Category: Uncategorized

Libertarians Protest ICBC’s Monopoly

Press release for media distribution


The BC Libertarian Party is proud to host the first in a series of End ICBC protests from 10 AM to 2 PM on Saturday, January 25. These protests will take place outside ICBC’s headquarters at 151 Esplanade North Vancouver. 

The BC Libertarian Party is the only registered provincial political party in British Columbia willing to stand up against this massive insurance monopoly. The libertarians have long advocated for a free and open market in insurance, which would not only create new job opportunities but more importantly, would give every British Columbian a choice in auto insurance providers. This also means that insurance providers would compete against one another in an open and fair market place, reducing premiums for good drivers. 

With the monopoly on auto insurance, the BC NDP and the BC Liberals have forced  British Columbians for decades to do business with a company many of them do not trust, and would not choose voluntarily. ICBC acts as both regulator and primary provider of automobile insurance, allowing them to set the rules they play by, which strikes Libertarians as a potential conflict of interest. For all that, ICBC still manages to not turn a profit but instead costs taxpayers hundreds of millions.  Many British Columbians are trying to find ways to circumvent ICBC altogether by registering their vehicle in another province. 

 Join us for the protest this Saturday, January 25th, where we will be conducting live interviews on the street to get personal stories directly from those who have been harmed by this public monopoly. It’s time to set British Columbians free and provide them with a path to lower taxes, more choice, and real freedom. 

We will see you there!

For more info please contact:

Kyle McCormack,

Media Team Lead

BC Libertarian Party

BC Libertarian Party Proposes Using Satellites (And Drones!) To Catch Victoria Politicians Breaking The Rules

The B.C. Libertarian Party announced on Tuesday that it wants to hire a Russia-based space technology company to see if satellites and drone technology can assist with monitoring and regulatory oversight of the British Columbia Government, on behalf of BC’s citizens.

In a notice of intent (NOI) posted on Facebook, the BC Libertarian Party, which has long stood in opposition to the Agricultural Land Reserve’s monopolistic control over farm-land, outlined its plan to contract with the Russian ZALA Aero to provide radar satellite-based change detection services in a responsive pilot project.

All footage would be uploaded to a public website for review and a forum would allow British Columbians to openly discuss what they see.

ZALA Aero owns and operates the Radarsat-900 satellite, which has,  “the unique ability to provide the radar and optical satellite imagery … for the nature of the political corruption and extraordinary incompetence being investigated.”

News of the BC Libertarian pilot project comes as a response to  public outcry over another project being run by the BC NDP Government; Agriculture Bill 52 and the ALR satellite spy program.

This legislation and the associated programs restrict agricultural land owners from having secondary non-farm use homes and limits the size of residences to approximately 12,000 square feet. It also subjects farmers to outrageous violations of their personal privacy, and egregious micro-management of their personal businesses. Together, the new legislation, the government’s general negative attitude towards farmers and this new spy program, these ordinary British Columbians are left feeling like second-class citizens.

The BCLP pilot counter-spy project would covertly collect repeat imagery on anthropogenic changes within three overlapping areas of Vancouver Island, compile that data and upload it to a public server, focusing on mapping the exact movements of, and secretive meetings between politicians, bureaucrats and union leaders.

Similar to the ALR plan to crack down on regulation surrounding secondary housing and new irrational rules surrounding farm workers, this technology will allow the BC Libertarian Party and all BC citizens to track individual bodies moving around the legislature in repeating patterns, which will give us a clue as to whether or not any work is being done in the government building at all.

“It’s only fair, after all.” A BC Libertarian spokesperson offered, speaking on terms of anonymity. “The BC NDP government seems to think that farmers and their families are a form of government-owned property, they constantly talk down to them, belittle them, insult them, micro-manage them, and now they’re proposing to spy on them and violate their privacy in order to enforce their socialist rules.”

“So this is our counter offer; now we’ll have an open window into all of the back-room dealings and special privileges offered to party-friendly unions by the NDP. We’ll get to peek inside of Clean BC meetings and hear about their plans to destroy our energy sector. Maybe even check out how many homes each of the NDP MLAs owns, you know, see the nice places where the family goes on vacation.”

