Trudeau's use of Emergencies Act against Freedom Convoy deemed ILLEGAL by Canada's Federal Court of Appeal

Cazart! It took nearly four years -- things never happen quickly in the Great No-longer-white North -- but the truth has come out! Canada's Liberal government has lost its appeal against a ruling by the Federal Court that found the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the despised Prime Minister Trudeau during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests was unreasonable. Honk honk honk!

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal -- second highest to the Supreme Court of Canada -- follows a ruling by the Federal Court in 2024 that the invocation of the act in response to the protests was unreasonable, unjustified, and violated Charter rights. 

In the 178-page decision, released on Friday, Chief Justice de Montigny said he was dismissing all the appeals against the lower court’s decision. "We are therefore of the view (like the Federal Court) that, on the basis of the record, Cabinet could not reasonably come to the conclusion that existing provincial capacity and authority could not effectively address the situation,” he wrote. 

"We are of the view that Cabinet did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a national emergency existed, taking into account the wording of the Act, its constitutional underpinning and the record that was before it at the time the decision was made,” he continued. 

Following the lower court's decision, then deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland (see WWW passim) vowed her government would appeal the ruling. Her boss, Blackie McBlackface, invoked the Act on St. Valentine's Day of 2022, to end the protests by freedom-loving truckers that had gridlocked Ottawa’s downtown streets for almost a month. The act gave the feds the power to compel tow truck companies to co-operate with local police to clear blockades, mark parts of the downtown core as no-go zones and freeze the bank accounts of some protestors. 

Canadian civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), argued the federal government went beyond its powers. Christine Van Geyn, litigation director at the CCF, said they were thrilled with Friday’s decision, which represents a "complete repudiation" of Shiny Pony's position on the invocation of the act. 

"This is an affirmation from the court that these are fundamental freedoms that Canadians have that were violated by the freezing of bank accounts, by the invocation of this act, by the by the banning of assemblies," said Ms Van Geyn. "We’re thrilled with the decision, and we think the court got this right."

The CCLA said they were pleased with the court’s decision and the reasons given by the Federal Court of Appeal. "You’ll recall that in order to invoke the the Emergencies Act, the Cabinet must be satisfied of two things; that there are threats to the security of Canada, and that the existing laws of Canada are insufficient to deal with those threats so that the emergency is a national emergency," said Ewa Krajewska. "Neither of these legal thresholds were met in this case."

Both organizations said they will be prepared to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, should the federal government decide to take the case to the highest court. A minion of the Public Safety Minister [sic] said the federal government now led by Marx Carnage (who was in China sucking up to the Commies when the decision was released) is reviewing the ruling and assessing next steps.

Walt has questions about those "next steps".

Will the people who supported the truckers financially and were "debanked" in consequence get their savings (confiscated by the Liberals) refunded?

Will the truckers whose vehicles -- the tools by which they earn a living -- get their were seized get them back? 

Will the alleged leaders of the protest, demonized as criminals by lickspittle Ontario criminal courts, have their convictions overturned or at least receive pardons?

And how about a sincere apology to all victims of the tyranny of "liberal democracy"? Walt reckons chances of that happening are slim and none. Lifetime pct .989.

"Permission to speak freely, sir?" - "NO!"

VIDEO: Sample Blazing Cat Fur's new video channel

Regular readers of WWW will know that we often refer to Blazing Cat Fur (aka BCF), a great news aggregator which we read every day, and from which we often get leads or memes or other good stuff. Some follks, though, prefer listening to reading. For them, the good folks at BCF have created a video channel on Rumble. Here's a sample.

 

Note that it's on Rumble. Walt used to post videos on YouTube (BCF calls it "CommieTube") but don't like to see good things "cancelled" (read: censored) because they conflict with YT's "community standards". So for original posts, we use Rumble too! Free speech forever!

Call it whatever you like...

The words "fascism" and "fascist" were coined when Benito Mussolini rose to power in Italy, almost a century ago. Some people think fascism died when Il Duce was overthrown just before the end of WWII. "Progressives", however, want you to believe that fascism lives on in today's America.

Google's totally unbiased (LMAO) AI overview tells us: Fascism is a far-right political ideology characterized by authoritarianism, ultranationalism, and often militarism. It emphasizes the importance of the nation above individual rights and prioritizes a strong, centralized state controlled by a dictatorial leader or a small group. Key features include the suppression of dissent, [my emphasis] a focus on national unity and renewal, and the use of propaganda and symbols to cultivate a sense of national identity and purpose.

Here's another view.

Try speaking out against the liberal, woke, orthodoxy pushed by the intellectual elites and their lickspittle media and you'll soon find out who the real fascists are.

You don't believe me? Click here.

Our mission: George Orwell said it best

Matt Taibbi stands up for free speech at "Rescue the Republic"

"...every American has a little bit of asshole in him. William Blake said, 'Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you.' Some struggle with this concept. Americans are born knowing it.... Propaganda is...always someone trying to make you feel bad for their weakness, their mistakes. Don’t be ground down by it. Stand up straight and give it back."

Matt Taibbi, speaking at Rescue the Republic, 29/9/24.

How I wish I'd been there! Rescue the Republic was a one-day celebration of freedom, organized by jointheresistance.org, yesterday in Washington DC. The event featured an all-star cast of musical artists, comedians, and thought leaders, including Dr Jordan Peterson, Tulsi Gabbard, Russell Brand, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Matt Taibbi.

Yes, it's the same Matt Taibbi who wrote Smells Like Dead Elephants and several other good books of social and political commentary. He used to be a raging liberal. In recent times, he has had his eyes opened and now subscribes to the Rescue the Republic credo, which you'll see below. Click here to read the complete transcript of Mr Taibbi's speech. 

In the promotional material for Rescue the Republic, the organizers say, "Let’s come together to celebrate the essence of what makes America and the West so special." Walt says AMEN. Wish I'd been there....

What America has come to...

Canadian court calls out Trudeau for Freedom Convoy suppression

Yesterday was a big news day, not just in the Excited States of America but to the north of the World's Longest Open Border (TM). Those who participated in or supported the Freedom Convoy were finally vindicated when Mr Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Prime Minister Just In (from Jamaica) Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act to shut down the trucker protests against vaccine mandates and other lockdown measures unconstitutional. 

The lawsuit was brought against Canuckistan's Liberal misgovernment by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and other individuals concerned about the loss of freedom of speech, not to mention fines imposed by liberal judges and the confiscation (without notice or appeal) of their bank accounts.

The plaintiffs did not seek damages or reparations -- although claims for such may follow yesterday's ruling -- but a declaratory judgment confirming that Blackie McBlackface and his minions were wrong, wrong, wrong!

They argued before you can invoke the Emergencies Act, you have to have an emergency. The truckers' protests, they said, did not meet the legal threshold for the government to use the powers granted under the Act, which had never been used since its enactment in 1988, as a replacement for the War Mesures Act, a means of combatting terrorism. 

The invocationt of the Act by "Little Potato" (as the Chinese call M Trudeau) -- reportedly at the urging of Senile Joe Biden hisself -- allowed the federal government to arrest the leaders of the Freedom Convoy, freeze bank accounts of protesters, and seize donations by supporters of the protest, including many American citizens and organizations.

The Act states that, for the government to declare a public emergency, there must be "threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency." Was there such an emergency? In February of 2023 the Whitewash Commission presided over by Mr Justice Paul Rouleau -- a Liberal appointee -- found "with reluctance" that the threshold had been met. After all, Blackie had gone into hiding at an undisclosed location -- not Jamaica but somewhere in the Gatineau hills -- so he must have thought it was a real threat.

On the contrary, Mr Justice Mosley said, "I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.

"The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern. But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act."

The judge went on to say that the actions from the government also "infringed" on the rights guaranteed to Canadian citizens under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "It is declared that the Regulations infringed section 2(b) of the Charter and declared that the Order infringed section 8 of the Charter and that neither infringement was justified under section 1."

Prime Minister McBlackface was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration reported that the lovely and fragrant Deputy Prime Minister said during a cabinet meeting in Montréal that the government intends to appeal the ruling.

The case will almost certainly go to the Federal Court of Appeal and likely beyond that to the Supreme Court of Canada. But the decision of Mr Justice Mosley -- like Mr Justic Rouleau, a Liberal appointee -- will be hard for Trudeau’s minions to dismantle. 

Further reading: 

"Turns out bouncy castles aren’t a national emergency after all", by Andrew Lawton, 24/1/24 

"Was the Freedom Convoy a threat to Canada's national security?", WWW 28/11/22

ANOTHER great day for America! SCOTUS rules freedom of speech trumps LGBTetc "rights"

Today is a great day for America! This morning, the Supreme Court released its judgment in the case of Lori Smith, an Evangelical Christian web designer in Colorado who refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings, contrary to her religious beliefs. The basis for the ruling is that to force her to affirm the queer lifestyle would violate her rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The case, 300 Creative LLC v. Elenis et al., was decided by 6-3 majority, with all of the Court's male, Republican appointees siding with the website designer. All three of the female Democratic appointees dissented.

Ms Smith wanted to expand her web design business, 303 Creative,  to create wedding websites to express "God's design for marriage as a union between one man and one woman." She also wanted to post a message on her website saying same-sex marriage is "a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage." 

For some reason (!) Ms Smith feared that message would run afoul of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, so she filed for a declaratory judgment. She lost in the lower and federal appeals courts, but then appealed to SCOTUS, which held that "The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."

The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who issued the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision as an appellate judge, and often writes for the court in religious liberty cases.

The dissent was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who, as Walt told you yesterday, admits to being an affirmative action appointee.

The case picks up the argument over the First Amendment and same-sex "marriage" where SCOTUS left off in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 2018 decision in which the Court sided with a Christian baker who did not want to prepare a cake for a same-sex "wedding". As that decision was largely on procedural grounds, the Court did not decide the question of whether the baker could be compelled to join in the celebration of "gay marriage".

The issue in 300 Creative is slightly different, because it involves the actual expression of words. Ms Smith said she would have been happy to work for same-sex couples, but not to create messages that conflicted with her own Christian faith.

Justice Gorsuch reviewed the history of the Court’s jurisprudence on freedom of expression and association. He then gave reasons for the Court's ruling, summarized here. [Citations of previous cases are omitted. Click here to read the full text of the ruling.]

[T]he First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply “misguided,” … and likely to cause “anguish” or “incalculable grief.” … Equally, the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association. …

Generally, too, the government may not compel a person to speak its own preferred messages. …Nor does it matter whether the government seeks to compel a person to speak its message when he would prefer to remain silent or to force an individual to include other ideas with his own speech that he would prefer not to include. … All that offends the First Amendment just the same. … 

Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under Colorado's logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the underlying message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait.

Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message," or "an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal," so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages. … Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage. … 

Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider "unattractive," … "misguided, or even hurtful." …. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. 

While laws against discrimination in places of public accommodation were important, Justice Gorsuch wrote, they did not violate fundamental civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. 

Hooray for the judge, and long live free speech! Try to make me write pro-queer propaganda for WWW! I dare ya. I double-dare ya!

VIDEO: What if there's no "hate" in "hate speech"?

From Sky News Australia comes a sensible comment about the growing trend to characterize any remark -- any remark at all -- about some "oppressed minority" as "hate speech"? Rowan Dean says the far left may have finally pushed their anti-free speech agenda too far!

Waiting for the 8th - YouTube bans Remnant Underground... again!

Our old friend Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant newspaper and host of Remnant Underground, has sent us an email which confirms that the establishment media, the Alphabet People [not the LGBTQ+++, the other ones. Ed.] are silencing those who dare to suggest that all is not well in Brandon's America. 

If you don't believe me, search Google Images for "Michael Matt" or "Remnant Underground" and see how far you have to scroll down before you get to the champion of Traditional Catholicism. Anyway, here's what Mr Matt has to say, including a link to tomorrow night's pre-election Remnant Underground special, available only at RemnantNewspaper.com.

I’m proud to report that the insufferable fascists over at YouTube have banned us from posting any new RTV video until after the midterm elections.

What are they so afraid of? Well, apparently, last November we dared to suggest there may have been some cheating going on in the last presidential election. Perish the thought! One year later, they removed that video and restricted our channel. 

Do you feel safer, knowing Big Brother is protecting you from Remnant TV? I hope so!

We’re used to this, of course. Back in 2020, when RTV started hitting a million-plus views, YouTube started kindly "adjusting our algorithm" for us. Since that time and thanks to you, we built RTV back up again, and now that our videos are topping 100,000 views once again, YouTube is trying to rescue you. 

Thankfully, we don’t need no stinkin' YouTube! But please do spread the word that this Sunday night, our pre-election Remnant Underground special will be available at RemnantNewspaper.com. 

Walt will be watching, for sure, and hopes that you, dear reader, will join us. Between now and then, I recommend that you read "COUNTERREVOLUTION: Pope Francis, Joe Biden Losing Control", published in The Remnant newspaper this past Sunday. I'll see you on the beach!

UPDATED: Of Muslims, Islam and free speech

Four events over the last two weeks seem to be linked. I'll recap them and you can see how long it takes you to figure out the connection. [Kind of gave it away in the headline, didn't you? Ed.]

Item: Police in Albuquerque NM had their hands full, trying to figure out who was stalking and killing Muslim men. The lamestream press were quick to speculate that the murders were the work of a white supremacist, probably a Trump supporter. Fear struck the hearts of the local Islamic community, and politicians everywhere trumpeted the need for tolerance, and freedom of religion. 

There were not a few red faces -- not from sunburn -- when the coppers arrested Muhammad Syed, 51, a fellow follower of the Prophet. UPDATE ADDED 16/8/22: According to Reuters, Police now believe Shaheen Syed, 21, the son of the prime suspect, may have played a role in the murders.

"We have a free country here – why did he do that?", asked another member of the supposedly tight-knit Muslim community. Turns out Mr Syed was "possibly" infuriated that his daughter married into the "wrong" branch of Islam. Apparently Shia and Sunni Muslims don't mix in America any better than they do in Iraq.

Item: Last Tuseday a Texas jury found Yaser Abdel Said, 65, of Lewisville, guilty of the murder of his daughters, 18-year-old Amina Said and 17-year-old Sarah Said, in a taxi in 2008. Mr Said had evaded arrest for over 12 years following the slayings of his children, which was provoked, defenders said, by the girls' insistence on comporting themselves like other American teens.

Even though the crime was committed in Texas, prosecutors did not pursue the death penalty, so Mr Said received an automatic life sentence. Why was the death penalty not demanded? Perhaps because the killings were, according to Mr Said's religion and culture, a "matter of honour".  

No, those are not the Said girls. They are Asra Abdullah Alsehli, 24, and Amaal Abdullah Alsehli, 23, whose bodies were discovered in their Sydney, Australia, apartment on June 7th.  .

Item: The Alsehli sisters were last in the news five years ago, when they fled from a family holiday by jumping on a plane from Saudi Arabia to Sydney, where they claimed asylum, saying they renounced Islam and had become atheists. Their parents were said to be displeased and begged the girls to come home, but, so far as is known, made no attempts to repatriate them against their will.

When the rent on their apartment went unpaid for three months, the Aussie authorities went for a "welfare check" and found mail piled up outside the door. When they gained entry, they found the two women's bodies, fully clothed, in separate bedroom. There were no signs of forced entry or injury.

Police called their deaths as "suspicious" and "unusual", and are awaiting autopsy and toxicology results to figure out what could have happened. Although the sisters' background, and how they came to be in Australia, were common knowledge, Inspector Knacker said there is "nothing to suggest" their family should be considered suspects. So that's OK then.

Item: We come now to Friday's attack on author Salman Rushdie, as he was preparing to speak at the Chautauqua Institution, near Buffalo NY. Mr Rushdie suffered serious injuries to his neck, throat and liver when he was stabbed repeatedly by a Muslim now identified as Hadi Matar, 24, from Fairfield NJ.

Local police Sergeant Friday said they aren't sure what motivated the attack. Walt will explicate the muddification, and thereby come to the point of this article.

Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding after a fatwa (religious decree) issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini, for the grave sin of airing his "unacceptable views" of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed in his 1988 book The Satanic Verses.

 Mr Rushdie, who was born in India to non-practising Muslims and identifies as an atheist, was declared an apostate, and forced to go underground as a bounty was put on his head. He was granted police protection by the government in the UK, where he was at school and where he made his home, following the murder or attempted murder of his translators and publishers.

Hadi Matar reportetdly supported the Iranian government, which had demanded Rushdie's execution. He reportedly posted a picture of Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei on his Facebook page. According to an analysis of Mr Matar's social media footprints, he supports Shia extremism and the goals of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Investigators found pictures of Iranian commander Qassem Solemani, muirdered in 2020, on Mr Matar's cellphone.

Got the picture now, fellas? Can you say "Islamic extremist"? Maybe not, because the real story here is not that the victims and suspects all are (or were) believers in the Religion of Peace, but that the lickspittle media have consistently downplayed, or not reported at all, the religion and ethnicity of those involved. Mustn't stoke the fires of Islamophobia!

The liberal elites, especially the literary types, were quick to decry the attempted murder -- for that's what it was -- of Salman Rushdie as a heinous attack on the freedom of speech which we cherish and which must be protected, yada yada yada. 

That's a bit rich, coming from the likes of Blackie McBlackface, Prime Minister of Canuckistan, who demonstrated his belief in free speech by clamping down on the Freeedom Convoy protesters, whom he called a "fringe minority" who held "unacceptable views". 

It was his government who forced the Canadian House of Commons to pass M-103, a resolution that enjoins the sheeple of Canada from saying anything bad about any religion... but especially Islam. The Dumbocrats, especially the likes of Ilhan Omar, would like to see similar legislation passed by Congress. 

Ms Omar is notorious for her anti-Israel/anti-Semitic rantings, but woe betide anyone who points out that Jews and Christians generally don't go around killing their family members or other co-religionists because of their "unacceptable views".

In our headlong rush to commit what James Burnham called The Suicide of the West (Random House, 1970), we allow followers of the Prophet to preach the triumph of Islam and the extermination of  apostates (like Salman Rushdie and the Alsehli sisters) and infidels (like us!), because to speak ill of Islam or its prophets and leaders is... wait for it... "unacceptable". 

Further reading (and the point of this post): "Don't mention the Muslims!", WWW 14/10/15.

Still more reading (added 16/8/22): "Trudeau, Biden won't name actual threat to Salman Rushdie", by the estimable Rex Murphy, National Post, 16/8/22. Quote: "They ignore radical Islamists in favour of platitudes about free expression."

Another quote: "To listen to Mr. Biden or Mr. Trudeau...he was stabbed for standing up for the generalized idea of 'freedom of expression.' No, he was not. He was stabbed because a fundamentalist strand of Islam and the leaders of Iran regarded his book as a 'blasphemy' for in their words 'insulting the prophet.'"

Rex says it better, but Walt said it first!

George Carlin: Political correctness = fascism

Words of wisdom from the late, much-missed George Carlin.

 

UK court: free speech encompasses the right to offend

Some may think it unkind to call this person "a pig in a wig". Or offensive. Or even "abusive". But it's OK, according to the Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom!

Britain's Daily Mail reports just now on a November decision of the court in the case of Regina v. Scottow.  The appellant, Kate Scottow, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, had been found guilty earlier this year under the 2003 Communications Act of addressing Sterfanie Hayden, a "transgendered woman" as a man, and calling him/her a "racist" and a "pig in the wig."

[I don't know which personal pronoun to use here. Ed.] Hayden, 47, reported the online remarks to the Old Bill, who duly arrested Miss Scottow at her home in front of her daughter, 10, and son, 20 months. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson later called the arrest and prosecution "an abuse of power."

District judge Margaret Dodds didn't see it that way, convicting Miss Scottow (a self-described "radical feminist") last February, and handing her two-year conditional discharge plus "compensation" of £1,000 ($1350 in real money).

Presiding over Miss Scottow's appeal, Lord Justice Bean [Was he "Mr Bean", before his elevation to the bench? Ed.] and Mr Justice Warby said, "Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." They added that "free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." 

Mr Justice Warby explained that the relevant parts of the Communications Act "were not intended by Parliament to criminalise forms of expression, the content of which is no worse than annoying or inconvenient in nature." He also suggested that the prosecution had been an "unjustified state interference with free speech."

Lord Justice Bean said the appeal illustrated the need for decision-makers in the criminal justice system to have regard to issues of freedom of speech. The judgment from two senior members of the judiciary will set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech.

The vindicated Miss Scottow told The Daily Telegraph, "It was necessary to enshrine one of the most fundamental rights of every living being in a democratic society – the right to freedom of speech that is now routinely attacked..."' But [Whatever, Ed.] Hayden said, "This is... a kick in the teeth to the entire LGBT community." Walt sez a kick in a more southerly body part would not have been out of order. Is that offensive?

VIDEO: Toronto Sun talks with Don Cherry about "You people"

SportsNet's firing of Don Cherry from the "Coach's Corner" segment of Hockey Night in Canada has dominated the news in Canuckistan since it was announced on Sunday. Even the never-Trumpers at the CBC were forced to talk about it ahead of reports from the witch-hunt. All the (((controlled media))) ran short interviews with "Grapes", but only the Toronto Sun gave him over ten minutes to say his piece in full. Here's the video.



Further reading:
"Poor Len Canayen calls Cherry firing an insult to Canadians", WWW 12/11/19.
"Don Cherry was both right and wrong", by Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun, 13/11/19.

VIDEO: Max Bernier reacts to Antifa "peaceful protest" at Hamilton ON

Thanks to Agent 2 for letting us know about this video, produced by Canadian Press and posted to the lefty Huffington Post website. You'll hear Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, giving his thoughts on the melee between his supporters and Antifa/Communist protesters outside the McIntyre Arts Centre of Mohawk College in Hamilton ON, before Sunday night's roundtable on freedom of speech, intercut with clips of people milling about.

It's interesting to compare that video with those shown on CHCH-TV, the independent local TV station. Note from Ed.: Oh!!! Very interesting!!! I just got the embed code from the HuffPost article, and tried to post it here, but... see above! But there's more than one way to defeat censorship! The CP video is now on YouTube. Check it out.



Nowhere in the CP video do you see actual scenes of the violence perpetrated by the Antifa punks, notably the woman with the red bandana covering her face who is seen clearly in the CHCH video attacking first a Bernier supporter wearing the old Red Ensign on his shoulders, and then our own Agent 3.

The CP story and video has been picked up not just by the HuffPost but by the state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration, which is now saying that "more arrests are possible". Who could they mean? The lady with the red bandana [like we used to wear playing cowboys and indians. Ed.] ? Stay tuned.

Further viewing: Frank Vaughan, one of the PPC candidates on the panel, has posted "Rubin Event Aftermath - The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly" on YouTube. Just under 21 minutes, it's his patient and understanding take on the "peaceful protest" and how the whole chaotic scene relates to freedom of speech... for everyone... even the loony left. Quote: "Why is assault not assault when left-wing mobs commit it?!"

Another beauty queen shut out for supporting President Trump

Once again a beautiful American girl is being discriminated against for daring to be a conservative who supports Still-President Trump. Only three weeks ago, in "Beauty queen joins Women For Trump Coalition Advisory Board", Walt gave you the good news that Kathy Zhu, who was stripped of her "Miss Michigan" title because of a couple of tweets that offended the SJWs and snowflakes, had joined the Women For Trump Coalition Advisory Board.

Let's hope they can find a place on the board for Katie Jo Williams, "Miss Nevada", who says organizers of the "Miss America" pageant told her she was "too political" to be involved.

What does "too political"? On her Instagram channel Ms Williams says she was banned from competing in the upcoming Miss America beauty contest because of her refusal to hide her support for President Trump. Upon asking what she could do to resolve the issue, and she told the only recourse was to delete everything she had posted on social media, including pictures of Williams in her Trump 2020 hat, professing her love for America and her opposition to Antifa.

To her everlasting credit, Ms Williams refused to delete the offending pix, and was subsequently stripped of her Miss Nevada title. To rub salt into the wound, the organizers told her that in order to get a refund for her entry fee, she would have to send back her sash and crown for winning Miss Nevada and agree to not tell anyone about being banned from competing in Miss America!

Says Ms Williams, "I feel like if I had more liberal views, less conservative views, that this wouldn't even be an issue. I stand by everything I posted." Says Walt, good on ya, Katie Jo, and more power!

Can we not talk about "climate change"? Elections Canada warning!

This is a complicated story but I'll try to give you a short and understandable version. Following a convention in Gatineau QC on Sunday, People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier reiterated his doubts as to whether the world is facing a "climate crisis", as claimed by Canuck Environment Minister Catherine "Climate Barbie" McKenna and the usual gang of sky-is-falling, Al-Gore-loving tree-huggers. "Mad Max" and the PPC take the position that climate change is not an emergency nor is it caused by humans.

For example, M Bernier says, CO2 is not "pollution". It is what comes out of the mouths of humans and other animals when they exhale. So what are we supposed to do, stop breathing? The PPC platform plank on "Global Warming and the Environment" is subtitled "Rejecting Alarmism and Focusing on Concrete Improvements". It reads, in part: "CO2 is beneficial for agriculture and there has recently been a measurable “greening” of the world in part thanks to higher levels. Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth."

"Given the uncertainties over the scientific basis of global warming," the platform continues, "and the certainties about the huge costs of measures designed to fight it, there is no compelling reason to jeopardize our prosperity with more government interventions." This statement puts the People's Party at odds with the liberal orthodoxy and with the positions of the other five parties contesting this fall's federal election. For that reason, Elections Canada has now declared that climate change is a partisan issue (!!!), which makes any argument or advertisement on the subject a "partisan statement" under the laws governing Canadian elections.

The Canada Elections Act could consider advertising partisan if it opposes or supports a policy position of any party or candidate, even without naming them. So any advertisement, whether by environmental activists or "climate change deniers", saying that climate change is real or not real is forbidden!

Environmental activist groups and the leftist parties (Liberals, NDP and Greens) vying to out-green each other are predictably outraged, calling the Elections Canada an attack on free speech (!!!) which muzzles them from speaking out about the "climate crisis". An anti-oil group calling itself "Clean Energy Canada" has already restricted some of its responses to party positions to avoid running afoul of the law, while Greenpeace Canada is planning to cease all advertising on climate change during the writ period.

You might think that the PPC would be happy to have a cone of silence dropped on what will be a major issue in the upcoming election, but you would be wrong. Freedom of speech is one of the basic principles on which the People's Party was founded, and Maxime Bernier issued a statement yesterday describing the Elections Canada warning as "absurd". "The law should only regulate real partisan advertising, which is when there is mention of a candidate or party by name," he said.

He went on to say that Elections Canada "is interpreting a bad law as best it can, but this rule is still absurd. Not because we're the only party with a different perspective which climate alarmists believe is not legitimate. But because it is arbitrary, draconian, and cannot be applied consistently. There are hundreds of potentially contentious issues that could be considered partisan if this rule were to be applied consistently."

Some people... OK, many people... may disagree with M Bernier's position on climate change, but Canucks should give him full credit for championing free speech. Pity that (as things stand) they won't get to hear him in the televised leaders' debates in October. See "Canada's 'independent' Debate Commission shuts out Max Bernier", WWW 12/8/19.

VIDEO: Mr Bean speaks about freedom of speech

Mr Bean is the most famous screen persona of British actor Rowan Atkinson. You knew that, didn't you? That's for anyone who may have thought Mr Bean is a real person. Mr Atkinson is rightly concerned about the intolerance of the liberal elites and the cancerous growth of political correctness. "We need to build our immunity to taking offence," he says, in this short (9:20) address at the Parliamentary Reception for the Reform Section 5 campaign.



That was in October of 2012. The campaign succeeded (bravo!) but, IMHO, the chill of censorship has only gotten worse since then. One of our readers has just been banned forever from commenting on the CBC News website. Her crime? Apparently it's including in some of her comments a link to WWW. Walt suggests that the CBC remember the old saying: Just because you've silenced someone doesn't mean you've converted him!

VIDEO: Speaking the truth at Aretha Franklin's funeral

Rev. Jasper Williams Jr., pastor of Atlanta's Salem Baptist Church, was chosen to deliver the main eulogy at yesterday's funeral celebration -- word chosen with care -- for the late Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul. Rev. Williams had form, having had the same role at the 1984 funeral of Ms Franklin's father, C.L. Franklin, a noted civil rights activist. So when he chose this occasion to speak the truth about problems in the black community, there was shuffling of feet and nervous sideways glances, followed by a Twitterstorm. The usual gang of SJWs and progressive thinkers piled on Rev. Williams, calling his eulogy a "disaster" and questioning why he was chosen as the one to honour the poster girl for strong black women everywhere. "No R-E-S-P-E-C-T!", said one angry tweet.

What was it that Rev. Williams said that caused such gnashing of teeth and rending of garments on the part of America's black leaders and black lovers? Check out this compilation of key quotes from his sermon.



To my mind, the key thought is: "Black America has lost its soul." "Where is your soul, black man?", asked the fiery orator. "As I look in your house, there are no fathers in the home no more." He went on to say that "as proud, beautiful and fine as our black women are, one thing a black woman cannot do, a black woman cannot raise a black boy to be a man." And he described as "abortion after birth" the idea of children being raised without a "provider" father and a mother as the "nurturer".

Rev. Williams blamed integration and the civil rights movement for ripping the heart out of black micro-economies that once relied on black-owned small businesses such as grocery stores, hotels and banks. Then he moved on to black-on-black crime, which apologists claim is caused by poverty and the social effects of being "disadvantaged".

The preacher, in cadences familiar to anyone who's ever attended a service in a black evangelical church, declaimed, "It amazes me how it is when the police kills one of us we're ready to protest, march, destroy innocent property. We're ready to loot, steal whatever we want, but when we kill 100 of us, nobody says anything, nobody does anything. Black-on-black crime, we're all doing time, we're locked up in our mind, there's got to be a better way, we must stop this today."

But what about Black Lives Matter? "No, black lives do not matter," said Rev. Williams. "Black lives will not matter, black lives ought not matter, black lives should not matter, black lives must not matter until black people start respecting black lives and stop killing ourselves."

For his candour, Rev. Jasper Williams Jr was excoriated, immediately and savagely, on Twitter and elsewhere for "misogyny, bigotry and the perpetuation of false science on race." That's what happens when you tell the truth. The only surprising thing is that he hasn't been charged with "hate crime", but then he was speaking in the United States, where freedom speech is protected by the First Amendment, not in, say, Canada, where the liberal thought police punish those who say double plus ungood things about minorities, even if the things they say are, errr, true.