Category: Criminal

Posted on

Boulachanis: Murderer, Trafficker And Escapee Sent To Women’s Prison

It’s bad enough that male convicts can simply game the system to ensure they’re placed with women. It seems that even being a convicted murderer, a narcotics trafficker, or having a history of escaping isn’t necessarily enough to prevent it. Nor are allegations of sexual assault while in custody. Regardless of circumstances, women simply don’t have rights to assert.

This covers John Boulachanis, who now goes by Jamie Boulachanis. He had previously been involved in drug trafficking, and murdered an accomplice he feared would turn him in.

Bagnald, Blackplume and Patterson were looked at previously.

In a convoluted decision, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court allowed him to be transferred, at least until the issue was finally worked out. However, the Federal Court of Appeal stayed that decision.

Boulachanis Is Murderer With Previous Escape

[17] Upon her return to Canada, Ms. Boulachanis was charged with first‑degree murder and detained in provincial custody. In 2013, she managed to escape while being transported in a prison van, but was caught soon after. After going through a metal detector, she handed over saw blades, handcuff keys and part of a screwdriver hidden in her body cavities. In 2015, a search of her cell turned up a variety of objects and instruments that could be used to escape, including braided ropes, handmade handcuffs and tools. She was also convicted of obstructing justice for inducing witnesses to lie during her murder trial.

From Justice Grammond’s own reasons, Boulachanis had escaped custody previously, and had the tools to do so another time. He was still allowed to be in a women’s jail. Additionally, he had fled the country, and was only apprehended when he returned.

According to the Federal Court, Boulachanis lived under false identities in Greece, the United States, and elsewhere in Canada. Another reason to view him as a security risk.

Tortured Logic Coming From Federal Court

[30] To determine whether Ms. Boulachanis presented a strong prima facie case, it can be helpful to begin by reviewing the positions of the parties. Ms. Boulachanis’s position is straightforward: keeping her in a men’s institution is discriminatory, and in addition, this violates the interim policy. Since she is legally a woman, she has the strict right to be accommodated in a women’s institution.

[31] On the contrary, the Attorney General’s argument is based on the exception that appears in the interim policy. He argues that Ms. Boulachanis’s case, because of her high risk of escape, raises “overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved.” The decision to keep Ms. Boulachanis in a men’s institution would be the result of weighing her right to equality against the objectives of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [the CCRA], namely those regarding public safety. Citing the decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 [Doré], the Attorney General argues that the outcome of this weighing exercise was reasonable.

[35] In our society, certain facilities or areas are often reserved for men or for women. Reconciling these deeply entrenched practices with the right to equality of trans people often raises challenges. Nevertheless, there is prima facie discrimination when a trans person is forced to use facilities reserved for people of their anatomical sex, when they do not correspond to their gender identity or expression: see, for example, Sheridan and Kavanagh. Such an approach is consistent with a perspective based on individual autonomy in gender identity and expression.

[36] Thus, Ms. Boulachanis was subject to prima facie discrimination because of her gender identity or expression, given that she was denied a transfer to a women’s institution, even though that is what corresponds to her current gender identity and expression and the designation of sex that now appears on her act of birth. That was also the conclusion of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Kavanagh, at paragraph 141. The interim policy the Service adopted in December 2017 was also based on the idea that respecting the right to equality of trans people required that their choice to be in a men or women’s institution be respected.

[37] Ms. Boulachanis was also subject to prima facie discrimination from another perspective. While all inmates undergo a risk assessment to determine their security classification, it is only in the case of trans women inmates that the Service use this assessment to deny them the possibility of being accommodated in a women’s institution. A cisgender woman who presented just as great a risk as Ms. Boulachanis would automatically be sent to a women’s institution. That is another reason for a finding of prima facie discrimination.

[40] In this case, the Attorney General is not claiming that the simple presence of trans women in women’s institutions would cause undue hardship. It appears that the adoption of the interim policy, which clearly provides for this presence, implicitly set aside the arguments that, more than fifteen years ago, led to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s finding in Kavanagh, at paragraphs 155–160.