“Really, It’s only fair.”

Career Politicians like David Eby, who serves BC as the Attorney General and MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, probably thinks the move is stepping over the line.

“I definitely would not be in favour of this, it’s very paranoid, and I take gumption with the idea that British Columbias ought to know what we’re up to at all times,” David allegedly said, apparently laughing nervously and practically running to his car.

Horgan and Eby are already subject to provincial regulations and various by-laws meant to control their corrupt behaviour, but Horgan allegedly says many of those rules ultimately interfere with his ability to “get things done”. No further comment on the additional $4.8 billion in added public labour costs following secretive meetings with NDP-friendly union leaders.

“We don’t need more surveillance of any kind, shape or form on us. What more does the public, the world, need to know about what I may or may not be doing with their money, that isn’t already known?”” Horgan was rumoured to have said after hearing about the BCLP plan.

The BC Libertarian Party is not revealing exactly where the Radarsat-900 and optical satellites will roam, because it could potentially compromise the value of the pilot and because they quote, “Want to really have these politicians freaking out, like, 24 hours a day.”

“Due to the limited area being imaged and the limited imagination of those being imaged, it is possible that the politicians may behave differently if they are simply aware they are being monitored and this may end up invalidating the intent of this pilot project, which is in evaluating change in public policy following secretive meetings with NDP staffers,” the BCLP NOI reads.

“It’s an invasion of privacy, their privacy, finally, it feels like the tables have finally turned,” said David Sihdu of the BC Farmhand Owners Association.

The ministry said if the project proceeds as a pilot, it would likely just give up and close the legislature on a permanent basis.

“I mean at that point why bother? Look, I think we’ve got better ways of using tax dollars to look after me and you, I mean us, I mean, like, all you people, no not “you people”, I mean you, all you people…  no comment,”  Horgan might have said.


This article is a satirical re-write of this Global News article originally Posted November 17, 2019 . We have nothing but solidarity with the farmers of BC who are being treated so terribly by this government. To support our stand against the egregious and insulting rules being handed down by the BCNDP and the ALC/ALR, join our party here

Written By Kyle McCormack, 
Media Team, Board of Directors
2017 Shuswap Candidate

End ICBC – The First Of Many Protests

We know that ICBC is broken. Everyone knows that now! But the time has come for some political action! Leading up to the 2021 election we will be hosting and attending many ICBC protests and we encourage all of our members to show up in BCLP t-shirts and gear, ready to represent our cause and protest hard!

Only the BC Libertarians have promised to unequivocally END ICBC and liberate our automotive insurance industry. Only the BC Libertarians have promised to liberate ride-sharing and provide real choice to British Columbians.

Join us this Friday ALL DAY at ICBC Headquarters in
North Vancouver!

Freedom of Expression and Shifting Identities

On April 15th, the BC Supreme Court issued a judgement in a case involving a transgender child and the child’s father. I’ll start with the judgement, then fill in some background of the case, and lastly discuss the larger social and political context.

First, the judgement, which may be considered a landmark, for good or ill. The names of the parties have been anonymized, and the child is referred to as “AB”, and the father “CD”. This is the key part of the judgement I’ll discuss in the blog post:

It is declared under the Family Law Act that: […] attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing AB by his birth name; referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act. [emphasis mine]

There are other parts of the judgement that are important, such as AB being allowed to consent to medical treatment (hormone therapy), and legally change his/her name without parental consent, even though AB is only 14 years old.

The essence of the case is that AB, who was born female but had started identifying as a boy a couple years earlier, asked the court to prevent his/her father from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case. In opposition to AB’s mother and medical professionals, the father disagreed that hormone therapy was in the best interests of AB, and had been telling the story of this struggle to certain media outlets. The judge agreed that having this story in the news exposed AB to potential harm, and issued a public ban, in addition to the judgment quoted above. The father opposed this judgement on grounds that it violates his freedom of expression, and will appeal the decision. The court also issued a protection order stating that the father can be arrested if he violates the terms of the judgement.

The judgement rests on the idea that individuals have a right to their identity, and if others refuse to recognize that identity, this can cause the individual genuine harm, hence the state can punish those who refuse to recognize the identity. If people always identified as what they are, in an objective sense, this idea would have some basis. So, if a child identifies as a human (because she is human), but her classmates continually referred to her as a chimpanzee, that could rightly be regarded as harmful.

Let’s imagine another scenario, this one of a 16 year old boy named John Smith. He’s 5 feet, 8 inches tall, and believes he’s “a tall guy,” even though he’s only of average height for his age. He’s even given himself the non-ironic nickname John “Tall-man” Smith, and insists that everyone refer to him as such. Though his measurable height isn’t in question, there terms “tall” and “short” are not strictly defined, and John believes he should be counted in the “tall” camp. John’s friends, parents, and neighbours, not wishing to harm his self-esteem, agree and begin referring to him as “Tall-man.” But the problem is that the other kids his age at school, particularly the boys, disagree and see him as average height. Instead of “Tall-man,” they start calling him John “50P” (for 50th percentile) Smith, much to John’s chagrin. One day, the situation comes to a head with a shouting match in the hallway between John and another boy. The Principal then sits the two boys down in his office and the following conversation ensues:

Principal: This name-calling has got to stop. You’re really hurting John’s feelings.

Boy: Really? All we did was call him 50P because he’s of average height, but insists we call him “Tall-man.” It’s ridiculous.

Principal: Well, it’s not nice to judge people on their height. And John has asked that we all call him “Tall-man,” and I think we should respect that.

Boy: Fine, I’ll stop calling him 50P. But there’s no way I’m calling him “Tall-man.”

Principal: For the sake of keeping the peace at this school, I must insist that you do. And if you will not, you’ll be suspended.

Boy: You’re nuts.

So, how do you think things will play out the next time this boy encounters John? I’d say the most likely scenario is that this boy will refer to John as “Tall-man”, but in a completely sarcastic tone that makes it clear to everyone that he doesn’t think John is tall.

The principal’s order is likely to be ineffective. Some students may go along with it to avoid punishment, others may not. But unless the cultural understanding of the categories “tall,” “short’ and “average” begins to shift, all the principal’s rule serves to do at best is make the students speak, but not think, differently.

When John graduates from high school and goes to university, he’ll be crushed when the students there see him as average height. The only way for such a policing of speech to work in the face of deep cultural resistance, is for the authorities to double down on enforcement, à la 1984. With enough coercive threats, the authorities may get the population to actually change their thinking.

Thankfully, on the topic of gender, we aren’t there yet, but the BC Supreme Court’s decision on the case of AB takes a decisive step in that direction. The judgement states that even if the father refers to AB using female pronouns while speaking privately to a third party, this would be considered “family violence.” Now, the legal definition of “family violence” under the act is broader than what the lay-person would consider to be violence, and includes the highly debatable definition: “unreasonable restrictions on […] a family member’s […] personal autonomy.” These legal subtleties are usually lost in the public discourse on such issues, and trans-rights advocates may be quick to say that those who don’t agree with their proposed reforms are also perpetrators of violence. So, just as a shared cultural understanding of what constitutes “male” and “female” has come into question, so has the meaning of what constitutes “violence.”

The problem is that the semantic subtleties will be lost on most members of the public, and the public debate then becomes about whether it’s ok or not to use state violence (imprisonment) to stop this kind of “family violence.” It’s a false choice based on a faulty understanding of the problem, and injects rocket fuel into an already heated debate about people changing genders, and how many genders there are. Instead of focusing exclusively on making arguments against a binary concept of gender, or in favour of acceptance of trans-genderism, their proponents will focus more energy on using the power the state to achieve their aims, if the state appears receptive. This judgement by the BC Supreme Court sends a clear message that it is receptive, and that compelled speech (e.g. requiring the father to use the gender pronouns his child prefers) is one of the remedies it is willing to apply, even though this may violate constitutionally protected freedoms of expression.

Historically, courts were not activist institutions looking to change society by mandate or decree. The English common-law tradition practiced in Canada was always been conservative in nature, seeking to spell out the principles of law on which the vast majority could agree. Today, courts are increasingly used to impose the will of the progressive minority on to the rest of society.

