We want to show a sneering world of enemies, envious people, and haters, clearly and unequivocally, that although they can militarily defeat us Germans, occupy us with foreign troops, infiltrate us with spies, rule us with traitors, lie to us by a foreign-controlled licensed press, and even shame us; that they can persecute and enslave us through a perverted political justice system and a police force prone to arbitrary acts, these criminals against Germany’s destiny will never defeat us. ~Ernst Zündel
Geddes speaking at the ISS conference in Sweden: X
Public Safety Canada Deputy Minister Tricia Geddes recently told an international audience that alternative media was a top concern for the Liberal government and lauded the use of the Emergencies Act to quash peaceful Freedom Convoy protesters.
Geddes was in Stockholm, Sweden, to give a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ conference called Threats and Responses.
You won’t find stories like this in legacy media. Become a Juno News premium subscriber today to support bold, fearless independent journalism.
During the panel discussion, she also lauded the utility of the Emergencies Act, and how it has helped her government deal with “extremists”, but that there is “low trust in Canada in many of our government institutions and that’s something we need to build foundationally.”
“At the federal level, Canada’s priorities include concern with our relative vulnerability to information manipulation and polarizing narratives, and the growing skepticism of younger Canadians towards democracy, who shape their world online through alternative media,” she said on Tuesday.
“Foreign adversaries are seeking to leverage this vulnerability to their advantage. Protecting democratic institutions and the public by strengthening intelligence collection and information sharing across all levels of government.”
When asked what legal framework Ottawa was equipped with on the issue, Geddes said that the Carney government was “really struggling with the speed of moving legislative reform,” adding that they’ve been trying for eight years, and through multiple Parliaments, to get new online regulations passed.
“We’ve suffered through prorogations and changes in governments and haven’t been able to get across the finish line. So that’s a bit frustrating and challenging for us,” she said. “The technology and privacy debate is what is sort of the most acutely difficult legislative conversation in Canada.”
However, it was under former prime minister Justin Trudeau that Parliament was prorogued, which lasted for several months.
Geddes then went on to note how the Liberals have found “a lot of old legislation is proving to be extremely useful right now,” citing her government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act as a highly effective tool.
According to the deputy minister, while the Emergencies Act was created “many decades ago for different circumstances,” it has still proved to “give us the types of authorities that we need in extremists. So that’s helpful.”
The Emergencies Act was invoked for the first time during the 2022 Convoy protest against government mandates regarding the COVID-19 pandemic to quash peaceful protestors from demonstrating in Ottawa.
What Geddes failed to mention is that at the beginning of the year, the Federal Court of Appeals upheld a January 2024 Federal Court decision that the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was “unreasonable.”
Justice Richard Mosley’s earlier ruling had declared the Act’s economic and emergency measures violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On March 27, the final day of the Supreme Court’s deadline for appeal, the federal government then filed an appeal challenging the federal court’s landmark ruling, reopening litigation on its use of the Emergencies Act.
Geddes added that it has been “very difficult to get Canadians to understand the imminence of the terrorism threat in Canada,” which has made it difficult for the government to make any reforms, but now the population wants to meet the moment.
“We try to take advantage of the way Canadians have decided that there is a need to stand up for themselves at this moment and that is an area where we can tap into,” she said.
My long-time VDARE colleague James Fulford here explains why wire fraud charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center are such a threat–because they trigger draconian Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) War On Drugs/ War On Terror laws. Like Al Capone being nailed for tax evasion. Con Inc. media fixating on (false) assertion that SPLC astroturfed the Right: they were actually trying to pay informants untraceably.
Please Sign Up As A PAID Subscriber: Remember, I’m only on Substack because VDARE was forced to suspend operations by NYAG Letitia James’s lawfare, so if you’re a free subscriber, please upgrade to paid!
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to secretly pay leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups for inside information, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.
The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with more than $3 million paid to informants through a now-defunct program to infiltrate white supremacist and other extremist groups. Prosecutors allege some of the money was used by extremists to carry out other crimes, but court papers did not include specific examples.
Banking expert Patrick McKenzie pointed out on Twitter that Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) laws make it illegal to lie to your bank about what you’re doing with your money, e. g. saying “We’re totally not using this to pay undercover informants” etc.
He adds an image of the SPLC’s banking information being used in the the indictment and says
This is extremely common prosecutorial practice; the only surprising part is the defendant. (About which, doubtless your opinion journal of choice will have some column inches fairly soon.)