[41] What the Attorney General is arguing is that accommodating trans women inmates in a women’s institution must be subject to an assessment of the level of risk to health and safety. To justify this condition that would be applied only to trans women inmates, the Attorney General strongly insists on the fact that men and women’s institutions do not meet the same security requirements. In particular, the evidence clearly shows that the construction standards are different and that the use of firearms to ensure safety is prohibited in all women’s institutions, whereas it is allowed in men’s institutions, depending on their security level. These differences in the design and operation of the two categories of institution apparently reflect the fact that men are, in general, more dangerous than women, that the criminal behaviour of men and women is different, and that women may benefit from a different correctional approach based on their specific needs. In this regard, the policy adopted by the Service is largely inspired by the report of Justice Louise Arbour concerning the riot that occurred at the Kingston women’s prison in 1994 (Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).

[42] I have no difficulty accepting the fact that it is appropriate to separate men and women in a correctional environment and that it is appropriate to implement less strict security measures in response to the different situation of women. But that is not the issue. The real issue is to determine whether, in a context where it is justified to keep separate institutions for men and women, Ms. Boulachanis should be treated as a man or as a woman.

[45] I find it hard to believe that physical capability is so important in assessing the risk posed by an inmate that, for that reason alone, trans women inmates must be treated as men. Furthermore, I note that the assessment to determine Ms. Boulachanis’s security classification makes no mention of her physical capabilities.

[48] In the absence of a reliable scientific basis, we are reduced to speculation, which is fertile ground for discriminatory prejudice. At the hearing, the Attorney General made certain hypotheses about the physical and psychological effects of the various phases of the sex reassignment process on risk and dangerousness. I have serious doubts about the validity of such hypotheses. Moreover, we should also consider the social effects of this process, in particular on the ability to maintain relationships with potential accomplices or criminal networks.

It’s worth pointing out that the Attorney General isn’t challenging the policy in any way. In other words, there’s no issue in principle with men being in women’s prisons. It’s only that this specific one cause security risks.

The Judge doesn’t think that just because Boulachanis is a man, that he should be treated as such.

Another noteworthy point is that there appears to be no concern for the well being of the female inmates at the prison.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

August 9, 1997: John Boulachanis is charged with first degree murder of Robert Tanguay.

1998 to 2011: Boulachanis lives under various assumed names, and in other countries. He is eventually arrested after returning to Canada.

September 2016: Over several days, a Jordan Application is argued. The Defendant says that his rights have been violated due to the extensive delays in prosecuting him.

October 6th, 2016: The Quebec Court denies the Jordan Application to stay the case.

October 27th, 2016: Quebec Superior Court permitted the testimony of a certain witness to be admitted at Trial, but with limiting instructions to be issued when the time came.

November 29th, 2016: The Quebec Court refuses a request to get certain prosecution statements removed from the record.

December 17th, 2016: Boulachanis is convicted, receives automatic life sentence.

January 20th, 2017: Quebec Court of Appeal agrees to expedite a challenge to the sentence.

January, 2019: Now serving a life sentence, Boulachanis begins taking synthetic hormones.

April 11th, 2019: Boulachanis has a hearing Federal Court. The prison staff refused his request to be transferred to a female prison. They do however refer to him as “Jamie”.

April 15th, 2019: Federal Court orders that Boulachanis can be transferred to a women’s prison for the time being.

April 23rd, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal hears argument that Boulachanis should stay where he is, and that female prisons are not designed to hold someone like him.

April 24th, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal stays the transfer pending final determination of the original Application.

January 8th, 2020: Quebec Court of Appeal rejects an Appeal of 2016 decision that refused the Jordan Application.

January 11th 2021: Boulachanis is transferred to Joliette Women’s Institution. Despite the FCA overturning Justice Grammond’s ruling, he’s in with women. Presumably, it was settled internally.

December 16th, 2021: Supreme Court of Canada grants an extension of time to file material for an Application for Leave to Appeal, but denies the Application itself. This was over the order which refused to stay his case for delay.

September 25th, 2024: CSC conducted a reassessment of his security clearance, which was currently at a “moderate” level.

The case didn’t end in 2021. Boulachanis filed a Habeas Corpus Application, which was refused. His security classification was raised, due to an incident of him trafficking morphine within the prison. As a result, he risked being sent back to a men’s prison.

Ultimately, the Court refused to get involved in the case, stating they were not the “arbiters of the institutional day-to-day”.

In any event, he never had any business being locked up with women, regardless of the other security risks he posed.

