Red China-Born Lawyer Opposes Law Society Demands That Lawyers Be Social Justice Warriors

Red China-Born Lawyer Opposes Law Society Demands That Lawyers Be Social Justice Warriors

Beijing-Born Alberta Lawyer Says ‘Wokeism’ in Canada Increasingly Resembling Communist China’s Ideological Tyranny

November 14, 2025

Beijing-Born Alberta Lawyer Says ‘Wokeism’ in Canada Increasingly Resembling Communist China’s Ideological Tyranny

Alberta lawyer Roger Song filed a court action against the Law Society of Alberta in 2023 for mandating “cultural competence” training. Courtesy of Roger Song


Carolina Avendano

Alberta lawyer Roger Song moved to Canada 25 years ago from China to distance himself from a regime he says he could no longer live under.

Having witnessed the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre–when government forces opened fire on unarmed students demanding democratic reform–he says he saw Canada as a place of freedom where he and his family could start over. He was a law professor at Peking University at the time, and says he witnessed how the regime used its authority to suppress students’ “legitimate demands” for democracy. “I couldn’t allow my children, my next generation, to be still subject to this type of dictatorship,” he told The Epoch Times in an interview. “So that’s why I decided to leave China at that moment.”

But now, he is raising the alarm over what he says is a growing ideological push in Canada that increasingly mirrors the ideological tyranny of communist China. Song filed a lawsuit against the Law Society of Alberta in 2023, over concerns about mandatory cultural training for lawyers imposed by the society–a move he says is similar to what he saw growing up in China.

“Canada is now moving toward the place where I escaped from,” he said.

In 2019, Song was required to complete “cultural competence” training to maintain his legal credentials in Alberta. He says the society’s professional development program–which covers topics such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, and promotes the need to “dismantle systemic inequalities and barriers”–imposes “politicized” requirements and redefines legal competence as adherence to “woke” political beliefs.

He launched a legal challenge in 2023, asking the courts to remove these requirements for lawyers, but the challenge was dismissed this year, with the Court of King’s Bench ruling in a Sept. 12 decision that the training requirements fall under the law society’s scope.

“Having a basic understanding of the people and communities you serve as a lawyer does not work against the public interest. Nor does cultivating a safe work environment built on the principles of evolving human rights law,” reads the decision.

It adds that the law society sees its professional development requirements as “necessary to achieve a greater societal good, and it was within their authority to do so.”

Song argues that compelling lawyers to adopt specific viewpoints goes against the principle of independence of the bar, which the Supreme Court of Canada has described as “one of the hallmarks of a free society.” This principle refers to the ability of lawyers to act in their clients’ best interests, free from undue state or public influence.

“In the area of personal belief, ideology, political issues, it’s an alarming sign if you’re forced to take any type of mandatory training, because if you’re taking mandatory training, that means the content of the mandatory training is considered as the dominant notion, dominant view, dominant attitude, dominant culture of this society,” Song said.

He adds he felt pressured to complete the training because he did not want to lose his licence. “The thing is that if you fail to submit that certificate by deadline, your licence is automatically suspended,” he said.

Song says the law society’s training violates his Charter rights to freedom of conscience and expression, amounting to “compelled speech, forced ideological conformity, and suppression of conscience and expression,” according to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which represents Song in the case.

According to Rule 67.4 of the Law Society of Alberta, the society can “prescribe specific continuing professional development requirements to be completed by members, in a form and manner, as well as time frame.”

Lawyers who do not complete the mandatory training “shall stand automatically suspended” the day after the deadline to complete the course, the rules say.

Law Society’s Position

The law society told The Epoch Times it does not comment on matters before the court.

The society says that Song’s allegations are based on subjective views, and that there is no basis to find that the society has infringed on Song’s Charter rights, according to the Sept. 12 decision.

The society also maintains that its rules and codes of conduct “fall within a reasonable interpretation” of its mandate under the Legal Profession Act, which grants it the authority to regulate the legal profession. It also says that the words, scheme and object of the act support an “expansive construction” of the society’s rule-making authority.

“In [the society’s] view, the competency of the profession, which includes cultural competency and elimination of discrimination and harassment, are inherent to protecting the public’s confidence in the profession,” the document says.

Life Under Communism

Song says that when he first received the law society’s notice on the mandatory training, it “immediately” reminded him of the concept of “political competence” on which he was educated in China.

