M.E.P. Christine Anderson: Cashing In On The Freedom Movement

Last year, Christine Anderson, a Member of the European Parliament for Germany, made headlines by publicly criticizing Trudeau as a dictator. While she was hailed in Canada as a freedom champion, it’s worth asking if there was something more self-serving in this condemnation.

Specifically, a Canadian speaking tour is now in the works, with the possibility of expanding to more locations. At the time of writing this, there are events scheduled for: (a) Calgary; (b) Toronto; (c) Whitby; and (d) Montreal. A merchandise line has also been started up, primarily selling T-shirts. Where have we seen this sort of thing before?

Granted this AfD (Alternative fur Deutschland) politician is likely more eloquent than the typical huckster who’s been making their way across Canada over the last 3 years. Still, one can’t help but see this as an opportunistic way to cash in on anti-Trudeau sentiments.

Sponsorship costs:

  • Bronze sponsor: $1,000
  • Silver sponsor: $5,000
  • Gold sponsor: $10,000 to $20,000

In addition to selling merchandise, this Canadian tour is also asking for sponsors to help offset costs. There are 3 tiers of sponsorship listed, along with the required amounts.

One of the major sponsors listed is the Children’s Health Defense Canada. As covered before, they are a Plaintiff in a lawsuit in Ontario that’s been sitting idle for nearly 2 years. Interesting connection.

Yes, the criticisms of Trudeau being a dictator and having no respect for Canadians is true. Few would dispute that. So, why is a speaking tour and merchandise line necessary to prove that point? And isn’t a T-shirt line with your own face more than a little narcissistic?

Is there also a book deal in the works?

Tickets to attend shows can cost hundreds of dollars each. Therefore, one has to ask what this German politician has to say that would justify such a fee. Even if it were a more reasonable amount, why would anyone be giving money for this?

Yes, Trudeau has little to no respect for Canadians. True, he has trampled on everyone’s civil rights in the last few years. While this cannot be justified, it’s not exactly news either.

What can be said that locals haven’t already said or written hundreds of times before? Seems like a way to milk celebrity status.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/european-members-parliament-attact-trudeau-1.6397579
(2) https://wwcadtour.com/
(3) https://wwcadtour.com/shop/
(4) https://wwcadtour.com/bio/
(5) https://wwcadtour.com/tour/

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearings To Resume In Late April

The Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy (CSASPP) has announced that the certification hearings for their Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government will pick up at the end of April.

CSASPP had been in Court from December 12-16, 2022, but things took much longer than expected. Consequently, all of the procedural issues had not been resolved by then.

As you may recall from watching our certification hearing footage we unfortunately ended up using more time than previously allocated within the five days of 12-16 December, 2022. The hearing therefore needed to be continued in the new year at the earliest that all parties’ calendars, including the Court’s, could be reconciled.

I am writing to advise you that the parties have made arrangements for the continuation of our certification hearing on 24 April, 2023, for five days before Justice Crerar again.

You will recall from the footage that there was some controversy over the nature of the relationship between the Public Health Officer and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The latter is an organization that the Deputy Provincial Health Officer has stated in the past under oath “is the scientific and operational arm of the PHO”.

Dr. Henry is now claiming that the BC CDC does not answer to her, but is in fact an independent program of the Provincial Health Services Authority. The PHSA is not named as a defendant in this proceeding. She needs this to be true because adding the BC CDC as a defendant would create additional delays and procedural obstacles that might mitigate the risk of accountability.

We will be making submissions upon resumption of our certification hearing that the relationship is as the Deputy Provincial Health Officer originally claimed, that the BC CDC is the scientific and operational arm of Dr. Henry.

In support of Dr. Henry’s position that they are apparently distinct her Deputy Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Brian Emerson, is now back peddling in a newly tendered affidavit asserting a material distinction. She will be relying upon this affidavit at the continuation of our certification hearing.

