Homeless people have set up tents in Harris Green neighbourhood in Victoria on Wednesday Oct. 11, 2023. Photo by Dirk Meissner/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Article content
In July, Victoria firefighter Josh Montgomery wrote a letter to British Columbia Premier David Eby, imploring him to stop the city from relocating a homeless hub where people are expected to use drugs to a new space next to a senior’s residence — and only steps from his own home, where his young daughters play outside.
He drafted the letter after 60 homeless people swarmed local first responders as they tried to help a paramedic who’d been assaulted by a patient, frightening them so badly that they now refuse to go into that part of the city without police escorts. For speaking up, Montgomery was suspended for a day without pay.
There is strong legal precedent to suggest this violated Montgomery’s expression rights.
Many people believe that public sector employees leave their right to free speech at the door. That’s not correct. Although public sector employees must remain non-partisan, and, like all employees, have a “duty of loyalty” to their employers that prevents them from disparaging their organization, they aren’t required to keep their lips sealed.
In the 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote that public employers must balance an employee’s duty of loyalty against his or her right to free expression. Our democratic system, he reasoned, is “deeply rooted in, and thrives on, free and robust public discussion of public issues” and as such, “all members of society should be permitted, indeed encouraged, to participate in that discussion.”
Dickson recognized that because so many people work for the public sector, we can’t have the robust public debates needed to self-govern unless public employees can also speak up in certain circumstances.
.
He explained that although public servants cannot engage in “sustained and highly visible attacks on major Government policies,” public employees can still “actively and publicly express opposition to the policies of governments.” This is especially true when those policies jeopardize the “life, health or safety of the public servant or others, or if the public servant’s criticism had no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or the public perception of that ability.”
In the case of senior federal public servant Neil Fraser, the court decided he could not repeatedly compare Pierre Trudeau’s government to the Nazi regime.
Dickson offered a number of examples of speech that public employees may engage in without violating their duty of loyalty. A city bus driver may attend a town council meeting to protest a zoning decision. A provincial clerk may join a weekend protest against the provincial government’s decision to cut funding from a daycare centre or women’s shelter. A federal commissioner may speak at a Legion meeting about a lack of support for veterans.
Dickson also gave an example of speech that would cross the line. Although a low-level government clerk could not be fired for protesting provincial daycare policies, a deputy minister could be fired for speaking “vigorously against the same policies at the same rally.” In other words, the balance may tip in favour of the public employer if the employee is more senior.
The Alberta Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court’s guidance in Fraser to overturn the reprimand of a social services employee who sent a letter that was critical of provincial policy to a member of the opposition. The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered Fraser when overturning school board directives prohibiting teachers from discussing political issues such as class sizes during parent-teacher interviews.
Surely a firefighter wary of the dangers that come with moving hundreds of homeless and often drug-addicted people into a residential neighbourhood has a right to express his public safety concerns — without being suspended and losing a day’s pay.
Kafka described with wonderful imaginative power the future concentration camps, the future instability of the law, the future absolutism of the state Apparat.
— Bertolt Brecht
In a scene straight from a Franz Kafka novel, Pavel Durov, the enigmatic founder of Telegram, was arrested in France upon landing at Le Bourget airport near Paris. As he disembarked from his private jet, he was apprehended by French authorities who had been lying in wait, armed with a warrant accusing him of enabling criminal activities through his messaging platform. The charges, as surreal as they are severe, include complicity in drug trafficking, pedocriminal offenses, and money laundering — all stemming from Telegram’s alleged lack of moderation. His arrest is not just a personal catastrophe but a stark reminder of the absurdity that awaits those who challenge the invisible but omnipresent hand of power in a world that claims to protect freedom while methodically dismantling it.
What becomes of Telegram in the wake of Durov’s arrest? The question stirs an unease that quickly metastasizes into countless speculative whispers, each more uncertain than the last. One rumor, already slithering through the digital corridors, insists that Durov’s team is prepared for this eventuality, that a clandestine protocol exists, poised to be enacted at the stroke of midnight. But as with all rumors, it thrives on the lack of verifiable sources. The truth, shrouded in ambiguity, is as elusive as the man himself. Whether Telegram will persist, and in what distorted form, lingers as a troubling enigma, a question suspended in the void where certainty should be.
Eurosiberia is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In the modern West, freedom of speech is paraded as a sacred principle, a shining emblem of democracy that supposedly contrasts sharply with the “despotic regimes” of Russia and China. Yet, beneath this polished facade lies a reality as suffocating and absurd as any Kafkaesque nightmare — a place where dissidents are relentlessly pursued, their voices smothered, their liberties extinguished. The stories of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and now Durov serve as eerie reminders that the West’s devotion to free expression is a hollow claim, a charade masking a darker truth.