They, of course, spent a lot of time writing about VDARE.com, and to a certain extent, me personally. It’s arguable that their attacks on VDARE.com inspired Letitia James’s persecution of VDARE.com, causing me to lose my job:
In 2001, the SPLC was calling VDARE an “Anti-Immigration” group, and trying to say we were guilty by association with writers they’d already condemned, and in 2004, they either upgraded or downgraded us to “Hate Group”, based apparently on a fairly mild speech VDARE editor Peter Brimelow gave to a Chroniclesconference.
You have to realize that VDARE was basically a journalistic enterprise, like National Review, Chronicles, Mother Jones, or The New Republic. It’s not about street-fighting, agitation, demonstrations or even, despite our writing on politics, political activism.
It’s about reporting facts, and analysis, which is what I do now, but the SPLC didn’t like the analysis, or for that matter even the facts, which is why they would attack people who read, quoted, or forwarded things we wrote. People attacked for reading us by the SPLC included the Center For Immigration Studies, and Trump advisor Stephen Miller.
In 2017, they attacked something I had written in the article below:
The picture above is of mentally-challenged white teenager kidnapped and tortured on Facebook Live, by blacks who yelled “F— Trump!” and “F— white people!”
You have to understand that “F— Trump!” and “F— white people!” is the ideology of, very specifically, the Southern Poverty Law Center…and their Black Lives Matter allies.
Here’s them denying that and attacking me:
The false narrative of an epidemic of so-called “black-on-white crime” has long been one of the most effective deceptions in white nationalist propaganda, playing directly into an idea of besieged white populace while also attacking the press for censoring the “real facts.”….
VDARE, another pseudo-intellectual white nationalist outlet more narrowly focused on immigration policy, was happy to promote the #BLMKidnapping narrative anyway, despite its ideological divorce with Cernovich.
“A young white man was kidnapped by four blacks, inspired by Black Lives Matter propaganda, and anti-white, anti-Trump hate, the hate that comes from black leaders, the mainstream media, the Democratic Party…and the White House,” wrote James Fulford, a columnist at VDARE.
In a bizarre twist, Fulford voluntarily introduced Dylann Roof as an attempt to point out hypocrisy from the left while bemoaning the widespread removal of the Confederate battle flags around the South after photos surfaced of Roof with one in the wake of the shooting. The connection was analogous to him.
But the point is that Roof committed a mass murder of random innocent blacks allegedly because he’d been told about massive black-on-white crime, which is not a “false narrative” but simple fact.
A would never defend Dylann Roof’s shooting innocent black people in a church, but there are many, many, people, including the SPLC, who are very understanding of, and supportive of, black-on-white violence. Here’s what I said in my 2017 post:
The Chicago police said they could not confirm if the video was tied to any organization. posted by Tasneem Nashrulla [Email her]on Jan. 5, 2017, at 1:16 p.m.
To Hell with your “Zero Evidence”—were the riots and the shooting of police also not inspired by BLM?
No one ever asks for “evidence” in the rare white hate crimes. Dylann Roof was part of no “movement”, but they tore down Confederate flags all over the South because of his crime.
Next time a “Black Lives Matter” spokesman makes a public appearance, the MSM should ask him to condemn this—but they won’t.
It would be nice to think that the criminal prosecution will inspire people to refuse to associate with the SPLC, but that’s a long way to go.
In any event, the fact that the FBI director Kash Patel was recently smeared as a drunkard by the Atlantic inspired me to Tweet this:
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for moreWatch nowSPLC Scandal: The Accuser Becomes the AccusedAct for AmericaApr 23READ IN APPAt a formal announcement involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, the Southern Poverty Law Center was hit with sweeping federal fraud charges that cut to the core of its operations. According to officials, this was not a minor accounting issue or technical violation. It was a decade-long, multi-million dollar scheme built on deception.
For years, the SPLC cultivated a powerful image: a watchdog organization raising funds to dismantle violent extremist groups. Donors across the country were told their contributions would be used to combat hate and protect communities. But according to federal investigators, that image was not just misleading—it was a lie.Authorities allege that the SPLC used its vast donor network to raise millions of dollars under the pretense of fighting extremism, only to redirect those funds in a shocking and deeply disturbing way: paying the very leadership of the extremist groups it claimed to oppose.