COURT DECISIONS (TRANSFER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc456/2019fc456.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2019/2019fca100/2019fca100.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs1049/2025qccs1049.html

COURT DECISIONS (MURDER CASE):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6867/2016qccs6867.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6876/2016qccs6876.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6877/2016qccs6877.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6879/2016qccs6879.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2017/2017qcca66/2017qcca66.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2020/2020qcca4/2020qcca4.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2021/2021canlii129761/2021canlii129761.html

Posted on

“Lucy” Blackplume: Declared A Dangerous Offender By ABCA In 2021

In early 2021, the Court of Appeal for Alberta overturned a Provincial Court ruling which spared a man an indeterminate sentence. Although this case is a few years old, it’s worth reminding people what some men are capable of, all while masquerading as women.

The perpetrator is Josiah Jerome Blackplume, who now goes by the name Lucy Blackplume.

It’s implied that the Gladue-Ipeelee principles are what kept Blackplume (at least in part) from initially being declared a dangerous offender. However, the Court of Appeal seems to disagree on the extent.

[15] The sentencing judge reviewed Gladue-Ipeelee sentencing principles for Indigenous offenders, and noted the link between residential schools and the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in corrections. Correctional institutions, in the sentencing judge’s view, have failed to develop humane secure housing and treatment for Indigenous and mentally ill offenders. Citing the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in R v CPS, 2006 SKCA 78 for its factual similarities, the sentencing judge endorsed the perspective that offenders such as Ms Blackplume are more appropriately treated from a mental health rather than correctional perspective. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30, she observed that psychological risk assessment tools may be culturally biased when evaluating Indigenous offenders. In Ewert (at paras 59-60), the Court stated that correctional institutions must provide programs that are culturally responsive to the needs and circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

Here’s the short version: following his latest convictions, the Crown sought to have Blackplume declared a dangerous offender. The Provincial Court Judge refused, despite meeting the criteria, and his extensive history of violence. He was instead given a 10 year sentence. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal, issuing an indeterminate one instead.

His criminal record includes the following:

  • October 24th, 2008 (conviction date): Aggravated Sexual Assault on a Minor
  • May 10th, 2012: Attempted Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • May 23th, 2012: Sexual Assault
  • October 6, 2014 (conviction date): Fraud over $5,000, receiving benefits while incarcerated
  • February 12th, 2015: Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • February 12th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
  • August 14th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Keep in mind, both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Alberta Court of Appeal will continuously refer to this person as a “woman”. This is beyond insulting.

[26] Ms. Blackplumes’s first conviction was recorded in Youth Court on October 24, 2008. As a 17-year old, she (Josiah) committed an aggravated sexual assault on a three-year-old girl. Intoxicated and walking to her girlfriend’s home in Standoff, Josiah noticed an open door in the victim’s home. Josiah entered and saw the victim on a living room couch. She approached and penetrated the child’s vagina with an index finger and the penis, also striking the child three times on the face with the back of the hand. The child’s aunt returned and Josiah fled out the front door. The young girl was naked, crying and bleeding from the vaginal area. Ms. Blackplume pled guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 18 months’ Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and 18 months’ conditional supervision.

[30] Ms. Blackplume has almost a 12-year history of life in these institutions: Calgary Young Offender Centre (CYOC), Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Calgary Remand Centre (CRC), Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC), Saskatoon Corrections Centre (SCC), Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Bowden Institution, Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre (SAFPC) and Regional Psychiatric Centre. Her time in these institutions is notable for many periods of segregation, isolation or observation, most often in response to Ms. Blackplume’s anxiety, depressed mood or suicidal ideation, gestures, threats or attempts, but also when she has been assaultive or sexually inappropriate with other inmates, or found trafficking, sometimes with her own stockpiled medications.

[31] On her Youth Court IRCS sentence, she (Josiah) was discharged early from Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, due to repeated inappropriate contact with female patients, in what was seen to be grooming behaviour.

The ruling itself is extremely graphic, and states in considerable detail the crimes Blackplume has both been convicted of, and otherwise suspected of.

At 17 years old, Blackplume beat and raped his girlfriend’s toddler child.

He has committed other sexual assaults, and has used weapons in doing so.

There are also references to drug trafficking, in the form of selling his medications.

While in prison, Blackplume was psychologically evaluated. The reports make it pretty clear that he will never be an asset to society, and will always be a danger.