Durov possesses citizenship in four nations — Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, France, and the UAE. His multiplicity of identities reflects his desperate attempt to evade the ever-tightening grip of state power, to remain an untethered soul in a world where true autonomy is all but a fleeting dream. Yet, the revelation that Durov has forsaken his Russian citizenship, coupled with his recent detention in France, underscores the futility of such efforts. No matter how many borders you cross, how many nationalities you assume, the iron claw of censorship will inevitably track you down if you refuse to bow to the liberal authority of the West. People who value authentic freedom should not “flee” to the West but run far away from it.
The notion of a free press, so often celebrated in the West, reveals itself as a bitter farce. We are served the comforting fiction that the media operates without chains, that journalists pursue truth without fear of retribution. Yet, Durov’s ordeal, echoing that of Assange, uncovers the frailty and deception behind this fake “freedom.” When Durov left Russia, it was not in search of greater liberties but because he refused to submit to the demands to censor VK, the widely used Russian social network, resisting the pressures to hand over user data to the authorities.
Kafka, the master of bureaucratic despair, would find in Durov’s fate an unsettling familiarity. It is a destiny that harkens back to the plight of Josef K. in The Trial, condemned not for any specific crime but for the insidious and omnipresent suspicion that invades every aspect of existence. In a world where even the smallest lapse triggers the gravest suspicions, how can freedom be anything more than a bitter illusion? Are we not all, in some way, trapped within a vast, faceless bureaucracy, where every action is scrutinized, every intention questioned, and every individual reduced to a carbon copy of himself?
The terror that seeps through this world is not just the fear of punishment. It is something deeper, more pervasive — a terror that immobilizes the soul. It is the dread of uttering an unspeakable word, of harboring an unthinkable thought, of challenging the all-seeing gaze that watches from every corner. This terror, as Kafka intuited, is an anticipation of retribution as well as a profound and paralyzing anxiety — a yearning for something beyond the grasp of those who wield power, yet also a fear of everything that power touches. In the West, this dread is cloaked in the rhetoric of “freedom,” wrapped in the comforting lie that we are free to speak, free to think, free to resist.
However, the entanglement of powerful media conglomerates with other elite forces exposes this grotesque clown show. Once a media empire grows large enough, it ceases to view itself as a watchdog over power; instead, it becomes entangled within the web of influence it was meant to scrutinize. No longer an adversary, it becomes a collaborator, complicit in the perpetuation of the structures it once claimed to challenge. This silent betrayal, this unspoken collusion, ensures that dissent remains carefully controlled, neatly contained, and, ultimately, obliterated.
The West’s most glaring hypocrisy lies in its faith in the moralizing mission of multinational corporations like Google, whose creed, “Don’t be evil,” has devolved into a banal catchphrase. The architects of Google sincerely believe they are molding the world for the better, yet their so-called open-mindedness extends only to views that align with the liberal-imperialist undercurrent of American policy. Any perspective that challenges this narrative is rendered invisible, dismissed as irrelevant or dangerous. This is the dull terror of their mission — the quiet horror of a world where dissenting voices are not forcibly silenced but simply ignored into oblivion.
No society that has erected a system of mass surveillance has avoided its abuse, and the West is no different. It has become commonplace to assume that the government monitors our every move, while it is deemed paranoid to believe otherwise. This normalization of surveillance is the final testament to how deeply entrenched these mechanisms of control have become. We exist in a reality where privacy is an anachronism, where every gesture is recorded, every word cataloged, every murmur of dissent logged for future judgment. The surveillance state is no longer a distant dystopia; it is the world we inhabit, the nightmare we cannot awaken from.
In this world, the transformation of the individual is inevitable and exceptionally Kafkaesque. As Oge Noct awoke from restless dreams, he found himself inexplicably altered into a monstrous insect. This metamorphosis is a physical aberration and a symbol of the dehumanization inflicted by a system that grinds down the soul. Whether Assange, Snowden, or Durov, the pattern is the same: those who dare to defy the system are not lionized but degraded, their humanity eroded by the relentless machinery of control that declares itself a champion of freedom while perpetuating an unyielding tyranny.
This is the true face of the modern West — a Kafkaesque downward spiral in which the promise of freedom is little more than a cruel joke, and those who seek it are condemned to live in perpetual fear.
It is like a river, is it not? A river that breaks its banks, spilling over into fields, losing its depth as it stretches further, until all that is left is a filthy, stagnant pool. That is what happens to revolutions. They begin with force, with purpose, but as they spread, they thin out, they lose their substance. And when the fervor finally evaporates, what is left behind? Nothing but the muck of bureaucracy, thick and choking, creeping into every corner of life. The old shackles that held us were at least visible, tangible, but these new ones — they are made of paper, of forms and stamps and signatures, endless and suffocating. And yet, we wear them just the same, without even realizing how tightly they bind us
Vindicated: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Regrets Collusion with Government on CovidJUSTIN HARTAUG 27 READ IN APP Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024, letter to Congress offers a long-awaited acknowledgment of what many of us at Rational Ground—and across the nation—have known all along: Facebook was an active participant in the systematic censorship of American voices during the COVID pandemic.Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Upgrade to paidIn his letter to Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg admits that “government pressure was wrong” and expresses regret for not being “more outspoken about it” at the time.