If Dr. Henry wishes to throw the BC CDC under the bus, she should seek leave from Justice Crerar to file a third party notice.

It appears that the plot is thickening, and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

The proceedings for the Certification Hearing thus far are available to watch by members of the public. It’s extremely rare for footage of Court hearings to be filmed, but this is an exceptional case. The public interest is huge.

Regarding the status update: it’s worth mentioning that the BCCDC Foundation is actually a registered charity that receives funding from big pharma. The B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority, or BCPHSA, is also a charity, and appears to be a private — or semi private — corporation. The structure of the Government is convoluted, to say the least.

In addition to advancing this lawsuit, many people want Bonnie Henry to be forced to take the witness stand. It’s one thing to give dictates at a press conference. It’s another to have to answer questions under oath. And she certainly has a lot to answer for.

Below are a significant portion of those documents. It’s not exhaustive, but should provide readers with much needed background information. These can be saved or duplicated at will.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2108/2022bcsc2108.html

21 Months Later, No Progress In Police On Guard/ Children’s Health Defense Cases

It was reported back in July 2022 that 2 high profile anti-lockdown lawsuits in Canada hadn’t seemed to go anywhere in well over a year.

(a) bodily autonomy of police officers, organized by Police on Guard
(b) children’s rights and masks in Ontario schools, organized by Children’s Health Defense (Canada)

Both were filed in April 2021. After some initial hype in the alternative media, there were no updates to report. As we enter 2023, and approach the 2 year anniversary, it appears that there’s still nothing to write back about.

Even though (most) of the Respondents now are represented by lawyers, it looks like nothing has happened to the cases themselves. There have been no Motions, evidence sworn or hearings so far.

Interestingly, while no Motion to Strike has been brought, there was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request filed in May of 2021 for the CHDC case. That seems odd, as it isn’t really the best mechanism for getting such a case thrown out.

Both organizations are still asking for donations, and it’s implied that at least portions of those funds would be used towards these Court cases.

As is shown by the Court records, there are no previous Orders that have been handed down in either case. Nor are any hearings scheduled as of now.

Of course, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file#: (plug in the file number)

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

It’s worth noting that the POG Application and the CHDC Applications are almost identical. It’s as if one was cut-and-pasted into the other, with the facts and names changed.

Why keep reporting on this? Because they are public cases, and public donations are — still — being solicited. People have a right to know what’s happening, and what’s not happening.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Federal Vaccine Passport Case Hears Motion To Strike Claim

Thursday, January 19th was an interesting day in Federal Court. Ottawa brought a Motion to Strike a lawsuit brought by over 600 people challenging a 2021 Order which mandated experimental shots for their continued employment. This applied to: (a) Government workers; and (b) industries that were subject to Federal regulation.

For those who don’t know, this is not a Motion to decide a case on its merits. Instead, it’s designed to throw out a case — either in whole or in part — before it goes through the various stages of litigation. Typically, there’s either some serious error in law, or the case (even if the facts are assumed to be true) is still insufficient.

Originally, the Motion to Strike was to be heard in writing (which means no arguments at a hearing). However, that changed at the last moment, as the Justice decided to allow a 3 hour session. It went a bit past the allotted time, and took about 3 1/2.

If this hearing is to be any indication of where things are going, there were several main issues that needed to be addressed.

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Approximately 2/3 of the more than 600 Plaintiffs were members of the Federal Government. The other 1/3 or so were part of companies that were Federally regulated. This can create a split, as only some of them may be eligible for this lawsuit.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone, at least the employees of the Federal Government.

Most union employees, especially in the public sector, are prohibited from taking their problems to Court. Instead, they have to follow a grievance process that eventually leads to arbitration. Granted, those rulings may be appealed if the process is unfair, but that’s where things start out.

This was discussed at length at the hearing: the prospect that the majority of Plaintiffs may be barred from the case. It doesn’t appear any of them ever tried to go through arbitration.

