UPDATES ON DAVE LINDSAY APPEAL; KELOWNA ATTEMPT TO BAN FREEDOM RALLIES; RALLIES IN THE OKANAGAN — September 14 Kelowna, OK Falls, Kamloops, Oliver

“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 Theorist

Did you know: The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was first coined and used by the CIA to ridicule anyone who opposed the gov’t narrative?

————————————–

————————————–

Courts

Falsified assault charge

Kelowna Courthouse

R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault

Next Provincial Court Hearing Date:

Completed

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.

⇒ Donations ⇐

Next Supreme Court Appeal Hearing Date:

September 9, 2024 2:00 p.m.

This hearing is brief and only to set a date for my appeal hearing, and to determine how it is to proceed.

I hope to proceed on the Jordan delay part of the appeal first. If I am successful the rest doesn’t matter and there is no use trying to raise funds for transcripts I may not yet need.

With thanks to everyone for all your previous help, I have all the transcripts required for the Jordan appeal. I have not ordered the actual trial transcripts, hoping I will not need them. Their cost is incredible and hopefully will not be required.

September 10, 2024 — 2:00 p.m.

Notice of Application to be released from jail until the appeal itself is fully heard

Crown Persecutor Grabavac will undoubtedly oppose this and the appeal on every technicality and falsified grounds he can find.

Sentencing Updates

I would like to just begin once again by thanking God and Jesus for their protection in court, so that I remain able to still write to you today!!! Everyone’s prayers once again, made a big difference against the evils we are up against.

Importantly, I also would like to once again thank all of you so very much for all your kind support, in and outside of the courthouse. Some of you came from far away and I know many are watching intensely across the country. Your ongoing moral support is what will keep me going to preserve our rights and freedoms as well. Surrender is not an option!

My appeal has now been filed to the Court of Appeal on the contempt conviction. My reading of the case law in this area at this Court, is supporting of my position, which is comforting.

This won’t be heard likely until early spring, but I will file my documents on our website as they are completed.

————————————–

City of Kelowna v David Lindsay et al

Petition to Stop Rallies

December 3, 4, 5, 2024 10:00 a.m.

1355 Water St.

Kelowna Courthouse

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)

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003

4(1)

In a proceeding, a person against whom the proceeding has been brought may apply for a dismissal order under subsection (2) on the basis that

  1. the proceeding arises from an expression made by the applicant, and
  2. the expression relates to a matter of public interest.

(2) If the applicant satisfies the court that the proceeding arises from an expression referred to in subsection (1), the court must make a dismissal order unless the respondent satisfies the court that

  1. there are grounds to believe that
  1. the proceeding has substantial merit, and
  2. the applicant has no valid defence in the proceeding, and
  3. the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

I must show we had expression at our rallies, which related to a matter of public interest. I have provided so much evidence, hundreds of pages, in addition to videos, that it is almost unfathomable to think the City will claim otherwise. The City is already admitted that our expressions were a matter of public interest but are claiming that the Petition did not arise from our expressions, but from our refusal to get a permit to have an event.

We had four days before the Hon. Justice Hardwick last week.

Justice Hardwick has shown herself to be at least, a diligent listener. She has read our materials and taken keen notice of various points being raised. She has been respectful at all times.

The City is claiming we are having an event at our protests/rallies, because we are using sound amplification equipment, our CLEAR Canopy (they call a tent), having signs, and selling merchandise. These factors were decided upon in a secret meeting with Bylaw Officer Short and his supervisor, Ken Hunter, and were never made public. Laws must be fixed and certain and this certainly fails to meet this test.

The first problem the City is facing, is that admittedly by the City in evidence, these factors also exist at all public protests. These are called hybrid facts as they can apply to either activity. So how is one to decide if an activity is an event regulated or prohibited under the Bylaws, or a Constitutionally protected freedom of assembly and protest upon just these hybrid factors?

Justice Hardwick did comment to the City that it was going to have a hard time convincing her that our CLEAR Canopy was a tent as alleged.

The problem the City also faces is that Kevin Mead for the City has admitted under oath that I / CLEAR are not selling anything. And I have not been deputized by the City to enforce its Bylaws on anyone who might be so doing.