Vindicated: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Regrets Collusion with Government on CovidJUSTIN HARTAUG 27 Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024, letter to Congress offers a long-awaited acknowledgment of what many of us at Rational Ground—and across the nation—have known all along: Facebook was an active participant in the systematic censorship of American voices during the COVID pandemic.Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Upgrade to paidIn his letter to Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg admits that “government pressure was wrong” and expresses regret for not being “more outspoken about it” at the time.
, Last week was a very dark week for Australia. Women were erased from law and we no longer have the right to exclude males from our spaces, services or sport. In the Federal Court, Justice Bromwich stated humans can change sex and women don’t have the right to exclude males from their spaces or services. He penalised Sall Grover by ordering her to pay $10,000 to a man who identifies as a woman for indirect discrimination. The thing is, how can Roxy Tickle be a woman if women no longer exist in law? There is no legal definition of a female or woman in Australian law thanks to Julia Gillard. That means there are no legal protections for females in law. Males can enter female spaces and services at will and simply identify as female. If we don’t accept them we end up in court facing lengthy and very expensive legal battles. I still have cases seven, eight and nine ahead of me. We are now in dire straits but there is no need to despair. As I wrote last week, once upon a time slavery and racial discrimination were legal. Now they are not thanks to brave individuals who rebelled against bad laws.Claiming males can be female in law is a very bad law and we must resist and rebel.
We must make the legislators – that is the politicians – stand up and take note. They are the ONLY ones who can change this. Look up and then send politicians the images of Tickle v Giggle and the Flying Bats Football team. Our eyes don’t lie, it is plain to see men are not women despite their efforts to appropriate female stereotypes. The Flying Bats just won their grand final over the weekend. A team with five males claiming to be female humiliated their opposition week in and week out. They were undefeated over 17 games, scored 76 goals and only had 8 goals scored against them. When you see images from the game you will understand why they were able to win so comprehensively, and so will the politicians. Do not grow weary and do not tire of doing good. We will be victorious; it is only a matter of time. Yours in protecting children and promoting parental rights, Kirralie Smith Binary Spokeswoman
Tickle v Giggle: Women lose protection in law Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard famously said, “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.” The Flying Bats complete the humiliation of women by winning the grand final The Flying Bats football team has won the North West Sydney Women’s Premier League grand final 5-4. AFL women express safety and fairness concerns AFL, also known as Aussie Rules, recognises males present a threat to female safety and fairness at elite levels of the game, but they couldn’t care less about women and girls playing at grassroots levels. On the WarPATH against WPATH by Dianna T. Kenny PhD Australian Professor of Psychology, Dr Dianna Kenny has written a scathing article about WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) and its impact on gender incongruent minors in Australia.
m Protecting children Supporting parents Defending truth www.binary.org.au Authorised by Kirralie Smith Gender Awareness Australia Limited Melbourne VIC ABN 53 629 535 271
More Deplatforming Dissidents : New Order Deplatformed
The arbitrary power of major communications near monopolies has been used by the deep state to silence dissent. Here is the latest example.
“I have just received word from our webmaster that our website has been deplatformed. As of 7:30 pm (Eastern time) August 22, 2024 it has been offline.
Specifically, the company that registers domain names has suspended our address. They gave a vague reason why, basically accusing us of extremism.
We are working to get the site back up. We do not know why our enemies have chosen this moment to attack us. All other NEW ORDER operations are unaffected.
In the meantime, you may access previous versions of our site which have been archived by the Wayback Machine, here: — Martin Kerr
Maverick Queensland senator Gerard Rennick has quit the LNP to establish a new ‘People First’ party ahead of the federal election, marking the fourth Coalition crossbench defection since 2022.
Senator Rennick – who narrowly lost preselection by three votes to party treasurer Stuart Fraser for third spot on the LNP ticket – will apply for party status with the Australian Electoral Commission on Monday to establish his Gerard Rennick People First party. The 53-year-old will run at the next election on a platform underpinned by five key economic, energy and social policies.
People First policies include increasing the tax free threshold from $18,200 to $40,000, paying childcare support directly to families, ending renewables subsidies and abolishing renewables on agriculture land and waterways, making superannuation voluntary and re-establishing a public bank and government insurance office.
Senator Rennick, who maintains a close relationship with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton despite his recent preselection fight with the LNP, said “I have decided to fight for the Australian people as an independent senator at the next federal election”.
In addition to Senator Rennick, Andrew Gee, Russell Broadbent and David Van have exited the Coalition since the 2022 election. The rogue senator has linked his preselection loss to withholding his vote from the Morrison government during the pandemic in protest against mandatory vaccinations.