Let that sink in. Money raised to “fight hate” was allegedly funneled directly into the hands of those leading organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, and networks tied to the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally—along with other groups including the National Alliance, National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nation Motorcycle Club, and the National Socialist Party of America.This was not infiltration. This was not passive observation. According to the indictment, this was financial support—support that, in at least one instance, allegedly helped facilitate additional criminal activity totaling more than $3 million.
And it didn’t stop there.Investigators say the SPLC went to great lengths to conceal its actions. Shell companies and fictitious entities were allegedly created to disguise the origin of funds, deceiving financial institutions and masking the organization’s role in the transactions. The scheme, built over the course of a decade, relied on exploiting trust—trust from donors, trust from the public, and trust from the very systems designed to ensure accountability.But as investigators made clear: money leaves a trail. And eventually, that trail led right back to the source.For years, the SPLC operated as a self-appointed authority on “hate,” branding organizations like ACT for America with labels that carried devastating consequences. Those designations were used to justify censorship, deplatforming, and financial blacklisting. Americans were silenced. Reputations were destroyed. Entire movements were marginalized—not by elected officials or due process, but by the word of a single organization that is now facing serious federal charges.
The implications are staggering.If these allegations hold, it means the SPLC didn’t just misrepresent reality—it helped sustain the very forces it claimed to fight. It means that while publicly condemning extremism, it may have been quietly enabling it. And it means that the narratives pushed into the mainstream for years deserve to be reexamined with a far more critical eye.Stand with us as a Patriot Partner in our $26 for 2026 campaign to preserve America and keep our nation out of radical hands. We are looking for 500 dedicated Patriot Partners to help fuel our efforts as we battle to defend our Constitution, our values, and our children’s future.This is a reckoning that has been a long time coming.For policymakers, media outlets, and corporations that have relied on SPLC reports as a gold standard, the message is simple: that standard has collapsed. Blindly accepting one organization’s labels as truth is no longer just irresponsible—it is indefensible.The loudest accusers are not always the most virtuous. In many cases, they are the most determined to deflect attention from their own actions.What is unfolding now is not just a legal case. It is a moment of exposure. A moment when the carefully constructed image begins to crack—and the truth begins to emerge.What is done in darkness will eventually come to light.And now, that light is impossible to ignore.
Last time we spoke, Adam Skelly’s legal showdown was about to begin. After 6 years of twists, turns, and multiple near-death experiences, Adam’s case finally got its day in court in February. His lawyer presented all the elaborate evidence with 6 high-level experts, while the government had 1 expert. In a shocking outcome, the application was denied, without Adam’s evidence being so much as mentioned.
Adam’s team released a statement which stated in part: “[we] are disappointed, disheartened and frankly, disturbed at the outcome of the [hearing]…the application judge said near the end of the hearing she would judge this matter on its merits. Unfortunately, she did not.” Adam’s team says the judge “disappeared 500 pages of unrefuted, expert evidence.”
On Thursday of this week, I will have a brand new interview with Adam to share all the details.
As you know, this has been one of the craziest legal sagas of the decade, with multiple ups-and-downs, and multiple “near-death” experiences, including a critical public health expert dropping out, and the government requiring over $30,000 in costs to keep the case going. All of these challenges have been met and overcome by Adam and his team.
Adam Skelly was the one of the first people to stand against the government’s draconian lockdowns in 2020. Before Heroic Pastors, before the Freedom Convoy, Adam Skelly exploded onto the scene by opening up his restaurant, Adamson BBQ, defying the lockdowns, and became the first business owner in the history of Canada (even North America) to be arrested for disobeying a public health order (truly shocking).
Adam is the only person left with standing in court to challenge the government’s emergency lockdowns during COVID. Therefore it is critical that this case goes forward. No one else can bring a case to challenge the governments action during covid as the 2 year limitations period has passed, and there are no other cases in the court system already.
Adam’s team has already filed their appeal. The judge did not even mention any of their 500 pages of evidence. The government didn’t even try to refute it or discredit Adam’s experts. They just simply ignored it. Adam’s team believes this is a critical and appealable mistake by the judge who was supposed to give a fair hearing where all of the evidence would be weighed.
This case is going forward to the Ontario Court of Appeal – and Adam needs your help to see it through. Would you please support Adam today?
https://www.fundingthefight.ca/donate_adam
Adam’s team, in their statement, go on to say that the principles of fundamental justice are rooted in the pursuit of truth, fairness and unbiased proceedings. They believe that the “truth-seeking function of the court was plainly and obviously unfulfilled.”