He recalls that in his home country, people are judged by their acceptance of communist ideology. Those who conform have opportunities to climb the corporate and social ladder, he says, while those who don’t face “social death”–the practice of excluding people who hold differing opinions–which he says is the equivalent of “cancel culture” in Canada.

“Under the communist regime, the trick to survive is to unconditionally support the dictator,” he said. “If you say you unconditionally support the leadership of the Communist Party of China, you may have a good life.”

Song says that after he began voicing his opposition to the Law Society of Alberta’s training, some people around him, including colleagues, began to distance themselves from him.

“People online label me as a racist,” he said. “I’m a Chinese, I was born and raised in China, Mandarin is my native language, and suddenly, just because I express some view that is different from those people, I was labelled racist.”

He added he has also been told to go back to China by people who say he doesn’t conform to Canadian values. “I think that is the culture of cancel culture,” he said.

In China’s case, however, Song says that not conforming to the Communist Party’s ideology can lead to more serious consequences than social exclusion.

He cites the case of his father, Ziling Xin, who, despite being a retired high-ranking army officer in China, was placed under house arrest for three years for promoting constitutional democracy and criticizing corruption among Party officials. Song said  his father did not receive any formal legal trial or document imposing the penalty.

“From my dad’s experience, you can see that people in China don’t really have the protection of the law,” he said.

Song says that when he came to Canada, he realized the importance of the rule of law and the supremacy of God, since unlike in China, where the law is tailored to serve the regime’s interests, these principles ensure that the law is applied independently of political influence.

But if lawyers are not allowed to think independently, as he says is the case when regulatory bodies impose mandatory cultural training, it directly undermines the foundation of the legal profession and ultimately affects citizens’ access to fair legal representation.

“If those judges and lawyers don’t have an independent mind to implement the laws, if those judges and lawyers are subject to all kinds of political influence of authorities, then all the rights granted to the citizens under the laws will come to nothing,” he said.

“Canada is moving away from the foundation.”

‘Social Struggle’

Song says that a sign of communism taking root in Canada is the classification of people into various “identities” to distinguish those who are generally favoured from those who are “discriminated against” or, in communist terms, “oppressed.”

He says this is evident in Canada’s use of gender and racial identity as criteria in a wide range of contexts, from government programs to employment and research funding, under the DEI framework.

“This is not some new trick,” he said. “It’s just another version of communism–playing class identities.”

He recalls that in China, where communism has instilled the ideology of class struggle, a person’s worth is often measured based on their political profile as well as their allegiance and ties to the Chinese Communist Party. He notes that a similar dynamic played out during China’s Cultural Revolution, when supporters of the leftist ideology were favoured, while landlords and wealthy farmers were targeted as class enemies.

“The strategy of wokeness to grab power and control is to engage the struggle of leading the ‘oppressed groups of people’ by identities like gender, sexual orientation, or black or First Nations’ race, to fight against the ‘oppressing group of people’ by identities, like Christians, white, straight, male,” he said.

“Such strategy of social struggle is very effective to create social unrest, division and chaos, and destroy the existing legal regime and social order as Canada already experienced.”

The law society’s professional development documents state that lawyers can demonstrate their cultural and inclusive“competency” by recognizing “how systemic inequalities and barriers affect individuals and groups” as well as “take action to dismantle systemic inequalities and barriers.”

They also encourage attorneys to “develop and promote a deeper understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity” and practice “anti-discrimination and anti-racism.”

Song says that by promoting these views of identity among lawyers, the law society is straying from the principles that everyone is equal under the law and before God.

“The law society is trying to educate lawyers to convert them into a bunch of social justice agents,” he said. “That is very harmful to our legal system and to the protection of the citizens under the law.”

Powerful New Documentary “The Hate Network” Exposes the Canadian Anti-Hate Network https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=10932

Powerful New Documentary “The Hate Network” Exposes the Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Oakville. January 11, 2026 A large audience of free speech supporters got a sneak preview of the rough cut of The Hate Network a powerful documentary about the desperate plight of freedom of speech in Canada. It traced the hysterical anti-free speech measures imposed by all levels of government during the COVID scare, culminating in the imposition of The Emergencies Act, the modern War Measures Act to deal with a parking problem in Ottawa, the three-week protest in January 2022 by the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy.

