The Many Pronged Campaign to Replace Euro-Canadians -Your Internet Freedom is on the Chopping Block by Paul Fromm
The Many Pronged Campaign to Replace Euro-Canadians -Your Internet Freedom is on the Chopping Block by Paul Fromm.
The Many Pronged Campaign to Replace Euro-Canadians -Your Internet Freedom is on the Chopping Block by Paul Fromm. Talk given to Truth Seekers Anonymous. Vancouver, November 6. 2025. The establishment enabled Third World immigration, Anti-White discrimination in employment.. Bills C-8 & C-9 Carney’s Orwellian programme to gag dissent on the Internet. A scorcher. https://www.bitchute.com/video/gr25EgQFgSW3
CRIME WATCH: Man avoids deportation, sentenced to jail time in machete attack
Anil Ramdas sentenced to just under six months in jail, narrowly avoiding potential immigration consequences in relation to August 2023 incident downtown
City police released this surveillance image in relation to an attack in downtown Barrie on Aug. 13, 2023.Image supplied by the Barrie Police Service
BARRIE – The man who attacked two others with a machete on Dunlop Street in Barrie two years ago has been sentenced to six months less a day in jail, avoiding a crucial threshold that could have triggered immigration repercussions associated with offenders who receive custodial sentences of more than 180 days.
Anil Ramdas, 51, was found guilty in February by Justice Nancy Dawson, who had rejected his defence that he was protecting his son. The four charges included two counts of assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm and possession of a dangerous weapon.
Amidst the chaotic atmosphere of downtown bars letting out, Ramdas’s son had become embroiled with two men in the wee hours of Aug. 13, 2023, as revellers were pouring into the street, court heard.
The case served as a prime example of how matters can take several months to resolve even after a finding of guilt.
“Long in the tooth” was how Dawson summed up the case before granting an adjournment in August to allow Ramdas, who was representing himself by that point, to seek immigration advice.
Anil Ramdas is shown outside the Barrie courthouse in this file photo. | Peter Robinson/BarrieToday
In addition to a delay in securing a pre-sentence report, Ramdas fired his lawyer and then requested other adjournments to explore legal remedies, including his immigration status, despite the Crown already agreeing to a sentence of less than six months.
Offenders who are not Canadian citizens can be subject to deportation if they have a criminal record that results in a jail term of six months or more.
Ramdas moved to Canada from Guyana decades ago. He has raised a family in his adopted country, but has not secured citizenship, which added another wrinkle to the case after he was found guilty of four assault and weapons offences on Feb. 28.
Barrie police issued a public notice the day after the downtown attack, which was captured on both security video from establishments located nearby and on citizen cellphones.
Police said at the time, and through evidence presented at trial, confirmed that after striking two men the attacker fled toward Meridian Place.
Court heard evidence that Ramdas, who claimed he fled because he feared for his and his son’s safety as crowds began to gather, discarded the machete in Kempenfelt Bay.
“There were a lot of people around, I didn’t know what they were going to do,” Ramdas told BarrieToday after he was convicted. “I just wanted to get my young son home safe.”
Trial heard evidence that Ramdas went to his vehicle to retrieve the machete.
Ramdas, who operates a restaurant nearby, said he sought the weapon from his van because he witnessed his son jostling with the two men over what was alternatively described as a metal pole or a crowbar.
Dawson said Ramdas had other more reasonable options available to him.
“He should not have had that weapon in his van,” Dawson said in handing down judgment almost nine months ago.
One of the men struck by the machete suffered injuries that required treatment at hospital, while the other man was uninjured.
Syrian refugee Anas Modamani shows a selfie taken with then German chancellor Angela Merkel outside a refugee centre in Berlin in 2015. That year, writes Anthony Koch, Merkel opened the floodgates to more than a million migrants.
For years, conservatives have comforted themselves with the illusion that the destruction of the West was entirely the doing of the left. They have blamed progressive ideologues, globalists, and utopians for the failed experiment of multiculturalism, the open borders that reshaped their nations, and the cultural relativism that hollowed out the moral foundations of their societies. But this is self-deception. The truth is that the so-called right, the respectable suit-and-tie centre-right parties that governed most of the West for the better part of the last half-century, are just as responsible for the decay of our civilization as their left-wing counterparts. They were not innocent observers. They were in power, and they made the choices that brought us here.