As for the evidence, Adam’s team says the preponderance of evidence has been in their favour since it was initially sworn in 2021. However, even though the judge mentioned the province’s lone expert (Dr. Hodge) 16 separate times, and Dr. Devilla (former Toronto officer of health) or the Ministry of Health over 100 times, she mentioned Adam’s 6 experts a total of zero times.
This failure to grapple with their evidence is a fatal flaw of this ruling. Adam’s case had six high-level PhD or MD experts including Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale, and Dr. Byram Bridle. That not one of them was mentioned is really unbelievable.
Adam’s case is significant because his legal defense is going to the heart of the COVID narrative relied on by the government. Some other cases have failed because the basic tenets of the pandemic have been conceded, and the argument became about whether the government’s response was reasonable. Unfortunately, without arguing over the basic definitions of what happened during COVID-19, it’s very challenging to win a case.
Adam has has been through many ups and downs including having to shut down his three restaurants. He’s now living in Alberta, homesteading and making a living through a small farming operation. This is very challenging work, as you can imagine. Nonetheless, he has not given up on this case, and the events that took so much from him.
My new interview with Adam will be out later this week.
Adam’s story begins early in 2020, during the first lockdowns, when Adam made the courageous decision to open up his famous BBQ restaurant in Etobicoke, notwithstanding lockdown orders. The police changed his locks, but he broke into his own restaurant, defying the prohibition. As Adam relates the story, over 250 police were called to deal with the situation, even horse mounted cavalry, and he was hauled off to jail, but not before making news all across the country.
In our last interview, Adam told us the full extent of the assault by government. For example, Adam has received both provincial and criminal charges for trying to keep his restaurant open, and the outcome of this hearing will impact all of them.
He says the Toronto Board of Health has come after him in a civil claim, trying to get their $187,000 back that they spent to hire the police to shut down Adam’s restaurant! As Adam says: “Remember the videos from that protest? They had the street for like half a km in each direction full of police cars, there must have been 80 police cruisers, both lanes totally blocked…Costco just up the street was packed full of people [shopping normally]…they hired Toronto police…paid them overtime…the mounted unit, [my] whole building covered with police shoulder to shoulder. They spent $187,000 enforcing the closure order, and now they’re trying to recover that money from me, we countersued, and brought Eileen Devilla into it, saying she acted outside of her authority as the medical officer of health.” It’s not enough they destroyed his business, they want him to pay for the police used to do it.
As for this hearing, as I’ve mentioned before, they tried various tricks to shut down Adam’s case before it even had it’s day in court. For example, they required Adam to come up with 30k to even have the case heard, as “security” for costs. But with your help, we helped him meet that challenge, and Adam was able to schedule his hearing for last October! They then required his expert evidence to be resworn, which caused the issue with the one expert who didn’t want to recommit.
Adam stood out on a limb and became a major focal point for freedom in Canada. Adam’s case is the last chance we have to challenge the government’s actions during COVID-19. Adam must appeal this case, for all of us. He is the only one left with standing to challenge the government’s actions during COVID. Will you help today?
Please help Adam raise $60,000 to complete this case.
https://www.fundingthefight.ca/donate_adam
Adam’s appeal being shut down is disheartening, but in a case of this magnitude, it would have been appealed by the government in any event if Adam had won. In all likelihood, this kind of case must go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On the bright side, Adam recently received an offer to settle his criminal charges he received for breaking the locks on his own property. He will get away with a small charitable donation, some community service, and most importantly no criminal record. With his loss in this constitutional case, they could have hammered him harder, but they chose not to. That’s good news.
Even though Adam has had to give up his life and restaurants in Ontario, he has a thriving farm, family, and faith life in Alberta.
This appeal must go forward. I’m so proud of the courage and tenacity of Adam and his team.
Even though he lost his restaurants and his life in Ontario, he’s not backing down.
Adam Skelly’s case was one of the first prominent COVID-19 cases filed, please support him to continue it.
In a bombshell development south of the border, the U.S. Department of Justice has indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on 11 federal counts—including wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering—accusing the storied “civil rights” nonprofit of secretly funneling more than $3 million in donor funds to leaders and members of the very extremist groups it claims to oppose. The indictment, returned by a grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, on April 21, 2026, paints a picture of systematic deception: the SPLC allegedly manufactured the “hate” it fundraised against, while concealing payments through fictitious entities and prepaid gift cards.
This isn’t abstract legal wrangling. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated bluntly: “The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.” FBI Director Kash Patel echoed that the group “lied to their donors… and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups—even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.”
