Why did Hamilton’s politicized police force sit on the identity of the woman arrested for assault cadet selling poppies. More active discrimination against heterosexual White males.
| Canada Must Not Trade Its Sovereignty for an Ill-Defined EU “Association” PPC Statement – Michael Bator, People’s Party of Canada Candidate for BurlingtonMichael BatorOct 31 READ IN APP PPC Statement – Michael Bator, People’s Party of Canada Candidate for Canadians are right to be alarmed by the recent EU-Canada summit in Montreal and the push for an “ever-closer association” or so-called “associate membership.” As Greg Scott has correctly pointed out, official statements and much of the political discussion carefully avoid the very policies that would come with deeper alignment: digital ID, digital integration and governance, Net Zero 2050, Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement, Horizon Europe, and related frameworks like “Be Ready. They represent the concrete tools of greater centralization, surveillance, economic control, and the subordination of Canadian decision-making to external priorities. Prime Minister Carney has been clear about wanting the “deepest possible partnership short of accession.” That path leads to Canada absorbing more EU-style digital regulation, climate targets that ignore energy realities and affordability, and governance models that prioritize international agendas over the interests of Canadian workers, families, and communities.What is equally concerning is the response—or lack of one—from the Conservative Party. While the CPC may claim opposition in principle, it has largely failed to highlight or confront these specific policy imports. Pretending the issue is merely “theatre” or nomenclature while remaining silent on digital ID schemes, net-zero timelines, Agenda 2030 alignment, and digital governance leaves Canadians without a genuine alternative. This is the pattern of controlled opposition: loud on some issues, quiet on the ones that actually shift power away from Canadian citizens and Parliament. The People’s Party of Canada rejects this trajectory. We stand for Canadian sovereignty, not incremental integration into external regulatory frameworks. We oppose digital ID and digital control systems that threaten privacy and freedom. We reject Net Zero 2050 mandates and Paris Agreement targets that drive up costs for energy, housing, and everyday life without meaningful benefit to Canadians. We oppose Agenda 2030-style global governance that subordinates national priorities to international bureaucracies. And we will not support participation in programs that further entangle Canada in EU policy architecture.Closer economic ties and practical cooperation can be beneficial when they serve Canadian interests—without surrendering control over our laws, energy policy, data, or democratic accountability. The current approach does the opposite: it advances integration first and asks Canadians to accept the consequences later.Burlington and Canada deserve representatives who will say clearly what is at stake, not ones who downplay the risks or hope voters won’t notice. The PPC will continue to fight for a Canada that remains independent, prosperous, and governed by its own people—not by imported agendas. Michael Bator People’s Party of Canada Candidate for Burlington |
NERVE WITH A CAPITAL “N”: MOSLEM FATHER SAYS WATERLOO CATHOLIC SCHOOLS ARE TOO CATHOLIC
There’s at least one Muslim father in Waterloo region who apparently thinks that the Waterloo Catholic District School Board is not… Islamic enough.
Mohammad Faisal sends his kids to a Catholic school in Waterloo region. But in a letter he has sent to candidates running for Catholic school board trustee, he seems to be concerned that there’s not enough reasonable accommodation for… Muslim students.
Again, let us re-state: we’re talking about Muslim students who are freely and willingly attending Catholic schools. But never mind…
And if you think we’re making this up, we’re not. In fact, we have a copy of Mr. Faisal’s letter in which he provides seven questions to those running for school board trustee.
Here goes:
- Faith accommodation: Will you support a clear board policy guaranteeing Muslim students space and time for daily prayers, as required under the Ontario Human Rights Code?
- Ramadan: What will you do to ensure Muslim students fasting during Ramadan are supported – for example, alternative spaces during lunch, flexible participation in phys-ed, and awareness among staff?
- Halal food: Will you advocate for halal food options in school cafeterias and at school events?
- Anti-Islamophobia: Do you support mandatory anti-Islamophobia and anti-racism training for teachers and staff, and inclusion of Muslim experiences in equity education?
- Inclusion and Safety: How will you ensure Muslim students feel safe, respected, and fully included, particularly Muslim girls who wear hijab, and how will you respond if Muslim families report discrimination?
- Engagement: Will you commit to meeting with local Muslim community organizations (such as the Islamic Centre of Cambridge) at least once per school year to hear our concerns directly?
- Exemption from religion classes and religious activities: Non-Catholic students have the legal right to be exempted from religion classes and Catholic religious activities (such as Mass and retreats). However, many Muslim families find this very difficult in practice; the exemption often requires repeated requests, and is denied indirectly in some schools. Will you commit to making this exemption simple, granted on first request, and dignified – with a proper alternative such as a supervised study time or another course?
Holy smoke, where does one even begin?
Well, we guess we need to begin at the beginning: if Mr. Faisal believes Catholic schools are too “Catholicy”, then why does he send his kids there? Why doesn’t he send his children to a private Islamic school?
If money is the issue, then surely he could send his kids to a school in the public system. Trust us: the Waterloo Region District School Board is perhaps the most woke school board in all of Canada. It is also arguably the worst school board in Canada. Funny how that works, eh?
But we’re certain if Mr. Faisal were to ask the educrats at the public board to exclusively serve halal food and remove bacon from the menu — you know, like Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in Ontario — oh, they would do so in a heartbeat in order to further embrace their unholy trinity of diversity, equity and inclusion.
Oh, by the way, consider this interesting fact: Catholic schools have the right to refuse non-Catholic students. So it would appear to us that Mr. Faisal’s kids are already being very much accommodated from the get-go to begin with. But zero gratitude here. You see, it’s not enough; it’s never enough. As the saying goes, give ’em an inch, they’ll take a kilometre…
Now Rebel News did reach out to Mohammad Faisal to interview him. But our email went unacknowledged. So we’re going to guess why Mr. Faisal doesn’t want to have his kids going to the public schools in the region. Because that would mean they would be exposed to rainbow mafia propaganda, including pornography in the school library.
So, we’re guessing Mr. Faisal is all about inclusion when it comes to Islamic values. When it comes to inclusion of other values? Hey, what’s with all this inclusion stuff?!
Of course, wouldn’t the best solution entail Mr. Faisal moving to an Islamic country like, say, Afghanistan? Oh, you’ll get your halal menu, all right. You’ll get girls forced to wear burqas. You’ll have a curriculum focused on labelling anyone who is not an Islamist as an infidel. We guess the only drawback would mean living in a shite-hole. But sometimes you gotta take the bad with the good, we suppose…
The fact is that Canada was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The fact is, unlike just about every Islamic nation on the planet, those of different faiths are free to live freely here and worship freely here and prosper here.
But for the Mohammad Faisals of the world, it’s all about more-more-more. And so it is they embrace the playbook of manufactured victimhood to further press their agenda.
After the victimhood shtick, then comes the weaponization of our system. Notice his reference to the Ontario Human Rights Code. We interpret that as a veiled threat along the lines of gimme what I want, or I’ll see you at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in the near future. And with the woke wackadoodles who comprise the tribunal, we bet Mohammad Faisal would win big time.
In this respect, our system is being effectively gamed. And it’s quite fascinating: Islamists in western nations are using everything that makes a western nation a bastion of freedom to pursue their agenda. They are falling back on lawfare and spineless politicians who advocate on their behalf. That’s why we have Prime Minister Mark Carney saying things like, “Muslim values are Canadian values.” Really? Such as… sharia law? Female genital circumcision? Throwing gays off rooftops? Golly, that doesn’t sound very Liberal to us…
And as their numbers grow, Muslims pursuing a radical agenda are not appeased by concessions, but rather, they continue to push the envelope.
And you know what? Slowly, ever slowly, the line moves, doesn’t it? Case in point: do you know there are now 85 sharia courts operating in the United Kingdom? Eighty-five! We can only think of that haunting lyric from Thomas Dolby’s ballad, One of Our Submarines is Missing. Namely, “Bye-bye empire, empire bye-bye.”
In the final analysis, so much for when in Rome do as the Romans do. Because this is all about the tail wagging the dog. And the tail is winning.
And this is how the descent into darkness begins, really. It starts off as “reasonable accommodation.” It continues with “diversity is our strength.” And it ends… well, it ends with Paris, France.(Rebel News, October 23, 2026)
COMPASSION IN CANADA TODAY — NOT FOR CANADIANS
Throne, Altar, Liberty
The Canadian Red Ensign
Thursday, October 22, 2026
John Bull McGregor Fires a Warning Shot
In my 29 January essay, The Canadian Right Needs to Reclaim its Roots and Stop Looking Southward for Inspiration, I said this of the Alberta separatists:
All that I have to say about this group in particular is that while they claim to speak for all of their province, I have too high a regard for the province named after Queen Victoria’s fourth daughter than to believe it to be entirely populated by inbred, knuckle-dragging, troglodytic, ass-tards as would have to be the case for these to be their legitimate spokesmen.
The results of the Alberta referendum on Monday have, I believe, proved my judgement to be sound on this point. There were ten questions, the relevant one being the tenth, which read:
Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
In the end, Alberta voted overwhelmingly to remain in the Dominion, with a little over three-quarters voting to remain and a little under a quarter voting for pursuing the path of separation.
The referendum and the separatists calling for it had been heavily promoted by the neo-conservative media. The same people who, rightly, have decried the war which progressives have been waging against the memory and legacy of, among others, our first prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald, have been the loudest cheerleaders of a movement aimed at undoing that legacy, defeating the Confederation Project that Macdonald spearheaded, and breaking up the Dominion he and the other Fathers of Confederation fought so hard to build. Canadian neo-conservatives are in no danger of succumbing to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s hobgoblin, with or without the oft-dropped “foolish”.
It was with much amusement that I read the headline of the article by Clayton DeMaine reporting the results on Juno News, the neo-conservative e-zine on Substack founded and edited by Candice Malcom and Keeane Bexte. The headline read “Nearly 1 in 4 Albertans Vote Against Staying in Canada.” Bravo. If there is an agency somewhere that hands out awards for spinning your side’s loss as a win, this surely deserves at least a nomination.
When I refer to such people as neo-conservatives, note that I am using the word in its Canadian sense. The American sense of the word is more familiar. In the United States the term neo-conservative refers to the most hawkish element of the Republican Party, those who believe in a Pax Americana in which the United States is the world’s policeman, perpetually toppling regimes that they supported up to yesterday, in order to keep the world safe for democracy, capitalism, and Israel, not necessarily in that order. In Canada, neo-conservative refers to those who say they are conservatives, small or big c, but give to this term its contemporary American meaning rather than its traditional Canadian meaning. As a further point of clarification, it is Canadian neo-conservatives of the small-c variety, especially the alternative media and social media types, rather than those of the big-C variety (i.e. the Conservative Party, its members and supporters) who have been cheering on the Alberta separatist movement.
Traditional Canadian conservatism is the more legitimate type. The United States was built on the foundation of classical (Lockean) liberalism and its two parties are not the equivalent of the Canadian Conservative and Liberal parties. If there is any direct correspondence between American and Canadian parties it is between the American Republican party and the Canadian Liberal party, both of which are descended from seventeenth century Whiggery. The United States neither had nor wanted a “conservatism” at the national level until the middle of the twentieth century.
Canada was founded on her older, more traditional and more legitimate, conservatism. The original English Canadians were the Loyalists who opposed the American Revolution. Their conservatism was that of Great Britain, modified by the acceptance of some early Modern innovations but still recognizably descended from the seventeenth century Toryism that opposed the Puritan Whiggery that was the ancestor of classical liberalism and the American, French and eventually Bolshevik Revolutions. French Canada, which having been ceded to the British Crown shortly before the American Revolution and thereby avoided going through the French Revolution that followed on its heels, was less Modern and more traditional than English Canada prior to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. When the two worked together in Confederation in the 1860s to form the Dominion of Canada, it was in order to build a country that did not throw away her past in revolution, that adapted the time-tested institutions of parliamentary government under a reigning royal monarchy that she inherited to her situation rather than inventing new ones, and that tried to hold on to the older idea that there are virtues higher than those of commerce and industry and that it is the pursuit of these rather than the other that is the foundation of civilization.
It will come as no surprise to long-time readers that I have no sympathies whatsoever with Canadian neo-conservatism no matter how often their views on such-and-such a particular issue may happen to line up with my own. My long time wish for my country, Canada, is a restoration based on the principles of Confederation in 1867, and for Canadian conservatism that it would remember and recover its roots, preferably bringing into itself more of the Toryism from which it is descended. These are moves in the opposite direction to that the neo-conservatives desire. David Warren once said that a conservative is a Tory who has lost his religion and a neo-conservative is a conservative who has also lost his memory. As someone who both by instinct and by application of the principles of orthodox Christianity is a royalist and monarchist rather than a worshiper of the Modern idol of liberal democracy, I call myself a Tory rather than a conservative and am also quite comfortable with the self-application of the term reactionary. As someone who calls himself a patriot rather than a nationalist and knows that true patriotism is a natural love of country akin to love for one’s family rather than the internal compulsion to see one’s country through the eyes of an ideal of “greatness” I see no reason why the stupid things that the Liberals have done while in power should lessen my love of Canada. I naturally, therefore, have no sympathies with those who are incapable of criticizing the Liberals without turning it into an opportunity to condemn our country in the process and who wish to throw away our country’s older, better, more authentic conservatism for the latest model of the American conservatism that is less than a century old and whose roots run no deeper than Modern liberalism. Especially when they wish to do so at this moment in history when American conservatism has been captured from within by a movement, MAGA, which has betrayed the promise and potential it showed at its start about a decade and a half ago and rapidly become a cult that idolatrously worships its thuggish leader even as he degenerates into more and more of a caricature of what his enemies have thought him to be all along on a daily basis.
Had the Canadian neo-conservatives been more interested in our country’s own traditional Tory conservatism they might have been familiar with Stephen Leacock who in 1937 published a book entitled My Discovery of the West. In this Governor General’s Award winning book, an account of a lecture tour he had given in western Canada after his retirement from McGill University the previous year, he wrote the following:
It used to be said that the last shot fired in defence of British institutions in America would be fired by a French-Canadian. It looks now as if there would be one more shot after his. It will be from the gun of an American whose name will be something like John Bull McGregor. His people will have been among the McGregors of Mississippi and the Bulls of the New York police: so he won’t miss what he shoots at.
Had they read this with any degree of comprehension they might not have been so quick to pin their hopes of undoing Confederation, tearing Canada apart, and fulfilling the nineteenth century American dream of Manifest Destiny on a separatist referendum in Alberta.
God Save the King!
Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:40 AM
Throne, Altar, Liberty
The Canadian Red Ensign
Thursday, October 22, 2026
John Bull McGregor Fires a Warning Shot
In my 29 January essay, The Canadian Right Needs to Reclaim its Roots and Stop Looking Southward for Inspiration, I said this of the Alberta separatists:
All that I have to say about this group in particular is that while they claim to speak for all of their province, I have too high a regard for the province named after Queen Victoria’s fourth daughter than to believe it to be entirely populated by inbred, knuckle-dragging, troglodytic, ass-tards as would have to be the case for these to be their legitimate spokesmen.
The results of the Alberta referendum on Monday have, I believe, proved my judgement to be sound on this point. There were ten questions, the relevant one being the tenth, which read:
Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
In the end, Alberta voted overwhelmingly to remain in the Dominion, with a little over three-quarters voting to remain and a little under a quarter voting for pursuing the path of separation.
The referendum and the separatists calling for it had been heavily promoted by the neo-conservative media. The same people who, rightly, have decried the war which progressives have been waging against the memory and legacy of, among others, our first prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald, have been the loudest cheerleaders of a movement aimed at undoing that legacy, defeating the Confederation Project that Macdonald spearheaded, and breaking up the Dominion he and the other Fathers of Confederation fought so hard to build. Canadian neo-conservatives are in no danger of succumbing to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s hobgoblin, with or without the oft-dropped “foolish”.
It was with much amusement that I read the headline of the article by Clayton DeMaine reporting the results on Juno News, the neo-conservative e-zine on Substack founded and edited by Candice Malcom and Keeane Bexte. The headline read “Nearly 1 in 4 Albertans Vote Against Staying in Canada.” Bravo. If there is an agency somewhere that hands out awards for spinning your side’s loss as a win, this surely deserves at least a nomination.
When I refer to such people as neo-conservatives, note that I am using the word in its Canadian sense. The American sense of the word is more familiar. In the United States the term neo-conservative refers to the most hawkish element of the Republican Party, those who believe in a Pax Americana in which the United States is the world’s policeman, perpetually toppling regimes that they supported up to yesterday, in order to keep the world safe for democracy, capitalism, and Israel, not necessarily in that order. In Canada, neo-conservative refers to those who say they are conservatives, small or big c, but give to this term its contemporary American meaning rather than its traditional Canadian meaning. As a further point of clarification, it is Canadian neo-conservatives of the small-c variety, especially the alternative media and social media types, rather than those of the big-C variety (i.e. the Conservative Party, its members and supporters) who have been cheering on the Alberta separatist movement.
Traditional Canadian conservatism is the more legitimate type. The United States was built on the foundation of classical (Lockean) liberalism and its two parties are not the equivalent of the Canadian Conservative and Liberal parties. If there is any direct correspondence between American and Canadian parties it is between the American Republican party and the Canadian Liberal party, both of which are descended from seventeenth century Whiggery. The United States neither had nor wanted a “conservatism” at the national level until the middle of the twentieth century.
Canada was founded on her older, more traditional and more legitimate, conservatism. The original English Canadians were the Loyalists who opposed the American Revolution. Their conservatism was that of Great Britain, modified by the acceptance of some early Modern innovations but still recognizably descended from the seventeenth century Toryism that opposed the Puritan Whiggery that was the ancestor of classical liberalism and the American, French and eventually Bolshevik Revolutions. French Canada, which having been ceded to the British Crown shortly before the American Revolution and thereby avoided going through the French Revolution that followed on its heels, was less Modern and more traditional than English Canada prior to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. When the two worked together in Confederation in the 1860s to form the Dominion of Canada, it was in order to build a country that did not throw away her past in revolution, that adapted the time-tested institutions of parliamentary government under a reigning royal monarchy that she inherited to her situation rather than inventing new ones, and that tried to hold on to the older idea that there are virtues higher than those of commerce and industry and that it is the pursuit of these rather than the other that is the foundation of civilization.
It will come as no surprise to long-time readers that I have no sympathies whatsoever with Canadian neo-conservatism no matter how often their views on such-and-such a particular issue may happen to line up with my own. My long time wish for my country, Canada, is a restoration based on the principles of Confederation in 1867, and for Canadian conservatism that it would remember and recover its roots, preferably bringing into itself more of the Toryism from which it is descended. These are moves in the opposite direction to that the neo-conservatives desire. David Warren once said that a conservative is a Tory who has lost his religion and a neo-conservative is a conservative who has also lost his memory. As someone who both by instinct and by application of the principles of orthodox Christianity is a royalist and monarchist rather than a worshipper of the Modern idol of liberal democracy, I call myself a Tory rather than a conservative and am also quite comfortable with the self-application of the term reactionary. As someone who calls himself a patriot rather than a nationalist and knows that true patriotism is a natural love of country akin to love for one’s family rather than the internal compulsion to see one’s country through the eyes of an ideal of “greatness” I see no reason why the stupid things that the Liberals have done while in power should lessen my love of Canada. I naturally, therefore, have no sympathies with those who are incapable of criticizing the Liberals without turning it into an opportunity to condemn our country in the process and who wish to throw away our country’s older, better, more authentic conservatism for the latest model of the American conservatism that is less than a century old and whose roots run no deeper than Modern liberalism. Especially when they wish to do so at this moment in history when American conservatism has been captured from within by a movement, MAGA, which has betrayed the promise and potential it showed at its start about a decade and a half ago and rapidly become a cult that idolatrously worships its thuggish leader even as he degenerates into more and more of a caricature of what his enemies have thought him to be all along on a daily basis.
Had the Canadian neo-conservatives been more interested in our country’s own traditional Tory conservatism they might have been familiar with Stephen Leacock who in 1937 published a book entitled My Discovery of the West. In this Governor General’s Award winning book, an account of a lecture tour he had given in western Canada after his retirement from McGill University the previous year, he wrote the following:
It used to be said that the last shot fired in defence of British institutions in America would be fired by a French-Canadian. It looks now as if there would be one more shot after his. It will be from the gun of an American whose name will be something like John Bull McGregor. His people will have been among the McGregors of Mississippi and the Bulls of the New York police: so he won’t miss what he shoots at.
Had they read this with any degree of comprehension they might not have been so quick to pin their hopes of undoing Confederation, tearing Canada apart, and fulfilling the nineteenth century American dream of Manifest Destiny on a separatist referendum in Alberta.
God Save the King!
Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:40 AM
Labels:
