At the time that treaties were signed with Indigenous Tribes many of them were at war with one another. The taking of SLAVES was commonplace, and, in some cases, instances of CANNIBALISM were documented.
.
Those factors provide the NECESSARY CONTEXT within which the establishment of Reserves and Residential Schools must be understood.
.
Without a doubt there was a concerted effort to remove the Indian from the Indian. No one is disputing that.
.
You want truth … here’s the TRUTH.
.
Five years have passed and ZERO BODIES have been found … GOT THAT … ZERO.
.
What has happened is that Indigenous communities have received MILLIONS OF $$$. The Assembly of First Nations, the group asking for more money is not an elected body. It is a Lobby Group funded by the Federal Government.
.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, is a Sign of Insanity. If you want to end this farce then just cut the WELFARE PAYMENTS going to these ‘Sovereign Nations’ until the so-called burial sites have been exhumed.
.
WITHOUT TRUTH THERE WILL BE NO RECONCILIATION. UNTIL THEN THE DRUM BANGERS CAN SHOVE IT UP THEIR A$$E$.
.
Extract
.
“The Manitoba government says it will hold a hearing to determine who can participate in an upcoming inquest.”
On some occasions, I've petitioned the JCCF regarding a matter closely related to the content of this section (Section 2(b) of the Charter). I never received help. I've now opted for Geneva's Special Procedures: "denial of effective remedy."
From everything I know about his case, he refused to say something he believed was false, and he lost his job for refusing to lie. If that is what happened, every Canadian should be concerned. A society that punishes honesty while rewarding ideological conformity has begun to lose its moral bearings.
My case is different in its facts, but it reveals the same institutional sickness.
I was fired after publicly condemning Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in Canada, and expressing support for Israel. The formal human rights complaint against me was signed by the Vice-Provost and Chief Academic Officer of the University of Guelph-Humber. The complaint itself was triggered by allegations from a faculty member whose public social media activity included referring to Jews as “subhuman devil worshippers,” praising Hamas and October 7, and posting maps depicting Israel in flames. Those were the allegations the university chose to act upon. The person condemning a designated terrorist organization became the problem. The person making extremist public statements did not.
That should disturb every Canadian, regardless of where they stand on the Middle East.
What followed was even worse.
On day one, my union told me it stood with management. Before any investigation had been completed, before I had any opportunity to defend myself, my own union had already concluded that I had committed a hate crime because I had compared Hamas to Nazis.
Then it abandoned me completely.
My union refused to represent me. It refused to file grievances. It refused to honour my individual carriage rights under the collective agreement. It refused to enforce the collective agreement against my employer. While I was supposedly on a paid suspension, I was not properly paid, and I did not receive the contractual benefits that formed part of my employment. The employer breached the collective agreement, and the organization that had the legal duty to challenge those breaches simply refused to do so.
That is when I discovered the extraordinary absurdity of Ontario’s labour relations system.
The union is given exclusive carriage over grievances. Individual employees are generally prevented from enforcing the collective agreement themselves. The union is the legal gatekeeper.
But what happens when the gatekeeper refuses to open the gate?
What happens when the organization with a legal monopoly over your workplace rights simply says, in writing, that it refuses to represent you?
The answer, apparently, is nothing.
Your only remedy is to file a Duty of Fair Representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Think about how irrational that is.
The Labour Relations Board asks whether the union acted in good faith or whether it acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily. Yet my union explicitly stated that it refused to represent me. It refused to read my emails. It refused to pursue grievances. It refused to honour my individual carriage rights. To any ordinary person, that should end the discussion. If a union says it refuses to represent its own member, how can anyone seriously argue that it nevertheless fulfilled its duty to represent that member in good faith?
Instead, the system performs legal gymnastics that would make Kafka smile.
The Board initially granted me a hearing.
Then it cancelled it.
Months later, I am still waiting.
Meanwhile, the universities have lawyers. The union has lawyers. The lawyers are paid, in part, by union dues—including dues paid by members the union has refused to represent.
That may be one of the greatest moral absurdities in Ontario labour law.
I am compelled to pay dues to an organization that refused to represent me, refused to defend my contractual rights, aligned itself with my employer from the beginning, and then used members’ money to finance lawyers opposing one of its own members.
How can anyone defend that?
The Ontario Labour Relations Board was created, at least in theory, to protect workers from precisely this kind of abuse. My experience has led me to a very different conclusion. I have seen an institution that appears far more comfortable protecting powerful institutional actors than protecting individual employees.
Universities protect universities.
Unions protect union executives.
Tribunals protect the labour relations system.
The individual worker is expected to wait, remain silent, and hope.
I have now spent months waiting after a hearing that was scheduled and then cancelled. The institutions continue with teams of experienced lawyers. I continue alone.
That is not equality before the law.
It is institutional inequality dressed up as due process.
Jim’s case and mine are not identical. But they expose the same underlying problem. Increasingly, institutions appear unwilling to separate political ideology from professional responsibility. They speak endlessly about fairness, inclusion, diversity, and justice. Yet when those principles require defending someone whose politics they dislike, they too often disappear.
A labour relations system should never allow a union to possess exclusive control over an employee’s contractual rights while simultaneously allowing that union to refuse representation. A tribunal should never tolerate a system in which the only organization legally capable of enforcing a worker’s rights can simply walk away.
Rights without remedies are not rights.
They are public relations.
And a justice system that protects institutions better than it protects citizens eventually stops deserving the public’s confidence.