For Canadians following the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN)—an organization that openly models itself after the SPLC—the indictment raises urgent questions. CAHN received startup funding from the SPLC, shares intelligence with it, and employs similar monitoring tactics. Its board includes figures like Richard Warman and Kurt Phillips, both accused of infiltrating or posing within neo-Nazi online spaces. CAHN has heavily influenced Canadian policy, from the Online Harms Act to calls for a “pro-democracy movement” funded to counter protests. Critics ask: Is this the same playbook—posing, inflating threats, and driving censorship—now playing out north of the border?
The SPLC’s Alleged Scheme: Funding Hate to Fight Hate
According to the DOJ, the fraud ran from at least 2014 to 2023. The SPLC allegedly paid at least eight individuals tied to violent extremist networks, including the Ku Klux Klan, United Klans of America, National Socialist Movement (American Nazi Party), Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, and organizers linked to the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally.
Methods of concealment and “driving hate”:
The SPLC created bank accounts under at least five fictitious entities with no real business purpose.
Funds were wired through these shells, then loaded onto prepaid gift cards and physically delivered to sources—hiding the SPLC’s involvement from donors and banks.
One informant, paid over $270,000 across eight years, was a member of the online leadership chat that planned Unite the Right. The indictment alleges he made racist postings “under the supervision of the SPLC,” helped coordinate transportation to the deadly rally, and even sent funds onward to other extremist leaders.
The core fraud, per prosecutors: Donors were told their money would “dismantle white supremacy.” Instead, it allegedly subsidized the very people the SPLC publicly denounced—creating a self-sustaining cycle of manufactured extremism to justify endless fundraising and relevance. The SPLC denies the allegations, calling them “politically motivated” and claiming payments were legitimate confidential-informant work shared with law enforcement. The program has since been halted.
CAHN’s Direct Ties to the SPLC
CAHN, founded in 2018, has never hidden its admiration for the SPLC. Its own statements and parliamentary briefs describe the organization as “modelled after and supported by” the SPLC. It received a $25,000 startup grant from the SPLC (with “no strings attached,” per CAHN) and lists the U.S. group as a past funder. CAHN exchanges information on threats and hate groups with the SPLC on an ad-hoc basis and positions itself as Canada’s version of the SPLC’s “Hate Map.”
Board members include Bernie Farber (Chair Emeritus), Evan Balgord (Executive Director), and others who have defended the SPLC model. CAHN has received Canadian government grants (via Canadian Heritage and Public Safety Canada) while mirroring the SPLC’s approach: monitoring, profiling, and advising policymakers.
Posing as Neo-Nazis: The Warman and Phillips Playbook
The parallels to the SPLC’s alleged informant tactics are striking—and documented in Canadian records.
Richard Warman, CAHN board member and longtime legal activist, admitted under oath to creating pseudonyms (“Axetogrind” and “Pogue Mahone”) on neo-Nazi forums like Stormfront.org and Vanguard News Network between 2004 and 2005. He posted messages echoing the group’s rhetoric, including “Keep up the good work Commander Schoep!” (referring to a U.S. neo-Nazi leader) and using coded white-supremacist language like “88.” Warman said this was undercover intelligence-gathering for Section 13 hate-speech complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (in Warman v. Ouwendyk, 2009) called his actions “disappointing and disturbing,” ruling they “diminish[ed] his credibility” and could have “precipitated further hate messages from forum members.”
Kurt Phillips (also known as Curt Phillips in some references), another CAHN board member and former operator of the Anti-Racist Canada blog, has faced similar accusations. Critic Elisa Hategan has publicly referenced text correspondence with Phillips, alleging he engaged in comparable posing or infiltration tactics within far-right circles to gather (and potentially amplify) material for exposure. While Phillips’ public role has centred on archiving and doxxing, critics argue his methods blurred into provocation—much like Warman’s admitted posts.
CAHN itself has described using “infiltration-style methods” to expose far-right activity, echoing the SPLC’s now-indicted informant program.
Barbara Perry’s Shielded “300 Hate Groups” and CAHN’s Censorship Recommendations
CAHN and aligned researchers like Ontario Tech University’s Dr. Barbara Perry have cited figures of nearly 300 far-right or hate groups in Canada (up from ~100 in a 2015 study). These numbers, drawn from Perry’s work, have been central to CAHN’s development of policy recommendations and underpin calls for expanded monitoring and legislation. Yet Perry’s methodology has drawn sharp criticism as activist-driven: it reportedly includes loose affiliations, online forums, and even mainstream conservative expressions. A 2024 ruling by Ontario’s privacy commissioner blocked public release of Perry’s full list, shielding the data from scrutiny despite its influence on policy and public funding.
https://platform.twitter.