“While I would have preferred to lobby for issues that are important to the Australian people inside the tent of the LNP that option is no longer available to me,” Senator Rennick told The Australian.
“I believe that government overreach is killing individual responsibility, aspiration and entrepreneurship in Australia.
“Governments need to get back to service delivery of essential services and standing up for Australians who try to stand up for themselves. As such I want to draw on my experience to promote a range of policies that will empower Australians and their families to live a prosperous life and provide abundant opportunities for their children.”
The new Gerard Rennick People First party logo.
Senator Rennick, who has almost 320,000 followers on Facebook and Twitter, was expected to alert Mr Dutton and LNP president Lawrence Springborg of his decision to resign from the party on Sunday. The Queenslander, who decided against joining other conservative minor parties, is considering running other candidates on his Senate ticket.
Minor parties including Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the Jacqui Lambie Network, Katter’s Australian Party and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party are all hopeful of picking-up a Senate spot amid Labor concerns of replicating its disastrous 2019 election results that saw only one ALP senator elected in Queensland. Senator Rennick was elected to the Senate in 2019 on the back of Labor’s capitulation.
Senator Rennick told The Australia there “needs to much greater accountability and transparency within our bureaucracy, judiciary and corporations … too many leaders today do not put the interests of the people they are meant to serve, first”.
“There is also a lack of vision from the same leaders who in the main seem to promote ideologies that seek to divide and shame us, rather than inspire us. As such the Australian people have become cynical and divided rather than optimistic and united,” he said.
“This needs to change. Australia is a great country with tremendous opportunity that has a proud history of tolerance, resilience and egalitarianism. We owe it to our forefathers whose legacy gave us so many opportunities, to do the same for our children.”
In a speech delivered in the Senate last week, Senator Rennick said “I did lose my Senate preselection because I withheld my vote from a party because Greg Hunt didn’t take my concerns about those vaccine injuries seriously”.
“I’m happy to lose my position in this party over that because that’s what representing the Australian people is all about: putting the people first. Listen out for that phrase in the future: putting the people first. I make no apologies for doing that. I come in here as a genuine, impartial person who cares deeply about the Australian people.”
Charles – Excellent, Senator Rennick is a valuable Conservative voice that should be kept in parliament. I wish him every success. Likethumb_up 60
Chris – That is a great loss as he is someone with real integrity and intellect, sadly missing from most of todays politicians. There needs to be more of him and less Lambies, Thorpes and Bandts to help turn this country around. Likethumb_up 58
William – Senator Rennick ideas are very close to basic Liberal ideals, boils down to people know what they want, and it’s less government interference, we don’t need socialism. Likethumb_up 52
Andrew – Rennick is a quality politician. Hardworking. Intelligent. Articulate. The liberals were crazy to let him go. I wish him all the best. Likethumb_up 43
Banjo – A top man and top performer – he has my vote for sure. Likethumb_up 42
Gordon – Senator Rennick is one of the hardest working politicians in the country. Those who think he is in it for himself don’t know of him very well. What affected his selection was standing up against his own party in order to ensure the vaccination compensation scheme was implemented. He was maligned for things he said during Covid but the fact is he was very knowledgeable about the issues as he did considerable research and spoke to many experts. We need more politicians like him not less and LNP made a mistake in replacing him with somebody with no support from the conservative side of politics. I hope you gets reelected. Likethumb_up 39
ABC 24 NEWS ELECTION COVERAGE DARWIN: Eleni Roussos, ABC Journalist & Election Panel member commented on her ongoing pericarditis vaccine injury, and hammered Labor MP Natasha Fyles about why individuals continue to be denied employment by Labor’s unfair vaccine mandate exclusions that still exist in the Northern Territory. News Link here
Thanks for reading Steve’s Blizard’s Notable Observations! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Bill Whatcott gets his new “hate crime” trial date
Bill Whatcott gets his new “hate crime” trial date
I just got out of what appears to be my last hearing in Practice Court for this seemingly never ending “hate crime” trial. To give some history for those who may not know. In 2016 I applied to march in the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade as an openly Christian man and desired to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the participants.
This parade after all is funded by three levels of government (you and I pay for it) and it is supposed to be “inclusive.” In fact two of Pride Toronto’s “values” as stated on the front page of their website is “Diversity” and “Inclusion.” What could be more diverse than an open Christian sharing the Gospel with Toronto pride participants right in their parade?
And yes, Christians should go and share the Gospel at the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade and everywhere else where lost souls can be found.
“Go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation.” Mark 16:15
Sadly, notwithstanding the parade’s alleged commitment to “inclusion” and “diversity,” the parade was not accepting of Bible believing Christians like me, so I had to apply as a Gay Zombie Cannabis Consumer to get in.
“To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” 1 Corinthians 9:21-23
Bill Whatcott (rainbow tutu) and his crack Christian commandos were accepted by the Toronto Homosexual Pride parade in 2016, once they self identified as the Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association.
Anyways, once we got into the parade, we proceeded to deliver 3000 “Zombie Safe Sex” packages to the parade participants. I am no longer able to show you the Gospel flyer contained in the “Zombie Safe Sex” package, as the Ontario Attorney General is alleging the flyer is a “hate crime.” Mass Resistance decided to put the flyer up on their website in the United States where free speech enjoys greater protection. You can see my flyer there if you are so inclined and decide for yourself if it is criminal hate speech. The flyer contained the Gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, criticism of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party’s homosexual activism, a testimony of a former transvestite who regained his manhood, as well as warnings about the health risks related to homosexual behaviour.
Here is one example of what the Ontario Attorney General is alleging to be criminal activity. Not the two naked sodomites with their wangs hanging out. Rather the “zombie safe sex” package that my brave activist handed to one of the sodomites and that he is clearly fascinated with. My activist is not use to being in parades with naked dudes and she appears to be trying to look dignified as the sodomite fumbles with his “zombie safe sex” package and chatters away to her.
Anyways, by all accounts our crack Christian commando Gospel infiltration of the Toronto homosexual pride parade was a smashing success. We got out all 3,000 “Zombie Safe Sex” packages containing valuable Gospel and health information for lost homosexuals.
On the way out I also got a photo op with Mr. Leatherman TorontoThe 2016 Toronto homosexual pride parade was a somewhat spiritual event, but not very sensitive to the feelings of Christians. Note the sodomite on the left who decided to march with an image of our Lord on his crotch.Homosexual Activist Lawyer Doug Elliott (left) and Ontario Deputy Premier George Smitherman (right) announce a $104 million class action lawsuit against Bill Whatcott in the Parliament Hill press gallery.
Notwithstanding, disrespectful displays and signs mocking Christians being allowed at the Toronto Pride Parade year after year, and notwithstanding homosexual activists crashing and cancelling Christian events when it suits them; it seems the homosexual activists are a vindictive and humourless bunch, and not really inclined to embrace the concept of free speech when a Christian pulls one over on them.
Within days of Pride Toronto realizing I utilized their taxpayer funded parade to spread the Gospel and accurate health information on the risks of the homosexual lifestyle while disguised as a gay zombie, homosexual activist lawyer Doug Elliott, with the Deputy Premier of Ontario and a gaggle of homosexual activists decended on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to announce a $104 million class action lawsuit against me and anyone connected with me. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal Party, as well as all the parade participants, were named as “victims” in the class action lawsuit.
After threatening me with jail if I didn’t give up the names of my helpers and wasting a pile of time and money for two years trying to extract blood out of a stone, the homosexual activists decided to drop their lawsuit as I wasn’t speaking and I didn’t have any money to give them. The homosexual activists/Ontario government opted to go after me in 2018 by issuing a Canada Wide Arrest Warrant, charging me with “Wilful Promotion of Hatred.” At the time the Attorney General was seeking 18 months in prison upon conviction.
I turned myself in, spent a few days in jail, and was flown to Ontario, where I went on trial and was eventually found “Not Guilty.”
I thought that was the end of the matter, but the Ontario Attorney General actually appealed my acquittal and The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered me to go on trial again! My side appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse the Court of Appeal’s decision but they refused to hear my case.
I was put on bail again, and had to linger in Ontario for a few months unemployed, going to court, and applying for legal aid as my legal fees for this next trial will be as expensive as the last trial ($100,000 or so). Over the years I was able to raise tens of housands of dollars for my lawyers, but barring a miracle there is no way I could afford a lawyer for this trial.
The Attorney General argued and the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that a second trial is needed to consider my “historical discreditable conduct.”
Bill Whatcott (pink hair, short shorts, wearing a t-shirt that reads “The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Gay” gets a hug from the organizer of the Vancouver Pride parade in 2014, after delivering 2500 “Gospel Condoms” (no condom all Gospel) to Vancouver Pride participants.
The above is an example of what the Attorney General thinks is “discredible conduct” that I engaged in “historically.” Bringing up these past missionary endeavours and flyers that go back as far as 25 years and actually have nothing to do with the 2016 Toronto Pride parade flyer, is supposed to help make the case I am a hate criminal and my latest Gospel flyer is criminal hate speech.
The Ontario Court of Appeal also decided the first trial judge erred by declining to admit Nick Mule’ (the guy in the video video below) as an “expert.” Mr. Mule’ was paid a pile of taxpayer’s money to write an “expert” paper that was supposed to help the court understand that I committed “microagressions” against the parade participants and that my flyer was going to cause “minority stress” and lead to bad health outcomes, if I was not criminally convicted and stopped.
Full disclosure, I only listened for a few minutes and skipped to a few random parts of this guy’s lecture. If one does as I do, they will realize very quickly Mr. Mule’s “expertise” is on all things homosexual, and no doubt he would want me in jail for my flyer. But really, why is Nick Mule’s opinion more relevant than Joe the welder’s opinion on my flyer?
Anyways, on Monday, August 12, I learned my new trial dates and the dates I need to travel to Ontario and be in court again.
I will be in person in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto for the week of June 23-27, 2025. If any friends wish to join me in court this week, I would be grateful. My legal team will be arguing I should have a right to a jury trial, as the Prosecutor is still arguing for substantial jail time (6 months to one year) and I will have a criminal record showing an indictable offencce
if I am convicted.
I will be in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto for the week of October 27-31, 2025. My friends are welcome to attend this hearing also. My defence team will be arguing against the Attorney General’s attempt to introduce my past flyers and missionary work as evidence of “discreditable conduct” that is relevant to my new trial.
Finally, my trial will commence the week of March 2, 2026 and is expected to last two weeks. The trial will take place in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto and of course I am required to attend in person. The trial is open to the public and my friends are welcome to attend.
My legal defence is covered by legal aid and I am NOT raising money for legal fees, but obviously travelling to Toronto for all these court dates and trying to secure even a modest shelter, gas, food, parking, transit, etc…. for those months is going to be expensive.
I can live quite modestly and believe I can probably make the three trips for $7000 give or take a little and hopefully save some expenses by staying with friends or utilize travellers hostels to lower some of my costs. If you would like to help with this phase of my journey, I will be grateful.
About a week ago I received an e-mail from the Campaign Life Coalition, the organization that is probably best known for organizing the annual March for Life, informing me that the Canadian Anti-Hate Network had placed them on some list where they were labelled “Far Right.” They seemed rather upset about this fact and announced that they were considering legal action. While I certainly support their suing the pants off of the bozos at the CAHN, I do think that getting all worked up about this is the wrong frame of mind to have on the matter. A better approach would be to consider it a badge of honour and to advertise the fact. They could put up a notice on their website, for example, saying something to the effect of “honoured to be labelled ‘Far Right’ by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network since 2024.” If everyone similarly labelled and listed by the CAHN, its American parent organization the Southern Poverty Law Center (sic), the Anti-Defamation League, and other such self-righteous and self-appointed watchdogs of the hygiene of public opinion on all matters with even a light appearance of touching on the current progressive creed of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity were to respond in such a manner it would greatly diminish the power that such labelling and listing has to stifle thought and expression and to destroy people’s lives.
A couple of months ago David Warren said that the expression “Far Right” is “media-speak for what is to the right of the Far Left.” He was absolutely right about that, as he usually is about most matters. See his piece from last month entitled “Annals of far-righteousness” for more sage insight from the editor of the sadly long defunct Idler on this silly expression that the Left is currently throwing around as if it were the latest entry on a “build your vocabulary” list to which they are all subscribed and so are putting into every sentence whether it belongs there or not.
By labelling Campaign Life “Far Right”, the CAHN said a lot more about their organization and the people who do what passes for thinking in it than they said about the Campaign Life Coalition. The Campaign Life Coalition is a social conservative lobby. By social conservative, I mean approaching issues that pertain to morality and the family from a perspective that is traditional in the context of the tradition of the civilization formerly known as Christendom. While they address a range of such issues, one in particular is obviously the focus of their efforts, and that is abortion. They would call themselves a pro-life advocacy group. While I share their position I prefer the negative phrasing, anti-abortion, to the positive pro-life. Abortion is murder, as any person capable of sane reasoning must be aware if he thinks about the matter. It is therefore a bad thing and the right thing to do is to oppose it, to be “anti” it. The expression pro-life could be taken to imply support for the con side in the capital punishment debate. The right position with regards to this debate, however, when it comes to basic principles, is the pro position. This is because for some crimes, such as murder of which abortion is an example, justice requires the death penalty. Admittedly, there are good practical reasons for not taking the principled position at the present time. Basically, the sort of people who would have the power of life and death if the death penalty were reinstated – master deceivers of any and every party who have tricked the masses into voting them into public office, bureaucrats who think that degrees in such worthless and soul-destroying subjects as human resources, corporate management, and public administration have bestowed omniscience and omnicompetence upon them, and the sorry lot of fools, activists, and miscreants who currently occupy His Majesty’s bench throughout the Dominion – should never be trusted with that power. My point, however, is that for Campaign Life’s opposition to abortion to be considered “far” anything, the one doing the considering must be coming from a pretty extreme standpoint.