For years, conservatives have comforted themselves with the illusion that the destruction of the West was entirely the doing of the left. They have blamed progressive ideologues, globalists, and utopians for the failed experiment of multiculturalism, the open borders that reshaped their nations, and the cultural relativism that hollowed out the moral foundations of their societies. But this is self-deception. The truth is that the socalled right, the respectable suit-and-tie centre-right parties that governed most of the West for the better part of the last half-century, are just as responsible for the decay of our civilization as their left-wing counterparts. They were not innocent observers. They were in power, and they made the choices that brought us here.
In France, the Gaullists and their successors ruled for decades under various names: the RPR, the UMP, and now Les Républicains. For much of the Fifth Republic’s history, the right, or what passed for it, held the presidency, the legislature, or both. And yet what did they conserve? Immigration surged but assimilation collapsed. Multiculturalism became orthodoxy not because the French right was defeated in battle, but because it surrendered without a fight. The men who claimed to guard the Republic’s identity replaced conviction with caution, sovereignty with symbolism, and principle with polling. They preached integration but allowed the parallel societies of the banlieues to fester, all the while insisting that national unity could survive as a slogan even as it disappeared as a lived reality. They spoke of secularism and French values yet abandoned the expectation that newcomers — like generations of successful immigrants before them — must adopt and uphold the shared civic and cultural values that made France what it is.
In France, the Gaullists and their successors ruled for decades under various names: the RPR, the UMP, and now Les Républicains. For much of the Fifth Republic’s history, the right, or what passed for it, held the presidency, the legislature, or both. And yet what did they conserve? Immigration surged but assimilation collapsed. Multiculturalism became orthodoxy not because the French right was defeated in battle, but because it surrendered without a fight. The men who claimed to guard the Republic’s identity replaced conviction with caution, sovereignty with symbolism, and principle with polling. They preached integration but allowed the parallel societies of the banlieues to fester, all the while insisting that national unity could survive as a slogan even as it disappeared as a lived reality. They spoke of secularism and French values yet abandoned the expectation that newcomers — like generations of successful immigrants before them — must adopt and uphold the shared civic and cultural values that made France what it is.
Germany tells the same story. The Christian Democrats, the CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the CSU, have been the dominant force of postwar German politics. Their rule has been nearly continuous, their influence immense. Yet it was under Angela Merkel, the embodiment of moderation, that Germany’s identity was most radically transformed. Her 2015 decision to open Germany’s doors to over a million migrants was not an act of the left. It was an act of the conservative establishment. It was done not in the name of ideology but of morality, and therein lies the irony: the moralism of the centre-right has been no less destructive than the utopianism of the left. Merkel’s gesture, however well-intentioned, fractured the European consensus, destabilized domestic politics, and sent an unmistakable signal to the world that Europe’s borders were optional. She governed as if sentiment could substitute for sovereignty, and Germany is still paying the price.
Germany tells the same story. The Christian Democrats, the CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the CSU, have been the dominant force of postwar German politics. Their rule has been nearly continuous, their influence immense. Yet it was under Angela Merkel, the embodiment of moderation, that Germany’s identity was most radically transformed. Her 2015 decision to open Germany’s doors to over a million migrants was not an act of the left. It was an act of the conservative establishment. It was done not in the name of ideology but of morality, and therein lies the irony: the moralism of the centre-right has been no less destructive than the utopianism of the left. Merkel’s gesture, however well-intentioned, fractured the European consensus, destabilized domestic politics, and sent an unmistakable signal to the world that Europe’s borders were optional. She governed as if sentiment could substitute for sovereignty, and Germany is still paying the price.
Across Europe, similar patterns repeat. The so-called conservative parties in Britain, Spain, Italy, and Scandinavia have all held office for long stretches of time. They could have reversed course, tightened unfettered immigration, restored national pride, and reasserted the cultural norms that bind a people together. Instead, they chose cowardice cloaked in civility. They courted respectability and the approval of editorial boards, terrified of being called cruel or reactionary. Their guiding principle became “not to be hated,” as if a society could be saved without confrontation. They governed as managers, not as leaders, as administrators of decline and custodians of decay. They inherited institutions built by stronger leaders and allowed them to crumble out of fear that renewal might offend.
Across Europe, similar patterns repeat. The so-called conservative parties in Britain, Spain, Italy, and Scandinavia have all held office for long stretches of time. They could have reversed course, tightened unfettered immigration, restored national pride, and reasserted the cultural norms that bind a people together. Instead, they chose cowardice cloaked in civility. They courted respectability and the approval of editorial boards, terrified of being called cruel or reactionary. Their guiding principle became “not to be hated,” as if a society could be saved without confrontation. They governed as managers, not as leaders, as administrators of decline and custodians of decay. They inherited institutions built by stronger leaders and allowed them to crumble out of fear that renewal might offend.
Canada and the United States have not been immune to the same disease. In Canada, the Progressive Conservatives and later the federal Conservative Party presided over the codification and expansion of official multiculturalism, a policy that, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments alike, transformed national identity from something shared into something merely managed. Brian Mulroney enshrined multiculturalism as a cornerstone of Canadian political consensus. Stephen Harper, though more cautious, did little to challenge its assumptions. The Conservatives spoke of integration but funded the same bureaucracies of fragmentation. Even in opposition, they supported the immigration policies advanced by Liberal governments, even when evidence showed integration was faltering and housing, health care, and wages were suffering. And let it be said plainly: this is not a rejection of immigration itself — immigration has built and enriched Canada — but a rejection of immigration without expectation, without integration, and without the insistence that newcomers join a common civic nation rather than reside in parallel ones.
Canada and the United States have not been immune to the same disease. In Canada, the Progressive Conservatives and later the federal Conservative Party presided over the codification and expansion of official multiculturalism, a policy that, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments alike, transformed national identity from something shared into something merely managed. Brian Mulroney enshrined multiculturalism as a cornerstone of Canadian political consensus. Stephen Harper, though more cautious, did little to challenge its assumptions. The Conservatives spoke of integration but funded the same bureaucracies of fragmentation. Even in opposition, they supported the immigration policies advanced by Liberal governments, even when evidence showed integration was faltering and housing, health care, and wages were suffering. And let it be said plainly: this is not a rejection of immigration itself — immigration has built and enriched Canada — but a rejection of immigration without expectation, without integration, and without the insistence that newcomers join a common civic nation rather than reside in parallel ones.
South of the border, the Republican party tells a similar story. For decades, it has thundered about illegal immigration while quietly enabling legal migration on a massive scale. Ronald Reagan, the icon of modern American conservatism, granted amnesty to millions in 1986 under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, declaring it a one-time correction that would fix the problem forever. It did not. The border remained porous, and the precedent was set. Later Republican administrations promised toughness but delivered managerialism: walls half-built, enforcement half-hearted, rhetoric disconnected from results. Even when they controlled Congress and the White House, Republicans flinched from using power to reform a system that rewards chaos. They were terrified of the media, of corporate donors, of their own moral uncertainty.
South of the border, the Republican party tells a similar story. For decades, it has thundered about illegal immigration while quietly enabling legal migration on a massive scale. Ronald Reagan, the icon of modern American conservatism, granted amnesty to millions in 1986 under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, declaring it a one-time correction that would fix the problem forever. It did not. The border remained porous, and the precedent was set. Later Republican administrations promised toughness but delivered managerialism: walls half-built, enforcement half-hearted, rhetoric disconnected from results. Even when they controlled Congress and the White House, Republicans flinched from using power to reform a system that rewards chaos. They were terrified of the media, of corporate donors, of their own moral uncertainty.
They governed as if the question of who enters and who belongs were a matter of economics, not of identity. The result has been a steady erosion of social cohesion and the rise of populism as the only force willing to name what the establishment right refused to confront.
The great tragedy is that the right once understood the moral dimension of civilization. It understood that a nation is not just a collection of individuals but a covenant between generations, bound by memory and duty, by a shared story and shared obligations. But over time, the conservative parties of the West became liberal parties with slower reflexes. They adopted the language of compassion, the theology of globalism, the logic of markets, and the esthetics of restraint. They preached prudence while practising abdication. Their idea of stability was to manage the revolution rather than resist it. Every time they were given power, they promised to correct the excesses of the left, and every time, they merely administered them more efficiently.
The great tragedy is that the right once understood the moral dimension of civilization. It understood that a nation is not just a collection of individuals but a covenant between generations, bound by memory and duty, by a shared story and shared obligations. But over time, the conservative parties of the West became liberal parties with slower reflexes. They adopted the language of compassion, the theology of globalism, the logic of markets, and the esthetics of restraint. They preached prudence while practising abdication. Their idea of stability was to manage the revolution rather than resist it. Every time they were given power, they promised to correct the excesses of the left, and every time, they merely administered them more efficiently.
It is no accident that populism has risen from the ruins of this betrayal. People were not seduced by extremism; they were abandoned by moderation. When citizens looked to the mainstream right for protection from mass migration, from cultural dissolution, from the erosion of meaning, they found bureaucrats instead of believers. They found a politics of hesitation, a cowardly centrism that worshipped process and feared conviction. And so the right’s greatest sin was not malice but weakness. It mistook compromise for virtue, consensus for peace, and delay for wisdom. In the end, it was the polite right that gave the left its victories, one concession at a time.