  • Static encephalopathy, Ms. Blackplume’s brain damage, never changes, is a lifelong condition.
  • For her safety and the safety of others, Ms. Blackplume requires an external adult brain supervising her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life.
  • She does not have the ability to rely on past experience to guide future choices.
  • Ms. Blackplume appears to be much higher functioning than she is.
  • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy will not benefit Ms. Blackplume (despite all indications that she may have understood the programming).
  • Play therapy, pet therapy and music therapy can be used to fill her days and therefore manage her behaviour.
  • She is incapable of developing insight or empathy.
  • She is not able to understand that the act of forced sex on an unwilling or uncooperative person is wrong.
  • She is not able to understand that sex with minors is wrong.
  • With careful social scripting to participate in structured social outings, such as going fishing, working on fence posts on a farm, or playing the guitar with another person, she would be very successful.
  • The Wellspring program, although designed for lower functioning participants, is cognitive behavioural therapy and, therefore, will not work for Ms. Blackplume.
  • Pet, play and music therapy are not available in a secure hospital setting due to a lack of funding.

While the evaluations (accurately) point out the many defects and dysfunctions that Blackplume has, there is the elephant in the room: he’s a man, but thinks he’s a woman. It would be interesting to know to what degree these synthetic “hormones” have messed with his cognitive function.

Much of the Court submissions hinged on whether it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (a Section 12 Charter violation) to indefinitely lock someone up with such limited intellect. Ultimately though, the Court of Appeal did just that.

In an odd twist, the court decisions don’t state that Blackplume has expressed any desire to go to a women’s prison. And all for the best, anyway.

If he really is mentally deficient to the point that he doesn’t understand that forcing sex on unwilling people (especially children) is wrong, then euthanasia probably is the best option for everyone.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2019/2019abpc273/2019abpc273.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca2/2021abca2.html

Posted on

MacDonald Gets 10 Years For Production Of Atomwaffen Videos

An Ontario man, Patrick Gordon MacDonald, received a 10 year jail sentence for a series of terrorism offences. Specifically, he was convicted for creating 3 videos encouraging people to join the group Atomwaffen. While he posted other content online, it’s these videos which caused the most trouble.

One might think that there’s little else to do in the way of solving crime in Canada. Police spent a lot of time and money going after him.

It’s true that the creation of the videos predates Atomwaffen’s designation by Ottawa as a terrorist organization. However, it didn’t seem to matter much. The videos MacDonald made were called:

  1. Grey Zone
  2. Fission
  3. Feuernacht

The ruling doesn’t go into great detail about the contents of the videos, but these remarks are made.

[35] The videos had two purposes: a) to recruit new members; and b) to propagate AWD terrorist ideology by encouraging viewers to start the revolution and purge the weak. The Fission video invites viewers to join AWD in their efforts to “vanquish the modern world”; the narrator continues stating “we call forward all who are willing to descend, like a howling wolf, on the frail fold and rend limb from limb those without the stomach to fight”, “from the ashes of the kike system, our new order shall emerge” and concludes by saying “join us or perish with the rest”, which is a statement that expressly incites fear in members of the public.

[36] In the Feuernacht video, the narrator exhorts viewers to “burn it all, purge the weak, join the division”. The Grey Zone video concludes by telling viewers to “get the program”, “create your own cell”, and “start the revolution”. It describes the terror that will be unleashed on “fat, treacherous bureaucrats” and “Jewish snakes”, “we will storm your mansions, creating caskets from your dining tables and tombstones of your bedposts”. All three videos end with the same email address: awdrecruiting@tutonota.com.

Apparently, there was nothing in any of them to indicate it was trolling or satire.

“Grey Zone” was filmed at an abandoned cement plant in Belleville, Ontario. The police spent some time comparing the graffiti and marks on the cement wall. They also pulled MacDonald’s phone records (including location data), to confirm he was in Belleville. (Paragraph 38)

“Fission” was filmed at a former school in St. Ferdinand, Québec in July 2019. The police pulled MacDonald’s bank records to show that he had made purchases in the area. Oddly, phone records show that his cell wasn’t in the area, and the Judge simply concluded it might have been loaned out at that time. (Paragraph 38 f/g)

The Judge doesn’t say where Feuernacht was created, but ruled that it was shot by the same camera which created the other 2 videos.

On some level, it’s quite something the effort that was spent to find out where, when and by whom these videos were made. That said, it’s telling that there are many other serious crimes that go on in Ontario that receive little to no investigation.

Side note: another honeypot has decided to call out Atomwaffen. It’s amusing when they turn against each other.

MacDonald’s Counsel Does Lackluster Job

To be blunt, it’s not really clear what the strategy was supposed to be. There were several things that implicated MacDonald, and there seemed to be no effort to attempt any mitigation.