As a result, already 2/4 factors the City was relying upon, do not exist. Having signs has been readily acknowledged by the SCC as being part of freedom of expression.

The issue really comes down to the use of sound equipment. The City wants to stop this because it is our most effective method of communication. Alternatively, in a worse case situation, this may be (which is strongly denied) a bylaw infraction, but this does not magically turn our protests into an event (which is undefined in the Bylaws.)

Further, the City is claiming that I have to obtain a permit under the Outdoor Events Bylaw for an event under the Parks Bylaw. This is absurd and there is no mention in either Bylaw that one applies to the other.

Both Bylaws require that the City must own or lease the land, ie: at Stuart Park. However, the BCSC ruled in 2008 that the Simpson Covenants imposed a trust upon the City over this land at Stuart Park. Consequently, the requirement to get permits for events/outdoor events does not apply because the City does not own or lease the property as required in the bylaws, it is a trustee in law. The Judge was aware of this, and so far, I have seen nothing from the City to counter this.

Moreover, the 2008 BCSC judgment, held that commercial activities cannot occur in Stuart Park. This immediately prohibits the City from issuing permits for events, because events by their nature, are generally if not exclusively, commercial in nature.

I had no choice but to express a concern to City counsel recently. They were upset that this was taking me a long time in court. There is a lot of evidence to go through, and it as if only lawyers can take days in court and if one is not a lawyer, their representations should not take long. That of course is legally incorrect, but lawyers do not like attention to detail – they thrive on generalities, because that is where fraud lurks.

I think I now know why. I filed my SLAPP application to strike the City’s Petition. I was very detailed with the cases, paragraphs and principles I was referencing. The City filed its Response, with only 11 cases, and no paragraphs being referenced, leaving me uncertain as to where to look in the cases.

On Friday afternoon, in addition to other definitions and evidence, I made reference to a BC statute that defines what a protest is, ie: a disapproval of something. Events of course do not have this essential requirement. Counsel advised that this was in their Book of Authorities, however this was never provided to myself or Lloyd and we knew nothing of it.

There were 34 cases in these Authorities, and only 11 in their Response, meaning that I would never have known of these remaining 23 cases if I hadn’t raised this statute in court. The City was planning on giving me a copy of their Authorities as soon as they started speaking. This means I would have had no way of knowing of these other 23 cases to permit me to research them and reply. In law, this is called, trial by ambush and it is contrary to natural justice and procedural fairness, which require that I am entitled to know their case prior to the hearing, not being surprised during the hearing itself.

Further, they included three cases about me personally from the long past. The problem is that these cases and what was decided in them were not pleaded by the City in its Response and cannot now be used at all. (and their findings were unsupported – but that is another issue.) They were inserted only to bias the Judge against me.

I have emailed counsel for the City and requested that they remove these three cases or I will apply on Dec. 3 to have them removed. Also, to provide me with the paragraphs and principles that they are relying upon in the other 23 cases.

I do not like being surprised like this. I have treated counsel with respect this entire proceeding and this type of action really makes me angry.

So, we’ll see what the City’s response is sometime this week. That is where we stand right now.

Our documents in this case are located on our website at:

All City of Kelowna documents and pleadings are now placed on our website for public viewing: https://clearbc.org/city-of-kelowna/

————————————–

————————————–

Is Telegram Safe? Yes

The conventional wisdom, often echoed by mainstream media that Telegram is inherently unsafe, is unfounded and oversimplified, and amounts to shadow by conjecture and conspiracy theories in my view.

Server-Side Encryption & End-To-End Encryption

In this short-simplified explanation on how Telegram works, more specifically its encryption and its privacy focus, we’ll start with the two main types of encryptions that Telegram uses which is:

  1. the server-side encryption (the default setting), and
  2. its end-to-end encryption (secret chats).

While it’s true that Telegram’s default server-client encryption does not offer end-to-end encryption (which is highly regarded as the best type of encryption) for all chats, this does not mean the platform is insecure. Telegram’s server-side encryption ensures that all messages, files and voice calls are encrypted as they travel between your device and Telegram’s servers, as well as when they are stored on those servers. This means that while the data is in transit and at rest, it is protected from unauthorized access.

Why Does Telegram Not Default to End-To-End Encryption?

