Hate Crime Verdict, Wednesday, September 16th, prayer request, and a lovely song made for me from a Missionary in Angola
Naked sodomites and a small child at the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade, July 3, 2016. Criticizing the homosexual shame parade in Toronto can lead to criminal prosecution and while truth is a defense in theory it may not prevail in reality as the Canadian and Ontario governments prefer pro-homosexual narratives over what is true.
Dear Friends,
I talked to my lawyer about trying to get access for those who are interested in attending my court by zoom.`I guess Justice Malloy wants to be the final arbiter of who is allowed to view the proceedings and who isn’t. During the trial she rejected 100% of my friend’s requests, rejected MassResistance even though they have been covering my case for years, and she allowed a couple media outlets and a couple lawyers who were out of province to view the proceedings. It seemed to me the Crown liked the restrictions on the observers, who were overwhelmingly sympathetic to my cause and who were for years were well behaved and did not disrupt the court in any way.
Anyways, if you want to try to convince the judge to allow you to view the verdict on zoom you can send an e-mail to:
CriminalTrialOffice-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca
Address the heading of your e-mail with: “Request to Attend a Virtual Proceeding” and ask for the link to “R v Whatcott” for Wednesday, September 16, 2026 and make your argument as to why you should be allowed to attend via zoom. Last time the judge said she needed a good reason to allow someone to attend via zoom and she wasn’t too differential in regards to my desire to have my supporters present. It seemed her own kind, lawyers and the media were allowed. People who donated thousands of dollars to my legal defense over the years and who had a clear interest in my case were not given any consideration.
The most guaranteed way to hear the verdict is to attend in person:
Ontario Superior Court, 361 University Ave, Toronto, ON
Please pray for Monday. Justice Malloy will be holding a case conference with my counsel and with the Crown Prosecutors Monday Morning, I think 9:00 am Eastern Standard Time. I am not sure why. A conference only two days before the verdict date is not something I have seen before. Please keep me in your prayers as the sentencing draws near.
A missionary friend from Angola made this song for me. I didn’t solicit the song, but when he sent it to me, it sure was nice…..
Some of the pictures in this video are genuine that he got from my updates or from the internet and some he created I think. My missionary friend is a blessing. Sometimes out of the blue God puts it on his heart to do something like this and that makes me feel blessed….
Land acknowledgments have become standard at academic and political events, including the opening of the Obama Presidential Library and a recent Michigan Democratic event. While supporters insist it merely shows respect for original inhabitants, critics argue it is the ultimate virtue signaling and is increasingly being forced on both speakers and audiences. One critic is Professor Stuart Reges, who teaches at the computer science and engineering school of the University of Washington. He has now received a settlement from the University of Washington, which spent a significant amount of time and resources in response to his mocking of the school’s land acknowledgment.
We previously discussed the case of Professor Reges, who was disciplined because he refused to post the school’s “land acknowledgment” and instead posted an alternative statement. Professor Reges sued the university and various officials in 2022. Professor Reges has declared “Land acknowledgments are performative acts of conformity that should be resisted, even if it lands you in court.”
The defendants included Nancy Allbritton, the Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington, Magdalena Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, UW President Ana Mari Cauce, and the Allen School’s Vice Director Dan Grossman.
After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgment” statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own statement. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people.
The school provided a recommended statement for all faculty to post and/or read to their students at the first of every course:
“The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”
Professor Reges disagreed with that statement and expressed his doubts to the faculty while also noting that “Magda” did not want the faculty to discuss such reservations on the email system. That may refer to the Director of the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Magdalena Balazinska.
Reges’ alternative statement read:
“I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”
The labor theory (which I teach) generally refers to John Locke’s theory. In his Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature, where all was created in common by God. Reges declared that these tribes, indigenous people, “can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land and that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people. That acknowledged group is a broad collection of different groups with ethnic or linguistic associations.”
In his lawsuit, Professor Reges says that, after he stated his own views, the university moved against him.