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

While the public sector workers may be barred because of arbitration requirements, the employees of Federally regulated sectors have a different issue: did they sue the wrong people?

The notion was discussed that the individual employers ought to be sued instead, or at least in addition to the Government. After all, shouldn’t a former worker at Air Canada be suing Air Canada? Shouldn’t a former bank employee be suing that bank? Of course, there is the counter-argument that these industries were simply following the rules that Ottawa mandated.

We’ll have to see how that plays out.

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

This should be common sense, but, if people wish to take their grievances to Court and ask for money, they need to identify themselves.

Instead, there are 40 “John Does” listed, and another 49 “Jane Does”. The Crown Counsel brought this up at the hearing, and complained that he had no idea who they were. Despite the Defendants’ attempts, these people apparently remain unidentified.

It’s unclear why they weren’t named in the Statement of Claim. One possibility was that they didn’t want their names splashed around, given the rampant fundraising that was going on. It was suggested that this was to prevent retaliation against friends and family who still held jobs. However, that makes little sense, as they’d still have to be identified as some point.

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

At the hearing, the Judge stated that he would have no problems with a Statement of Claim, if it were only damages and/or declaratory relief. However, challenging the Order itself presented a complication, as it likely should have been an Application.

This alone may not be fatal. If it were simply a matter of the wrong form, the Judge could theoretically grant an extension of time to refile properly.

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

Ottawa is claiming the issue is “moot” and not worth wasting everyone’s time. Moot, in the legal sense means that the issues are over and done with, and cannot be fixed by the Court. Here, Crown Counsel states that since the Orders have lapsed, there’s nothing to try. That’s what happened with Brian Peckford’s case.

In fairness, this appears to be something that may be selectively employed to deny someone their day in Court. It seems underhanded to pull an Order (or let it expire) as a means of avoiding having to answer for it. There’s also the possibility that similar Orders may be imposed at some point in the future.

It should be noted that “moot” issues can still be tried, if the Court finds there to be compelling public interest in doing so. And so far, that has been applied unevenly.

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

This was addressed at length in the first critique of this suit. This Claim appears to not follow even the basics of the Federal Court Rules, which could lead to it getting thrown out. At a minimum the Judge could order that a rewrite be performed.

(a) Lack of material facts pleaded
(b) Overall disorganization
(c) Claim lacks particulars (specifics) needed to proceed
(d) Nature of damages needs to be clearly specified

The Motion to Strike addressed these concerns, along with several others. Striking a pleading won’t (typically) lead to the case being thrown out. However, it does take time — and hourly billings — to amend or redraft it.

The Judge did discuss the possibility of allowing a rewrite, if the Claim weren’t barred for other reasons. This includes the arbitration requirement mentioned earlier.

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Crown Counsel brought up the valid point that large sections of this Federal case are similar — and sometimes identical — to the Action4Canada case that was struck on August 29, 2022. (See Order)

Justice Alan Ross found the Action4Canada case:
(a) Prolix, or far too long
(b) Embarrassing to the Court
(c) Made non-justicable demands
(d) Was “bad beyond argument”
(e) Contained many pages of irrelevant material
(f) Was not something that could be adequately responded to
(g) Was so poorly written that mere amendments were inadequate

Now, a fair amount of the content from that NOCC, or Notice of Civil Claim, was cut and pasted into the Federal case. Not only are Plaintiffs not getting quality work, they aren’t even getting original work.

The Federal Judge would likely be obligated to strike the sections of the Claim that are identical or substantially similar to the Action4Canada case.

Despite the NOCC’s horrible quality, Justice Ross did allow Action4Canada the chance to redraft it properly. Instead, they appealed the Decision, because, reasons…

Now, the choice to let Action4Canada rewrite may very well influence this Court if it decides to allow another shot at the Federal vaxx pass case.


Predictions For The Motion Outcome?


Just a guess, but here we go:

  • The case will have to be refiled as an Application for Judicial Review
  • The (ex) Federal employees will be barred, as they should have pursued arbitration
  • The (ex) workers of Federally regulated industries will be allowed to proceed
  • All Plaintiffs will have to identify themselves
  • The pleadings will be struck in their entirety, but a rewrite will be allowed, at least for the Plaintiffs who are not barred.
  • Despite being “moot”, it will be in the public interest to proceed
  • The duplication with Action4Canada case will have to be removed
  • Expect an appeal, and more requests for donations

We’ll have to wait until the decision comes down to see how accurate all this is.

Update: a copy of the retainer agreement is now available for viewing. Turns out that Plaintiffs were paying $1,000 each for the privilege of being represented in this suit. Doesn’t look like they got their money’s worth.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/

Vaccine Choice Canada Makes First Court Appearance, 2 1/2 Years Later

Many had been wondering what had happened to that high profile case with Vaccine Choice Canada. After a highly publicized launch in 2020, and a fundraising blitz, details were scant. There was no progress shared with people because there was nothing to report.

Above is what shows now. Below is what it showed until recently.

Vaccine Choice Canada is finally in Court for its July 6, 2020 lawsuit. This is the case that generated nationwide attention across the alternative media. 2 1/2 years after it was filed, they were finally before a Judge. This was January 17, 2023. Many had been asking what the delay was about.

That’s right: 2 1/2 years to make a first appearance.

Of course, there’s Vaccine Choice’s other lawsuit that was filed in October of 2019. That’s been dormant for about 3 years, and hasn’t gone past the pleadings stage.

It wasn’t difficult to look for this. Anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE, by clicking the link to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Now for the bad news. This isn’t a Trial or anything. This wasn’t some major appearance, or famous international expert about to testify. It was an appearance to initiate a Motion to Strike (throw out) the pleadings as frivolous and vexatious.

For a more in-depth explanation of the pleading defects:
(a) Pleading Are Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial
(b) Was This Case Brought For Improper Purposes?
(c) Even More Errors In Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit

Why has this case sat dormant for years? That’s a great question, and something that the Plaintiffs have never given a meaningful answer to. They’ve never been able to explain any of the serious issues that are outlined above.

To be clear, this wasn’t the hearing that people might be expecting. Instead, this was a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session to set down dates. It took approximately 10 minutes. The real fun won’t happen for another year. There were 2 full days set aside: January 30 and February 1, 2024.

  • June 30, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30, February 1, 2024 – Hearing

In fairness, there may not be any cross examinations, since this Motion is supposed to just be questions of law. For these purposes, the allegations themselves may be largely irrelevant.

However, the sweeping accusations that fill the 191 page Claim may be a problem. Making such assertions without pleading a factual basis does tend to get cases struck. It was a major problem with Action4Canada.

On the topic of costs: when somebody sues a lot of people, often, a lot of lawyers will get involved. On January 17th, there were 5 of them representing various clients:

  1. Wajid Ahmed, Windsor-Essex County
  2. Nicola Mercer, County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
  3. City of Toronto, John Tory, Eileen De Villa
  4. Ontario Defendants
  5. Federal Defendants

For clarity, there were 5 lawyers at this appearance. There are many, MANY more names of the other paperwork. When this Claim is eventually struck, expect a stiff costs award.

The Motion is based on Rules 21.01 and 25 of Civil Procedure for Ontario. Quite simply, the Defendants want to throw the case out on a preemptive challenge.

Where Available
.
To Any Party on a Question of Law
.
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of Process
.
21.01 (1)(d) the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court

Striking out a Pleading or Other Document
.
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

That’s what this Motion is about: to throw the case out so that it never reaches Trial. And again, why has it taken 2 1/2 years to get to this point?

One possible explanation for this absurd delay is that many Parties may not have been served at the time, if they ever were at all. Looking at the Statement of Claim:

Those are all the service addresses listed. However, that’s not nearly all the people who were listed as Defendants. In fact, CBC claims that it wasn’t served, but only that they “obtained an unredacted copy” of the Statement of Claim. Now, CBC could be lying about that, but who knows?