Critics, including in National Post commentary, have asked, If there are truly 300 active neo-Nazi groups, why can’t independent researchers name and verify them? The opacity raises the same “manufactured threat” questions now facing the SPLC.
Evan Balgord has appeared on multiple podcasts and in policy forums, urging government action on online “hate,” frequently citing these statistics as justification. He has recommended mechanisms akin to a digital commission or oversight body—ideas that materialized in the federal Online Harms Act. CAHN’s submissions to Parliament and toolkits have shaped recommendations on content moderation, school reporting, and countering “far-right” influence. Most of CAHN’s internet-censorship proposals have either been proposed or implemented by Ottawa.
CAHN has also sought government funding for what Balgord described as a “pro-democracy movement” to counter right-wing protests and populism. Public records and critics’ analyses show grants flowing to CAHN for workshops, investigations, and social-media engagement—sometimes targeting conservative student groups, the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), or even COVID-protest participants as “anti-democratic.”
Targeting Mainstream Conservatives—and the Big Question
Like the SPLC (which has labelled mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups”), CAHN has documented ties between conservative campus clubs and fringe elements, or flagged “paleoconservative” rhetoric as sanitized extremism. Its toolkits urge educators to watch for signs like support for certain politicians or traditional values—blurring lines between extremism and legitimate dissent.
This brings us to the most explosive parallel: Could covert funding methods (prepaid cards, shells) be replicated here—not just for monitoring, but for provocation? The SPLC indictment alleges gift-card payments to extremists. CAHN receives public funds and has ties to counter-protest networks (including documented encouragement of Antifa-style “muscular resistance”). Critics openly ask: Are some grants subsidizing online trolls, protest infiltrators, or Antifa actors to inflate hate statistics, justify censorship legislation like the Online Harms Act, and destabilize democratic discourse?
No evidence directly links CAHN to the SPLC’s specific fraud scheme. CAHN insists its work is ethical, independent monitoring to protect vulnerable communities from real threats. Yet the pattern—posing in extremist spaces, inflated/shielded stats, policy capture, and targeting conservatives—mirrors the SPLC’s alleged playbook too closely for comfort.
A Political Psyop? The Question Canadians Must Confront
The SPLC indictment rips the lid off how a nonprofit can allegedly profit from the very division it claims to combat—paying extremists through shells and gift cards to keep the “hate” machine running, all while donors foot the bill for a never-ending crisis. In Canada, CAHN’s SPLC-inspired model operates with the full backing of government grants, shaping everything from the Online Harms Act to taxpayer-funded “pro-democracy” counter-protests. Warman’s admitted forum posts as a faux neo-Nazi, Phillips’ alleged infiltration via text messages, Perry’s activist-driven and now-shielded “300 hate groups” tally, and Balgord’s repeated calls for digital oversight all point to a closed-loop system: provoke or amplify the threat, document the resulting “spike” in hate, then cash in with policy demands and more funding.
This is no longer just about monitoring extremism. It is about whether anti-hate organizations have crossed into actively manufacturing it, using secrecy, infiltration, and opaque statistics to justify censorship laws, deplatforming, and the erosion of free speech. The SPLC precedent makes the Canadian parallels impossible to ignore. Are Canadian taxpayers unknowingly subsidizing the same self-perpetuating cycle of manufactured threats that the DOJ has now exposed south of the border?
The public deserves straight answers. If these tactics are at play here, the cost isn’t just wasted donations—it’s the slow destabilization of democratic debate itself.
CAFE joined the dedicated freedom fighters who have rallied opposite City Hall in Shelburne every other Saturday for four years.Of course, we flew the flag of the real Canada.
Free Speech Martyr Bill Whatcott’s Election Results and “Hate Crime” Trial Update
Dear Friends,
Lots has happened the last few days. My court hearing for my so-called hate crime charge on Thursday, April 9th was a clown show. Unfortunately, most of my supporters were not allowed access to the hearing and my case is now subject to a publication ban so I can’t say much about it. The trial is slated to run:
May 25, 2026 – June 12, 2026, 9 am –4:00 pm
Ontario Superior Court, 361 University Ave, Toronto, ON
If you are close to Toronto and want to know what is going on I suggest you try to show up. The trial is otherwise subject to a publication ban, so I can’t say much and the court at least on this past Thursday, just ignored my friend’s requests to log in via Zoom to see the hearing.
To learn about my “hate crime”, how me and 6 other brave Crack Christian Commandos infiltrated the Toronto homosexual unGodly pride parade disguised as Gay Zombie Cannabis Consumers and shared the Gospel with 3000 lost sodomites and how this charitable act culminated in a $104 million class action lawsuit where Prime Minister Trudeau himself and the Liberal Party were named as victims and then how that escalated to a Canada wide arrest warrant, go to my Lifefunder link to read the history and if you wish you can help me out as I languish in Toronto for the next 6 weeks while preparing to go on trial:
Anyways, after my “hate crime” hearing wrapped up, Thursday got worse. I finished my last 100 election flyers and then sat down on the steps of a business at Spadina and College in Downtown Toronto to rest a few minutes and take my backpack with my laptop off my back to give my shoulders a few minutes break. When I got up to go I forgot my backpack was no longer on my back and left my backpack on the porch of the business.
Anyways when I got to my room and realized I forgot my backpack and laptop, I got on my bike and flew like a bat out of hell to the porch where I left it. But alas! It is downtown Toronto (the formerly good) and unattended backpacks with laptops don’t last long when they are left lying around.
Then to make the day just a little worse while biking back to my room to contemplate replacing what I lost, I hit some uneven pavement that caught my bicycle tire and in less than a second I went from cycling to landing with my face on the pavement.
Amazingly, my face was ok, but my knee somehow got badly bruised and it swelled to twice it’s normal size, so I wound up bedridden for two days, but God in His mercy enabled me to get to church on Sunday.
Then Monday, April 13th, came and the election results came in.
University-Rosedale 2026 by-election results
In my mind the election is a mix of good and bad news. The bad news is I did not win. The $200,000 salary which Trudeau himself proved as Prime Minister is a salary with no actual attendance requirement and the gold plated MP pension plan is not mine to have. The other piece of bad news is this riding had the opportunity to adopt my Christ centred, conservative, pro-energy, pro-free market, pro-freedom, pro-life, pro-heterosexual, pro-animal eaters rights, pro-gun, pro-Trump, vision for Canada, and to their loss University-Rosedale, Downtown Toronto, opted for something else.
The riding went 64% (nearly 20,000 votes) for the Liberals and Danielle Martin their University-Rosedale MP. Danielle is a physician and University of Toronto academic who has written favourably for left wing concepts like universal basic income, abortion, and coercing doctors to make referrals for euthanasia. Most of those in the riding who did not join the 2/3 who overwhelmingly voted for the Liberals and Danielle Martin, went even further left voting NDP 18.9%, and Green 2.9%. Basically 86% of the riding voted for left and far left.
Myself and the PPC were the actual conservatives in the riding and combined we got less than 1% of the vote. I suppose I was the most conservative and the most Christ Centred and I secured 0.1% of the vote (36 votes).
The other inependants had varied campaigns. Most of them were socialist and pro-abortion. Les Bory was openly pro-life for unborn children and had some really good ideas like gun rights and freedom of speech rights. But Les also has some left wing, authoritarian ideas like universal healthcare and using the Canadian Armed Forces to keep Albertans from separating from Canada. Combined, the rest of the independents came in with less than 1% of the vote.
Anyway, the good news is 2000 Whatcott election flyers hit one of woke Canada’s wokest neighbourhoods with the uncensored Gospel. Each flyer had God’s Scripture promise, a powerful verse that has been known to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ on its own.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
Each flyer also had a murdered unborn child, a shot crow that became a tasty soup, and a naked sodomite hugging our current Prime Minister; along with common sense Christian, conservative ideas that triggered the woke and made some of them call 911 after reading my flyer and in other cases chase me around university campuses, apartment hallways, and down a variety of streets screaming after reading my flyer.
Another positive for this election campaign is I had people call me from locations as diverse as Weyburn SK, Pembroke ON, St Catharines ON, and Vancouver, informing me that both individually and in prayer groups, me and my election campaign, were being prayed for. God was there.
The final piece of good news. The Biblical city of Sodom and University-Rosedale Downtown Toronto have a lot in common. Both places are Godless, sexually degenerate, and ripe for judgment. When the outcry against Sodom became too great, God sent angels to see if the charges were true and if so divine judgement was to be executed against the city.
Abraham interceded for Sodom and said:
“Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” Genesis 18:30
God agreed to spare Sodom if just 30 righteous people could be found.
The election results are clear. Thirty six people viewed my election platform, graced with Scripture and sound Biblical promises to kick the sodomites out of government and into conversion therapy, and promises to restore legal protection for the unborn, the elderly, and the marginal. Thirty six University-Rosedale residents when offered this vision for Downtown Toronto voted for it.
There is still more hope for Downtown Toronto and Canada than there was for Sodom when God poured out His wrath on the corrupt city.
In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott
“However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 1 Corinthians 2:6-8
Major Victory for Civil Liberties as Court Overturns Woods Ban
Major Victory for Civil Liberties as Court Overturns Woods Ban
Major Victory for Civil Liberties as Court Overturns Woods Ban
Today, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia struck down last summer’s absurd provincial ban on walking, picnicking, and even birdwatching in the woods. In a decisive ruling, the Court agreed with the CCF that Premier Houston’s blanket prohibition on entering the woods violated Canadians’ Charter-protected mobility rights and failed to meaningfully consider the impact. The Court also raised concerns that the ban was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad – so unclear that people couldn’t know what qualified as “woods,” and so extreme that it applied even where no fire risk existed. We are proud to have fought this case and are grateful to our supporters, especially those who signed our petition last summer to restore access to Nova Scotia’s beautiful forests.
In a significant decision released today, the Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General) ruling was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, dismissing a lawsuit brought against the federal government over the death of a teenage boy following a COVID-19 vaccination. The court found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and agreed with a lower court decision to strike it in its entirety.
The case was brought by Daniel Hartman, whose 17-year-old son, Sean Hartman, died in September 2021. Sean, who had been described as previously healthy, was found dead beside his bed 33 days after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Following the vaccination, he had been taken to hospital due to symptoms his father believes were related to the vaccine.
Sean’s father, Dan Hartman, says his son chose to get vaccinated so he could continue playing hockey, as vaccination was required for participation in many sports and activities at the time.
Hartman’s lawsuit alleged that federal officials, including the Minister of Health, were negligent in approving, promoting, and monitoring the vaccine, and that they acted with reckless indifference or wilful blindness to potential risks.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the devastating nature of Sean Hartman’s death, describing it as a tragic loss for his family and community. However, the judges concluded that the legal claims could not succeed. Central to the ruling was the finding that the federal government does not owe a private duty of care to individual members of the public when making broad public health decisions during a pandemic. Instead, such decisions are made in the interest of the population as a whole, often requiring difficult trade-offs that may carry risks for some individuals.
The court also determined that the claim failed to establish the necessary elements for misfeasance in public office. Specifically, there were no material facts showing that government officials acted in bad faith or knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct that would likely cause harm to Sean Hartman. The judges noted that the clinical trial data referenced in the lawsuit supported the conclusion that the vaccine was highly effective, undermining the argument that officials knowingly promoted a harmful or ineffective product.
In addition, the court found that the public statements cited in the claim were directed broadly at Canadians and did not create a specific relationship or obligation toward Sean Hartman as an individual. As a result, there was no legal basis to establish the proximity or duty of care required for a negligence claim.
Shockingly, the court also claimed that allowing Hartman’s case to proceed could have broader consequences, including discouraging governments from making urgent public health decisions during emergencies due to fear of legal liability.
The Court of Appeal further upheld the lower court’s decision to deny leave to amend the claim, finding that the proposed changes would not have addressed the fundamental legal deficiencies. The judges emphasized that lawsuits must be based on clearly pleaded facts, not on the possibility that supporting evidence might emerge later.
Ultimately, the court concluded that while the circumstances surrounding Sean Hartman’s death are deeply tragic, the law does not support holding the federal government liable under the claims presented. The appeal was dismissed, bringing the case to a close, with no costs awarded to either side.
The Canadian Independent spoke with Dan Hartman by phone this evening. He said he is “seriously considering” taking the case to the Supreme Court and that he and his legal team will evaluate their next steps over the coming week. Hartman noted that the cost of taking the case to the Supreme Court could exceed $20,000. He added that he does not want to ask those who have already donated to his cause to contribute further but said, “What other option do I have?”
Dan believes the courts are not willing to find the government liable or hold it accountable, as doing so would amount to an admission of wrongdoing. He also argues that such a finding would make his larger lawsuit against Pfizer significantly easier to pursue.
If you want to donate to Dan’s legal fund, you can do so at the link below.