The strength of Telegram’s server-side encryption model lies in its ability to balance security with functionality. This model enables Telegram to offer features like cloud storage, cross-device synchronization, and instant access to chat history, all without sacrificing security. The server-side encryption allows users to enjoy a seamless, multi-device experience while keeping their messages protected from external threats.

As an example, Signal, a leading messaging app focused on end-to-end encryption introduces some functional limitations compared to services that utilize server-side encryption. For instance, Signal’s multi-device support is limited—users can link a desktop client but cannot easily synchronize messages across multiple mobile devices. This means that if you switch devices, you won’t have access to your chat history unless you manually transfer data, which can be cumbersome. Additionally, Signal doesn’t offer cloud storage for messages, making it harder to backup and restore chat histories seamlessly. These limitations highlight the trade-offs between maintaining strict end-to-end encryption and offering the kind of convenient, feature-rich experience that server-side encryption models, like Telegram’s, can provide. Signal has further been possibly compromised, evidenced from the use of encryption that the CIA approves of. Meanwhile, every government in the world is still unsuccessfully trying to obtain Telegram’s codes to crack it and impose back door access. The recent arrest of Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov in France is directly because he would not release the codes to the French authorities, continuing to protect your privacy. The fact that these governments continue to attempt to obtain these codes and arrest the founder of Telegram, provide conclusive evidence that your privacy is secure. Other apps and services, have all capitulated and provided codes and backdoor access to the CIA and other national and international bodies. Telegram has not.

Telegram is dedicated to privacy but also emphasizes multifunctional use and versatility, which is why it employs both server-side and end-to-end encryption. This dual approach enables Telegram to offer rich features while still providing users with the option for enhanced privacy through Secret Chats when needed.

Who Holds the Private Keys on a Server-Side Encryption?

In a server-side encryption model like Telegram’s, the private keys required to decrypt data are distributed across multiple data centers in different jurisdictions. This means that if a government or other entity wanted access to the private keys, they would face significant legal and logistical hurdles. Specifically, they would need to pursue litigation in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously to obtain all the necessary keys, making unauthorized access through legal means extremely complex and time-consuming. This multi-jurisdictional distribution not only strengthens the security of the data but also provides a robust defense against potential government overreach, ensuring that user privacy is highly protected.

Could the Owner Just Give up the Private Keys If Put under Enough Pressure?

While theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely that Telegram’s owner, Pavel Durov, would surrender the private keys, even under significant pressure. Durov has a well-documented history of prioritizing user privacy and resisting government demands for data access. For example, he famously refused to hand over encryption keys to the Russian government, even when it led to a temporary ban on Telegram in Russia. This stance is rooted in Durov’s strong personal and professional commitment to privacy and free speech, values that are deeply embedded in Telegram’s philosophy.

The value of Telegram lies fundamentally in its commitment to privacy, security, and user trust. If Telegram were ever forced to release its encryption keys, compromising user data, the very foundation of the app’s value would be destroyed. Users flock to Telegram because they trust it to keep their communications secure from prying eyes, whether they be hackers, corporations, or governments. If this trust were broken, the app would lose its core appeal, leading to a massive erosion of its user base of nearly 1 billion users worldwide.

Secret Chats

For users who require stronger encryption beyond the default server-side protection, Telegram offers Secret Chats. These chats provide end-to-end encryption, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can access the messages.

Secret Chats are specifically designed for users seeking maximum privacy, utilizing end-to-end encryption to ensure that only the sender and recipient can read the messages. These chats use the MTProto 2.0 protocol, which leverages AES-256 encryption in IGE mode for strong security, and Diffie-Hellman key exchange for establishing secure session keys. Messages in Secret Chats are never stored on Telegram’s servers—they exist only on the devices of the participants. This local-only storage ensures that even Telegram cannot access the content of these chats, providing an additional layer of privacy.

In addition, Secret Chats enhance security by generating a new encryption key for each session, ensuring that even if one key is compromised, past and future communications remain secure. Also, users can set messages to self-destruct after a specified time, providing an extra layer of protection by automatically deleting sensitive information from both devices.

Open-Source Code

Telegram has made its client-side code software open-source, it’s a significant commitment to transparency and user trust. By allowing independent security experts and the broader community to audit the code, Telegram ensures that its software is continuously scrutinized for potential vulnerabilities, backdoors, or other security flaws. This peer review process is invaluable because it allows experts from around the world to identify and report issues, which can then be rapidly addressed by Telegram’s development team or contributors from the open-source community. This level of transparency is crucial in building confidence, as users can trust that the security claims made by Telegram are verifiable and not just taken at face value.

Conclusion

In conclusion it’s my belief that Telegram provides a versatile approach to privacy and security, catering to different user needs. The platform offers both server-side encryption for features like cloud storage and cross-device synchronization, as well as end-to-end encryption through Secret Chats for those who require additional privacy. It’s open-source client-side code allows for independent audits, enhancing transparency and trustworthiness. While no platform is without its trade-offs, Telegram’s combination of privacy features, encryption protocols, and commitment to user security makes it a strong option for those concerned about protecting their communications.

————————————–

————————————–

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Digital-ID-Surveillance-and-the-Value-of-Privacy_Justice-Centre-for-Constitutional-Freedoms.pdf

————————————–

Please remember other innocent people who have stood up for our rights and freedoms against our tyrannical governments during COVID-19 and to the present, who are now in the midst of their ongoing, oppressive trials:

Tamara Lich

Chris Barber

The Coutts prisoners: Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert

Pat King

Tommy Robinson

and many other real victims.

NOTE: Jury decision in the Coutts trial was rendered and the jury determined that they were innocent of the primary charge of conspiracy to commit murder against police officers.

Despite this, they remain in custody now for over 900 days.

Justice Labrenz unbelievably sentenced Carbert to 6 ½ years for possession of a restricted firearm and six months for mischief (to be served concurrently), and Olienick to six years possession of a restricted firearm and six months for mischief, as well as a six month sentence for possession of an explosive also served concurrently, for a similar total of 6 ½ years. Less 900 days (credited to equal about four years).

Make no mistake, no one goes to jail for this length of time on these types of criminal offences.

Counsel for these accused has admitted that an appeal will be filed on Tuesday of this week.

The Crown, Mr. Johnston, to no surprise has already appealed.

Counsel for the accused has submitted a sealed envelope that could implicate one of the prosecutors in criminality. No details have yet been provided, but it is said to be part of the appeals process.

An application will be made shortly to have the prisoners released pending the hearing of their appeal.

Defence counsel have already raised the issue of the jury being pressured into a rushed verdict so as to be released for the August long weekend. This would not be surprising. Other concerns about the jury have already been expressed by counsel that they were culturally biased in relation to a firearms possession charge.

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/gag-order-on-canadians-packed-gallery-disappointing-outcome-in-coutts-sentencing/57679

————————————–

Wins of the Week Ep35 with Ted Kuntz

And Dr. Trozzi

https://www.drtrozzi.news/p/wins-of-the-week-ep35-with-ted-kuntz#media-26298521-8103-4146-808d-a3f36ce3456a

————————————–

————————————–

————————————–

Empower Hour

Every Wednesday Action4Canada hosts the Empower Hour, an online zoom meeting open to everyone. We have a special guest each week, who will educate, inform and answer your burning questions. Also, watch the Weekly Updates HERE.

To be kept informed of these webinars sign up for our Email Updates so as to receive advance notification along with details on how to pre-register for each Empower Hour webinar

Next Empower Hour: Sept. 11, 2024
with Michelle Stirling- Carbon Tax Climate Costs: Tip of the Iceberg

Sign on starts at: 4.30pm PST/7.30pm EST

Pre-Register Now for this Webinar

Join us! Share this page and link with your friends and social media!

Know Your Rights: 

Guidelines for Peaceful Protesting/Gathering/Rallies and/or Attending Events (eg. Council Meetings, School Boards, Handing out Flyers)

Check out A4C for some of the most successful actions and strategies available to us!

And a big thank you to Tanya for all her hard work and dedication and support for the Christian principles that founded our nation!

————————————–

REMINDER

New Credit Card Fees & Lack of Privacy

It is starting – Use cash as much as possible – use credit cards or digital only if there is no other alternative.

The Bank of Canada is admittedly planning for digital currency. It claims that it will not replace cash – BUT – and here is the caveat, it will continue to use cash “notes for as long as Canadians want them.”

In other words, if you don’t use cash, you will lose it. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the Gov’t will simply issue press releases and polls showing most Canadians don’t use and/or don’t want cash, and then the Bank of Canada will claim it has to eliminate cash because few people are using it or want it, and it is, ironically, too costly to maintain printing the notes and coins.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/digitaldollar/#what-digital-canadian

Bill Still, the US Patriot and author of the incredible documentary, The Money Masters, outlines the results of recent polls showing that 86% of Canadians fear the digital dollar!!! Wow.

87% of Canadians have heard or are aware of the Bank of Canada’s CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), and 82% are strongly opposed to it!!

https://www.thestillreport.com/post/bank-of-canada-survey-86-fear-digital-dollar-the-still-report-episode-4280

More on this issue in the next newsletter!

Companies will not use digital currency if we are not using digital currency!

It will cost them too much in lost business.

Here is two awesome posters that you can distribute to all businesses to put on their entrance doors, advocating for the use of cash. Print on 8 1/2 x 11 glossy hard stock for best results.

For Business owners:

The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash as much as possible. As recognized by Freedom Rising, there are many inherent dangers of using digital currency. What do you do, not if, but when:

The internet is down

There is a power outage

The card reader malfunctions

Your phone battery dies or doesn’t work for other reasons

WE SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS WELL:

Your phone is stolen

Your passwords are co-opted

Your credit/debit card strip is damaged – needs replacing

There are errors in relation to the quantum of $$ on your card

Gov’t limits your purchases/CRA liens the balance on your card

AND MANY OTHER DANGERS

CLEAR has promoted the non-use of digital currencies and credit/debit cards as much as possible, for years.

Suggested Solution:

Withdraw money on Saturday/Sunday from the bank or bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.

NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!

USE CASH $$$$$$$$$

Do you want to be the next person to be “unbanked” because of your political beliefs????

Get these cards below at the CLEAR booth to give out everytime you use cash – or print your own to hand out!

Make Business sized cards to hand out at all your cash purchases!

————————————–

Kindness of the week

To all the kind people who have again, continued to support me in court for the past few weeks, both on the falsified criminal charges against me, as well as the City’s attempts to ban our lawful rallies.

And all those who continue to exercise their Constitutional freedom of expression at public protests against government corruption.

Thank you!!!

————————————–

Sunday Paper Deliveries

Next delivery day:

Summer Holidays

(Weather Permitting)

————————————–0

CLEARBITS:

Is plastic recycling effective? Likely not.

Freedom Rallies

It ain’t over till it’s over”

Next Kelowna Rallies:

Saturday,

September 14, 2024

Hwy 97 & Cooper

October 5, 2024

Stuart Park!!

Join us for important announcements on the local, legal scene, and informative speakers!

September 14, 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!

North Okanagan Shuswap Freedom Radio

http://s1.voscast.com:11464/stream

—————

September 14, 2024 12:00 noon

Kamloops Freedom Gathering

Valleyview Centennial Park

—————

September 14, 2024 12:00 noon

O.K. Falls Freedom Rally

11:30 a.m.

Across from Esso Station

—————

September 14, 2024 12:00 noon

Oliver Freedom Rally

12:00 p.m.

Town Hall

Canada’s Quasi-Monopoly Banks Pose A Major Threat to Free Speech: Paul Fromm Addresses A Packed Alternative Forum in Toronto, August 29, 2024

Canada’s Quasi-Monopoly Banks Pose A Major Threat to Free Speech

The Alternative Forum Proudly Presents

Paul Fromm

Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994

Debanking Dissidents

Canada’s quasi-monopoly banks are debanking dissidents

·         Some case studies

·         At the same time they promote the anti-White Globalist agenda

TORONTO.  Thursday, August  29, 2024

Freedom News in the Okanagan: City of Kelowna Petition to Stop Rallies Sept. 3-5; Application of Political Prisoner David Lindsay for Release from Prison, Sept. 9, Freedom Rallies, Sept. 7 — Kelowna, OK Falls, Vernon, Kamloops, Oliver!

  “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 Theorist Did 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.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003

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:

All City of Kelowna documents and pleadings are now placed on our website for public viewing: https://clearbc.org/city-of-kelowna/

————————————–

Falsified assault charge

Kelowna Courthouse

R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault

Next Provincial Court Hearing Date:

Completed

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!

North Okanagan Shuswap Freedom Radio

http://s1.voscast.com:11464/stream

—————

September 7, 2024 12:00 noon

Kamloops Freedom Gathering

Valleyview Centennial Park

—————

September 7, 2024 12:00 noon

O.K. Falls Freedom Rally

11:30 a.m.

Across from Esso Station

—————

September 7, 2024 12:00 noon

Oliver Freedom Rally

12:00 p.m.

Town Hall

Silencing Dissent: Chatham-Kent City Council Fines Councillor for Her opinions

C-K councillor faces 90-day pay ban

By

Pam Wright

July 28, 2023

4

2314

Rhonda Jubenville

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.”

Victoria Fireman Josh Montgomery Punished for Speaking Out On Homeless Problem

Josh Dehaas: Firefighter shouldn’t be punished for talking about homeless violence

A Victoria father asked his premier to keep a homeless hub from opening in his neighbourhood — only to be reprimanded at work

Josh Dehaas, Special to National Post

(National Post, Aug 26, 2024)  

175 Comments

Homeless people have set up tents in Harris Green neighbourhood in Victoria on Wednesday Oct. 11, 2023.
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.

Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Arrested in Paris for Not Imposing Censorship

i

 
READ IN APP
 

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.

Upgrade to paid

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

Mark Zukerberg Reveals He Was Part of U.S. Gov’t Black Op During COVID Tyranny to Censor Dissent on the Internet

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.



But let’s be clear—this is no minor regret. Facebook, a platform that touts itself as a modern-day digital town square, was complicit in silencing American citizens. This wasn’t just a passive response to government pressure. Facebook actively enforced policies that stifled discussion, flagged dissenting opinions as “misinformation,” and crippled debate during one of the most critical periods in recent history.Zuckerberg now claims, “with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make [those choices] today.” But where was that judgment when we needed it most? For months, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, pressured social media companies like Facebook to censor COVID content—content that ranged from humor and satire to serious debates about policy.This wasn’t about protecting public health. This was about controlling the narrative, ensuring that only one perspective—often one that aligned with flawed or incomplete data—was allowed to reach the public. The result? Millions of Americans were deprived of critical information and perspectives that could have shaped public understanding and policy.Everything Changed on July 15th, 2021On July 15th, 2021, the mask was ripped off. In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that senior White House staff were “in regular touch” with Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms regarding COVID posts. More egregiously, the Surgeon General’s office was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” that spread what the administration deemed “disinformation.”This wasn’t just coordination—it was collusion. The government wasn’t just advising these platforms; they were actively steering the censorship of Americans. They even released a blacklist of so-called “super-disseminators” of COVID “disinformation.” We’re talking about doctors, scientists, and everyday citizens whose only crime was questioning the dominant narrative.These actions represent a gross violation of the principles on which our country was founded. Freedom of speech isn’t just a footnote in American democracy—it’s a pillar. Yet, in the name of “public safety,” this administration weaponized social media platforms to suppress dissent and silence critics. Facebook and Twitter, companies that were built on the ideals of free expression, became tools of government censorship.The Damage Is Done, but the Proof Is HereZuckerberg’s letter is too little, too late. The damage has been done. Lives were impacted, businesses shuttered, and children were forced into isolation—all while reasonable discussions about COVID policies were being suppressed. But what’s more, this letter provides clear proof of what we fought against in our lawsuit: the unlawful collusion between the government and social media companies to suppress free speech.While we’re not currently pursuing our lawsuit, these revelations vindicate everything we’ve been fighting for. They demonstrate beyond a doubt that the censorship efforts during the pandemic were not just real—they were orchestrated at the highest levels of power. And though the lawsuit is paused, we may yet resurrect it in the future.That’s one of the reasons why we built the AI ChatGPT bought for Rational Ground. To be the collective mind and repository of everything we went through and everything we can use to fight in case they rear their ugly hat again.Subscribers have unlimited full access to the tool here.At Rational Ground, we’ve been documenting these issues for years. We’ve exposed the coordinated efforts between government agencies and Big Tech to stifle dissenting voices. In our article, [“Facebook Files: Rep. Jordan Revelations”], we highlighted just how deep this collaboration ran. And in our piece, [“Breaking: FOIA Emails Reveal CDC and Big Tech Collaboration“], we showcased the direct involvement of the CDC in shaping what information was allowed to be shared.These revelations affirm that our fight was justified. The principles of free speech and open debate must be upheld, even in times of crisis. As we move forward, we remain vigilant. And while the lawsuit may be on hold, we will continue to pursue every avenue to ensure that these wrongs are addressed.You’re currently a free subscriber to Rational Ground by Justin Hart. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.Upgrade to paid LIKE
COMMENT
RESTACK © 2024 COVID Reason
3953 Corte Mar de Hierba, San Diego, CA 92130 
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.