Conservatives must face this truth without evasion. The West is not being undermined by its enemies alone. Blame its caretakers, those who thought they could preserve civilization by yielding its substance while keeping its name. The crisis of the West is therefore not only moral or cultural but political. It is the collapse of a conservative tradition that lost the courage to conserve. Until the right admits its complicity and rediscovers the virtue of defiance — rooted not in exclusion, but in the defence of the shared civic and cultural inheritance that newcomers are welcome to join and strengthen — it will remain unfit to lead. For repentance must precede redemption, and only when the right stops excusing its own failures can it begin the work of renewal.
CONSERVATIVES UNWITTINGLY HELPED THE LEFT UNDERMINE THE WEST
National Post
15 Nov 2025
ANTHONY KOCH
Syrian refugee Anas Modamani shows a selfie taken with then German chancellor Angela Merkel outside a refugee centre in Berlin in 2015. That year, writes Anthony Koch, Merkel opened the floodgates to more than a million migrants.
For years, conservatives have comforted themselves with the illusion that the destruction of the West was entirely the doing of the left. They have blamed progressive ideologues, globalists, and utopians for the failed experiment of multiculturalism, the open borders that reshaped their nations, and the cultural relativism that hollowed out the moral foundations of their societies. But this is self-deception. The truth is that the socalled right, the respectable suit-and-tie centre-right parties that governed most of the West for the better part of the last half-century, are just as responsible for the decay of our civilization as their left-wing counterparts. They were not innocent observers. They were in power, and they made the choices that brought us here.
In France, the Gaullists and their successors ruled for decades under various names: the RPR, the UMP, and now Les Républicains. For much of the Fifth Republic’s history, the right, or what passed for it, held the presidency, the legislature, or both. And yet what did they conserve? Immigration surged but assimilation collapsed. Multiculturalism became orthodoxy not because the French right was defeated in battle, but because it surrendered without a fight. The men who claimed to guard the Republic’s identity replaced conviction with caution, sovereignty with symbolism, and principle with polling. They preached integration but allowed the parallel societies of the banlieues to fester, all the while insisting that national unity could survive as a slogan even as it disappeared as a lived reality. They spoke of secularism and French values yet abandoned the expectation that newcomers — like generations of successful immigrants before them — must adopt and uphold the shared civic and cultural values that made France what it is.
Germany tells the same story. The Christian Democrats, the CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the CSU, have been the dominant force of postwar German politics. Their rule has been nearly continuous, their influence immense. Yet it was under Angela Merkel, the embodiment of moderation, that Germany’s identity was most radically transformed. Her 2015 decision to open Germany’s doors to over a million migrants was not an act of the left. It was an act of the conservative establishment. It was done not in the name of ideology but of morality, and therein lies the irony: the moralism of the centre-right has been no less destructive than the utopianism of the left. Merkel’s gesture, however well-intentioned, fractured the European consensus, destabilized domestic politics, and sent an unmistakable signal to the world that Europe’s borders were optional. She governed as if sentiment could substitute for sovereignty, and Germany is still paying the price.
Across Europe, similar patterns repeat. The so-called conservative parties in Britain, Spain, Italy, and Scandinavia have all held office for long stretches of time. They could have reversed course, tightened unfettered immigration, restored national pride, and reasserted the cultural norms that bind a people together. Instead, they chose cowardice cloaked in civility. They courted respectability and the approval of editorial boards, terrified of being called cruel or reactionary. Their guiding principle became “not to be hated,” as if a society could be saved without confrontation. They governed as managers, not as leaders, as administrators of decline and custodians of decay. They inherited institutions built by stronger leaders and allowed them to crumble out of fear that renewal might offend.
Canada and the United States have not been immune to the same disease. In Canada, the Progressive Conservatives and later the federal Conservative Party presided over the codification and expansion of official multiculturalism, a policy that, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments alike, transformed national identity from something shared into something merely managed. Brian Mulroney enshrined multiculturalism as a cornerstone of Canadian political consensus. Stephen Harper, though more cautious, did little to challenge its assumptions. The Conservatives spoke of integration but funded the same bureaucracies of fragmentation. Even in opposition, they supported the immigration policies advanced by Liberal governments, even when evidence showed integration was faltering and housing, health care, and wages were suffering. And let it be said plainly: this is not a rejection of immigration itself — immigration has built and enriched Canada — but a rejection of immigration without expectation, without integration, and without the insistence that newcomers join a common civic nation rather than reside in parallel ones.
