“It Ain’t Over”Freedom activists are critical thinkers!Our society is so dumbed down and indoctrinated that anyone who is a critical thinker is labeled as a Conspiracy TheoristDid you know: The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was first coined and used by the CIA to ridicule anyone who opposed the gov’t narrative?————————————–————————————–
————————————–
Courts
City of Kelowna v David Lindsay et al
Petition to Stop Rallies
Tuesday, Wed., Thursday Sept. 3-5(6)
10:00 a.m. Courtroom #5
1355 Water St.
Kelowna Courthouse
Support your freedom of public protest!
For hearing on my SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) application to strike the City’s Petition against us. (See the B.C. Protection of Public Participation Act)
Myself and Lloyd will be present all week to present our case.
We had one day before the Hon. Justice Hardwick. The remaining two days were canceled apparently due to the judge either being ill or otherwise not available to appear.
There has now been a further three days set aside this week for the continuation of this hearing.
Our documents in this case are located on our website at:
Thank you for all your support and belief for freedom!!
Remember the Freedom Principle:
An attack against one is an attack against all.
An attack against all, is an attack against one.
————————————–
————————————–
Next Supreme Court Appeal Hearing Date:
September 9, 2024 2:00 p.m.
Application for release from jail pending appeal
September 9, 2024 — 10:00 a.m.
Conviction Appeal Hearing
Crown Persecutor Grabavac will undoubtedly oppose this on every technicality he can find.
This hearing date was set on Monday, July 22. It was once again set over to Sept. 9 to set the agenda for the hearing of the appeal from the conviction and sentence of J. Heinrichs.
I am unsure why they have set two different times for each issue, but the Court did so. The 10:00 a.m. hearing will be set a date next week to hear my application for release pending appeal. The 2:00 p.m. hearing will be to set a date for the hearing of the actual appeal.
Freedom Rallies
“It ain’t over till it’s over”
David is still in jail – do not let them stop our public Freedom Rallies! Please show up
Next Kelowna Rally:
Saturday,
Sept. 7, 2024
Stuart Park!!
Join us for important announcements on the local, legal scene, and informative speakers!
September 7, 2024 12:00 noon
Vernon Freedom Rally
12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. @ Polson Park
Join Darren for the Largest rally in the North Okanagan, and growing weekly!
Integrity Commissioner recommends North Kent councillor receive three-month salary suspension
By Pam Wright Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
The Integrity Commissioner for Chatham-Kent is recommending that North-Kent Coun. Rhonda Jubenville’s pay be docked for 90 days.
According to a 47-page report prepared by Mary Ellen Bench, the sanction relates to social media posts made by Jubenville’s, plus her behaviour. The commissioner said both at times are in violation of two sections of C-K Council’s Code of Conduct.
The councillor does not agree with the commissioner’s findings.
“I absolutely disagree with the report. It infringes on my Charter Rights and is filled with half-truths, untruths and subjective opinions,” Jubenville, who has retained counsel, said in an e-mail.
In the report, Bench explained she had received “many complaints” about Jubenville’s actions in the period from April to June 2023.
The document indicates the chain of events leading to the inquiry began with C-K council denying Life in Motion – the educational arm of Right to Life Kent – the opportunity to fly its flag at the Chatham-Kent Civic Centre.
Subsequently, at the April 24 council meeting, Jubenville brought forward a motion that would allow only three government flags to be flown at municipal sites – the Canadian flag, the Ontario flag and the C-K’s municipal flag.
However, council, in a 12-to-5 vote, defeated the motion.
Bench goes on to say she received an additional complaint May 2 in conjunction with comments made by Jubenville on social media relating to flying the Pride flag and the Canadian flag at Blenheim District High School. On her Facebook page, Jubenville stated it wasn’t an “accepted practice,” and advised those who felt “impassioned about this to please, respectfully” let high school officials know.
Days later, a man was cautioned by Chatham-Kent police after threats were made against the school about taking down the Pride flag.
In the report’s conclusion, Bench states that Jubenville breached the code by “engaging in behaviour that unduly used her influence as a public official and did so to be intimidating and use bully tactics to silence her critics.”
Bench noted that while not all of Jubenville’s posts violated the conduct code, some were concerning.
“The nature of certain complaints and the response of the councillor however, require me to complete a formal investigation and report to council,” said Bench in the report.
The report says the complainants – the commissioner is keeping their identities anonymous – cover a number of objections to Jubenville’s words, ranging from singling out other councillors, to targeting the 2SLGTBQ community, to creating a toxic work environment within council.
Bench also points out that somewhere along the way, media reports made the flag issue synonymous with the Pride flag, indicating Jubenville is opposed to the 2SLGTBQ community.
However, Jubenville has stated publicly she’s is not against anyone in the gay community and “loves” people within it.
In the report, Bench said she believes Jubenville “was aware of the power she wields through her use of social media and the influence she has on her supporters,” citing comments she made to the media as examples that demonstrates this, especially when Coun. Jubenville “exercises her voice to call others to action.”
Bench further stated Jubenville “used the influence of her office to promote causes that were important to her and in doing so failed to uphold the high standard of ethical behaviour” council members are required to adhere to under the current rules.
The code states that no member of council shall use the influence of her or his office for any purpose other than for the exercise of her or his official duties.
Bench said that she had reached out to Jubenville in April following the Life in Motion flag flap in an attempt to resolve the matter. The commissioner said the councillor was open to discussion and removed some of the posts in question, but refused to remove others.
Jubenville also made posts decrying a workshop for Lambton Kent District School Board teachers to learn how to facilitate a Drag Queen story time, tying such events to the “normalization of pedophilia,” the report said.
To that end, Jubenville received a number of online messages that wished her dead but did not threaten specific acts of violence against her. She has also received a great deal of support from online followers.
Some of those supporters even sent messages to Bench, despite the fact the probe was not made public and only Jubenville knew. The commissioner also received six phone calls.
One of the messages sent to Bench said the commissioner’s “harassment of Coun. Jubenville” was “disgusting and contemptible.”
Another stated that the “real violence will be incited if this investigation results in her being disciplined or shut down by this finding.”
In her conclusion, Bench has not prohibited Jubenville from using social media in the future, but she said the first-term councillor should use her social media presence “responsibly” to uphold the values laid out in the code of conduct rules.
Jubenville has repeatedly told media outlets that flag flying is a matter of fairness and that municipal sites should raise all special interest flags or none at all.
A response from Toronto lawyer Michael Alexander, who is acting as counsel for Jubenville on the matter, was also included in the report.
Alexander’s letter states that Jubenville’s comments are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and censuring her is a “violation of the Charter and a betrayal of our democratic way of life, and it would enable the true enemies of freedom – the complainants and their supporters – to take control of public discourse.”
According to Alexander, the IC report’s recommendations will “violate Ms. Jubenville’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Currently, Chatham-Kent has no official flag flying policy and whatever flag flies is up to the discretion of the mayor’s office. However, a policy is in the works. A motion made by Chatham Coun. Marjorie Crew has asked administration to explore the issue and return a report to council this fall.
The matter of Jubenville’s pay suspension is expected to come before council at the Aug. 14 meeting as the first order of business. Council as a whole will vote on the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations.
Jubenville disagreed with the proposed disciplinary action.
“The three month suspension of pay is absolutely not fair, nor justified,” she said. “If I actually committed the breaches of conduct that I am accused of, I would humbly concede. That is not the case.”
The Commissioner states it is “council’s role to set the policy, direction and vision for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, and when a member of council does not agree with that direction, that member is expected to accept it.”
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
————————————– 
Kirralie Smith