The trend is most clearly seen in Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals, which are not staffed by trained legal professionals and are often instead staffed by people who have made a career of fighting for progressive social justice causes. The modus operandi of these institutions is to accelerate cultural change, rather than to act as impartial arbiters, and it seems that courts of law are being enlisted in this effort.

This presents a serious problem as we move further into the 21st century. The reason why we’re having fierce debates about gender in 2019 (as opposed to 1969), is that the technology is now available to modify a person’s sex in profound in ways that were not available 50 years ago. We can’t yet change DNA (a woman who undergoes a sex change to become a man still can’t trade half her X chromosomes for Y’s), but the possibility is not too far off. And it’s coincidence that the interest by many young people in switching genders has occurred in the age of social media, where individuals have great latitude in how they craft their online identities.

Genetic manipulation and other new technologies will open up other avenues for individuals to become something they were not born as. The technology to change one’s appearance so as to look like a different race (by reconstructive facial surgery, hair replacement, and skin colour changes) already exists, and will continue to improve (if there’s a demand for it).

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What happens when humans are able to incorporate animal DNA into their bodies, or use other means to add non-human features to their appearance? A guy with a rhino horn sticking out of his forehead who insists he’s a rhino may seem laughable to us today, but if you told people 50 years ago that in 2019, people would be undergoing mastectomies and reconstructive surgery on their genitals to change their sex, they would have been just as incredulous.

It doesn’t stop there. What if 50 years from now, people spend the vast majority of their time in virtual environments where there are no physical limitations on their appearance? If all the meaningful parts of one’s life are conducted via his virtual avatar, then it could be argued that one’s adopted virtual identity is as real, if not more real, than one’s biological identity.

It won’t be long until the courts and society at large will have to grapple with such complicated issues of identity. If the approach of progressive activists and their allies in the courts is going to be to use the coercive power the state to make individuals recognize the adopted identity of other individuals, we’re heading for a very strange and nasty world.

BC’s courts, as they exist today, don’t even have the capacity to handle the current volume of civil and criminal cases that are put before them. If the scope is expanded to acting as identity enforcers, I don’t see how they could cope. So possibly some new branch of government could be created to police how people interact with one another and ensure that everyone’s unique identities are respected. Such a scheme would either be unworkable, or highly repressive.

In order to streamline things, the government would surely create a list of approved identities, for which individuals would have to apply for a license. Soon we’d have a new monopolistic ICBC (Identity Certification of British Columbia) taking fees and handing out ID badges with pictures of dragons, Vulcans and giraffes on them.

Bureaucracies try to standardize things as much as possible, which is the exact opposite of what people are trying to achieve by adopting all sorts of different ideas, so the ICBC model isn’t going to work. The only realistic alternatives are voluntary ones, where people find ways of coming to terms with the identities of others without it coming to blows.

Over most of human history, cultural changes, including the appearance and acceptance of new identities, have happened quite slowly. During the past 100 years, western liberal societies have demonstrated that they are pretty good at adapting to cultural changes without coming apart at the seams, but the next 100 years will really put our tolerance to the test. We are going to face some serious challenges to what it means to be human, and who counts a person, entitled to the rights we believe all humans deserve.

Our rulers are not wise enough to figure this out on their own. It’s going to require many conversations between people at all levels of society if we’re to have a chance of achieving something close to a common cultural understanding. And those conversations will need to be frank but respectful if they’re to achieve anything. Using the heavy hand of government to limit what can be said or force those conversations in a certain direction will ultimately fail, but has the potential to do a lot of harm along the way.

Clayton Welwood is the  BC Libertarian candidate for North Vancouver-Seymour, and leads the Party’s  Outreach Committee. If you would like to help us preserve freedom of expression in BC, join the Party today for just $5 a year.

Leader’s Report, January 2019

by Don Wilson, Party Leader

Wow, I can’t believe January is already over! It feels like just yesterday that we were all overstuffing ourselves and cramming in endless Christmas parties!

It’s been quite the January, both for me and for the Party!

First up, and most importantly to me (sorry guys) I became a father for the first time on January 18, 2019. Little Natalia is a total delight. She and Julia are doing marvelously together. I get to hold Natalia from time to time, but she definitely prefers mom.

Ok, back to the gritty world of politics!

Bill Walker for MLA in Nanaimo!

On January 2nd Premier Horgan (finally) announced the Nanaimo by-election to be held January 30, 2019 (that’s this Wednesday, Nanaimo members!). Because of the incredibly short election period (thanks John) candidates only had less than 7 days, until 1pm on January 9 to get their nomination papers in.

Enter our excellent candidate, Bill Walker!

For those of you who haven’t gone through the process before, this requires the candidate to obtain 75 signatures from riding residents, pay a registration fee by bank draft, submit signed documents from the party leader and treasurer, as well as the completed nomination package.

Needless to say this is an insane thing to accomplish in a week. Thankfully – we didn’t have to!

Thanks largely to the foresight and perseverance of our Candidate Readiness Officer, Kyle Geronazzo, who keenly anticipated the timing of the election, Bill’s potential candidacy was brought before the executive and approved well in advance, which got Bill a healthy head start to work on his signatures and get the necessary documents together.

Damn, I love seeing everybody work together so well!

Bill Walker deserves a huge amount of credit here. He is giving so much of his time for no monetary reward, and putting his name and face out there in his own community to speak up and stand for individual freedom and smaller government. We all know how much flak we can get in a world of statists when we are trying to defend free market principles and explain how the state operates by coercion. But Bill isn’t just standing up tall – he’s also kind of killing it.

In the short 2 weeks since being confirmed by Elections BC, Bill has had a yellow-vest rally, campaign kick-off event, not less than 4 media interviews, including with Nanaimo News Bulletin, Times Colonist, and Politicoast. Through his professionalism Bill earned invitations to the all-candidates debate as well, where he performed exceptionally well.

I am so honoured to the leader of this party knowing men like Bill stand with me and are working so well to push the ball down the field.

Of course, it isn’t only Bill. When I was going up to help run Bill’s campaign kick-off rally, I was joined by no less than 7 other volunteers! In fact, we had so many people step forward we had to rent a car big enough for us all!

Special thanks to Paul Matthews, Bill Morrison, Kyle McCormack, Paul Geddes, Liam McCoy, Katherine Wilson, and our former Instagram Coordinator (who wishes to remain private!) for joining me on what was a terrific event for the party!

Election day is January 30, 2019, so you better get out to vote if you are in Nanaimo!

Constituency Associations

This month the executive approved our first 2 constituency associations! Congratulations to the members of the “Okanagan” CA and “Kelowna/North Interior” CA! And a special thanks to the members who volunteered to stand as executives!

We also had the founding of two more CA’s: “Surrey-Delta-Langley”, and Vancouver’s “YVR”! The executive will be looking to approve the by-laws at next month’s meeting! Members in those regions please contact to be put in touch with your local CA executive!

Support your local CAs!

Changes on the Executive Council

We had two volunteers step down in January, Vice President Lee Smith and Regional Caucus Chair Kenneth Van Dewark. We are all so thankful for their significant contributions to this party in time, money and ideas. We will work hard to honour what you they done.

Our President, Paul Matthews, will be sending a communication out to you all in the coming weeks on the process we need to follow to replace the outgoing executives.

Easy ways you can help bigly

It’s been a great start to 2019, a year that stands to bring the BC Libertarian Party to a whole new level of prominence and relevance. I can tell you people are starting to talk and think about us on a whole new level.

But all of that is only possible by the support that you all give to the party on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. I just want to take a few quick minutes to point out some simple things you can do to help us keep pushing these ideas higher and higher:

#1) Start a monthly subscription-style donation

So now that Patreon is an enemy of free speech, why don’t you transfer your monthly donations over to us! We have our website set up now so we can accept amounts as low as $1 or $2 per month. Honestly anything you can afford really adds up and really helps us take care of business.

#2) Follow us on Social Media

We now have pretty cool accounts on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, please follow us!
Instagram: BCLibertarians
Twitter: @BC_Libertarians

And if you want to keep up with me a bit more often, please follow me on Facebook or Subscribe to my channel on YouTube!

Youtube: MrDNSWilson

Until Next time!

Don (N.S.) Wilson, Sunday, January 27, 2019