Wherever freedom of speech is denied regarding those that speak the truth then reconciliation will never be achieved in Canada🔥
At the time that treaties were signed with Indigenous Tribes many of them were at war with one another. The taking of SLAVES was commonplace, and, in some cases, instances of CANNIBALISM were documented.
.
Those factors provide the NECESSARY CONTEXT within which the establishment of Reserves and Residential Schools must be understood.
.
Without a doubt there was a concerted effort to remove the Indian from the Indian. No one is disputing that.
.
You want truth … here’s the TRUTH.
.
Five years have passed and ZERO BODIES have been found … GOT THAT … ZERO.
.
What has happened is that Indigenous communities have received MILLIONS OF $$$. The Assembly of First Nations, the group asking for more money is not an elected body. It is a Lobby Group funded by the Federal Government.
.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, is a Sign of Insanity. If you want to end this farce then just cut the WELFARE PAYMENTS going to these ‘Sovereign Nations’ until the so-called burial sites have been exhumed.
.
WITHOUT TRUTH THERE WILL BE NO RECONCILIATION. UNTIL THEN THE DRUM BANGERS CAN SHOVE IT UP THEIR A$$E$.
.
Extract
.
“The Manitoba government says it will hold a hearing to determine who can participate in an upcoming inquest.”
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBQCs0lsloc
.
On some occasions, I've petitioned the JCCF regarding a matter closely related to the content of this section (Section 2(b) of the Charter). I never received help. I've now opted for Geneva's Special Procedures: "denial of effective remedy."
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/when-collegiality-becomes-censorship
I wish Jim all the best in his judicial review.
From everything I know about his case, he refused to say something he believed was false, and he lost his job for refusing to lie. If that is what happened, every Canadian should be concerned. A society that punishes honesty while rewarding ideological conformity has begun to lose its moral bearings.
My case is different in its facts, but it reveals the same institutional sickness.
I was fired after publicly condemning Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in Canada, and expressing support for Israel. The formal human rights complaint against me was signed by the Vice-Provost and Chief Academic Officer of the University of Guelph-Humber. The complaint itself was triggered by allegations from a faculty member whose public social media activity included referring to Jews as “subhuman devil worshippers,” praising Hamas and October 7, and posting maps depicting Israel in flames. Those were the allegations the university chose to act upon. The person condemning a designated terrorist organization became the problem. The person making extremist public statements did not.
That should disturb every Canadian, regardless of where they stand on the Middle East.
What followed was even worse.
On day one, my union told me it stood with management. Before any investigation had been completed, before I had any opportunity to defend myself, my own union had already concluded that I had committed a hate crime because I had compared Hamas to Nazis.
Then it abandoned me completely.
My union refused to represent me. It refused to file grievances. It refused to honour my individual carriage rights under the collective agreement. It refused to enforce the collective agreement against my employer. While I was supposedly on a paid suspension, I was not properly paid, and I did not receive the contractual benefits that formed part of my employment. The employer breached the collective agreement, and the organization that had the legal duty to challenge those breaches simply refused to do so.
That is when I discovered the extraordinary absurdity of Ontario’s labour relations system.
The union is given exclusive carriage over grievances. Individual employees are generally prevented from enforcing the collective agreement themselves. The union is the legal gatekeeper.
But what happens when the gatekeeper refuses to open the gate?
What happens when the organization with a legal monopoly over your workplace rights simply says, in writing, that it refuses to represent you?
The answer, apparently, is nothing.
Your only remedy is to file a Duty of Fair Representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Think about how irrational that is.
The Labour Relations Board asks whether the union acted in good faith or whether it acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily. Yet my union explicitly stated that it refused to represent me. It refused to read my emails. It refused to pursue grievances. It refused to honour my individual carriage rights. To any ordinary person, that should end the discussion. If a union says it refuses to represent its own member, how can anyone seriously argue that it nevertheless fulfilled its duty to represent that member in good faith?
Instead, the system performs legal gymnastics that would make Kafka smile.
The Board initially granted me a hearing.
Then it cancelled it.
Months later, I am still waiting.
Meanwhile, the universities have lawyers. The union has lawyers. The lawyers are paid, in part, by union dues—including dues paid by members the union has refused to represent.
That may be one of the greatest moral absurdities in Ontario labour law.
I am compelled to pay dues to an organization that refused to represent me, refused to defend my contractual rights, aligned itself with my employer from the beginning, and then used members’ money to finance lawyers opposing one of its own members.
How can anyone defend that?
The Ontario Labour Relations Board was created, at least in theory, to protect workers from precisely this kind of abuse. My experience has led me to a very different conclusion. I have seen an institution that appears far more comfortable protecting powerful institutional actors than protecting individual employees.
Universities protect universities.
Unions protect union executives.
Tribunals protect the labour relations system.
The individual worker is expected to wait, remain silent, and hope.
I have now spent months waiting after a hearing that was scheduled and then cancelled. The institutions continue with teams of experienced lawyers. I continue alone.
That is not equality before the law.
It is institutional inequality dressed up as due process.
Jim’s case and mine are not identical. But they expose the same underlying problem. Increasingly, institutions appear unwilling to separate political ideology from professional responsibility. They speak endlessly about fairness, inclusion, diversity, and justice. Yet when those principles require defending someone whose politics they dislike, they too often disappear.
A labour relations system should never allow a union to possess exclusive control over an employee’s contractual rights while simultaneously allowing that union to refuse representation. A tribunal should never tolerate a system in which the only organization legally capable of enforcing a worker’s rights can simply walk away.
Rights without remedies are not rights.
They are public relations.
And a justice system that protects institutions better than it protects citizens eventually stops deserving the public’s confidence.