“On January 4, 2022, the day after Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class met for the first time, Defendant [Magdalena] Balazinska, Director of the Allen School, sent Professor Reges an email ordering him to remove the statement from his syllabus because it was ‘offensive’ and created a ‘toxic environment.’“
Reges noted that the university allowed other professors “to include modified statements in their syllabi that were more consistent with the University’s recommended statement.” The operative point is that “other faculty at the Allen School continue to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi that differ from the University’s own statement, so long as they express a viewpoint consistent with the University’s recommended version.”
According to the complaint, Balazinska then allegedly removed his dissenting statement, and the university emailed his students to apologize for their professor’s “offensive” land acknowledgment opinion and advised them on “three ways students could file complaints against” him. The students were later allegedly told by Balazinska that, according to the complaint, “all students in Professor Reges’s Computer Science and Engineering 143 class section [can] switch into a new ‘shadow’ class section, which would meet at the same time as Professor Reges’s class section.”
Reges notes that the alternative class was a series of recorded lectures, but viewed as a reasonable alternative to being in a class with a professor with a dissenting view on land acknowledgments. Some 170 out of his 500 students took the alternative course.
I previously wrote how universities can use course assignments and other collateral means to isolate dissenting professors in an effort to get them to resign. This is especially true of tenured faculty.
I wrote that:
The Reges case could prove a major challenge to that orthodoxy. All university faculty should have condemned the university’s actions as an attack on academic freedom and freedom of speech, regardless of how they feel about land acknowledgment. The silence, however, is a reflection of how much has changed in higher education.”
It has now resulted in a $600,000 settlement after the university spent massive amounts of public money over four years to fight this lawsuit over the abusive treatment of Professor Reges.
The university settled only after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in December that administrators were “liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.”
Unfortunately, there is no indication that the university officials who created this fiasco will be held accountable in any way. Millions were spent, and years of litigation were triggered by the orthodoxy of the university. However, these officials will likely be heralded by their colleagues, and nothing is likely to change in the University of Washington’s intellectual echo chamber.
However, according to FIRE, the settlement “stipulates that the university cannot take any further action against Reges.”
Congratulations to Professor Reges and FIRE for a well-fought case with potentially lasting implications in protecting free speech and academic freedom.
City crusading against anti-immigrant conference
JOHN CARPAY John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
8 Sep 2026Rewind 15 secondsListenForward 15 secondsSwitch to focused listening
The mayor and police in Hamilton have decided that some Canadians have the wrong kind of opinions and should not be allowed to rent public facilities.
Last week, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath declared the Dominion Society is not entitled to rent city-owned property to hold a conference. The predictable result was to force the group to seek a private venue in which to hold its meeting.
The Hamilton Police Service then diverted some of its stretched resources to impeding the efforts of the Dominion Society, issuing a political statement denouncing it as “divisive and exclusionary,” and as negatively impacting “the sense of safety and belonging within our community.” The police even asked the public to contact them with information about any efforts the group might make to secure a venue.
Hamilton’s police and mayor are behaving much like Quebec’s former tourism minister, Caroline Proulx. In 2023, she ordered the Centre des congrès de Québec, which is owned by a Crown corporation, to cancel its contract with Harvest Ministries to hold a Christian conference. The sole reason for cancelling the contract was that Proulx vehemently disagreed with the Christian group’s beliefs about abortion.
The Superior Court of Quebec recently ruled Proulx had abused her authority and violated the Charter-protected freedom of expression of Harvest Ministries. The court awarded general and punitive damages to Harvest Ministries.
The Dominion Society describes itself as “dedicated to promoting Canadian identity, heritage and nationalism.”
It advocates for remigration: sending immigrants back to their countries of origin. Neither Hamilton’s mayor nor its police force have accused it of being violent, criminal or terrorist. It therefore has the same right as every other non-profit in Canada to operate peacefully within the law, and to advocate for its beliefs.
Polls have shown roughly half of Canadians believe immigration levels are too high. Let’s say for argument’s sake only eight per cent of Canadians support remigration, and 92 per cent oppose it. Should having only eight per cent support for your opinion mean losing your right to rent government-owned facilities, and to use public spaces like parks and sidewalks?
If yes, then no government facilities should be available for rental by the NDP, which garnered only 6.3 per cent of the popular vote in Canada’s most recent federal election. Almost 94 per cent of Canadians rejected the NDP in 2025. Yet the NDP is not disqualified from being able to exercise its Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
Politicians and police officers have every right to express their political opinions for or against various groups and causes. At the same time, Canada’s mayors, cabinet ministers and police forces have no right to treat government property as though it were their own private property, available only to “good” people who have the “correct” political beliefs.
The Hamilton Police Service has a solemn duty to fight crime. Its decision to waste its scarce resources on politics is a betrayal of taxpayers and free citizens alike. Indeed, unlike other professions, police have a legal duty to enforce the Criminal Code, as well as numerous non-criminal laws (such as traffic safety).
The politicization of the British police should serve as a stark warning to Canadians. What began with the monitoring and recording of “non-crime hate incidents” quickly led to British citizens being criminally charged for what essentially amounted to thought crimes.
Their crimes included sharing opinions about topics like immigration and transgenderism. David Wootton was sentenced to two years in prison for an “offensive” Halloween costume. This is why police should be 100 per cent focused on fighting crime and zero per cent focused on politics.
If Canada is to remain a free society, the government should uphold the law equally for all Canadians, including those who hold unpopular beliefs. Otherwise, there will be little to separate us from Fascist, theocratic, Communist or national socialist regimes, under which the government decides which views are correct.
This is why taxpayer-funded facilities like convention centres, and public spaces like sidewalks and city parks, are — and must always be — available to all citizens, regardless of their political beliefs.
WESTLOCK, AB: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers funded by the Justice Centre will appear before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal beginning September 14, 2026, to defend Westlock resident Benita Pedersen against a human rights complaint arising from a political flyer she distributed opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk.
Witness testimony is scheduled for September 14–18, September 28–29, and October 2. The proceeding will involve as many as 15 witnesses, including expert evidence from both sides.
The complaint dates back more than three years and concerns a flyer Ms. Pedersen distributed in June 2023 after learning that the Town of Westlock planned to paint a rainbow crosswalk incorporating the colours of the transgender pride flag.
Ms. Pedersen is a Westlock resident who works as a DJ, children’s entertainer, event coordinator, and workshop facilitator. She opposed the proposed crosswalk because of her concerns about transgender ideology and children.
Her flyer discussed potential consequences of gender transition, including infertility, and encouraged residents who opposed the crosswalk to contact their elected representatives. It included the statement, “Cancel the rainbow crosswalk.”
On June 19, 2023, local resident Laurie Hodge filed a complaint against Ms. Pedersen under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging that distributing the flyer constituted discrimination based on gender, gender expression, and gender identity.
Ms. Hodge was not a member of Westlock Town Council when the flyer was distributed. Both women subsequently ran for council in a January 2024 by-election. Ms. Pedersen finished second and Ms. Hodge third. Ms. Hodge was later elected to council.
On October 7, 2025, the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal for a hearing under section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. The provision prohibits certain publications that indicate discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or that are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on protected characteristics. The Director has since taken carriage of the complaint on Ms. Hodge’s behalf.
The scope of the resulting proceeding is substantial. The Director of the Commission is expected to call an expert witness to testify about the physical and mental health of youth and marginalized populations. Ms. Pedersen will rely on expert evidence in response from an endocrinologist with experience treating transgender patients and a psychiatrist who specializes in gender dysphoria.
Back in May 2026, the Director brought a motion to prevent most of Ms. Pedersen’s proposed witnesses from testifying due to the Director’s position that her witnesses’ evidence was irrelevant. In July 2026, the Tribunal denied the Director’s motion to exclude those witnesses.
The case illustrates the broader concern with empowering administrative human rights bodies to investigate and punish expression. Political disagreements about controversial social issues should ordinarily be answered through debate and democratic participation, rather than through government proceedings seeking penalties against citizens for expressing their views.
“Albertans should be free to express their opinions on controversial topics without being accused of hatred and discrimination,” said constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic.
[Despite our elite’s detestation of lawabiding citizens owning guns, their courts are remarkably lenient on criminals who use guns. An Ontario judge released Zara Jabbi one of several gunmen hired by persons unknown to shoot up the U.S. Consulate on bail. Yet, political prisoner and dissident Les Bory spent 23 months in jail unable to get bail. All he did was shoot off his mouth on his Brantford News podcast and annoy privileged minorities.]
Jamie Sarkonak: Judge had no business granting bail to alleged U.S. Consulate shooter
He should have been held in jail on the grounds of maintaining confidence in the administration of justice
Toronto Police officers work around the scene of a shooting at the US Consulate in Toronto, Canada, on March 10, 2026. Photo by Cole BURSTON / AFP via Getty Images
We can’t know exactly why Ontario Superior Court Justice Heather McArthur decided on Thursday to uphold bail for a man accused of shooting up the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, but her reasons can’t make much sense. Perhaps she was compelled by some kind of sob story, or perhaps she convinced herself that whatever stern warning she gave against disobeying bail conditions would resonate with the alleged gun-for-hire. Who knows; that’s all covered by a publication ban.
What is public inspires a whole lot of doubt in the justice system. The crime unfolded one morning in March at around 5:29 a.m.: shots were fired upon the U.S. Consulate by mystery men in a stolen car who filmed themselves in the act. It wasn’t until months later that those believed responsible were arrested.
First to be caught was 18-year-old Sheldon Tracey-Stewart, who was nabbed in early June during a series of police raids targeting the crime ring connected with the consulate shooting. This triumph was overshadowed by tragedy, however: Toronto police Const. Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed by a subject of the raid, resulting in 19-year-old Nicholas Bennett being charged with murder.
It took another week to catch our man Zara Jabbi, who wasn’t home at the time of the raid. He was granted bail on July 7, just a few weeks later. (And thanks to Justice McArthur, he’ll continue to enjoy release.)
Despite the raids and arrests — and an increase in patrols — the U.S. Consulate was hit a second time. On July 27, at around 4:45 a.m., the occupants of another vehicle shot up the U.S. Consulate again. Police stationed nearby were able to respond right away, but the ensuing chase saw speeds above 140 km/h on the nearby expressway and police called the chase off. Toronto, in all its dysfunction, didn’t have a helicopter to deploy, so the offenders got away.
t
A week and a half later, the alleged shooters were brought in: 19-year-old Xen-Ul-Abdeen Syed and a nameless 15-year-old. These two were also suspected of pouring gas on a residential driveway in late July and lighting it on fire.
t
The U.S. has pointed to Iran being behind all this, and Canadian police have at very least connected this group to other crimes against synagogues and businesses. Both shootings at the U.S. Consulate involved payments being offered to the gunmen through encrypted messaging apps, according to police.
The upholding of Jabbi’s release would have been offensive if he was merely accused of being a lone-wolf shooter, but it is so much worse in its full context. The soup of allegations related to this group is unthinkable to regular Canadians. Stealing cars, shooting buildings, conducting hybrid warfare against allies, killing police, evading police, etc. It’s indicative of extremely dangerous men who will unleash violence and evade justice where they can.
Article content
As bail is a risk-management exercise, it shouldn’t have been hard to conclude that granting freedom to those accused of such crimes places unacceptable risk upon the public. But we are often cursed with judges, including possibly McArthur in this case, who believe too strongly in the obedience of those thought to be among the most dishonest and violent in the country. In court, they’ll give out a long list of bail conditions and deliver a very foreboding lecture to whatever family member or friend who has offered to ensure the compliance of the accused. And then they’ll be shocked when bail violations occur.
Indeed, it was just early August when a woman was sentenced to a year of jail for giving her brother scissors to cut off his ankle monitor while he was on bail, and helping him escape the police who were searching for him. She had been his surety at the time of the crime, meaning she made a promise in court to supervise her brother’s bail compliance and report any breaches. The brother, who was facing gun charges, had been released on “very strict” conditions because she had assured court she was a “strong woman” who would carry out her duty. Little good that did.
Alas, even if Jabbi’s defence lawyers came up with a supposedly iron-clad release plan, his judge had a final card that could have been played to keep him in custody. The Criminal Code says that bail can be denied “if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances.” And then it rattles off some of those circumstances: the strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offence, whether a gun was used, whether a long jail term is on the table.
Jabbi is accused by police of using a gun to shoot up a diplomatic site while being allegedly involved with a gang that killed a police officer. If a judge doesn’t consider the release of such a man to be an assault upon public confidence in the administration of justice, she is extremely out of touch. Canadian courts have a weak reputation for ensuring order as is; decisions like these only bring it lower.
A wild story: The EU sanctioned a Swiss colonel for his words. They didn’t judge Jacques Baud. They unplugged him.
On December 15, 2025, the European Union places a 70-year-old Swiss man on a sanctions list, Jacques Baud. Former staff colonel, intelligence, UN, NATO missions in Ukraine.
Why? Because he writes books and speaks on TV. Official reason: “spokesperson for pro-Russian propaganda.” The cited example: he would have accused Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion to join NATO.
Ten lines in the Official Journal, no judge, no lawyer, no hearing.
He lives in Brussels. The next day, everything dies, accounts, credit cards, transfers. A friend is no longer allowed to send him money. Ban on entering and leaving the EU. He’s already inside.
So open-air prison.
For seven weeks, strangers bring him bread. He can check his balance. He can’t pay for anything. Not rent. Not food. Not metro.
Switzerland refuses to take back the sanction. In February 2026, Belgium, “for humanitarian reasons,” restores his right to use HIS money to eat and pay rent.
Then UBS, Swiss bank, cuts everything off anyway.
There you have it. In Europe, in 2025, you can freeze a man for a sentence, turn bread into an exemption, and let a bank do what a State refused.
That’s the story. They didn’t prove a crime. They sanctioned an analysis.
A man was unplugged for words. Bread became an exemption and the bank account, a favor.
Dominion Society Speakers Harassed by Canada Border Services & Anti-Free Speech Agitators Funded by Taxpayers’ Money
The City of Hamilton through its failed Mayor Andrea Horwath announced it wouldn’t rent facilities to the Dominion Society to hold its DOMCON immigration conference, August 29. The Mayor wrote venues warning them against holding the conference. The Hamilton Police said the Dominion Society wasn’t welcome because their message was “divisive.”They even urged people to call a snitch line if they knew where the conference was being held, after two venues cancelled under pressure. So, Hamilton became Cuba North without the palm trees.
To add insult to injury much of the agitation against the conference originated with the Anti-Racism Resource Centre and the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion. The latter is closely tied to the former.
The Hamilton Anti-Racism Resource Centre has lucked into big dollops of taxpayers’ money to fund its advocacy. In 2023, it received $286,000; in 202, $75,000 and in 2025 and guaranteed until 2029, $190,000 a year. These were the people agitating to have the Dominion Society denied a venue. So, taxpayers were paying to have agitators work to deny them the right to hear a controversial immigration reform group.
The federal thought police also got into the act. Austrian activist Martin Sellner, founder of the Identitarian Movement in Austria and a leading proponent of remigration was denied a visa. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, ever eager to restrict what Canadians can say or hear, had agitated for Sellner’s exclusion. The Jerusalem Post (August 30, 2026) reported: ” Richard Robertson, B’nai Brith Canada’s Director of Research and Advocacy, said, ‘Extremists such as Sellner have no business coming to Canada to attack our multicultural society and incite hate and intolerance.’”
Meanwhile English firebrand Charlie Downes, spokeman for Restore Britain, was held up for three hours crossing into Canada from the United States. A drug sniffing dog was set loose on the car in which he was travelling. The Western Standard (August 30, 2026) reported: ” He said that Canadian border officers asked about his group’s funding, its deportation policy, and alleged “links to neo-Nazism.” Why should a British group’s funding be of any interest to Canadian border authorities.