Another question that frequently came up was why no effort to force Default Judgement ever took place. If the Defendants don’t respond, the Court can issue a ruling against them. At a minimum, it would force them to file replies in order to avoid such a decision.

Vaccine Choice Canada answers this (sort of) by claiming that they have an “undisclosed litigation strategy”, and that it’s not in their interest to release it. That comes across as extremely suspicious, to say the least.

Since July 6, 2020, all that’s happened is that Nicola Mercer filed a Statement of Defense, and that CBC was dropped as a Defendant when they threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion.

What’s the point of this anymore? Considering the overwhelming majority of the population has had the shots, and the damage of lockdowns is done, what’s to be accomplished?

Also, consider the ONTARIO LIMITATIONS ACT. Section 4 is the Basic Limitation Period. In short, people have 2 years to commence an Action, with some limited exceptions. Even if the Plaintiffs were to discontinue here, and file a new Claim — one that’s properly written — they may be barred by Statute. In short, they’ve run out the clock on themselves.

Let’s be blunt. The Vaccine Choice suits (actually, both of them) are so poorly drafted neither will ever get to Trial.

Remember Action4Canada, and their 391 page Notice of Civil Claim? It was struck in its entirety for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia. The same thing will happen here.

2 1/2 years, just to make a first appearance. Absurd.

Isn’t an explanation owed to members of the organization? What about to the various Plaintiffs? How about the donors who contributed in good faith?

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-24-sch-b/latest/so-2002-c-24-sch-b.html

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

(U.S.) HR 61: Bill To Expand Scope Of Hate Crimes Introduced

Remember the mass shooting in Buffalo last year that was supposedly based on the “replacement theory”? It had been predicted that this would lead to more calls for gun control, and it did.

But the other shoe has dropped. House Resolution 61 has been introduced to expand hate crime laws within the U.S., and to specifically target a certain type of crime. It was sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas.

What’s particularly alarming is how many of the terms in this Bill are not clearly defined. (See archive.) This makes it difficult to enforce, but enables it to be selectively applied. In a practical sense: it has the potential to make debate much trickier, and easier to shut down.

Yes, this is in the United States, but something similar could easily come to Canada in the not too distant future. Don’t dismiss the possibility.

To state the obvious: this is only focused on one group of people.

A BILL
To prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate
crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy in-
spired hate crime and to amend title 18, United States
Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Leading Against White
5 Supremacy Act of 2023’’.
6 SEC. 2. WHITE SUPREMACY INSPIRED HATE CRIME.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person engages in a white su-
8 premacy inspired hate crime when white supremacy
ide

2
1 ology has motivated the planning, development, prepara-
2 tion, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime
3 or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effec-
4 tuated, would have constituted a crime.
5 (b) CONSPIRACY.—A conspiracy to engage in white
6 supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to
7 exist—

8 (1) between two or more persons engaged in the
9 planning, development, preparation, or perpetration
10 of a white supremacy inspired hate crime
; or
11 (2) between two or more persons—
12 (A) at least one of whom engaged in the
13 planning, development, preparation, or per-
14 petration of a white supremacy inspired hate
15 crime;
and
16 (B) at least one of whom published mate-
17 rial advancing white supremacy, white suprema-
18 cist ideology, antagonism based on ‘‘replace-
19 ment theory’’
, or hate speech that vilifies or is
20 otherwise directed against any non-White per-
21 son or group, and such published material—
22 (i) was published on a social media
23 platform or by other means of publication
24 with the likelihood that it would be viewed
25 by persons who are predisposed to engag-

3
•HR 61 IH
1 ing in any action in furtherance of a white
2 supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are
3 susceptible to being encouraged to engage
4 in actions in furtherance of a white su-
5 premacy inspired hate crime;
6 (ii) could, as determined by a reason-
7 able person, motivate actions by a person
8 predisposed to engaging in a white suprem-
9 acy inspired hate crime or by a person who
10 is susceptible to being encouraged to en-
11 gage in actions relating to a white suprem-
12 acy inspired hate crime
; and
13 (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a
14 person who engaged in the planning, devel-
15 opment, preparation, or perpetration of a
16 white supremacy inspired hate crime.
17 (c) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY, EN-
18 FORCEMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING.—The De-
19 partment shall have authority to conduct operations and
20 activities pursuant to this section, specifically—
21 (1) with regard to information or evidence ob-
22 tained by the Department of any action cited in this
23 section, the Department shall have the authority to
24 investigate, intercede, and undertake other actions
25 that it deems necessary and appropriate to interdict,

4
•HR 61 IH
1 mitigate, or prevent such action from culminating in
2 violent activity;
3 (2) the Department shall have the authority to
4 prosecute persons who engaged in actions cited in
5 this section
; and
6 (3) the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in
7 the Department of Justice shall maintain records of
8 white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related
9 actions cited in this section
, and enforcement actions
10 in response thereto.
11 The Department shall provide annual reports to the ap-
12 propriate committees in Congress that shall include infor-
13 mation cited in this paragraph.
14 SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
15 Section 249(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
16 amended—
17 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
18 by inserting after ‘‘race, color, religion, or national
19 origin of any person’’ the following: ‘‘, or because of
20 a white supremacy based motivation against any
21 person’’
; and
22 (2) in subparagraph (B)—
23 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the
24 end;

5
•HR 61 IH
1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period
2 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
3 (C) by adding at the end the following:
4 ‘‘(iii) the offense was in furtherance of
5 a white supremacy based motivation.’’.
6 SEC. 4. FINDINGS.
7 Section 4702 of the Matthew Shepard and James
8 Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 249
9 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
10 ‘‘(11) Mass shootings and other hate crimes
11 motivated by white supremacy
have been increasing
12 in frequency and intensity. These heinous and viru-
13 lent crimes are inspired by conspiracy theories, bla-
14 tant bigotry, and mythical falsehoods such as ‘‘re-
15 placement theory’’
. All instances must be prevented
16 and severe criminal penalties must be applied to
17 their perpetrators.’’.

There is a section in HR 61 that states: Department of Justice shall maintain records of white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related actions cited in this section. Does this mean that groups that talk about the ongoing replacement in the West will be looked at? (As if they aren’t already).

Also, will law enforcement to more than simply monitor and keep records? Will there be active involvement in setting up undercover operations or honeypots?

The Bill also talks about postings on the internet which people who are “susceptible to being encouraged” might read or view the content. This is another slippery slope. It seems designed to force authors to water down whatever they say because of what some random person “might” say or do.

Census data — Government distributed — in countries across the West have shown considerable demographic changes (or replacement, depending on your slant) over the last 60 or so years. Was it racist to have generated this information in the first place? Is it racist to openly and honestly discuss what is happening?

Moreover, the mainstream media has addressed this topic many times in the last few decades. It’s openly predicted that most countries in the West will be majority non-white by the end of this century, if not sooner. This is hardly a secret.

Hate crimes are already illegal in the U.S. So, why is this specific Bill necessary?

To play devil’s advocate here: this could simply be about grandstanding. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician put forth legislation they never planned to advance in order to score points. Then again, it may not be the case.

The vague and undefined definitions and explanations are possibly the worst part, as there are no actual standards to be applied.

(1) https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr61/BILLS-118hr61ih.pdf
(2) BILLS 118 House Resolution 61
(3) https://www.congress.gov/member/sheila-jackson-lee/J000032
(4) https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory
(5) https://www.businessinsider.com/buffalo-mass-shooting-latest-linked-to-great-replacement-theory-2022-5?op=1

%d bloggers like this: