We had been invited over for dinner at J Z Bar. They’re a fairly big ranch that overlooks a valley through which some of the snowy peaks can be seen. It’s one of the more enjoyable places in the area. When we arrived, we were surprised to be greeted by rancher Vance himself.
“I thought you were in the Capitol?” Bob asked, knowing that Vance had recently been elected as a representative.
“I was, but I’m already back here,” Vance replied. After a pause, he added: “I never got sworn in.”
Bob didn’t want to push the subject, since Vance was clearly irritated by what had happened in the Capitol. After a few detours, Vance got back to the subject and we learnt what had happened.
“I refused to do native land acknowledgments and then the House Ethics Commissioner decided that I was not fit to hold office.”
Bob could not believe what he was hearing.
“But the people elected you to be there, not the Ethics Commissioner!”
It seems that elections in Western countries matter less and less each time round. While not immune, the United States still appears to be in fairly good shape: when tracking policies, elections still have an effect. Other Western countries are sliding away at the speed of light, or maybe faster. Sundry measures are in place to preclude elections from having too much of an impact. Many an overseas nation is prevented from implementing radically different policies through membership in one or more supranational organizations, such as the European Union. Thusly, unelected supranational bureaucrats end up telling local politicians what they need to enact, regardless of their political stripe. It is highly questionable up to which extent such countries are truly “democracies.” However, recently, a more insidious way to control citizens’ lives has surfaced, which is at least as much of a threat to democracy as the supranational institutions are: regulatory and ethics committees. Moreover, those can be enacted in countries that are not bound by supranational supreme authorities too.
To have a glimpse of just how far astray such committees can lead a nation, it again suffices to report on the now bygone democracy of Canada. Having great educational skills is not necessarily a prerequisite to be a teacher in that country. However, strict adherence to certain narratives is, even if those directly oppose both the teachers’ own religious beliefs and those the school purports to hold as well. In Ontario, teachers and married couple Matt and Nicole Alexander are the subject of a regulatory investigation that could end their teaching careers. The “improper conduct” they engaged in, can be summarized as “not actively participating in the celebration of LGBT and gender ideologies with children.” In particular, Nicole’s crime was to remove a “Pride” poster from her classroom door that had been placed there without her consent. On top of being terminated by the school board, she now also faces an investigation from the Ontario College of Teachers, which may end in the suspension of her and her husband’s licenses.
One could think that the way to resolve the issue of teachers being fired by immoral school boards, is to replace their members by more reasonable ones. Not so in Ontario, though. Toronto Catholic school board trustee Michael Del Grande was recently convicted by the same Ontario College of Teachers for “professional misconduct.” The guilty verdict came with a fine of C$5000 … and another C$80000 to cover the “cost of the proceedings.” What had he done to earn this verdict? Back in 2019, he had opposed to bringing sexual orientation (“SOGI”) and gender content into the curriculum. He had made a few arguments along the lines of “What’s next – will we also start teaching bestiality?” Although Del Grande’s position corresponds to nothing more than common sense, it apparently amounts to “professional misconduct.” At least in Ontario, it does. What we learn from this is that in Ontario, it is impossible to solve the issue of indoctrinated school boards by electing members of a different stripe. If board members are elected who engage in wrongthink, they can be overruled by unelected woke bureaucrats.
We may be enticed to think that school boards are just one level of authority. If we are not able to circumvent their regulatory capture, then maybe we should elect different officials at the municipal level, right? That is what Lisa Robinson must have thought when she ran as Councillor in the city of Pickering, Ontario. Once elected as a Councillor, she proposed a new bylaw that would only allow “federal, provincial and municipal flags to be permitted to be raised in all public spaces,” except for the Poppy and Veterans flags. Her proposal stated that by flying “non-government flags,” the city of Pickering would effectively be “favouring one group over another.”
It seems very reasonable that no city in its official capacity should favour certain minorities over others by flying their flags. Yet not so to the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner, who ruled that her proposal “targeted removal of the flag raising opportunity from the LGBTQ2S+ community” and thereby, “constitute[d] homophobic and transphobic behaviour.” It was ruled that her proposal “would not withstand the Ontario Human Rights Code.” Moreover, Councillor Robinson was suspended for two months from her position without backpay. She ran on an agenda that aimed to bring some common sense back to the city. However, in her elected capacity, she was not able to enact any of it. What again is the purpose of an election? In much of the West, the answer seems to have become “to pick which puppet will implement the preset — and often immoral — agenda.”
When elections can no longer deliver the much-needed change of trajectory, citizens can still take actions themselves: organize a petition, or a protest. Or so we thought. In Canada, those options are still available for those who “protest” for a pre-approved narrative, such as “free Palestine.” In such cases, open hatred, antisemitism, offending others and even physical violence are tolerated. However, it is unwise to do the same for a cause that is not aligned with woke dogmatism. We have all seen Canadian truckers’ bank accounts seized for protesting peacefully against COVID restrictions, in clear infringement of their Charter Rights (2(b) and (c), specifically).
More modest expression of discontent is not tolerated either. At the time of writing, Benita Pedersen is appearing before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. Did she detain native Americans in her basement deprived of food? Not at all. Her crime was to have organized a petition in the town of Westlock, AB, that was successful at having a “pride” crosswalk removed. She argued that trans ideologies mislead confused children into sterilization and medicalization for life. This is of course true. Here flyer, reproduced elsewhere as well, is shown below.
It would be pretty correct to accuse the trans movement of human rights transgressions, since they are the ones who deprive innocent children of a healthy, normally functioning future. Moreover, it makes perfect sense to say that administration of cross-sex hormones and medical procedures on children violates the Nuremberg Code, since we have evidence that even so-called “leading experts on transgender health” admit that children cannot give informed consent and none of these procedures have a proper safety and effectiveness track record for the corresponding indication(s) in the respective target group(s). Yet that is not how the Alberta “Human Rights Tribunal” sees it. The verdict is still pending, but they have already paraded “victims,” such as one lady who only worked in Westlock for a few weeks, saw the flyer, and testified that it “caused her to become scared and then take her trauma to her therapist.” Sure. Our guess where this “trial” will end: a $100000 fine plus covering the $750000 cost of the trial, by a “Human Rights” commission that is funded by taxpayers and does nothing when no trial is going on anyway.
In Canada, true human rights, such as the ones (still) codified in the Charter of Rights (freedom of expression, religion and assembly, among others) have become washed away by an alternative set of rights that only apply to a few fringe minorities. Apparently, it is a “human right” to be celebrated by all without exception if one is in the alphabet soup “community,” but not a right to express concern. It is a “human right” to make outrageous “land claims” if one is born in a specific native community, but not a right to say that native Americans really did not make land claims, which is why many tribes could be found on the same land. It is a “human right” to indoctrinate children into the tenets of the anti-religion of “woke,” but not a human right to say that that does not align with the Bible.
Many of the “human rights” trials and “investigations” by regulatory boards mentioned here have been pending for years. All of a sudden, in 2026, there is a slew of convictions. How come? Well, earlier this year, the governing Liberal Party passed Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act,” an amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code that, among other modifications, notoriously removed speech protections for “expression of religious beliefs in good faith.” In fact, all of the above cases could reasonably resort to that defence. However, since this clause has been removed, sane opinions have become fair game.
Freedom of religion and religious expression sit at the bedrock of any open and democratic society. In both these cases, the defendants acted out of sincere religious beliefs. They will undoubtedly end up on the right side of history. The immoral practices of teaching vile “SOGI” content to children will eventually end, also in Ontario. However, it is time to recognize the evil that is being fought here. Speaking in support of removal of the good faith religious expression clause in Bill C-9, Canadian MP Mark Miller openly stated that certain passages in the Bible cannot be cited in good faith. He thereby made clear who the true enemy is. Anyone who states that the Bible cannot be cited as-is without causing harm, is obviously on the demonic side. This battle has a strong spiritual component.
Christian traditions have long argued over what could be meant by the so-called “Mark of the Beast” mentioned in the Book of Revelation:
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or on their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save that he had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
Revelation, 13:16-17.
Many religious scholars agree that the “mark on the forehead” implies something that all need to internalize and that the “mark on the right hand” indicates something, directly of demonic nature, that all need to celebrate. We can only observe that the anti-religion of wokery seems to fulfill each of these conditions. We all need to be singing to the laurels of deviant sexual orientation and gender philosophies. Even more so, internalizing it is not enough. As the example of the Alexanders shows, we are all required to actively celebrate it. If not, regulatory bodies are there to open cases that bear no relation whatsoever with the profession they are supposed to regulate. They will make sure that the ones who refuse to celebrate cannot earn money and therefore, cannot buy or sell. It is happening in front of our eyes.
We need to urgently turn things around. So-called “Human Rights Tribunals” need to be abolished, or to be drastically limited in scope, such that they are only allowed to weigh essential human rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The authority of professional licensing boards needs to be restrained to the technicalities specific to the profession and may not include any sort of opinion or speech by their members. We also need to create heightened awareness of false preachings. In fact, many of the advocates of the imposition of the demonic anti-religion of woke pretend to be “religious.” MP Miller himself claims to be “a Christian,” while saying that it is impossible to cite the Bible in good faith. Texas Representative Talarico claims to be a “deeply religious Christian,” yet does not have any issues with stating that “God is non-binary,” “Jesus is a radical feminist,” or with using the Inclusive Bible, a travesty put forward as a “Bible” re-written in non-gendered terms. Obviously, when the demonic anti-religion of woke presents itself as one of the major religions, it needs to be called out and exorcised.
A few weeks later, we met Vance in town. As it turned out, the Ethics Commissioner had caved to a petition that had managed to gather two hundred thousand signatures in no time. Sometimes, people still get listened to. When we asked if the Ethics Commissioner would now arrest the petition’s organizers, Vance simply said: “I’ll make sure that doesn’t happen while I’m in office.” Reason can still prevail. It always does so in the end. It is also sure to return to Canada.