[17] The Defence did not attack any of Dr. Perry’s evidence about the history of AWD, the formation of AWD, or dispute her opinion evidence that AWD’s core ideological views were based on neo-Nazi accelerationism or that it encouraged its members to engage in acts of violence against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others with the intent to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state.

[20] I accept Dr. Perry’s expert evidence about the history and the ideological beliefs of the AWD group, including her opinion that AWD was a terrorist group within the definition of section 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code in the 2018-2019 time period, because AWD encouraged its members to commit violent acts against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state. I also accept Dr. Perry’s opinion evidence that one of AWD’s purposes was the facilitation of carrying out a terrorist activity and as such, it was a terrorist entity in 2018-2019. Her opinion was not contested on this point.

[27] The Accused posted the recruitment videos and violent Nazi images online under the online pseudonym “Dark Foreigner” for AWD on several media platforms using the hashtag “atomwaffen division”. The login information and password for these accounts were found above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. The fact that the Accused hid the login information and passwords for these accounts above the ceiling tiles indicates his knowledge that AWD was a terrorist group. The post by “Dark Foreigner” on Tumblr on April 16, 2018, included an image showing the trefoil symbol, a person wearing a balaclava skull mask, a military camouflage jacket, an assault jacket, and carrying a weapon with the words “Nazi” and “Atomwaffen” inscribed at the bottom.

[29] Finally, the pamphlet of “the AWD program” written in Russian was also found hidden above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s room in the basement. While the recruitment pamphlets of AWD were written in Russian, the fact that the Accused hid the pamphlets above the ceiling tiles indicates that he knew about the ideology of AWD and tried to conceal the pamphlet to avoid detection of the fact that he was a participant in the activities of AWD and that it was a terrorist group.

[30] The metadata contained in the Grey Zone video, namely in the JPEG files, confirms that these images were filmed using the Accused’s Fuji camera and lenses that had the identical serial number as the Fuji camera and lenses that were found in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. This is strong evidence that the Accused was involved in taking images with his Fuji camera and lenses that were included and found in the Grey Zone video. It is also strong evidence that the Accused was aware of AWD’s ideology and that it was a terrorist group.

[34] The Defence did not argue that contributing to or participating in the production of the recruitment videos would not amount to participating or contributing to a terrorist activity. The issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused is the person that participated in the production of the recruitment videos and posted the violent Nazi images online.

While the decision convicting MacDonald is long, here are a few highlights. The Defence apparently never tried to argue that creating these videos didn’t amount to terrorism. Instead, his lawyers tried arguing that it wasn’t him.

However, a few things really hamstrung MacDonald: (a) metadata from his camera; (b) cellphone activity; (c) AWD pamphlet and login information for his social media accounts hidden in the ceiling; and (d) clothing that appeared to match those seen in the videos.

[3] The Defence raises two arguments against the conviction:

a. Firstly, the Crown’s evidence does not identify the Accused as the person who participated in or contributed to the production of the three recruitment videos and posted AWD propaganda images online beyond a reasonable doubt; and

b. Secondly, the Defence submits that the expert evidence of Dr. Perry, to the effect that AWD was a terrorist group in the 2018-2019 period that promoted the use of violence in Defence of the white race, was not sufficiently reliable to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the Judge however, the Defence never really challenged the testimony from Barbara Perry about Atomwaffen’s core ideological beliefs.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

2019: MacDonald creates 3 promotional videos for Atomwaffen. It’s noteworthy that all of this happened prior to the group being designated as a terrorist organization in 2021.

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is officially classified as a terrorist group.

November 18th to December 3rd, 2024: MacDonald formally goes on Trial.

April 2nd, 2025: Justice Smith convicts MacDonald on 3 counts of participation in activity of terrorist group. He remains out on bail.

August 7th, 2025: Justice Smith agreed to let Matthew Kriner give opinion evidence during the sentencing hearing of MacDonald.

September 8th, 2025: MacDonald is sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Is An Appeal Likely To Succeed?

10 years is a long time for a first arrest. MacDonald had no prior record, so that should count for a lot. He also remained on bail for 2 years without incident.

On the other hand, Judges are given a large amount of deference when handing down sentences, and Appellate Courts may be reluctant to interfere. This last ruling is not yet available on CanLII, but should be interesting to read.

But if he does appeal, perhaps he should get a better lawyer.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4582/2025onsc4582.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2025/08_09_25.html
(5) https://x.com/JeremyMacKenzi/status/1965106679634112626/
(6) https://jeremymackenzie.substack.com/p/talk-shit-get-ten-years

Posted on

“Atomwaffen Applicant” To Be Sentenced For Participation In Terrorist Group

Last month, Seth Bertrand was found guilty of participation in activity of a terrorist group. The organization is the Atomwaffen Division, or AWD, also known as the National Socialist Order, or NSO. He is expected to be sentenced in October, and faces up to 10 years in prison.

It’s a fair question to ask whether this was explicitly set up by the authorities (as Grant Bristow did with Heritage Front), or if it has simply been heavily infiltrated. In either situation, Bertrand is in serious trouble.

He has effectively screwed up his life over graffiti, a broken window, and some slashed tires. Moreover, he ran his mouth to undercover police, explicitly stating that he wanted to join a “domestic terrorist organization”.

During that time, Bertrand apparently also reached out to: (a) Injekt Division; (b) National Partisans; and (c) The Minutemen. Similarly, one has to ask if any of these are ‘legitimate’ organizations, or merely fronts created by the police.

The way Bertrand describes things, he was angry and frustrated in early 2021 from various lockdown measures and the apparent helplessness in his life. This likely is true.

In, 2023, he pleaded guilty to inciting hate, and to 3 counts of mischief. However, he fought the terrorism charge, which was by far the most serious.

Diagolon Engages In “Fed-Jacketing” Against Atomwaffen

As an aside, law enforcement operations aren’t safe from being critcised by each other. Even Alex Vriend (a.k.a. “The Ferryman’s Toll”) commented recently that Atomwaffen was obviously a trap. The irony seems lost.

This site previously covered the gun grab of Gary Schill here and here. Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael testified that police regularly infiltrated the in-person meets, and that the Telegrams chats were monitored.

Consider that Jeremy MacKenzie testified in 2022 that he was willing to have a “continuous relationship with law enforcement”. He also detailed some of his previous cooperation. By Vriend’s own logic, anyone currently promoting Diagolon is either a retard or a fed.

Identities Of Witnesses, Undercover Officers Shielded From Public

These rulings also come with an Order attached under s.486.5 and s.486.31 of the Criminal Code. They prohibit any information that could identify the witnesses from being disclosed. Furthermore, the identities of “Undercover Officer Alex” and “Undercover Officer Eric” are also to be shielded.

Perhaps “Undercover Officer Jeremy” would have been too obvious.

One has to wonder what other cases these 2 have testified in, and if there are any more coming up. A likely explanation is that the operation is ongoing. It’s hard to “confront one’s accusers” in Court when Defendants don’t even know who they are.

Questions From Bertrand’s AWD/NSO Application

Why do you want to join NSO? What stands out to you, from other groups?

your professionalism and your propaganda quality everything about the NSO just stands out to me.

Why should we bother to recruit you?

I have wanted to be apart of something big ever since I was redpilled the NSO/AWD has been the biggest when i was running my division i strived to be as good as you guys plus i have already proven myself worthy of another divisions trust a stunt of mine made it in local news.

Question: Anything else?

If I do get accepted I promise all my loyalty to you i want nothing more then to be apart of a group that’s actually doing things to help save/protect the white race “if he wish not to fight in a world where struggle is the way of life then he does not have the right to exist”-adolf hitler.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is designated as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.

February 15th and 20th, 2021: Bertrand wrote graffiti on private property.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand emails the National Socialist Order, requesting to join. The NSO is another name which AtomWaffen is known by.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand throws a brake rotor through the front window of the WETrans Centre.

February 26th, 2021: Bertrand uploads a voice post which said, “look on the bright side, if I do end up going to jail, um, I can recruit people from inside the prison”.

March 6th, 2021: Bertrand sends an email to Folkish Aryan Resistance, asking to join. He adds that he’s good with vehicles and weapons.

March 2021: On 2 separate occasions, Bertrand punctured the tires of a vehicle parked outside. He was caught on surveillance camera doing so.

May 20th, 2021: Bertrand left a note outside the home of a gay couple, which included swastikas, and the words, “The AtomWaffen knows who you are!” and “hail Hitler”.

January 30th, 2022: Bertrand meets with “Undercover Officer Eric”, whom he believes to be the leader of a group looking to employ him. He admitted to the above graffiti and vandalism. For some reason, Bertrand took it upon himself to explain what AtomWaffen in, describing it as a “domestic terrorist organization”. He would later claim that he was entrapped and manipulated.

