Mass Resistance Launches Letter Writing Campaign to Pressure the Ontario Government to Drop Hate Crime Charges
Dear Friends,
I do appreciate the efforts of these American pro-family activists who are generously giving of their time to help bring light and justice to this ridiculous criminal prosecution. If any of you would like to join their campaign and write a letter on my behalf I would be grateful.
In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott
In August 2017, the student filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, arguing she was a victim of discrimination based on her religious beliefs
Author of the article:
Published Jan 29, 2025 • Last updated 5 days ago • 5 minute read
124 Comments
A rape victim who was turned away from an event for sexual assault survivors at Toronto Metropolitan University due to her anti-abortion activism has reached settlements with the school and its student union.
“(I) want to thank all of the individuals who have supported me and my family throughout the years, through your encouragement, financial support, and your prayers,” the student, Talia Battista, said in a statement.
As part of the settlement, the Toronto Metropolitan Students’ Union will repeal a controversial guideline — Operational Policy #28 — that excluded anti-abortion students from accessing campus resources, according to a press release shared exclusively with National Post.
In February 2017, Talia Battista, a second year business student at then-Ryerson University, tried to attend a “Self-Healing Through Yoga” event on campus for sexual assault survivors. Before she moved to Toronto for university, while she was attending high school in Antigua, Battista says she was in an abusive relationship when her partner allegedly raped her.
When she approached the then-Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) to inquire about the program, she was barred from attending because of her work with Toronto Against Abortion (TAA), a pro-life group on campus. In August 2017, Battista filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, arguing she was a victim of discrimination based on her religious beliefs.
The policy says, “No TMSU resources, space, recognition or funding will be allocated to enhance groups/individuals whose primary/sole purpose is anti-choice activities.”
“Such activities are defined as any campaigns, actions, distribution, solicitation, or lobbying efforts that seek to limit an individual’s right to choose what they can or cannot do with their own body.”
The guideline will now be replaced with “a new ‘Issues Policy’ that reflects TMSU’s strong commitment to remaining a pro-choice students’ union,” according to the press release shared by Battista.
According to the agreements, the details of the settlements must remain confidential, the press release notes, but some information, such as the policy change, can be made public. The student union also pledged to conduct “human rights training for all TMSU employees, staff, and board members,” the press release says, including instruction on “discrimination on the basis of creed and the interface between creed and an individual’s pro-life beliefs.”
The student union did not respond to the Post’s requests for comment before publication. The university declined to comment.
Recommended from Editorial
The press release noted that the student union denied discriminating against Battista.
TMSU denies that it discriminated against Ms. Battista or otherwise violated her human rights. It admits no liability in relation to Ms. Battista’s allegations in the Application, and further specifically and expressly denies such liability,” the press release says.
Battista refrained from commenting to the Post, citing the confidentiality of the settlement, except to say that she had filed two separate complaints against the student union and university and that they were “resolved through separate independent settlement agreements,” in December and January, respectively.
“Both the student union and the university deny all liability in relation to any allegations against them,” Battista said in an email.
TAA demonstrated regularly on campus and often drew negative interactions with union leaders, leading to counterprotests, the alleged theft of graphic posters featuring aborted fetuses and even, on one occasion, the assault of Battista’s colleague. Battista says she was subject to harassment and exclusion from campus events because of her religious beliefs. A few days before the February incident, Battista sought to attend another union-run event and was asked to leave.
“Unfortunately, since RSU does have a pro-choice stance, and a lot of the people in this space kind of feel targeted, some people just aren’t comfortable expressing their thoughts and opinions in that kind of setting,” Battista recalled a union leader telling her in a closed-door meeting following her expulsion from that event. When asked to clarify which other equity service centres she would be prohibited from accessing, the union leader said the majority of them, apart from a food bank initiative, because her presence — as a pro-life student — amounted to “an act of continuing … violence and … trauma,” according to audio recordings obtained by National Review.
Adam Sinclair, the president of the university’s TAA chapter, viewed the policy change as a meaningful step towards defending free speech on campus. Sinclair sees the repeal of Operational Policy #28 and TMSU’s commitment to including anti-discrimination training focused on creed and religious belief paving the way towards official student group recognition on campus for TAA, a status previously withheld given its anti-abortion stance.
S
“Over these past few years, it has been disheartening to see the school’s student union and other agencies within talking about diversity and inclusion, but to then be hostile to people with different beliefs,” he told the Post in an email. “The student union agreeing to repeal their policy banning pro-life clubs, I believe, is a huge win and a step in the right direction and aligns with the schools’ tenets of inclusion and respect.”
Blaise Alleyne, the founder of TAA and a former colleague of Battista’s, was particularly thrilled to see the retraction of Operational Policy #28. The student union’s controversial stance on anti-abortion groups had earlier been unsuccessfully challenged in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, leading Alleyne to call Battista’s settlement “a big win.”
“By taking a stand and making herself vulnerable, Talia got a pro-choice student union to repeal their policy banning pro-life clubs, and established precedent at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that there is protection for pro-life beliefs.”
Prior to the settlement, in January 2023, the tribunal had ruled that Battista’s beliefs derived from “a tenet of her creed founded in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,” establishing a basis for her case to proceed. Battista’s attorney, Garifalia Milousis, called it “an unprecedented victory” at the time.
Battista received legal support from Freedoms Advocate, an Alberta-based charity supporting cases related to “issues of fundamental importance to the liberty and constitutional rights of Canadians.” The group was founded by Carol Crosson, who died unexpectedly before the January 2023 verdict.
“Ms. Battista … waited seven years for resolution of this case and it had a tremendous emotional impact on her life,” Randy Crosson, the current executive director of Freedoms Advocate, told the Post in a statement. “We are glad there has been a successful outcome that resolves this to her satisfaction. Universities have a moral obligation to uphold principles of fairness and justice within their communities. All students, regardless of creed and religious beliefs, should be treated equally and fairly and given the same access to supports.”
Political Prisoner Les Bory – In His Own Words (Jan. 26, 2025)
Recently convicted on five of eight “hate” and harassment charges, now free pending sentence, after 23 months in detention, denied bail. Political Prisoner Les Bory – In His Own Words (Jan. 26, 2025)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TvoL4GL2pzrF
0 people reacted
Show shared copies
Paul Fromm on “The Flipside With Monika Schaefer — Canadian Political Prisoners (Les Bory and the Coutts Four) & Emotional Memories of the Truckers’Freedom Convoy
Paul Fromm om “The Flipside With Monika Schaefer — Canadian Political Prisoners (Les Bory and the Coutts Four) & Emotional Memories of the Truckers’Freedom Convoy https://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/the-flipside-with-monika-january-25-2025/
Penticton 4 Freedom Important Announcements
In this email:
1. Okanagan Convoy January 25 – celebrating the historic 2022 Freedom Convoy to Ottawa.
2. Stop Trudeau’s plot to buy time. Check out the poster below to see how.
———————o0o————————-
It’s time again to celebrate the world-wide history making Freedom Convoy in Ottawa three years ago, with our own
OKANAGAN CONVOY – JANUARY 25, 2025
Convoy meet-up details for Keremeos, Cawston, Olalla & nearby communities:
– The convoy leaves Princeton at 5:30 a.m.
Meet at the corner of Hwy 3 and the Bypass at 6 a.m. and connect with the convoy there.
———————–o0o——————–
Stop Trudeau’s Plot to Buy Time
Every Call Makes a Big Difference!
———————–o0o——————–
More News Next Week – Watch For It in your Inbox!
Meanwhile, check out the Wins of the Week attachment.
One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
Is Facebook A New Convert to Free Speech?
Our dear Juergen Graf, a grand veteran historical revisionist, had alerted me in December that his time was ending very soon when he asked for photographs taken at the little tea-party I gave for him and his lovely Russian wife Olga along with the courageous Bishop Williamson in London. This meeting – after some years when we first met at the Tehran Conference 2006 – arose having found ourselves the evening before at the good Bishop Williamson’s 80th birthday party.
Andrew Anglin January 15, 2025
The head of the Israeli lobbying group the Anti-Defamation League was in Israel last week, where he appeared to call for using Israeli terrorist tactics to maim and murder “antisemites” who criticize Jews on the internet.
Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, Jonathan Greenblatt bemoaned the fact that people are complaining about Jewish behavior online, saying that Jews are “losing the battle” against “antisemitism.” He framed the fight to silence critics of Israel on the internet as the “eighth front” of Israel’s “seven-front war.” He then said that last year’s terrorist attack against Lebanon, which involved explosives being implanted into pagers which were detonated to mutilate and murder Lebanese people, should be the inspiration for silencing people on the internet.
It would have been bad enough if he had said this as a joke, but based on the context and the way he spoke, there is no indication he was joking.
“We need the kind of genius that manufactured Apollo Gold Pagers and infiltrated Hezbollah for over a decade to prepare for this battle,” Greenblatt said.
He went on to state that terrorism is a characteristic of Jewish people: “This is the kind of ingenuity and inventiveness that have always been a hallmark of the State of Israel, that have always been a characteristic of the Jewish people. I know we can do it.”
You can watch the video above to get the full context of the statement, and see if you think he is saying something different. The most generous interpretation would be that he is saying that it took a certain kind of cunning to do the terrorist attack against Hezbollah and that this type of cunning is needed to silence critics of the Jews. It is seemingly unfathomable that he would want to leave people with the impression he was calling for terrorism against internet critics, and furthermore, he calls on the Israeli Defense Force to form a group to shut down these online critics, which definitely implies he is talking about real violence being used.
However, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose he is calling for some kind of metaphorical terrorism, we must ask what exactly it is he is talking about doing to prevent people from holding opinions he opposes.
Believing that Jews should not slaughter children in Gaza, or that they shouldn’t push child transsexualism, mass immigration, pornography, abortion, and other socially deleterious schemes in the West is an opinion. How can you stop people from having an opinion, other than by killing them? What are the other options?
The ADL is primarily a censorship group, which lobbies governments to pass laws criminalizing the criticism of Jews, and lobbying Silicon Valley to silence critics of Jews online. This is obviously anti-American, fundamentally, but the ADL is one of many Jewish groups which engages in this activity. Internet censorship is ubiquitous, and even the supposed “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk has recently begun silencing his critics on Twitter.
Jewish groups successfully lobbied for TikTok to be banned in America due to the fact that the Chinese owners feel that Americans have a right to criticize Israel in a way that no American company allows them to.
However, none of this has to do with the government of Israel. If Greenblatt was suggesting that Israel should engage in more active lobbying for internet censorship and hate speech laws, he could have simply said that. Instead, he invoked terrorism and called for the IDF to fight people who criticize Jews online.
Being on the frontlines of criticism of Israel and the collective behavior of individual Jews, I have personally had an adversarial relationship with the ADL for more than a decade, regularly being a target of slander and hate from Jonathan Greenblatt and others in the organization, so this call for the Israeli military to use terrorism to silence people like me is particularly disturbing.
At this point, there is so much criticism directed at Israel, and to some extent also the behavior of diaspora Jews, that it would be virtually impossible to censor all of it. Twitter and Facebook would have to ban tens or hundreds of millions of people, and banning that many people would definitely result in those who weren’t banned criticizing Jews for getting all of those people banned.
However, if the Jews began assassinating critics, that may prove to be a significant deterrent.
Although I’ve said it many times, I want to put it on the record again that I am in very good health, I did not take the coronavirus vaccine so I am not at risk of dying suddenly, and I would never, under any circumstances, kill myself.
The video linked above is a week old and has fewer than 100 views. I have not seen this story reported anywhere else. I hope that others will clip the relevant portions and spread them on Twitter and elsewhere. I would like to see Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Judge Napolitano, and others with large platforms addressing these statements by Greenblatt and demanding that he explain what exactly it is he is calling for when he says that terrorism needs to be used to silence people whose opinions he does not like.
The Jewish [lobby’s] agenda to shut down freedom of speech was already extreme enough, but calling for violence to be used as a solution to internet posts takes this into a whole new realm. If America was a serious country, traveling to a foreign country and calling for state terrorism against American citizens would be grounds for serious criminal charges.
The campaign to place the internet under government control died when he prorogued Parliament
Author of the article:
(National Post View Published Jan 11, 2025)
653 Comments
By proroguing Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau snuffed the life out of one of his favourite darlings: Bill C-63, also known as the online harms act.
There’s no excuse for suspending democracy at a time like this, but we should at least celebrate the death of this atrocious bill. Had it (or the two bills the Liberals were to replace it with) passed, the Canadian Human Rights Commission would have been made sheriff of the Canadian internet, empowering it to drag anyone through a lengthy tribunal process making online comments perceived to be hateful. What’s worse, anyone reporting mean comments to this tribunal would be allowed to remain anonymous, which would have allowed the process to be weaponized with ease.
The bill would have also added “hate crime” to the Criminal Code, with a maximum penalty of life in prison — which is little consolation when the line between mean comments and criminal hatred was left dangerously vague. Further, it would have forced social media giants under the boot of a new digital safety bureaucracy, expanding government once more while creating more costs for outside firms operating in Canada.
Its death marks the end of an era in Canada. There will be no more internet-tampering legislation from the Liberals. This. Is. It. Stamp this in your calendar as the time when online freedom began its comeback.
Most of this story hasn’t been a positive one. During its mid-life crisis years, the government grasped what authority it could over online media. And — to the horror of Canadians — it gained a considerable amount of ground.
After a long campaign that started in 2020, a beachhead for online interference was established with the 2023 passing of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which placed digital streamers under the ambit of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
The act gave the CRTC the government’s blessing to impose Canadian content requirements on streaming giants, as well as some form of diversity requirements — similar to the ones imposed upon the CBC not too long ago. It also permitted the CRTC to take a cut of their Canadian revenues.
Despite the many objections they faced, the Liberals fast-tracked the bill through Parliament.
Now, not only is the government preparing to tell streaming companies what to produce and how to spend their budgets, it’s also making these services more expensive. (The fate of the CRTC’s house rake is currently in legal limbo as the streamers are currently challenging them in the courts, but some subscription prices have already been raised to account for these costs).
The Liberals wanted more control. They put millions of dollars into the dystopically named Changing Narratives Fund, to ensure that more media featuring favoured groups would be available to Canadian viewers. Even more millions were funnelled into a grab-bag of projects that claimed to combat disinformation and hate online.
To finally top it off, the government made its move to become censor-in-chief last February by tabling C-63 — and failed.
The culture is moving on, so it’s unlikely these efforts will be revived anytime soon. Just look at the private sector. The censorship-for-your-own-good schtick got old fast during the COVID pandemic, which saw the reach of social media accounts criticizing lockdowns mysteriously sink, and the banning of many users who had the gall to question a COVID vaccine’s ability to prevent infection. When it turned out lockdowns and vaccine efficacy weren’t as solid as once thought, outrage ensued.
That’s how it went with any contentious issue in those days: unflattering news about President Joe Biden’s son was suppressed; those who didn’t believe in transgender identity could have their accounts frozen or even banned.
By 2022, Elon Musk went as far as buying Twitter, promising an end to the ridiculous censorship — and now, in 2025, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is following in his steps. The consensus in Silicon Valley is shifting against telling people what to think, and it’s about time. The United States government isn’t likely to interfere, either — though the Biden administration eagerly had state agents commandeer the back end of social media giants, president-elect Trump is more interested in reducing the number of state agents.
Canada isn’t far behind.
The future of the internet is one of comments, both mean and nice. It will require adults to be the masters of their online experiences, without the bubble wrap of government and social media authorities, but that’s a burden we’re willing to shoulder. We don’t need more government messing around with our feeds, getting human rights tribunals to decide which comments go too far. We need them to buzz off entirely.
At last, the Liberal government is now in palliative care, closely following C-63 to the grave. With any hope, a new government will torch C-11 and the ant colony of online-harms grants geared at inventing problems where there are none.
The zeitgeist is long past Trudeau Liberal-style suppression. Silencing one’s opponents by crying hate just isn’t going to work anymore. It’s over, censorship advocates. The age of free expression is here.
National Post
Follow us