At the centre of this documentary by Greg Wycliffe is an expose of one of most dangerous opponents of free speech in Canada CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. This private group, with ties to the masked and violent Antifa, puts out highly slanted smear pieces on all those on the right whom they call “haters”. They have received over $1,000,000 from the federal government, plus $500,000 in 2020 from the super woke Bank of Montreal. At times, they seem to be the bully boys for the Liberal Party’s far left DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) agenda, the film argues. An impressive cast of experts is interviewed including Canadian Army veteran Jeremy MacKenzie, videographer and lawyer Caryma Sa’d, lawyer John Carpay, Professor Frances Widdowosn, Professor Bruce Pardy, Pastor Artur Pawlowski,  Pastor Henry Hildebrandt and many others. For most of human history, there has been little freedom of speech Queen’s University law Professor Bruce Pardy noted. For the last few hundred years in some European countries “freedom has been a brief blip in human history” and we may be about to lose it. 

The documentary warned of the imminent threats to freedom of two pending pieces of police state legislation, Bills C-8 and C-9.  We must get active to fight these vile pieces of speech control. We must stop being “nice” Canadians the audience was told. “Nice people don’t (speak up); good people do.” Pastor Henry Hildebrandt who was fined over $500,000 for keeping his Aylmer church opened for worship during COVID and threatened with years in prison, stated his resolve to speak up “with Holy Ghost boldness” to oppose this tyranny, Quoting Martin Luther, he concluded: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” [Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders ]

Rebel News Reports Toronto Senior Debanked by Scotiabank for Criticizing the DEI Agenda — In Totalitarian Canada, Open Your Mouth & They’ll Shut You Down




Senior citizen has accounts terminated by Scotiabank apparently for criticizing DEI policy

Toronto resident ‘Jane’ tells David Menzies that Scotiabank terminated her 20-year relationship with the company because she criticized its diversity, equity and inclusion policy.

Do you remember the good old days when Canada’s big banks were all about… financial services? Savings and chequeing accounts, RRSPs, mortgages, and so on?

Increasingly, these days, thanks to the virus that is “wokeness”, Canada’s big banks are actually “de-banking” certain customers. These are not deadbeat clients nor con artists. Rather, thanks to the unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion, if a bank deems a client guilty of “wrong-thought”, that customer might very well be “fired.”

This disturbing Orwellian approach to financial services surely hit a crescendo in 2022 when thousands of Canadians had their bank accounts frozen simply for making an online donation to the Freedom Convoy. It was equal parts shocking and disgraceful.

And consider our story last year, in which we drew attention to the case of Gary Duke of Grand Prairie, Alta. He was fired as a customer by his local Scotiabank branch when Gary politely asked if it was possible to remove the rainbow icon from his Scotiabank phone app given “Pride Month” had come to an end.

Those comments were not appreciated nor tolerated, and in the name of “inclusivity”, Gary had his bank accounts terminated.

Our latest example of wokeness driving bank policy is the inexplicable case regarding Toronto senior citizen “Jane” (she doesn’t want her real name used as she doesn’t want to incur further penalization from any other banks).

Earlier this year, a Scotiabank branch in west end Toronto terminated her accounts. But why? Was Jane running a financial scam? Does she have links to a terrorist organization? Hardly.

Jane suspects she was given the axe because she dared make a suggestion regarding the bank’s diversity, equity and inclusion policy. Which is to say, she suggested that the bank should include seniors in its inclusion policy, not just members of the LGBT-etc.-etc. community.

Alas, for having the temerity to make such a suggestion, Jane was sent a letter from bank manager Guy Morin telling her that the bank was terminating its relationship with her.

And get this: we can only speculate what the real reason is for this termination, given that the bank manager would not state anything tangible for Jane getting the axe.

Indeed, this is what Guy Morin stated to Jane in an email:

After careful consideration, The Bank of Nova Scotia… has decided to end our relationship with you. We understand it will take time for you to make arrangements with another financial institution, therefore we are providing you this advance notice of the date on which each of your accounts and other products/services will be closed. Our decision complies with the conditions in the agreements you have with us.

But again, the question arises: what “conditions in the agreement” did Jane breach? We reached out to the manager and Scotiabank’s media relations department and even paid a visit to the branch, but no comment was offered. Of note, even though we are firmly entrenched in the month of August, this branch still had its Pride propaganda on full display.

The censorious behaviour of Canada’s big banks is shocking albeit hardly surprising. After all, back in December 2021, the Toronto head office for the Royal Bank of Canada cancelled a mortgage for a Calgary property that Rebel News was hoping to acquire.

Please note that our company had been pre-approved for the mortgage by a Royal Bank branch in Calgary. But when it came to rubber-stamping the approval at Royal Bank HQ in Toronto, the mortgage application was denied.

The reasons for the refusal had absolutely nothing to do with the financial wellbeing of Rebel News. Rather, the woke Royal Bank head honchos apparently didn’t care for our editorial viewpoint. Unbelievable…

Lesson learned: Canada’s big banks no longer solely judge clients on their financial merits. These days, the banks want to make certain their clients are not guilty of “wrong thought.” And if you are deemed guilty of harbouring a non-woke opinion, then these big banks will think nothing of declaring you persona non grata.

 

Are We Coming to the End of the Age of Woke?

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Present

Paul Fromm

·         Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

·         Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994

Are We Coming to the End of the Age of Woke?

·         Jews now find their events cancelled  – the deflatformers are now being deplatformed

https://ugetube.com/watch/IUUPv8lrQhJaidj

.

·         Jews now find their events cancelled  – the deflatformers are now being deplatformed

·         Finally, a leftist charged under the “hate law”

https://ugetube.com/watch/IUUPv8lrQhJaidj

A Grim Warning from Jordan Peterson About the Death of Free Speech in Canada

Woke minions will rue the day

  • National Post
  • 18 Jan 2024
  • JORDAN PETERSON
“I believe that time has been kind to my decisions: the reality of the idiocy that I pointed to then, whose reality was then denied by most, has become something increasingly apparent to an increasing majority of people in the interim,” Jordan Peterson writes.

In November 2022, the administrative board that regulates the conduct of psychologists (and much more than that, it turns out) decided that my political views were a disgrace to my profession, that of clinical psychologist. I was therefore sentenced by that board, the Ontario College of Psychologists, to a bout of mandatory re-education, of indeterminate duration, at my expense, with my learning not evaluated by any standard method but subject to the opinion of those charged with, profiting by and exploiting my forced studentship. I took those decision-makers forthwith to court, and lost. The decision of the Ontario College of Psychologists was upheld. I then appealed, to a higher court. On January 16, 2024, that appeal was rejected. There were no reasons provided.

This means that my legal options have been exhausted. Thus, I face two choices. I can comply, when the College goes ahead with its determination to require my re-education, dutifully attend whatever bloody classes their Dei-enthusiast “social media experts” (whatever those are) determine to inflict upon, confess the sins of my classic liberal/conservative or even Judeo-christian political, philosophical and theological commitments, repent and silence myself — or even become a standard-bearer for the faux-compassionate woke cause, at least publicly.

I WOULD SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS AGAIN. — JORDAN PETERSON

Alternatively, I can tell my would-be masters to go directly to the hell they are so rapidly gathering around themselves and everyone else, lose my right to practise or even to describe myself as a psychologist, and suffer the consequences on the reputation front:

“Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson, disgrace to his profession, forfeits his formal licence, in consequence of his crimes.”

And what exactly were those crimes? — because there’s the rub or, at least, one of them. This is where the reader should pay careful attention, Canadian or otherwise, because this is what lies ahead in the West, given the course our leaders and their still-blind and deaf followers are charting. It should be hard for anyone considering this situation to believe that I am playing straight with the facts, if they have any of their own opinions or values whatsoever — because if what I have done and said constitutes the equivalent of a professional crime, you can be sure that your own head is full of like transgressions, regardless of your political stance, and your own tongue therefore likely to spill the beans.

I criticized three Canadian political leaders: a councilwoman in Canada’s capital, Ottawa, for what I regarded and still regard as her disgraceful behaviour during the Canadian Trucker Convoy; Justin Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, a man who resigned from one of the highest positions within the office of the former amidst a scandal that had enveloped the Teflon-coated Liberal administration; and the woke poster boy and shining narcissist himself, Canada’s Prime Minister, a man who has done more to destroy my country than anyone else, in reality and reputation, nationally and internationally (and that includes his father, who was no shirker in that regard).

I pointed out the shortcomings of the idiot costly self-aggrandizing virtue-signalling demoralizing lie of the power-mad climate apocalypse-mongers — that on Joe Rogan’s podcast, the entire three-plus-hour transcript of which (!) was submitted to my College as evidence of my disgraceful conduct.

I voiced my objections to the politically-correct insistence that morbid obesity be regarded as the equivalent to the highest standards of athletic beauty, and I took a certain Hollywood actress or actor to task because that same person (oh tortuous grammatical niceties) used its platform to parade the advantages of double mastectomies when performed on the bodies of perfectly healthy young women.

I regret none of these actions. I would say exactly the same things again. Furthermore, I believe that time has been kind to my decisions: the reality of the idiocy that I pointed to then, whose reality was then denied by most, has become something increasingly apparent to an increasing majority of people in the interim.

I should point out, too, that these crimes were reported on the publicly accessible Ontario College of Psychologists website informer page not by anyone who had ever been a beneficiary of my professional services, or any people that knew them, or any of the people directly criticized, or by anyone who knew them, or even (in the main) by citizens of Ontario, my home province, or Canada. They were instead brought to the attention of the “authorities” by activists in other countries, many of whom also lied in writing, claiming that they were in fact clients of mine. About a dozen of such people reported me — this in contrast, by the way, to the millions or now even tens of millions of people who have found the work I have done and the stances I have taken of clear psychological benefit, and who have said so, buying my books, watching my lectures and even directly informing the College of their favourable judgment.

What does this all mean for me? Frankly, very little, practically speaking. I have options, in my fortunate and privileged position. I am no longer financially dependent on my practice, which I had to fold up in 2017, in the wake of the first scandals that emerged around me. I am independently wealthy. I am also not dependent even on my formal status as a psychologist. This makes me very unlike my colleagues and fellow professionals, for whom a threat to their licence is an intolerable threat to livelihood, reputation and family stability, financial and otherwise. I could even move to the U.S., say — to one of the still-free states — and join my daughter, who has done so for equally political reasons, and as an increasing number of Canadians have determined to do.

By far the easiest thing for me to do personally, therefore, is to say to the College “do your worst, you petty tyrants,” and let the cards fall where they will. I could even report, in detail, publicly (very publicly) on the re-education process, as I most certainly will do, if I decide to go that route. I could take the inevitable reputational hit mentioned previously, and continue going about my happy and profitable business. I have positioned myself very carefully, knowing all this was coming, accepting its inevitability, so that I wasn’t even particularly upset when the news came down. My personal security and desires, however, are not the point, and they haven’t been, right from the beginning. Here’s the point:

Canadians, mark my words: Your much-vaunted Charter of Rights isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, as one of its last remaining signatories has been continually striving to indicate. Your right to free speech is essentially non-existent, as evidenced by the court decisions we are now considering. You have almost no real rights to property. Your rights to mobility can be taken away without consequence at any moment, as they were very recently. You can all-too-easily become the indentured servant of anyone you dare to hire. Your tax load is going to continue to increase, and rapidly. Your economy is predicted to be the worst performing of any developing country for the next three decades — and that failure will be trumpeted, positively, as the “degrowth” necessary to save the planet (thus so conveniently providing those who, like Trudeau, have no interest in monetary policy to parade their ignorance and Machiavellian idiocy as a positive virtue: “I’m saving the planet” is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all crimes and justification for a grab for power the likes of which we have never seen. The failure of my appeal means that your professionals — engineers, physicians, lawyers and teachers, among others — are now required by administrative fiat to conceal what they really think and believe (which is precisely the truth you most truly need from them) lest they run afoul of the administrative minions who have now been granted full sway over their tongues and pens.

The Supreme Court has already determined this: hence the failure of my appeal. Regulatory boards in Canada are not required to apply the law correctly, as law professor Dr. Bruce Pardy recently pointed out. Furthermore, they can infringe charter rights — and those are your most fundamental rights — if they do so “proportionately.” And what does “proportionately” mean, practically speaking? It means any way they choose, unless you have the courage, time and resources to object. Fighting these pathetic demons has already cost me weeks of work and close to a million dollars. Are you, fellow Canadian professionals, feeling up to that task? I thought not — and have seen very little evidence of courage or ability from you on that front. So we can just imagine where that will leave the typical Canadian, who dares to speak his or her mind. Finally, and furthermore: the infringement on your rights — all your rights — can and will be justified by the courts if the action that does so promotes “charter values” guaranteed and promoted nowhere in the fundamental legal structure that makes up Canada — and those have become precisely the diversity, equity, inclusivity, group-rights conceptualization of humanity and vengeful quasi-marxist but worse victim-victimizer narrative that all goes to make up the progressive ideals of the carnivorous sheep who now rule this sad and blind land.

Are you listening, Canadians? If you refuse to abide by rules so radically leftist that they would have been and were in fact eschewed until recently by the outright socialist Canadian New Democratic Party, your opinions have now become outright illegal. Present them, even think about them, at your peril. And if you think I’m exaggerating, or beating my own drum, for reasons of my own, ask yourself this: what in the world is in it for me, in so doing? I could at any moment and so easily end my association with my increasingly mad profession, as I have the universities who so recently showed their disgrace in Washington, D.C. (I’m talking about you, presidents of MIT, Harvard and Upenn), and go about my perfectly functional life, without the burden of scrapping with idiots — without even the necessity of facing the full reality of the political idiocy and wilful blindness that now makes up the Canadian scene.

But I think I’ll fight a little longer. Bring it on, you bloody pikers: take your next steps, bureaucrats: write me, and tell me how exactly we are to conduct my re-education. I’ll play along, find out exactly what you will do, now that you’ve been emboldened to do whatever it is that the darkest resentful demons lurking in your evil little low-level administrative hearts most truly desire, even to your own detriment. I’ll see how burdensome playing your pathetic game becomes, and I will publicize every single bit of it. And, if I get tired of it, which seems highly likely, I’ll hand over the bloody licence I am increasingly embarrassed in any case to possess and let you continue journeying oh-so-morally to the dismal, fearful, pessimistic, moralizing, petty, butter-won’t-melt in our mouths hellish straits that you envision as the paradise best fit for your fellow citizens, yourselves and your children.

You have won the battle, minions of the deep state, faceless-for-now but not for long bureaucrat-authoritarians, but you haven’t won the war. And here is a warning, too, as is only fair: So far I have been constrained in my response to your pushing and prodding and overlord-nagging by the requirement not to compromise my efforts on the legal side. But that’s all over with, now, isn’t it? So there are no holds barred, as far as I am concerned. And it may be that you have nothing better to do with your nasty narrowly-circumscribed micromanaging bodies and souls than to cause me trouble. But we’re going to perform that dance on the international stage, with all that light shining on your machinations, and you may well come to rue the day you attempted to take possession of my tongue.

Freedom News: Environment Minister & Carbon Tax Fanatic Guilbeault Admits He’s A Proud Socialist & ‘Conservative” Alberta Minister Betrays Party Base & Refuses to Dismantle Anti-White Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Bureaucracies in Universities

It’s been a week of startling admissions and deflections from the Liberal camp. Here’s what you need to know.

Guilbeault Embraces “Proud Socialist” Tag Amid Carbon Tax Defense:
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has declared himself a “proud socialist” while fervently upholding the Liberal carbon tax. This confession in Parliament has stirred the political pot, aligning him closely with climate change measures that continue to polarize the nation.
Guilbeault’s Socialist Reveal:Read the Full Article Here
Liberal Safe Supply Program Under Fire as Opioid Deaths Remain High:
In an unsettling turn, the Liberal “safe supply” initiative for curbing opioid fatalities is under fire. With deaths still on the rise, the Liberals, led by Minister Ya’ara Saks, now point to socio-economic woes and illegal drugs, shifting away from pandemic-related explanations.

Opioid Crisis Worsens: Liberals Shift Blame

UCP Minister Rebukes Party’s DEI Stance:
In a defiant departure from her party’s recent direction, Advanced Education Minister Rajan Sawhney has starkly dismissed the democratic will of UCP members. Sawhney has provocatively claimed that party members — who have voted to abolish DEI bureaucracies in universities — are out of step with Albertan values and in need of DEI indoctrination.

This bold assertion flies in the face of the UCP’s landmark AGM decision to rid post-secondary institutions of DEI offices, which many Conservatives see as bastions of divisive, ideological agendas.
Discover More on Sawhney’s Controversial CommentsKeep fighting for what is right,
Jorgen Soby
Operations Manager
TheCounterSignal.com