The CAHN, like most of the large legacy media companies in Canada, is very much a part of the culture of political thought shared by the Liberal party under its current leadership and the New Democrats. When it comes to abortion this culture is about as extreme as it gets. They have opposed the introduction of any restrictions on abortion. Three years ago, for example, they defeated a private member’s bill introduced by Cathay Wagantall, the MP for Yorkton-Melville, that would have banned sex-selective abortion, even though ideologically they might have been expected to support it on the grounds of their loudly trumpeted opposition to sexual discrimination of which sex-selective abortion is obviously an example. But no, the Left voted as a block to defeat the bill because their belief in the noxious concept of “reproductive rights” – that mothers have the right of life and death over their children prior to birth – was such that they would not allow that “right” to be limited even to prevent discrimination. Since the idea of reproductive rights is itself discriminatory in that it awards a right of power over others, and the ultimate power at that, to one sex, this was a case of opposing a measure against one type of sexual discrimination in order to support another type, on the part of people who claim to oppose all discrimination.
Let us return now to the distinction between the positive terminology of being pro-life and the negative terminology of being anti-abortion and consider the position of the Left in terms of life and death. Almost thirty years ago Pope John Paul II spoke of the culture war of the time in terms of a struggle between the “culture of life” and the “culture of death.” Since then, liberalism and the Left have embraced the culture of death with gusto and nowhere is this more openly on display than in the present government in Ottawa which shortly after it first came to power in 2015 introduced an aggressive euthanasia program which it has been expanding ever since. Euthanasia, like abortion, is a form of murder. The return of the Liberals to power in 2015 coincided in year with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) that the prohibition of physician assisted suicide violated Charter rights. The Liberals took this ruling as licence to run amok and make physician assisted suicide available in situations that no other society had previously regarded as appropriate for it. Even more controversially, they began pushing it on people, suggesting it to those who had not asked for it as an alternative to the medical treatment they were seeking. The program is called MAID, for Medical Assistance in Dying. If government programs had theme songs it would be appropriate for this one to share the theme song of a historical fiction franchise the name of which is also a four letter acronym beginning with M, M*A*S*H. The theme song, the lyrics of which were used only in the 1970 film version starring the late Donald Sutherland, is entitled “Suicide is Painless.” From the standpoint of those who support and are subsidized by the government that introduced this vile program, sane, rational, and moral opposition to murdering the innocent (abortion) and those whose need is for long term care, medical or otherwise (euthanasia) must indeed appear to be “extreme.”
Again, Campaign Life should consider it an honour to be considered “Far Right” by people like that.
The expression, “Far Right”, is, of course, nonsense. It is derived from the concept of political thought as a spectrum between a right and a left pole. The closer to the one pole you are, the further right you are, and the closer to the other pole, the further left you are. This is a concept that originated on this continent, in the United States where the right pole was identified classical liberalism (individualism, limited government, capitalism) and the left pole was identified with the opposite of this (collectivism, a larger state, socialism). By this standard, the more of a classical liberal one is, the further to the right one is. Indeed, in some presentations of this spectrum that I have seen, a form of anarcho-capitalism in which there is no state is the furthest position to the right. Yet those who throw the label “Far Right” around clearly wish to associate in their hearers’ minds those they so label with National Socialism (Nazism). National Socialism, however, was obviously not an extreme form of classical liberalism and on each of the points contrasted was aligned with the left pole. National Socialism was a European rather than a North American phenomenon, and in Europe the expressions “Right” and “Left” had taken on political meaning long before the idea of a political spectrum arose. This is because they were taken, not from a hypothetical spectrum, but the location of where certain people stood in the French Chamber of Deputies in the period of the French Revolution. Supporters of the Revolution were to the left of the speaker, its opponents were on the right. The “Right” therefore, in French political usage took on the meaning of the supporters of the ancient regime of the Bourbon monarchy, the Roman Catholic Church, and the feudal aristocracy and of counterrevolutionary efforts such as the Thermidorian Reaction and this meaning became the European meaning, mutatis mutandis (the Hapsburgs in Austria rather than the Bourbons for example). It was basically the continental equivalent of the Toryism that picked up the mantle of the Cavaliers in England after the Restoration and fought for the rights of the Crown and the established and episcopal Church of England. National Socialism, which opposed the traditional order of Throne and Altar as much as Communism did, bore no more resemblance to the classical European Right than it did to the American “Right” of classical liberal republicanism. This is because it was clearly a species of the Left, the European and American meanings of which are much closer to each other than the European and American meanings of Right are to each other. The expression “Far Right”, therefore, should, in both classical European and American usage, indicate distance from National Socialism rather than proximity to it.
The Left’s determination to make “Far Right” mean, contrary to the inescapable conclusion of the reasoning of the previous paragraph, “National Socialist”, and to slap that label on anyone who with opinions similar or identical to those which conservatives and liberals held in common back when the actual National Socialists were around, to the extent that that it is not merely slinging mud is an attempt to cover up the failure, moral bankruptcy, and intellectual shallowness of the extreme position on race and racial matters in which they have gradually ensnared themselves in the post-World War II period to the point where they are incapable of extracting themselves today. It makes no difference to the Left if those they so slur are individuals or organizations like Campaign Life that advocate solely for positions on issues that are not fundamentally racial in nature. Once again the labelling says more about the labeler than the labeled and the CAHN is built on the foundation of that extreme position on race.