South of the border, the Republican party tells a similar story. For decades, it has thundered about illegal immigration while quietly enabling legal migration on a massive scale. Ronald Reagan, the icon of modern American conservatism, granted amnesty to millions in 1986 under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, declaring it a one-time correction that would fix the problem forever. It did not. The border remained porous, and the precedent was set. Later Republican administrations promised toughness but delivered managerialism: walls half-built, enforcement half-hearted, rhetoric disconnected from results. Even when they controlled Congress and the White House, Republicans flinched from using power to reform a system that rewards chaos. They were terrified of the media, of corporate donors, of their own moral uncertainty.
They governed as if the question of who enters and who belongs were a matter of economics, not of identity. The result has been a steady erosion of social cohesion and the rise of populism as the only force willing to name what the establishment right refused to confront.
The great tragedy is that the right once understood the moral dimension of civilization. It understood that a nation is not just a collection of individuals but a covenant between generations, bound by memory and duty, by a shared story and shared obligations. But over time, the conservative parties of the West became liberal parties with slower reflexes. They adopted the language of compassion, the theology of globalism, the logic of markets, and the esthetics of restraint. They preached prudence while practising abdication. Their idea of stability was to manage the revolution rather than resist it. Every time they were given power, they promised to correct the excesses of the left, and every time, they merely administered them more efficiently.
It is no accident that populism has risen from the ruins of this betrayal. People were not seduced by extremism; they were abandoned by moderation. When citizens looked to the mainstream right for protection from mass migration, from cultural dissolution, from the erosion of meaning, they found bureaucrats instead of believers. They found a politics of hesitation, a cowardly centrism that worshipped process and feared conviction. And so the right’s greatest sin was not malice but weakness. It mistook compromise for virtue, consensus for peace, and delay for wisdom. In the end, it was the polite right that gave the left its victories, one concession at a time.
Conservatives must face this truth without evasion. The West is not being undermined by its enemies alone. Blame its caretakers, those who thought they could preserve civilization by yielding its substance while keeping its name. The crisis of the West is therefore not only moral or cultural but political. It is the collapse of a conservative tradition that lost the courage to conserve. Until the right admits its complicity and rediscovers the virtue of defiance — rooted not in exclusion, but in the defence of the shared civic and cultural inheritance that newcomers are welcome to join and strengthen — it will remain unfit to lead. For repentance must precede redemption, and only when the right stops excusing its own failures can it begin the work of renewal.
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s Longest Service Prime Minister Was Right About Immigration
“Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens […] There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.“
DIVERSITY AT WORK — SAY, WHAT’S HIS CITIZENSHIP? Ontario man allegedly broke into 3 homes and sexually assaulted residents in a single day
Ontario man allegedly broke into 3 homes and sexually assaulted residents in a single day
Mohamed Basil Lafir is suspected of exposing himself to one homeowner, sexually assaulting a second homeowner and assaulting an older female who was in bed in a third home
Mohamed Basil Lafir, 28, of no fixed address, is accused of breaking into homes in Oshawa and sexually assaulting multiple residents on Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2025. Photo by Durham Regional Police
A 28-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly entering several homes in a single day and sexually assaulting multiple victims in Oshawa, Ontario.
Mohamed Basil Lafir of no fixed address is charged with several suspected offences, including multiple break-and-enters, committing an indecent act, forcible confinement, and two sexual assaults.
Lafir was held after his arrest for a bail hearing.
The alleged crime spree unfolded on Nov. 11, according to Durham Regional Police. The service says it responded to calls received late Tuesday afternoon about a man entering homes and exposing himself.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
The suspect entered one home and exposed himself to the residents before being startled by a dog and fleeing, says the DRPS in a release.
“The suspect then entered a second residence on the same street, where he sexually assaulted the homeowner when she confronted him.”
Afterward, he fled and entered a third home. While inside it, the suspect sexually assaulted an older female, who was in bed. He fled the third residence through the bedroom window.
When police arrived in the area, they located the suspect and took him into custody without incident.
Police are concerned there may be more victims.
However, the allegations have yet to be proven in court.
Anyone with information or video connected to these incidents is asked to contact the DPRS investigative division at 1-888-579-1520 ext. 2452. (NATIONAL POST, November 14, 2025))
An aerial photo of the dump site on Indian Road in North Cowichan taken on Oct. 7. SIXMOUNTAINS.CA
“There is only one road in and that road goes directly in front. The path of these twenty-nine thousand dump trucks goes directly in front of the tribal offices. Like, right in front. You cannot miss them if you’re in that office.” – Ben Mulroney
It appears as if the Cowichan Tribes aboriginal band has done the thing that humans do when there is no oversight or accountability: they lied and cheated and created an illegal grift (in the form of an illicit landfill site). But first, like all aboriginal bands, they demanded self-determination and refused any input, oversight, management or guidance from the government who pays for their fantasy well-fare nation. This was so they could get away with polluting and desecrating the land for money.
They stabbed all Canadians in the back. They selfishly and irresponsibly dumped waste and filth on lands the government should never have trusted these phony stewards to take care of.In a statement released on Monday, the culprits, the Cowichan Tribes, are urging the federal government to step in because there are “significant limitations” of what they can do. They are “First Nations” when they demand that non-aboriginals not be permitted to audit or oversee tax-payer transfers, or the general management of reserve lands, but they are meek victims of colonialism when it comes to most other aspects associated with functional nations.
Either way, Cowichan Tribes are attempting to pass the buck to Canadians. Their statement Monday included the following:“Pollution and contamination of reserve land is a generational, systemic and national problem.”The Cowichan Tribes are saying they want “Ottawa to fulfill its long overdue responsibility to take action to address the site.” Are you getting all this, settlers? We didn’t break the law, allow others to break the law, or desecrate the wilderness while claiming to be its sacred protectors. Nope. Canadians didn’t do that.
But according to the Cowichan Tribes, Canadians are on the hook to fix it anyway. Because of systemic, intergenerational, and other such nonsense social justice talking points, non-aboriginal Canadians, those dastardly colonizers, must pay for and clean up the disgusting, irresponsible and dangerous illegal dump in which aboriginals are 100% responsible. James Anthony Peter, an aboriginal and member of Cowichan Tribes, is the man who controls access to the illegal dump site. Cowichan Tribes claims to have repeatedly issued him cease-and-desist letters since 2010. It’s been 15 years of thousands of dump trucks driving past the Cowichan Tribes head office on their way to the illegal dump, and in all that time this “First Nation” was only able to muster up unenforced cease-and-desist letters.
Are readers starting to see that aboriginal “nations” fall well short of what all other nations are expected to rise up to? Do readers even believe that the Cowichan Tribes did anything meaningful to stop this illegal landfill? In my view, it is a safe conjecture that they were all in on it, that the band did little to stop Peter, and most likely profited along with him.According to a 2023 environmental report, “the illegal dump site at 5544 Indian Road has ballooned to 290,000 cubic metres of debris, including concrete, tires, household garbage, and construction waste. The report warns the material poses a contamination risk to the nearby Cowichan River.” And according to Times Colonist, this debris contains “elevated concentrations of copper and zinc and other ‘substances of concern,’ including heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead and manganese, according to recent environmental reports…
Two independent environmental reports indicate the site is producing leachate that’s migrating via groundwater toward the Cowichan River.”Aboriginals need to be governed, audited, managed, supervised, treated with suspicion, held accountable, and spoken directly to with facts and evidence. This is no different from non-aboriginal people. All humans must be monitored, not all the time like Big Brother, but some of the time to ensure rules, standards, and best-practices are being followed and utilized. There are no blameless people. There are no equity-deservers who are justified in breaking the law. When it comes to the modern concerns and operation of this nation, aboriginal elders, traditional ways of knowing, self-determination, aboriginal land stewardship, truth and reconciliation, and a boat load of other even more useless things, have no place in its proper functioning or prosperity.The band is responsible for this mess, but are demanding that non-aboriginal Canadians clean it up.
I say we should indeed clean up the Cowichan land-fill. I say non-aboriginal Canadians should pay for it. It needs to be done right, and when you want things done right you don’t call people who don’t/can’t do things right. Why have we lost faith in our people? Would a whole community of Anglo or Franco Canadians do what these irresponsible Cowichan aboriginals did? Everyone knows they wouldn’t. So, let’s clean up the land that the aboriginals treated so carelessly, before dangerous chemicals leech into the nearby rivers, let’s restore that wilderness to its original pristine state, let’s make it sacred like only non-aboriginal Canadians can.
But then, and this is the greater act of cleanup, let’s revoke the Cowichan band’s self-determination and “nation” status, and start involving ourselves in audits and managerial processes concerning this dishonest land-desecrating band. They are not stewards of the land, they are grifters involved in criminal enterprise. They care nothing about Canada. Nobody who does would dump refuge in its immaculate undefiled wilderness.As stated above, I think it is clear that the Cowichan band knew about the illegal dump and profited from it. They sold out the forest, they sold out Canada.
Ben Mulroney said it best, “the due-diligence phase of our relationship in terms of reconciliation has come upon us and we need to know what you knew. Where is the money, how much do you have, where is it going?…real reconciliation doesn’t happen unless you open the books.”Last week I published a piece by Nina Green where she examined a question concerning the Cowichan band and private land ownership in B.C. Nina wrote, “Does the Cowichan case indicate that private property is on the table for reconciliation?” As it turns out, according to Nina, “Clearly, for AFN Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, private property is on the table for reconciliation.” The same band that treats its own land so carelessly and disrespectful is coming after your land. What could this possibly mean for the future of Canada?
Will we all have illegal aboriginal dumps in our back yards? Will we have to ship in clean water from Alaska due to all the leeching chemicals from these sites? Will we continue to call the worst polluters in Canadian history, “stewards of the land,” or will some of these endlessly repeated false slogans finally be outed for the silly nonsense they are?The bigger questions, and the only ones really worth asking, do not concern individual aboriginal bands, regardless of how awful and reckless they may be. The bigger question concerns the structure of aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations. Questions like why do we deploy such manipulative language when it comes to all things aboriginal? For example, these are poor, under-developed, well-fare recipients. Under what rationale do they make nations? How can they be nations when they are barely even functioning communities? They are crucibles of deprivation and criminality.
Turning to the clown show at Thompson Rivers University where yesterday OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, wrongfully terminated Professor Frances Widdowson, and illiberally cancelled high school teacher Jim McMurtry were screamed at and drowned out by aboriginal activists, students and professors, who are obsessed with believing that 215 murdered aboriginal children were clandestinely buried in an apple orchard at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential school. These sick people do not take it as good news that the claim of 215 murdered former IRS students is not true. They desire for it to be true. They need it to be true. They have shaped a narrative that informs their entire conception of Canada and their view of the world at large by this anti-Canadian, anti-Christian, anti-white false story of child murder and coverup.
From a report this morning filed by Alex Zoltan for Juno News:“What began as a peaceful free speech event quickly spiralled into verbal assaults, drumming, and foot-stomping as angry protesters hurled obscenities like “You f***ing white man!” to drown out discussion.”Is this what members of respectable nations do? Scream over people and bang on drums to avoid hearing things they find unpleasant? I noticed a comment on the report above which seems to encapsulate what I would guess would be the majority sentiment in Canada:“Is the Canadian taxpayer expected to pay their taxes and shut their f–king mouth?”It’s a million dollar question. Clearly the aboriginal industry would love to see just this.
However, as I recently wrote in these pages, Canadians are becoming increasingly fatigued by aboriginals and their politics, by the illiberal collectivism, the double standards, the lies and deliberately perpetrated hoaxes, by Truth and Reconciliation, by special status, advantages and privileges wasted on dependent people who produce little.
Clearly we need to Stand Up To The Orange Shirts. We need deep constitutional change in this country when it comes to how we deal with aboriginals. They need to be put in their place, stripped of their illiberal collective rights, and forced to conform to the same laws and standards as the rest of Canada. Nothing will change until we take the battle to new ground, alter the discourse, dismiss this broken reconciliation process, and replace it with good old truth and accountability.
Let’s be quite clear. The only slavery since Canada became and independent Dominion in 1867 was on the part of West Coast Indians owning other Indians as slaves well into the 19th Century. In 1794, Sir John Graves Simcoe abolished slavery in the forming British colony of Upper Canada. This was 40 years before the mother country would abolish slavery throughout the British Empire in 1834.
Writing in the National Post (June 13, 2025) N.W. Liston recounted : “Jody Wilson-Raybould’s father describes the pride he felt in 1951, sitting on his grandfather’s knee as he was served by his slaves. Indigenous produced programs on APTN have begun noting the power the Haida (who ranged as far as northern California on raids) possessed when Haida Gwai’s population was 25% slave. One recent episode on local tribal wars reconstructs memorable battles such as the luring of a large (1000?) raiding party into Maple Bay near Duncan, where a 3 sided trap was sprung from land and water, the slaughter turning the water of the bay red. The victorious alliance, fed up with constant raiding, then finalized the solution by “marrying” the wives of the dead. Surprisingly, “Blood in the Water” the estimated date of this battle of around 1850.
Reconciliation can only take place between real peoples, not the distorted, grotesque caricatures produced by both ignorance and design. Understanding the “other” does not come from projecting your own stereotypical image in the absence of actual experience, but formed bit by bit from real encounters with real people and attempts to see the world from another’s point of view, not assuming theirs is the same as yours. Ghosts are not your friends.”
West Coast slaves — Indians owned by other Indians!
Negro slavery? We never did it. It was abolished 73 years before we even became a Dominion. No apology. No way! No more White Guilt.
An additional acknowledgment
National Post
13 Nov 2025
Just as Indigenous land acknowledgments become a ubiquitous aspect of Canadian life, activists are attempting to normalize a second acknowledgment that would similarly precede every single speech, meeting or public event in the country.
This was on view at the City of Toronto’s official Remembrance Day ceremony at Toronto City Hall.
After a standard land acknowledgment mentioning the various First Nations whose traditional territories overlap with the City of Toronto, attendees were also asked to acknowledge “those who were brought here involuntarily; particularly those brought to these lands as a result of the TransAtlantic slave trade and slavery.”
While Toronto does indeed sit atop land that used to be Indigenous, the historical claims in the slavery acknowledgment are less accurate.
As outlined in a recent report for the Aristotle Foundation, African slavery was never a defining feature of Canada, particularly as compared to the United States.
The generally accepted view of historians is that, over 200 years, a total of 7,000 African slaves were owned in the French and English colonies that would eventually form Canada.
In contrast to the U.S., Canada’s contemporary Black population is comprised mostly of people who trace their lineage through Caribbean immigrants, or freed U.S. slaves who settled in Canada.
What’s more, Canada became one of the first jurisdictions on earth with an explicit sanction against human bondage. The 1793 Act Against Slavery, passed by the colonial legislature of Upper Canada, would end up representing the British Empire’s legislative first step toward its ultimate ban on slavery in 1834; 33 years before Confederation.
As noted by the Aristotle Foundation, the much more prevalent form of slavery in pre-confederation Canada was the version practised by Indigenous societies — iterations of which could be found on the West Coast well into the 19th century.
Nevertheless, the City of Toronto is one of several Canadian institutions that is still attempting to normalize a “slavery acknowledgment” in addition to standard Indigenous land acknowledgments.
Starting in 2018, the city codified the text of an “African Ancestral Acknowledgement” that was to be used to open public events, provided it was “delivered by a person of African descent.”
If no such person could be found, a non-black person is instructed to pre-empt the acknowledgment with the line “though I am not a person of African descent, I am committed to continually acting in support of and in solidarity with Black communities seeking freedom and reparative justice in light of the history and ongoing legacy of slavery that continues to impact Black communities in Canada.”
Similar acknowledgments can also be found in various Toronto non-profits and government agencies.
The Toronto Seniors Housing Corporation, for one, has a section on its website devoted to acknowledging slavery, even while noting that said slavery usually didn’t happen in Canada. “We acknowledge the experiences of Black peoples who arrived in Canada seeking a better life following the abolition of slavery by the British in 1834, while also recognizing the structural, systemic, and individual racism that they encountered,” it reads.
Nova Scotia, long a centre of Canadian Black life due to its large pre-confederation communities of freed slaves, has also seen several institutions flirting with slavery acknowledgments.
The officially recommended land acknowledgment provided by the Nova Scotia chapter of CUPE, for instance, mentions the forcible displacement and enslavement of people of African descent,” adding “much of the privilege many of us have in this space stems from colonialism in the past and today, and in the oppression of Black & African Nova Scotian people.”
Dalhousie University has drafted an official African land acknowledgment stating that “African Nova Scotians are a distinct people whose histories, legacies and contributions have enriched that part of Mi’kma’ki known as Nova Scotia for over 400 years.”
While land acknowledgments are now standard practice across Canadian legislative session, city hall meetings, church services, airline flights and even hockey games, they’ve notably never taken hold in the United States outside of the occasional corporate boardroom or academic gathering.
In a January op-ed for The New York Times, Indigenous history professor Kathleen Duval said that even this scattered usage had outlived its usefulness. Wrote Duval, “they’ve begun to sound more like rote obligations, and Indigenous scholars tell me there can be tricky politics involved with naming who lived on what land and who their descendants are.”
Canadian views are more sanguine. Polls show that Canadians generally welcome land acknowledgments as a gesture of Indigenous reconciliation, even if they object to notions that they live on “stolen” land. A June survey by the Association for Canadian Studies found that 52 per cent of Canadians rejected the assertion that they lived on stolen Indigenous land.