But let’s be clear—this is no minor regret. Facebook, a platform that touts itself as a modern-day digital town square, was complicit in silencing American citizens. This wasn’t just a passive response to government pressure. Facebook actively enforced policies that stifled discussion, flagged dissenting opinions as “misinformation,” and crippled debate during one of the most critical periods in recent history.Zuckerberg now claims, “with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make [those choices] today.” But where was that judgment when we needed it most? For months, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, pressured social media companies like Facebook to censor COVID content—content that ranged from humor and satire to serious debates about policy.This wasn’t about protecting public health. This was about controlling the narrative, ensuring that only one perspective—often one that aligned with flawed or incomplete data—was allowed to reach the public. The result? Millions of Americans were deprived of critical information and perspectives that could have shaped public understanding and policy.Everything Changed on July 15th, 2021On July 15th, 2021, the mask was ripped off. In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted that senior White House staff were “in regular touch” with Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms regarding COVID posts. More egregiously, the Surgeon General’s office was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook” that spread what the administration deemed “disinformation.”This wasn’t just coordination—it was collusion. The government wasn’t just advising these platforms; they were actively steering the censorship of Americans. They even released a blacklist of so-called “super-disseminators” of COVID “disinformation.” We’re talking about doctors, scientists, and everyday citizens whose only crime was questioning the dominant narrative.These actions represent a gross violation of the principles on which our country was founded. Freedom of speech isn’t just a footnote in American democracy—it’s a pillar. Yet, in the name of “public safety,” this administration weaponized social media platforms to suppress dissent and silence critics. Facebook and Twitter, companies that were built on the ideals of free expression, became tools of government censorship.The Damage Is Done, but the Proof Is HereZuckerberg’s letter is too little, too late. The damage has been done. Lives were impacted, businesses shuttered, and children were forced into isolation—all while reasonable discussions about COVID policies were being suppressed. But what’s more, this letter provides clear proof of what we fought against in our lawsuit: the unlawful collusion between the government and social media companies to suppress free speech.While we’re not currently pursuing our lawsuit, these revelations vindicate everything we’ve been fighting for. They demonstrate beyond a doubt that the censorship efforts during the pandemic were not just real—they were orchestrated at the highest levels of power. And though the lawsuit is paused, we may yet resurrect it in the future.That’s one of the reasons why we built the AI ChatGPT bought for Rational Ground. To be the collective mind and repository of everything we went through and everything we can use to fight in case they rear their ugly hat again.Subscribers have unlimited full access to the tool here.At Rational Ground, we’ve been documenting these issues for years. We’ve exposed the coordinated efforts between government agencies and Big Tech to stifle dissenting voices. In our article, [“Facebook Files: Rep. Jordan Revelations”], we highlighted just how deep this collaboration ran. And in our piece, [“Breaking: FOIA Emails Reveal CDC and Big Tech Collaboration“], we showcased the direct involvement of the CDC in shaping what information was allowed to be shared.These revelations affirm that our fight was justified. The principles of free speech and open debate must be upheld, even in times of crisis. As we move forward, we remain vigilant. And while the lawsuit may be on hold, we will continue to pursue every avenue to ensure that these wrongs are addressed.You’re currently a free subscriber to Rational Ground by Justin Hart. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.Upgrade to paid LIKE
COMMENT
RESTACK © 2024 COVID Reason
3953 Corte Mar de Hierba, San Diego, CA 92130