May 5th, 2022: Bertrand is arrested, and he explains to the police that there were people out to get whites. He described Atomwaffen Division as “a paramilitary terrorist organization”, which he “wanted to jump on that”. He later tried to justify the application since they weren’t listed as a terrorist organization. Or at least, that’s what he believed.

August, 2023: Bertrand pleads guilty to mischief and inciting hate, receiving a 5 month conditional sentence.

September 3rd, 2024: More hearings take place, and they continue into the Fall and Winter.

December 30th, 2024: Justice Carroccia dismissed an attempt to have Bertrand’s statements to police blocked from consideration at Trial. His rights weren’t violated in obtaining them. He claimed that he didn’t really understand he was under arrest, and had merely been detained for his participation in the national convoy.

February 27th, 2022: Justice Carroccia dismisses a Motion brought by the Defence to throw out the case for lack of evidence. She believed it was strong enough to send to Trial

April 9th, 2025: Bertrand stands Trial. Part of the Crown’s case came from Garth Davies, and Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University.

[23] The Crown also relies on the evidence of Dr. Garth Davies who was qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence on the identification of, and explanation of, specific ideologically motivated violent extremist (IMVE) groups including Atomwaffen Division, National Socialist Order, National Partisan Movement, Injekt Division, and Folkish Resistance Movement.

August 6th, 2025: Bertrand is convicted of participating in terrorist activity.

He’ll be sentenced in a matter of weeks, but it’s hard to predict the exact outcome. Patrick Gordon MacDonald recently received 10 years in prison for his convictions for making 3 videos promoting recruitment for Atomwaffen. Considering Bertrand already has a criminal record, jail time for him seems likely, although not inevitable.

In the big picture, one has to ask how many of these people really are terrorists, and how many are useful idiots that are easy to set up.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1303/2025onsc1303.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4591/2025onsc4591.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://www.sfu.ca/iccrc/members/memberprofiles/garth-davies.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(6) https://x.com/ferryman4747/status/1953636876642136402
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-terrorism-seth-bertrand-far-right-1.7420091
(8) https://www.ctvnews.ca/windsor/article/it-was-kind-of-like-a-job-interview-accused-windsorite-admits-to-communications-with-terrorist-organization/

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It had been introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne of Quebec.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography.

What’s interesting about this Bill is some of the groups that work to oppose it, and all while claiming to fight for women’s rights. One such organization is Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Leslyn Lewis was once a National Board Member of it.

LEAF describes itself as:

a national, charitable, non-profit organization that works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. LEAF has developed expertise in the gendered and intersectional impact of technology-facilitated violence through intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and making submissions to Parliament to highlight gender equity implications of online hate.

At the hearings before the House of Commons, LEAF made submissions, arguing against Bill S-210. The reasons are baffling.

In fairness, LEAF is hardly the only one to argue against Bill S-210. We’ll get into some of the others as well in subsequent articles.

Rather than implement age-restriction specifically for obscene material, LEAF instead defers to the much broader Bill C-63. While decrying possible invasions of privacy, the group recommends something more expansive.

***NCDII stands for non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

LEAF also has a rather convoluted objection to age-verification, under the guise of victims’ rights. While hundreds of underage people (mostly girls) have been victimized, requiring identification would make it harder for them to access their own images.

This means that LEAF is well aware of that the content of minors is often published, but age-verification can’t be allowed in order to allow victims some recourse. Perhaps a more stringent screening process beforehand would be helpful.

LEAF also adds that “To steer clear of such an inordinate penalty, tech companies are likely to over-moderate content on their sites. 2SLGBTQIA+ community members will bear the brunt of this change: through sexual content moderation, queer and trans content is already disproportionately targeted, banned, restricted, and demonetized on social media platforms“.

While denying that the “community” is full of groomers, LEAF argues that age-verification will disproportionately impact these people.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

Keep in mind, section 6(2) of Bill S-210 makes it clear that legitimate purposes related to: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; or (d) “the arts” is a full defence. And “arts” is presumably a broad category. Nonetheless, LEAF still opposes age-verification.

DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY YEAR AMOUNT
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2022 $25,000.00
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2023 $54,475.05
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2024 $54,475.05
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2022 $8,911.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2023 $8,400.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2024 $8,400.00
Justice Canada (JC) 2023 $33,712.34
Justice Canada (JC) 2024 $33,712.34
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2022 $362,668.00
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2023 $364,183.53
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2024 $364,183.53

This is just some of their more recent financing.

The Canadian Court Challenges Program is an initiative set up with public money in order for various “independent” groups to bring lawsuits challenging public policy. In other words, taxpayers have to finance lawfare against their own institutions.

For an idea of the kind of litigation that LEAF brings, check out some of their earlier work. It’s not a stretch to describe them as anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-humanity.

Lately, LEAF has been using a lobbying firm called Counsel Public Affairs. Bridget Howe, Ben Parsons, Sheamus Murphy, and Laila Hawrylyshyn (all Liberals) have been making their rounds. Counsel P.A. also employs Amber Ruddy, drug lobbyist and former CPC National Secretary.

Women’s LEAF, like so many groups, is also significantly subsidized by taxpayers, across different Ministries. They then hire lobbyists to lean on politicians to implement their agendas. In other words, organizations like these are using public money to pressure politicians against implementing safeguards for what children view online.

You don’t hate these people enough.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-413: Jail Time For Residential School “Denialism”

Leah Gazan, New Democrat M.P. for Winnipeg Centre, has made good on an earlier promise. Bill C-413 has now had First Reading in Parliament. If passed, it would ban “Residential School Denialism”, and people could face prison time for doing so.

In case people still think voting matters — for some reason — let’s differentiate between “left wing” politics and “right wing” politics in Canada. Hopefully, this clears things up.

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Gazan, who is Jewish, touts the “Never Again” motto as a rationale for bringing in this Bill.

Interestingly, she rails against war crimes committed in the Middle East, by Israel. However, she seems to support the same kind of censorship laws that Zionists do regarding the Holocaust. This appears to involve some mental gymnastics, especially given her enthusiasm for abortion.

Anyhow, this is what she recently contributed:

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.‍1):
Willful promotion of hatred — Indigenous peoples

(2.‍2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada or by misrepresenting facts relating to it
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍2)
(3.‍2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍2)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
.
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
.
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
.
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward Indigenous peoples.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

If the text of Bill C-413 looks familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-250. That was introduced in 2022 by “Conservative” Kevin Waugh to criminalize Holocaust denial. More on that later.

Both this Bill, and the one criminalizing Holocaust denial contain a provision that requires consent from the Attorney General to proceed. While this may be viewed as a safety mechanism, it can also mean that politically motivated cases would be filed only.

The Bill allows for the seizure and forfeiture of “anything in relation to the offence”, which presumably refers to computers and cell phones.

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

The text of Bill C-413 is modelled on Bill C-250, which was started by Kevin Waugh. However, the contents of that Bill were eventually incorporated into a budget, so this became irrelevant. As a result, people who “publicly deny the Holocaust” can now be locked up for 2 years.

This wasn’t just Waugh going rogue. The “Conservative” Party of Canada bragged about this being brought in, at least initially. Although the article was scrubbed, an archive of it is still available.

Things didn’t stop there. Yves-François Blanchet and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, both part of the Bloc Québécois, introduced Bills C-367 and C-373, respectively. These identical pieces of legislation were aimed at removing the “religious exemption” defence of Holocaust denial.

Back in July 2018, Kevin Waugh took a taxpayer funded trip to Israel. He billed $16,200 for this. It’s apparently commonplace to bring Members of Parliament (and spouses) each year to “foster cultural understanding”. To be fair, it seems to be commonplace that MPs are travelling to other countries at taxpayer expense.

Waugh, Blanchet and Brunelle-Duceppe were all lobbied by CIJA prior to their respective Bills being introduced. This is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC.

This is the left v.s. right political framework in Canada. There doesn’t seem to be any principled protection or dedication to free speech. Instead, special rules are brought in, depending on the political leanings of the people involved.

Time after time, we are seeing hate speech laws being brought for the protection of a specific group. But, will we ever see any legislation that prohibits the “willful promotion of hatred” against whites? Don’t count on it.

GAZAN’S BILL C-413:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-413
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/leah-gazan(87121)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-413/first-reading

WAUGH’S BILL C-250:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

BLANCHET’S BILL C-367:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584234

BRUNELLE-DUCEPPE’S BILL C-373:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-373
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alexis-brunelle-duceppe(104786)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-373/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=592585

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(19) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(20) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(21) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(22) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress