different socialist movements, popped up at about the same time. What they all had in common was a) the idea that the private ownership of property, meaning capital, any form of wealth that generates an income for its owner by producing something that can be sold in the market is the source of all social evils because it divides society into classes, some of which own property, others of which must sell their labour to the propertied classes in order to make a living, and b) the idea that the remedy is some sort of collective ownership of property. In the Marxist version of socialism, this collective ownership was conceived of as by the state, after it had been seized in violent revolution by the proletariat (factory workers). In other versions of socialism, such as that of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the state was viewed as unnecessary – Proudhon, as well as being a socialist, was the first anarchist – and collective ownership was conceived of more in terms of workers’ co-operatives. Socialism, in both its diagnosis of the cause of social ills and in its proposed remedy, is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Christianity, which tells us that sin, the condition of the human heart as the result of the Fall of Man is the cause of social ills, and that the only remedy for sin is the grace of God, obtained for mankind by Jesus Christ through His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, and brought to mankind by His Church in its two-fold Gospel Ministry of Word and Sacrament. From the perspective of orthodox Christianity, socialism, therefore, is an attempt to bypass the Cross and to regain Paradise through human political and social endeavours. Even worse than that it is Envy, the second worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, made to wear the mask of Charity, the highest of the Theological Virtues, and institutionalized. It is therefore utterly condemned by orthodox Christianity and Toryism, the political expression of orthodox Christianity, in its rejection of laissez-faire liberalism does not step in the direction of socialism. Even when Toryism supports state social programs for the relief of poverty, unemployment, and the like, as it did under Disraeli in the United Kingdom in the Victorian era and as it historically did in Canada, it was not for socialist reasons, not because it believed that inequality was the cause of all social ills and wealth redistribution society’s panacea, but for counter-socialism reasons, because it did not want poverty, unemployment, etc. to because the opportunity for recruitment to the cause of socialism which it correctly saw as a destructive force that unchained leads to greater misery, especially for those whom it claims to want to help.
The main way in which Toryism has historically envisioned a larger economic role for government than laissez-faire liberalism has been that the Tory recognizes the genuine economic interests of the entire realm, such as the need for domestic production of essential goods so as to not be dependent upon external supplies that may be cut off in an emergency, along with the economic interests of local communities, families, and individuals. Adam Smith argued that individuals are the most competent people to look out for their own economic interests rather than governments, especially distant ones, and Toryism doesn’t dispute this as a general principle – obviously there are exceptions. Rather it agrees with this principle and adds that families are the most competent at looking out for their interests as families, and communities for their interests at communities – this is what the idea of subsidiarity, rooted in Christian social theory, is all about. Toryism doesn’t accept Smith’s claim that individuals looking out for their own interests will automatically result in these other interests taking care of themselves, much less those of the entire realm. The government, although incompetent at making economic decisions for individuals qua individuals, or families qua families, communities qua communities, for that matter, is generally as an institution, the best suited for making economic decisions for the realm.
This is compromised, of course, if the person selected to lead His Majesty’s government as Prime Minister is an incompetent dolt, imbecile, and moron. The government of Sir John A. Macdonald, protecting fledgling Canadian industries with tariffs while investing heavily in the production of the railroad that would facilitate east-west commerce, uniting Canada and preventing her from being swallowed up piecemeal by her neighbor to the south is an example of government making the best sort of economic decisions for the realm. Unfortunately, His Majesty’s government is currently led by the classic example of the other kind of Prime Minister.
Which Branch of the Modern Tree?
Not so long ago, when the fashionable, progressive, forward-thinking, and up-to-date began to tell us that boys or men who thought they were girls or women and girls or women who thought they were boys or men should be treated as if they were what they thought and said they were instead of what they actually were in reality, rather than indulge this nonsense we ought instead to have treated those making this absurd suggestion the way we had hitherto treated those who thought they were something other than what they were, that is to say, called those fellows in the white uniforms with the butterfly nets to come and take them away that they might have a nice long rest in a place where they would be no harm to themselves or others. Instead we left them among the general populace where they proceeded to wreak maximum harm.
It had seemed, at one time, that this madness had peaked when people started introducing themselves by their “preferred pronouns” rather than their names but, as is usual when one makes the mistake of thinking things can’t get any worse, they did. The past few years have seen a major backlash finally starting to take shape against the aggressive promotion of this gender craziness in the schools, and no, I don’t mean the post-secondary institutions that have long been home to every wacky fad under the sun, I am talking about elementary schools. It seems that teachers, with the backing of school board administrators, have taken to treating every instance in which a boy says that he is a girl, or a girl says that she is a boy, as a serious case of gender dysphoria rather than the passing phase it would otherwise be in most cases and responded with “gender affirmation” which is a euphemism for indulging and encouraging gender confusion – and forcing everyone else in the classroom to go along with it. To top it off, they have been keeping all of this secret from the parents.
The state of California in the United States has just taken this to the next level, as a bill has passed in its legislative assembly that would essentially make “gender affirmation” a requirement for parents to retain custody of their children. It is worth bringing up at this point that there is a very similar and closely related euphemism to “gender affirmation” and that is “gender affirming care”, which refers to using hormones and surgery to make someone who thinks they are of the other sex physically resemble that sex. The same lunatics that I have been talking about, think it appropriate to offer this “care” to prepubescent children. In every single instance where this is done – every single instance – it is a case of child abuse. Period!
It is this aggressive war on the sexual innocence of childhood and the rights and authority of parents that has sparked the backlash on the part of parents who have had enough and are fighting back. Some jurisdictions, like the state of Florida in the United States, and the provinces of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan here in Canada, have responded by requiring schools to notify parents when this sort of thing is going on. The government in my own province of Manitoba has promised to do this if they are re-elected next month. That, I would say, is the very least they ought to do. I think that teachers that twist the minds of young kids in this way ought to be severely punished – a case can be made for bringing back the stocks and/or public flogging to do this.
The progressives, including both Captain Airhead, Prime Minister of Canada, and J. Brandon Magoo, President of the United States, have denounced the policy of informing parents as if it were placing kids in mortal danger. Progressive spin-doctors have even coined a new expression “forced outing” with which to vilify the sensible idea that teachers should not be allowed to continue to get away with this ultra-creepy business of sexualizing little kids and encouraging them to keep it a secret from their parents.
Those whose conservatism seeks primarily or solely to conserve the older stage of the Modern liberal tradition tend to view this sort of progressive cultural extremism as a form of Marxism or Communism. There is truth in this perspective in that sort of thinking among progressives in academe that leads them to embrace such nonsense can be traced back to academic Marxism’s post-World War I reinvention of itself along cultural rather than economic lines, albeit through the detour of a few prominent post-World War II thinkers who were heirs of Marx only in the sense of following in his footsteps as intellectual revolutionaries rather than that of having derived their ideas from his in any substantial way. The phenomenon itself – the idea that one has the right to self-identify as a “gender” other than one’s biological sex, to expect or even demand that others acknowledge this self-identification and affirm it to be true, and even to force reality itself in the form of one’s biological sex to bend to this self-identification – does not come from Marx, and those countries that had the misfortune of having been taken over by regimes dedicated to his evil ideas seem to have been partly compensated for this by being inoculated against this sort of thing. This is the autonomous individual of Locke, Mill, and the other classical liberals taken to the nth degree and it is the countries where liberalism has had the most influence that have proven the most vulnerable to this gender insanity. — Gerry T. Neal
Jordan Peterson: Trudeau and the equity tyrants must be stopped
We’re at the edge of the terrible transformation that is occurring everywhere in the free world Author of the article: Jordan Peterson Published Sep 11, 2023 • Last updated 2 days ago • 9 minute read 1664 Comments
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a press conference during a stopover visit to Singapore on September 8, 2023. (Photo by Roslan RAHMAN / AFP)
Some of those reading this column will know that I have been ordered by the Ontario College of Psychologists to undergo “social media re-training” of indeterminate length, as a consequence of expressing my opinions publicly, with the specified outcome of my comprehensive compliance, as judged by my re-educators.
The charges levied against me include re-tweeting a tweet by the Leader of the Official Opposition in Canada (are you listening, “conservatives”?), criticizing Justin Trudeau and a diverse number of his minions, and expressing skepticism about the doom-saying fear-mongering tyranny-promoting chicken-little prognostications of the eco-fascists.
Why should Canadians care? If you’re a miner, and the canary caged next to you asphyxiates, you don’t blame the bird for being there. You notice that the air has become toxic, and you make tracks for the surface. Regulated professionals, subject to the petty tyranny of their overseeing agencies, are now starting to gasp and choke. Them first — you, next.
It’s already true in Canada that lawyers cannot have the reasonable certainty they once had with regard to the outcome of the cases they are pursuing, relying as they once did on precedent and the common or even civil law. Instead, they have to be prepared to be subjected to the opinions of an increasingly activist court, whose members have taken it upon themselves to put forward what is essentially a radical leftist (“progressive”) agenda. It’s true that physicians and teachers are so afraid to say what they think that even the reasonable among them no longer dare to tell the truth to the patients and children they serve. How do I know this? Because they tell me so. And how well do Canadians presume that the professionals they need will serve them, when they have all been cowed into, at best, liars of silence?
And why should Canadians believe in the existence and operation of such an agenda, rather than (comfortingly) passing such suggestions off as the ranting of demented, conspiratorially-minded right wingers, such as myself?
Here are a couple of facts (remember those?) simultaneously indisputable and unpleasant: Our “Minister of the Environment and Climate Change,” Steven Guilbeault, was not only a radical leftist activist, in his previous incarnation, but is now simultaneously savaging the economy of Western Canada, upon whose revenue his home province of Quebec shamefully, ungratefully and resentfully depends upon, while he works directly with the Chinese Communist Party, rulers of a country building more coal plants every year (two a week) than the rest of the world combined; six times more, to be precise.
He is doing that while rumours of CCP influence over the Canadian electoral process abound (!), under the supervision of a prime minister who has explicitly expressed admiration for the efficiency of communist tyranny, who was a friend to the demented tyrant who ran Cuba as his private fiefdom for decades. That would be Fidel Castro, bosom buddy as well as to Trudeau senior, and the same man who told former president Jimmy Carter that he would have sacrificed his whole island paradise to nuclear annihilation by our American allies just to move the Soviet agenda forward.
He is doing that under the rainbow-festooned banner of a “Liberal” party that has moved so far to the left that the hapless socialist NDP has nothing whatsoever left to offer (particularly labouring as they do under Jagmeet Singh, the most hypocritical politician Canada has ever coughed onto dry land. He is an empty suit of designer clothes too incompetent even to have bargained for the cabinet seat that is the going price, on the world market, for a politician’s soul).
He is doing that as part of an administration that is an express supporter of the deadly doctrine of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity, the mask that the wolves of compassion wear while they open the throats of the idiot sheep who think they are supporting all that is good and true. Equity: there’s a basket of snakes. What does equity mean? The useful idiots of the moderate left insist that it’s just a synonym for “equality of opportunity.” Why the new word, then, thinkers on the liberal side?
Equity means something very particular, good Canadians. It means that all economic and social systems that do not produce precise equality of outcomes across all possible measures of human difference (race, ethnicity, sex, “gender,” age, health status, ability, you name it) are to be regarded as “systemically prejudiced” and utterly re-tooled, in a revolutionary manner. What’s wrong with that, you ask, thinking of the excluded and the “marginalized,” in that manner so sympathetic endlessly and conveniently deserving of praise; considering yourself, despite your lack of actual effort on their behalf, a friend of the poor.
Let me ask you a straightforward question: do you own anything? A cell phone, perhaps; maybe a car; possibly even an apartment or house (although that is increasingly unlikely, particularly for young people, in Trudeau’s socialist paradise). Does that not mean that other people (the same marginalized; the same poor) don’t own that phone, that car, that house? Are you not therefore excluding them? The answer to that question, by the way, is “yes.” Of course you’re bloody well excluding them — oppressing them, marginalizing them, with your exclusive access to what you have hypothetically worked to earn.
“Property is theft”: no shortage of barely successful peasants such as yourself have died as a consequence of that cliché. How did societies get themselves to that point? By adopting the doctrine of equity, which is now deemed a mandatory belief by the professional organizations that regulate lawyers, physicians, psychologists, accountants, engineer and teachers (and that is not nearly all) in Canada.
Equity is no different than communism, boys and girls. Wait: let me clarify, as that is an error, but not in the direction you think. It’s far worse than mere communism. Marx had nothing on the post-modernists, who now occupy the universities, and have dramatically expanded upon his dread and murderous vision. Marx viewed oppression as essentially one-dimensional: the proletariat (that’s the poor for those of you who went through Canada’s “education” system and still don’t know even that) were exploited by the “bourgeoisie” (that turns out to be “anyone who owns anything at all”). That has happened forever; that’s all you really need to know about history and human social relationships in general; and it has to stop. By any means necessary.
Hence the hundred million or so deaths at the hands of the compassionate progressives in the 20th century. Of course, that wasn’t real communism.
You can tell, because some people were accidentally left standing.
For the postmodernists whose theories now dominate the academy and, increasingly, the western world, the bitter resentment of Marx was just the beginning. The concept of oppression is now limitlessly multi-dimensional. Everyone has become a victim, because of their height, their weight, their lack of attractiveness or athletic ability, their country of origin, their religious belief, the status of their ancestors.
What’s the problem with that? After all, life is hard, and much is distributed unfairly. Well, when everyone is a victim, everyone also becomes, perforce, an oppressor — and the punishment for that is severe. Maybe you’re a bit fat (victim, victim), but you’re white, or the tan that we now call brown that could become white in a flash. Presto! You’re a perpetrator. Maybe you don’t own a house (victim, victim). But you own a rusty old wreck from the 90s. Compared to those who can only afford a bicycle (perhaps because they’re useless layabouts) you are definitely an oppressor. Perhaps you’re genuinely poor (victim victim), but you’re young. You can be certain that you are then at least afflicted by implicit ageism, and your very youth a mark of at least your unconscious bias and general shameful reprehensibility.
Are you beginning to understand the game? I doubt it. It’s much easier for Canadians to keep their sheep/ostrich-heads firmly in the sand, and assume that anyone pointing out not so much what’s going on but what’s already happened is an extremist, a bigot, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, a Confederate sympathizer (in Canada (!)), a MAGA Republican, hell-bent for God only knows what possible reason on overthrowing Canadian democracy.
As if they bloody well care.
As if they even know where Canada is.
Why am I fighting the college? Probably because I’m stupid, or at least, as a Canadian journalist so famously put it, “the stupid person’s smart person.” Touché. Seriously (although all educators are, perforce, the stupid people’s smart person). But I have plenty of money, and a wife I love, and a family that supports me, and friends that do as well, and the opportunity to live anywhere I want to in the world, and have been informed by those who run other political jurisdictions that they would restore my licence in a heart-beat if the low-level schemers in eternally good-thinking Ontario manage to purloin it, as they probably will. I really don’t need the hassle, to say nothing of the literally tens of thousands of dollars it costs per month to keep the vipers at bay.
The process is the punishment, as those who have successfully weaponized many such deep-state bureaucracies know full well.
I am doing it to bring to the attention of Canadians — and, if not Canadians, whose smug self-complacency is perhaps unparalleled in the world (except maybe in comparison to the Kiwis or the liberal Californians) — then to people elsewhere in the West, increasingly inclined as they are to see what is happening in Canada, just as intelligent miners see their canaries.
We’re at the edge of the terrible transformation that is occurring everywhere in the free world. As Canada goes, so hope the progressives, the world goes. Thus, the good fight might as well be fought here. I have a son, a daughter-in-law, and grandchildren in this benighted country. My parents live here. My daughter departed for freer lands, and I won’t forgive the current administration for that. Her example is tempting, and I’ve lived in the United States before — but the same problem exists among our neighbours to the south, despite their more extensive commitment to the freedom that has vanished with amazing rapidity in the Great White North.
It is not that freedom of speech is threatened in Canada, by the way, good people. It’s that it’s already pretty much gone — although, God willing, not permanently. The same can be said for freedom of conscience and association. We gave up freedom of mobility under Trudeau, which was the only freedom he could directly threaten, in his attempt to (successfully) divide Canadians, and therefore promptly did.
We still have the freedom to pretend that everything is just as it was 20 or even 10 years ago. But it’s not. The fact that I am being persecuted for criticizing the prime minister, for passing on the opinions of Pierre Poilievre, and for doubting the opinions of that veritable traitor, Steven Guilbeault, is a primary indication of that. My case would not be attracting the international attention that it is — as is the prosecution of the Trucker Convoy leaders, whose protest was widely admired outside this country — if that was not the case.
Why should you care? It’s not about me, folks. I have options.
Holocaust Denial Now Punishable By Prison Time In Canada
It’s something that has been discussed in this country for years: the proposal of making Holocaust denial a criminal offence.
It was buried in Bill C-19, Division 21, Section 332. This wasn’t a stand alone Bill, but rather, slipped into a budget. Most likely, very few people know about it.
332 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): Willful promotion of antisemitism (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following: Defences — subsection (2.1) (3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1) (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
Forfeiture (4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Exemption from seizure of communication facilities (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318.
Consent (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(3) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)
Would “Conservatives” oppose this on free speech grounds? Would they fight for the principle that even controversial speech must be protected? Will they object to it being slipped into a budget? Not exactly.
Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative”, introduced Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill, that would do basically the same thing. Interestingly, Waugh’s lacked some safeguards that Bill C-19 had, such as remedies to prevent prosecution.
It’s unclear why this was introduced twice in the House of Commons. Perhaps Waugh’s Private Bill was a backup plan in case Schedule 21 got removed from the budget.
Both versions have the provision that consent from the Attorney General is required for a prosecution. While this may be seen as a check, it opens the possibility of politically selected cases.
Where’s Pierre Poilievre on this free speech issue? Where’s Maxime Bernier?
Remember the flack Iqra Khalid caught for M-103? That was a Motion simply to “study” Islamophobia, and she has heckled for a long time afterwards. She never proposed putting anyone in prison.
For what it’s worth, Senator Paula Simons was willing to speak out on this. However, she’s very much in the minority when it comes to addressing the subject.
The prosecution of Chris Barber and Tamara Lich for their roles in the trucker convoy protests at times feels unsettling. Is it a microcosm of how our institutions and systems haven’t come to terms with what many people, outside the laptop bubble, are experiencing. Like forcing vaccination with an experimental product on healthy people or enabling a child’s psychic confusion with pharmaceuticals and surgery, the trial is a process but to what purpose? Where does this lead?
As I watched a series of Chris Barber’s TikTok videos unspool on courtroom screens yesterday, I was pulled back to those first days of the convoy when my faith in my fellow Canadians was restored. I had been concerned that the running of the country had been handed to public health bureaucrats, that our elected officials had stepped away and were no longer in charge. That media was not holding to account the people they should. Risk/benefit calculations had not been run and it was becoming clear the cure was worse than the disease. No matter how esteemed the expert witnesses, courts were not finding in favour of people challenging the government’s civil liberties overreach as we faced lockdown after lockdown and a mandated shot.
In the TikToks, we see Barber reacting to what the convoy had achieved and it made me smile for a minute recollecting those weeks of hope. Sitting almost directly in front of me, I watched him for a reaction but saw only a focussed man jotting notes in rapt attention.
The short videos and other social media seem to be making up a large part of the Crown’s case which involves proving mischief and the counselling of same — something Tim Radcliffe will likely argue the videos show. But that’s not what I saw. No one in that courtroom could walk away without noticing how well Barber comes off. He veers between imploring the protestors to be peaceful, to frustration at the government’s intransigence, to astonishment over the convoy’s successful fundraising campaign — a measure of how Canadians perceived the protest. And perhaps its downfall. Don’t forget it was the former mayor of Ottawa who convinced Go Fund Me to shut down the convoy account based on false allegations the truckers were violent. From Blacklock’s:
The proceedings have been plagued by organizational issues and technical glitches but so far it’s been cordial between all parties. Justice Heather Perkins-McVey even addressed the gallery Thursday morning to inquire if we could see and hear the video monitors well enough to follow along. I raised my hand and asked if they could be raised higher and she acknowledge that this a problem but not fixable. As I’ve said, she seems affable and fair. All good things in a criminal court justice.
Back to the videos — from the Ottawa Citizen:
Convoy protest organizer Chris Barber called for people to “flood the city” in a social media video that was shown Thursday in court as part of his criminal trial in Ottawa.
The Crown hopes his rallying call for people to come to Ottawa last year as police ordered protesters to leave may prove just as damaging to his fellow organizer, Tamara Lich as they could potentially be to Barber.
Barber, who operated a trucking business in Swift Current, Sask., and Lich, from Medicine Hat, Alta., are co-accused in the trial. They face charges of mischief, counselling others to commit mischief, intimidation, and obstructing police, all in relation to their roles organizing the protest against COVID-19 health restrictions last year that blockaded downtown Ottawa streets for weeks.
Barber faces an additional charge of counselling others to disobey a court order that banned the big rigs and other vehicles parked in the streets in protest, from honking their horns in the downtown core.
In the end, no matter what the outcome, this trial will be seen as a referendum on a citizen’s right to peacefully protest in the face of what they perceive as a grave and even life-threatening injustice.
There will be a motion to dismiss from the convoy lawyers at some point.
Just about to record this week’s podcast and then back to court.
Hybrid Edition: Sorry for the delay. Yesterday was busy, just getting back from Ottawa. I am including this week’s podcast which is also about the convoy and includes voice messages from people whose lives were harmed by Trudeau’s vaccine mandates (that he says didn’t force anyone).
I’ve been tough on Crown Attorney Tim Radcliffe this week but I don’t think unfairly. It is a mystery to me why he is conducting his case against trucker convoy defendants Chris Barber and Tamara Lich in a manner that is clearly frustrating the judge, annoying the defence and making long days in the courtroom almost unbearably boring.
Friday was a shit show that caused Justice Heather Perkins-McVey to suggest the trial has the potential for going off the rails. She has been a paragon of patience so far but Friday was so bizarre she requested a recess to settle herself. And her mantra was something like I am not happy.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey
Radcliffe seems either unprepared or somehow unaware of the rules of evidence and disclosure — the gist of which is that the prosecutor must provide the elements of its case to the defence plus all materials in reasonable time to allow counsel to prepare a response. Criminal law 101. From the Criminal Law Notebook.
The Crown must disclose all materials and information that is in its possession or control that is not clearly irrelevant, regardless of if the evidence is to be called at trial or is inculpatory or exculpatory.[1]
The right to disclosures premised upon (1) the right to know the case to meet and (2) the right to make full answer in defence of an offence charged.[2]
Materials in possession of the Crown are not the “property” of the Crown but rather is the “property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done.”[3]
Purpose
The right to disclosure is founded in the principle of fair play between parties[4] as well as the right to make full answer and defence. [5]
The right to make full answer and defence also suggests in a timely fashion which defence lawyer, Diane Magas asserts did not happen here. Canadian Press picked up by CTV reported in detail what transpired.
Hope that the trial of two “Freedom Convoy” organizers would last only four weeks may be dashed after the defence raised complaints about receiving heaps of new evidence mid trial.
There was a sense of tension in the courtroom Friday as Crown and defence lawyers sparred over the timing of the delivery of binders of text message evidence to the defence.
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey called a short recess to step away from the bench to “settle” herself after telling the lawyers she was “very unhappy” about the late-stage disclosure.
“This should have been done well before the trial,” she chided before leaving the courtroom.
Perkins-McVey is now working with court staff to find more dates as the prospect the trial will run long has grown. Initially 16 days were set aside for the trial, with three extra days added to the court’s calendar as a precaution.
But as the first week of hearings drew to a close Friday, it was clear the timelines were on the brink of being blown.
In fairness to Radcliffe, he might argue that there is precedent for what he is doing. Perhaps I just didn’t understand it or had stepped out to the washroom but there seemed to be general bafflement toward his approach to evidence. What does this mean for the case? It’s not a good look for the Crown but honourable judges, as Justice Perkins-McVey seems to be, can overlook these issues in the end and focus solely on the evidence as she perceives it — so this is not necessarily a freebie for Lich and Barber.
Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In American courts, not handing over exculpatory evidence, something called a Brady violation, will get a convicted person out of jail if discovered after trial. It happened in a wrongful conviction case I investigated involving boxer Dewey Bozella, imprisoned for murdering an elderly lady in upstate New York. No one is suggesting Radcliffe is hiding evidence. But rather delivering it in perhaps obstructionist ways.
All week, there have been housekeeping issues and questions of actual provenance around what seems like hundreds of exhibits, from TikTok videos to digital messaging. As someone who works in documentary films, I can tell you that organizing this kind of material, on a scale this size is a humongous job and the Crown should have set aside a special budget and staff to ensure it was organized and accessible to all relevant parties in meaningful ways. I suspect the Crown’s case relies on it – so this could require a huge fix. Lots of people will be working on it this weekend on both side of the aisle.
This week’s show (listen here) is a convoy special with my documentary producing partner Jacqueline Bynon who was in Ottawa with me and our crew and Tom Marazzo, a convoy participant who has a new book out about his experience. On the show you will hear the voice recordings from Canada and the UK of people whose lives were turned upside by the vaccine mandates that didn’t, according tour our prime minister, mandate the vaccine at all. We didn’t suffer the losses and pain we think we did — because Justin Trudeau is now saying it didn’t happen.
The richest man in the world takes on the most subversive group in the world
By James Edwards
We are witnessing what could turn out to be one of the most important battles in American history—Elon Musk vs. the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). I want to stress that while this could possibly be a pivotal point in American history, there’s certainly no guarantee of that. There is a very real risk that Elon Musk will cave in, or that the corrupt judicial system will sell him down the river to save their own hides.
The controversy began in late August, with calls by users on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to ban the ADL for maliciously lying about and arguably defaming Musk and his free speech policies. Musk began to chime in on the trending topic, #BanTheADL, offering insight into the subversive nature of the ADL and its efforts to harm the financial success of the platform by organizing advertising boycotts and smear campaigns following Musk’s takeover.
Musk noted that Twitter revenues are down by billions of dollars due to the ADL intimidating corporations into pulling their ads from the social media platform. I want to focus on how high the stakes are for the future of free speech and the ability of the ADL to dictate what can and cannot be discussed in the modern day public square—social media.
The ADL claims to be a “civil rights” organization, but it’s just a viciously anti-white hate group that exerts tremendous control over business, politics, and culture in America. Over the past few years, it has become increasingly brazen with ever-escalating demands for censorship of opinions it doesn’t like. For anyone who wants an in-depth look at the history of this sordid outfit, a good place to start is the books by the late, great AFP writer, Michael Collins Piper.
If not for the fact that the ADL works to promote Jewish interests while masquerading as an “anti-hate” civil rights group, the government might have long ago declared it a criminal organization, seized its assets and locked up its executives. Many observers say that the ADL is essentially an extortion racket. In just one example, last year when NBA player Kyrie Irving tweeted his approval for a movie the ADL doesn’t like, the ADL demanded “consequences.” Almost immediately, Irving’s team suspended him. He was only allowed to play again after “donating” half a million dollars to the ADL and issuing a public apology.
Many Americans are just now learning about the ADL, thanks to the #BanTheADL campaign. They’re shocked at what they’re discovering from men like Irish YouTuber Keith Woods on Twitter, but trust me, the current scandal is only the tip of the iceberg.
Most Americans under the age of 40 have no idea that “hate crimes” are a novel concept in jurisprudence. They just assume that crimes motivated by “hate” have always received harsher sentences. They would be shocked to learn that there was no such thing as a “hate crime” until the late 1980s when the concept was invented by the ADL. That’s no exaggeration; they boast about inventing the concept of “hate crimes.” It was part of their war on white people. “Hate crime” charges are rarely pursued against non-whites, although they are oftentimes genuinely warranted.
The ADL never stops seeking to portray white people as monsters who are always on the verge of lynching a black person or burning down a synagogue, and are only stymied in their efforts by the constant vigilance of the ADL.
More recently, every time President Trump did anything to restrict immigration, the ADL immediately went to court and filed paperwork seeking to have a federal judge declare his efforts unconstitutional—and they almost always got their way. The ADL paints white Americans who oppose mass immigration as “Nazis,” while at the same time defending Israel’s extremely race-based immigration policies.
The ADL is also a gigantic and Orwellian surveillance outfit. Author Matt Taibbi once described Goldman Sachs as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” The ADL does the same thing to truth, freedom, and Christian culture.
Did you know that for decades, when many U.S. Representatives and Senators received letters from “right-wing conservatives,” they would forward the letters to the ADL so they could “keep an eye on” them? Did you know that many newspaper editors across America used to do the same thing? Even more incredibly, PayPal recently gave the ADL access to its database to search for transactions from groups it doesn’t like. This isn’t a secret; PayPal admits it. Every American should be up in arms over this, but nobody seems to even be aware of it.
The ADL is the #1 enemy of free speech in America. In 2012, after Pat Buchanan appeared for the third time as a guest on my radio program, the ADL demanded that MSNBC fire him, and MSNBC complied. The media-manufactured controversy made national news, and Buchanan was asked by National Public Radio if he regretted associating with someone the ADL refers to as an “anti-Semite” and “white supremacist.”
Buchanan responded, “I think there’s an awful lot of smearing being done by the Anti-Defamation League, frankly, over the years of individuals who simply disagree maybe with U.S. policy towards Israel, and a lot of name calling.”
The ADL’s subversive activities do not stop at smearing its political opponents. They dictate to Amazon what books they’re allowed to sell. They tell Facebook what opinions users are allowed to post. They demanded that Fox News fire Tucker Carlson—the most popular host on the network by far—and Fox News complied shortly thereafter! When Elon Musk bought Twitter, the ADL told big brands to stop advertising on Twitter, and Twitter’s revenue dropped by tens of billions of dollars in a flash.
And one more thing: The ADL says that saying “Christ is Lord” is anti-Semitic, demonstrating their hostility towards Christians and traditional Christianity.
I’m supporting Elon Musk, even though I was banned from Twitter after he took it over, along with several other honorable men, including Paul Fromm, Kevin MacDonald, and Tom Sunic. I am supporting Musk because it was almost certainly to please the ADL that we were banned in the first place. The fact that he’s finally standing up to this powerful hate group bodes well for more free speech in the future for us and other truth-tellers.
I’m also proud to say that I’m a supporter of the man who started the #BanTheADL movement on Twitter, Keith Woods. Keith and I were both speakers at last month’s American Renaissance conference and he is the rarest of combinations—an absolute genius and an effective pro-white activist.
Keith got the #BanTheADL movement started, and he got the attention of the world’s richest man, who has a long and difficult journey ahead if he has the courage to stick to his convictions.
Canadian Political Prisoner Brad Love Spends 65th Birthday in Jail, Denied Bail for Non-Violent Communications With Snowflake Politicians
September 7, 2023. CAFE heard from political prisoner Brad Love today. He’s now being held in the Edmonton Remand Centre. He was arrested on August 23. In woke, snowflake Canada today, calling or writing to a public body with a strong message of protest is considered “harassment” by the vulnerable dears. One charge refers to a letter Mr. Love sent last year to the Fort McMurray Mayor’s Committee on Drag Queens. Two other counts arise from phone calls to his MP and to a native affairs group.
Instead of being granted bail on these non-violent charges, Mr. Love’s bail on a previous similar charge was cancelled and he was denied bail on the recent charges. He was transferred to the Edmonton Remand Centre. He is allowed only five phone calls a month.
Today, at another hearing, he learned that the Crown intends to proceed by indictment, as opposed to summarily. This would allow a harsher sentence for the prolific letter writer. He’s accused of mailing “obscene material” in the mail.
“This is absurd,” Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression scoffs, “the letters were political, not sexual.” Mr. Love’s letters to politicians also included copies of The Free Speech Monitor and The Canadian Immigration Hotline.
Mr. Love will be back in Edmonton Court on September 11 and 12. CAFE has put him in touch with an experienced lawyer.
In further bad news on his birthday, CAFE learned that his longtime landlord wants him out as soon as possible. The landlord, apparently, is fed up having his house, which Mr. Love shares with several other tenants, frequently searched by police — three times this year already.
If you would like to send a letter or post card to political prisoner Brad Love, here is his address: Brad Love,