To understand the nature of the position the Left has sold itself to in the present day and which it amusingly calls “anti-racism” it is best to go back to how the neo-orthodox Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth summed up the evil of the racialism of the actual National Socialists. He called it the “idolatry of race and nation.” Idolatry is what happens when man turns away from the true and living God Who created all things including man and worships and serves instead false gods of his own construction. Through worshipping and serving these false gods he inevitably ends up worshipping and serving devils (1 Cor. 10:20) and darkening his intellect and corrupting his moral character (Rom. 1:20-32). Christianity called mankind out of the darkness of idolatry to turn “to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” (1 Thess.1:9) It is hardly a coincidence that National Socialism arose in a culture that had been moving away from the orthodox Christian faith for centuries both philosophically and theologically (theological liberalism or Modernism, which re-interprets Christian doctrine to accommodate the unbelief generated by the speculations of “Enlightenment” philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, was born in German universities and seminaries through the teachings of men like Friedrich Schleiermacher and Adolf von Harnack). When men retreat from the liberating faith in the true God and His Son they bind themselves in slavery to idols and the chosen idols of the National Socialists were the Aryan race and German nation. This does not mean that race and nation, which God created (Acts 17:30) are bad things, but rather that the National Socialists put them in the place of God where they do not belong, and in doing so bound themselves and their society to slavery to these idols and through them to devils.
The Left of today has hardly returned to the true and living God and is as much in bondage to idols as National Socialism was. What it wishes to conceal is that the idols it serves are one and the same as those National Socialism served. Like the National Socialists they worship at the altar of race and nation. There is a difference, of course, in that whereas the National Socialists made idols out of their own race and their own nation, the Left has made idols out of every race except one and every nation except the nations of that race, which is for the most part their own. Moreover, they are actively engaged in offering that one race and its nations up as human sacrifices to idols of (other) races and nations. This is the true nature of what the Left calls anti-racism. It is a worse form of this idolatry than that practiced by the National Socialists. Implicit within the Commandment to honour our fathers and our mothers is the duty to honour our ancestors. The Second Greatest Commandment, according to the Lord Jesus, is the Commandment to love our neighbours as ourselves. Neighbours means those in proximity to us, and placing the interests and the good of people far distant from us over that of people in proximity to us both in the literal special sense and in the sense of familial, cultural, religious and other such proximities, is the opposite of fulfilling this Commandment no matter how hard someone tries to twist the Parable of the Good Samaritan to teach otherwise. From this it follows that the idolatry of the race and nation of the other that requires the sacrifice of one’s own race and nation is a far worse idolatry of race and nation than making an idol of one’s own race and nation. It can be safely predicted, therefore, that unless the anti-racist Left is stopped and its power and influence broken history will one day look back on its crimes as dwarfing those of the Third Reich as true history already does look back on the crimes of Communism.
To avoid the anti-racist Left’s idolatry of other races and nations without falling into an idolatry of one’s own race and nation we must turn back “to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” The call to do so, although religious in nature rather than political, is a reactionary one, a call to turn back the clock. The irony, therefore, is that to avoid both forms of racial idolatry by taking this step is to move in the direction of the “Far Right” at least in the classical European sense of Right. The irony is due entirely to the Left’s misusage of language. In neither American nor European usage does it make sense to think of ideological racialism, as the terminus of rightward motion. The more one moves to the Right in the American sense – or at least the historical American sense – the greater importance one places on the individual and the less on the collective, including the collective of race. In the classical European sense of the Right, political loyalty is to the Sovereign rather than to the nation or race, whose office is that of the minister of God in temporal matters, and whose duties as the minister of God include being the protector of the Church, which is Catholic, which is to say universal, a body membership in which is open through baptism to every kindred and tribe and nation and to which all from every kindred and tribe and nation are invited and called to join. The further one moves to this Right, the less likely one is to make idols out of race and nation, or for that matter to make an idol out of the individual which is the temptation in the American classical liberal Right.
The classical European Right is, in my informed opinion, the only political position compatible with orthodox Christian faith and it is my own position, albeit in its traditional British Tory form that we inherited in Canada as our traditional Right, which has sadly been almost entirely subverted by neoconservatives who prefer the American Right and who themselves have been subverted by people for whom the principles of neither Right are sacred. The traditional British-Canadian form of the classical European Right shares with the classical liberalism of the American Right a higher regard for personal rights and freedoms than in its traditional continental form. If holding this position makes me “Far Right” in the eyes of those whose opinion I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for, such as the dingbats in the Prime Minister’s Office or the CAHN, then I gladly own the label. My advice to the Campaign Life Coalition is to do the same.
If invocation of the saints were my regular practice, I could think of no better way of closing this essay than with “Colonel Sibthorp, pray for us.” Posted by Gerry T. Neal
Kirralie Smith
