Dante v. Nolan: Comparing Their Treatment of Homer's Hero of Many Turns

 

As a cornerstone of Western literature, The Odyssey reflects eternal verities as well as contemporary sentiments. According to Homer, the Odyssey is a celebrated warrior’s tale rife with cunning schemes and many turns. According to Christopher Nolan, it is a patriarch’s revelation of regret and redemption.

In the original poem, Homer ends his tale with the vengeful families of the dead suitors slain by Odysseus. They demand his blood, as any upstanding Ancient Greek would. In the midst of the battle to come, divine authorities Athena and Zeus refuse to take sides (stark contrast to their choices in Homer’s Iliad) and force a permanent truce among all parties, ending the cycle of violence. With his wife Penelope and his kingdom restored to him, Odysseus rules over Ithaca in peace.

In the movie, Odysseus and his wife reconnect, but they cannot rest and celebrate their renewed love. They must travel west so he can atone for his sins (having violated Zeus’ law) and provide a proper death and burial for his fallen crewmates.

Homer’s original ending would have served just as well by blockbuster standards. Yet Nolan’s unique twist on the man of many turns commands its own respect, revealing the temperament of our time.

Nolan’s decision for Odysseus to go west reminds me of another account of the famed wayward wayfarer: the celebrated Italian epic poet Dante Alighieri in his medieval masterpiece The Divine Comedy.

Aside from enthusiasts of Italian literature, classicists, and hard-core humanists, the general public is not aware of Dante’s interpretation of Homer’s much-traveled hero: not just flaws and flaunts, follies and failures, but flames and hellfire, too. Yet Dante’s Divine Comedy deserves more respect and recognition than it currently receives, especially because his work forms a seminal part of Western literature, too.  Dante, along with Homer (and Virgil), is one of the finest, most sophisticated epic poets in the Western Tradition, and his take on Odysseus, or rather Ulysses, is illustrative not just of the power of Homer’s epic, but its ongoing influence on Western thinkers and creators today. Nolan and Dante share in this magnificent effort, and their interpretations of the Ancient Greek epic and hero complement each other.

How one views the Odyssey, and its main character, is shaped by the times and trials of the author, the readers, and the times. How did Dante view Odysseus, whom he calls Ulysses per the Latin tradition?

Let’s visit Inferno, the first part of Dante’s Comedy, where we find the poet facing the medieval version of a mid-life crisis. His poetic mentor, Virgil, finds Dante, then informs him that he has been called from on high to go on a spiritual journey through Hell and Purgatory, then to achieve moral perfection and redemption in Paradise. Like Homer’s Odysseus, Dante will take many turns, but he will be guided by reason, then revelation. Like Nolan’s Odysseus, Dante will learn from his failures, and he will document his journey through hell, where sinners of all backgrounds suffer commensurate punishment for their sins.

In Canto XXVI of Inferno, Virgil leads Dante into the eighth of ten bolge, or pockets, in the Eighth Circle of Hell (which has nine total). In the eighth bolgia, the false counselors burn in all-encompassing flames. Not only do they suffer for defrauding others, but also because they misused their God-given gifts to seduce others to partake in evil deeds.

Dante portrays Ulysses as a subject of this eternal, infernal torment (along with Diomedes, who burns with him in the same flame) specifically because of their deceitful plot to aid the Greeks’ entry and destruction of Troy. In contrast, Nolan allows Odysseus to atone for his sins while alive, while Dante ensures his eternal damnation.

Here we see where Dante and Nolan’s interpretations intersect: Odysseus is not necessarily a hero, but certainly a flawed man who did a great evil. The poet and the director expound upon a man who ruined a civilization, but condemn his actions and require restitution for his wrongdoing.

According to Dante, how does Homer die? Ulysses tells Dante through Virgil that he set sail for the West, seducing his men to come with him. He conjoins them to his ill-fated voyage by telling them not to settle for their limited knowledge and imagination:

Considerate la vostra semenza:
 fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
 ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.' (XXIV, 118-120)

[Consider ye the seed from which ye sprang;
  Ye were not made to live like unto brutes,
  But for pursuit of virtue and of knowledge.'] (Translation, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

The irony in this phrasing is unmistakable. Odysseus/Ulysses' men are brutes, not just figuratively because of their part in the destruction of Troy, but also literally: they became such at Circe’s hand. True, their captain convinced the sorceress to reverse her evil curse, but the brutish nature of his crew never disappeared and curses them in the end. Just as Ulysses rallied them to deceive the Trojans and sack Troy, so too he bewitches his men to sail west to their doom.

According to Dante’s account, Ulysses’ men see a large mountain (Mount Purgatory in Dante’s cosmology) rising above the Atlantic horizon. Then a mighty whirlwind rushes at them from the mountain, whips their ship around, causing the water to overcome them, “Until the sea above us closed again” (Inferno, XXVI, 142), to their doom.

In contrast to Dante’s depiction of Ulysses’ ignoble end, how does Nolan’s movie end? On a ship together, the warrior and his wife embrace the exile. There is a forlorn sorrow in this necessary departure.

They share these final words:

Odysseus: A new dawn will break over the darkened world when our mistakes will once again be forgotten.

Penelope: We will endure.

Like in Dante’s poem, Nolan’s film ends with Odysseus going West, but with hope. For Dante, it is in the West where Ulysses perishes, having transgressed another boundary unfit for them to touch, and faces well-deserved torment.

One could argue that Nolan’s Odysseus borrowed this “Western” ending from Dante’s treatment of Ulysses. Nolan dismisses the sailor/schemer’s vanity and cleverness, focusing on his brazen disregard for Zeus’ Law, and the irreparable harm that follows.

Homer’s Odysseus does not respect boundaries, but he is celebrated and receives a happy ending. Why do Nolan and Dante treat him differently, punishing him for these transgressions? They interpret him through their times and values.

Dante viewed Troy and its successor, Aeneas, with great reverence (in large part because of Dante’s supreme appreciation for Virgil’s Aeneid), as precursors to the Roman Empire and then the medieval Italian states under Papal authority. For Dante, Christian rule under the Pope will end the political rivalries and constant warfare ravaging his homeland. Ulysses dishonored those honored figures and frustrated that hopeful end, so he must pay an eternal price.

In contrast to Dante’s apparent Christian themes, Nolan taps into the latent Christian sensibilities of a post-Christian world, entertaining his time and audiences with the expectation that Odysseus’ wrongdoing will be corrected, but also that the warrior is a good man who did bad things, and he can be redeemed.

In Dante and Nolan’s accounts, Odysseus/Ulysses does not stay in Ithaca. For Dante, the Homeric hero’s internal wanderlust inevitably leads him to his demise. In the movie, Odysseus/Ulysses takes his wife and wends his way West to embrace self-exile for violating Zeus’ law. Not as terrible as burning in hell, but it’s a punishment all the same.

The focus on the West as a theme also deserves our attention. Homer’s works are foundational to the Western Tradition. The works of Homer (as well as Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, etc.) invite, nay, demand that other future artists contend with them, comment on them, and even adapt them for their times. Odysseus/Ulysses may not be an Everyman to some, but every man can appreciate the wonders and works of his ventures, and also pass judgment on them for their contemporary readers and viewers to consider.

While some critics (including myself) would have preferred Nolan to remain faithful to the original epic, Nolan’s film in itself did not suffer for this change. I don’t necessarily agree that Ulysses is evil because of his sacking of Troy, but I can appreciate why the Italian epic poet punishes him. In that way, Dante’s religious epic and Nolan’s breathtaking movie amass incredible respect for not only referencing one of the West’s most frequently cited and revered characters, but having the audacity to condemn him for his deeds, whether through exile or eternal flames.

Perhaps this essay will encourage Nolan to focus his next movie project on the epic poem The Divine Comedy. He could detail the Tuscan political outcast’s journey from Hell to Paradise, documenting the tortures, trials, and triumphs of his contemporaries and well-known historical and literary figures. At the very least, Dante’s Inferno deserves a broader appreciation than it currently receives, and based on current sales, Nolan’s compelling film has generated a renewed respect for The Odyssey.

Left-Wing LGBT Judge Condemns Bill Whatcott for Passing Out Gospel Tracts

 

Leftist Canadian judge finds Bill Whatcott GUILTY of “hate speech” – over a 10-year-old flyer.

Sentencing set for Dec. 16. Likely prison time up to 2 years.

Judge’s published “reasoning” is unbelievably hostile. Rejected all the defense’s arguments.

September 18, 2026

Justice Anne Molloy ruled like a typical leftist Canadian judge. She bought into all the LGBT arguments and talking points about "hate." The cards were stacked against Bill.

On Sept. 16, 2026, Toronto Superior Court Judge Anne Malloy announced her verdict that Bill Whatcott is “Guilty” of “Wilful Promotion of Hate.”

This follows the five-day re-trial this past May on the flyer he passed out ten years ago at the 2016 Toronto Pride parade. The flyer was filled with Bible verses, medical information on health risks, political commentary, and images.

The judge laid out her reasons in a shockingly hostile and vitriolic 43-page document filled with LGBTQ jargon.

Sentencing will take place on December 16. Bill is free on bail until then. His likely prison time will be one to two years. According to Bill, his lawyers are considering an appeal.

In most places the incident would have been ignored by the authorities. But Canada has gone off the rails regarding “culture war” issues. The government (“the Crown”) obsessively pursued this absurd “hate speech” conviction.

As we’ve reported, at his trial in 2021 Bill was acquitted (by an honest judge). But the Crown successfully appealed the acquittal (double jeopardy is legal in Canada) and a second trial was held. This time they got their guilty verdict.

The judge’s reasoning: Harsh and vitriolic

It appears that Judge Molloy (along with judges across Canada in similar cases) extracted what she wanted from the evidence and Bill’s testimony, then applied a very liberal interpretation of the statute to create the scenario she wanted.

In her filing, Molloy did not mince words regarding her animosity against the flyer and Bill personally:

It is thinly disguised scare-mongering and loaded with toxic imagery. Gay men are portrayed as immoral and a danger to children …

He is far from a simple Christian missionary seeking to convert sinners. He is an activist and an attention-seeker. He loves the spectacle of what he did, he enjoyed the attention, and he continues to do so …

I find there is a clear tone of hatred … I agree with the Crown's submission that Mr. Whatcott has demonstrated a deep animus towards the gay community and this fueled his actions in distributing the flyer. He has described the gay lifestyle as an "abomination" and refers to it as the "homosexual sub-culture."

In addition Judge Molloy

• Took “expert witness” Professor Nick Mulé’s testimony seriously. This radical homosexual activist professor - a purported expert in “anti-gay rhetoric” - outlined a list of supposed “tropes and dog-whistles” he found in Bill’s flyer. Outrageously, the fact that Mulé also testified during the trial that he considers public sex in parks and washrooms to be a legitimate “form of sexual expression” that “should be protected” did not taint his opinions in any way for the judge.
• Rejected all the defense’s legal arguments. The defense argued that since the flyer was handed out to gay pride parade attendees, it could not cause them to hate gays. But the judge said that Bill handed it out to everyone who would take it, so it might. The defense argued that the point of the flyer was to make gays change their behavior, not for anyone to hate them. The judge also rejected that.
• Ignored the “truth” argument. The courts have ruled that truth is a legitimate defense. The judge ignored the testimony in the 2021 trial showing the medical and theological truths of the flyer. The attitude throughout her document is that any criticism of homosexual behavior is categorically untrue.
• Subjectively interpreted the law: According to Molloy, the Crown did not have to prove the flyer actually caused anyone to feel hatred — only that a reasonable person would view its content as exposing gay people to hatred. Thus, the flyer could meet the legal definition of “promoting hatred” even if not a single person who read it came away hating anyone.
• She subjectively decided that Bill was not a sincere Christian. She said his use of “zombie” costumes to distribute the flyer was a ruse to spread hate, not a genuine attempt to persuade sinners to repent. “These were not respectful Christians come to help guide people away from unhealthy sexual practices or to convince gay men to repent their sins and find God,” she wrote. Instead, they were “on the attack against gay culture, with hatred and mockery.”

Errors by the defense team?

In our opinion, the skill of Bill’s attorney during the 2021 trial, John Rosen (who has retired), was sorely missed. We can see why Rosen was considered by many the best defense attorney in Canada. Three things in particular stand out:

• In 2021 Rosen did not have Bill take the stand. This time his lawyers allowed him to take the stand. For two days he was skillfully grilled by the Crown counsel, who got Bill to say things that were used against him by the judge.
• In 2021 Rosen successfully got Bill’s previous flyers, writings, and court rulings excluded as evidence. This time, they weren’t excluded. Even flyers from 2001 – 15 years before the incident – were used as evidence against him.
• In 2021 Rosen masterfully turned around the opposing testimony of the medical expert witness. But this time Bill's lawyers did little to confront the absurd testimony of Professor Mulé, except to expose some of his opinions on “gay culture” unrelated to this case.

It’s a terrible outcome in a country that’s completely lost its moral compass.

Final thoughts

The very concept of “hate speech” is the problem. Freedom of speech should allow even speech that may be offensive. Unfortunately, although Canada’s Charter of Rights actually does have  language (similar to our First Amendment) protecting speech – it also allows the government to limit it in a “reasonable” way. We’re seeing where that leads.

The idea of someone facing years of prison time because a judge has decided that a flyer he passed out ten years ago constituted “willful promotion of hate” is completely foreign to the American mindset. But it’s happening right over the border. And there are powerful people who want to bring it to the US. This should be a warning to everyone.

Shockingly, this is barely being reported in the Canadian mainstream media and not at all (that we can see) in the conservative media there. That’s very concerning.

We will continue to keep you fully informed on the further developments in this case!

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Response to Random Lengths News Editorial "The Déjà vu of American Politics and Empire"

In his latest editorial, James Preston Allen compares the internment of Japanese Americans with the ICE raids arresting and deporting illegal aliens.

That is deeply offensive.

The vast, vast majority of Japanese Americans in this country during World War II were in the United States legally. Most of them were natural-born citizens! Furthermore, they committed no crime, yet they were interned by "Progressive" President Franklin Delano Roosevelt via Executive Order 9066.

Conservatives like US Senator Robert Taft of Ohio vociferously opposed this vile abuse of power, but they had no power in Washington in those days.

Is Allen suggesting that the interned Japanese Americans were all criminals, then? Is he inadvertently justifying the violation of the rights of American citizens?

Progressives are always looking for ways to lock people up. President Woodrow Wilson incarcerated socialist Eugene V. Debs for his anti-war activities, and he cracked down on freedom of speech and the press when other American citizens criticized his decision to enter World War I. Conservative President Warren G. Harding pardoned Debs and reversed Wilson's cult of tyranny.

In another offensive comment in his editorial, Allen compares ICE raids to the deportation and extermination of Jews and other targeted groups during the Holocaust. This is obscene. Jews, gypsies, and other Slavic groups targeted by the Nazis were all citizens of their respective countries who committed no crime. To compare them with people who have entered our country illegally—and who have committed other crimes, besides—is the height of historical malpractice and highly unethical.

Letter to the Editor: Woke "Israel First" Reader Slams American Thinker

(Response to Charlie Kirk, Rest In Peace)

Letters like these have an amiable stupidity.

The whole mantra of blaming Israel for all the evils of the world has gotten so old, that hardly anyone cares anymore.

I thought you'd all find this letter quite funny!

-----

You are a charlatan the way you speak of this patsy as if he had been convicted.   Since you assume everything, I assume you are paid by the actual killeds to write this drivel.

Kent Ramsay
Reader of American Thinker, and subscriber, before it became a propaganda arm of Israel.

-------

Dear Kent:

I didn't realize you were "Israel first."

The evidence, from confessions to cameras to on-the-ground testimony, is pretty convincing.

Your belief in conspiracy theories vs. truth proves that you are just another woke complainer.

You definitely won't like American Thinker.

That website is for people who are awake and think for themselves.

Thanks for writing, though.

Full Report: Bill Whatcott’s Absurd 5-Day “Hate Speech” Re-trial

 

Day by day: Bill Whatcott’s absurd 5-day “hate speech” re-trial

Re-rial was in May 2026 in Toronto. The judge’s ruling is coming this week!

Unable to prove “hate” by the letter of the law – prosecutors needed to stretch it using aggressive slanderous attacks.

An Orwellian scene that could come to the US.

September 15, 2026

 Supreme irony: These plaques - in English and French - are outside the courthouse where Bill was tried twice for hate speech. Titled "Freedom of Expression," they read: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees, as a fundamental freedom, that everyone has freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression."

Will the Canadian government (“the Crown”) finally force Bill Whatcott to go to prison for handing out a flyer ten years ago that urged homosexuals to abstain from their unhealthy and immoral behavior?

On Wednesday, Superior Court Judge Anne Molloy is scheduled to announce her verdict on Bill’s second trial for the same so-called “hate speech” crime. Did the Crown legitimately make its case in that second trial? You can judge for yourself.

In our previous post we described the flyer that Bill and his friends passed out at the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride Parade, his subsequent trial for “Wilful Promotion of Hate,” his acquittal by Judge Goldstein, and the government’s successful appeal for a second trial. (Double jeopardy is legal in Canada.)

Will the second trial and the new judge prove to be the combination that convicts Bill? This trial was more aggressive and vicious toward Bill personally. The Crown’s prosecution employed a different strategy than in the first trial, which focused on truthfulness and legitimacy of the flyer’s statements.

The second trial took five days between May 25 and June 3, 2026. All the testimony and cross-examination from the first trial was brought in as evidence.

The opposing legal teams

The Ontario Attorney General’s prosecuting team (“the Crown”) consisted of two very aggressive attorneys.

In Bill’s first trial (in December 2021), the Crown had to face John Rosen, considered the top criminal defense attorney in Canada. But Rosen has since retired. This time, Bill’s legal team consisted of an attorney from Rosen’s firm and a highly regarded criminal defense attorney brought in from another firm.

The law Bill’s is charged with violating – and the high bar to convict

Bill Whatcott is being charged under Section 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code: “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” (Note the Canadian spelling of “willful.”)

Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada has set a very high threshold for conviction (which is why Bill was acquitted the first time around). To secure a conviction, the Crown must prove two distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The Act (Actus Reus): The public communication of statements that cross the line into extreme emotion, vilification, and detestation of an identifiable group.
  
• The Intent (Mens Rea): A mental state showing the person acted with a conscious purpose or desire to bring about or foment that hatred, or acted with wilful blindness to it.
  

Furthermore, the Criminal Code explicitly provides a statutory defense of truth: a person cannot be convicted if the statements they communicated were factually true. For example, the testimony from the first trial basically established that the flyer’s medical facts and Christian theology were legitimate.

Heading into the second trial in May 2026, it was expected that the Crown would need to perform significant legal gymnastics to win this case, especially given the skills of Bill’s legal team.

But there were also some major unknowns for his team. The case had not yet been assigned a judge. Would the judge be a hard leftist (like most there seem to be), or a reasonable moderate like Judge Goldstein was? Thus, the defense had to decide whether to have another bench trial or go before a full jury.

 Ontario Superior Court, the scene of both of the absurd "hate speech" criminal trials - over the text of a flyer!

Bill’s five-day trial

Unlike at the previous trial and hearing, this judge allowed only a few “established” media to have Zoom access. MassResistance didn’t make the cut. These daily reports are from Bill’s written notes and verbal clarifications.

Monday May 25 – Judge assigned to the case. Opting for a bench trial. Initial proceedings.

At the beginning of the day, neither a judge nor a courtroom had been assigned to the case. Sometime after noon, Justice Anne Molloy was assigned to the case, a courtroom was assigned, and preliminary proceedings began.

According to Bill’s attorneys, Judge Molloy was considered somewhat of a centrist rather than the more common hard leftist. Since the population of that part of Toronto is largely “woke” and far left, it was decided to go with a bench trial rather than risk a jury trial. But as the trial began, that assumption about the judge’s temperament appeared to be mistaken.

When that day’s hearing began, the following facts were established:

1. Bill attended the 2016 Toronto Pride parade as a member of the “Gay Zombie Cannabis Consumers Association.”
2. He registered for the parade under a false name, Robert Clinton.
3. He created and passed out the “Zombie Safe Sex” package with the flyer inside.

Tuesday, May 26 – Prof. Nick Mulé gives his “expert witness” testimony.

The major reason given for the Crown’s appeal of the first verdict was that Judge Goldstein did not allow a prominent homosexual activist college professor, Nick Mulé, to be included as an expert witness. Apparently, Judge Goldstein didn’t consider Mulé’s information to be pertinent or relevant. In this trial, Mulé was the only expert witness.

Mulé was sworn in and gave his testimony about Whatcott and the flyer.

He started by describing Gay Liberation Theory principles and the tenets of Queer Liberation. He said that pride events are very significant for people, especially those “coming out” for the first time.

He said Bill’s flyer included overt and covert messages. It contained numerous “dog whistles” and “tropes.” These not only target the homosexual community, he said, but can cause “internalized homophobia” (self-hatred).

Among the flyer’s “dog whistles and tropes” are:

• Stigmatizing anal and oral sex
• Describing homosexual sex acts as spreading disease
• Accusing members of the LGBT community of recruiting children
• Using religion to characterize homosexuality as immoral
• Referring to God’s law and natural law
• Using terms like “sodomy” and “sodomite” that are pejorative
• Characterizing homosexual medical issues as a “gay plague” with God’s punishment to follow

He said that Bill’s photos of anal warts are “fear inducing” and give a negative connotation to the homosexual subculture.

Under the Crown’s friendly questioning, Mulé was more direct. He claimed that Bill was trying to associate homosexuals with death and pedophilia. He said that Bill’s remarks were full of “microaggressions.” Mulé described criticisms against LGBT behavior as “historical discrimination and injustice.”

Bill’s lawyers brought things back into perspective. They established that Mulé is a radical activist who wants to decriminalize crystal meth and public sex in parks. They demonstrated that he was rightly excluded as a legitimate expert witness in the first trial.

The general feeling in Bill’s camp was that Mulé basically spouted standard Queer Liberation propaganda and did not give the judge much that could be used to convict Bill. But there was certainly the fear that the judge would take it seriously.

Wednesday, May 27 – Bill on the stand

On Wednesday, Bill was on the stand for over two hours.

He was first examined by his lead attorney. They discussed his background, including his conversion to Christ when he was homeless and sniffing glue in a graveyard at age 18, to graduation from nursing school with honors a few years later, then to his work in the oil fields after he left nursing. Then came his arrest for this “hate speech” crime (in 2018) and his more marginal jobs since being out on bail.  

Next, the Crown prosecutor cross-examined Bill. He focused on how Bill “lied” to get into the parade – and that Christianity is clear that lying is a sin. He strongly suggested that Bill is not a true Christian, and thus the Christian content of his flyers was phony.

Bill responded that there are instances where deception is used ethically for the greater good. Two examples are the Biblical account in Exodus where the midwives disobeyed Pharoah’s command to kill the male Hebrew babies, and the Allies’ deception campaign regarding the D-Day landing. Bill said that entering the Toronto Pride Parade, with its tax-funded weird fetishes, nudity, and anti-Christian hate speech was a legitimate use of deception.

Thursday, May 28 - Bill on the stand again

Bill was back on the stand, as the Crown prosecutor resumed his aggressive cross-examination.

For two and a half hours, the Crown prosecutor questioned Bill, attempting to delegitimize him. He pounded the AIDS fatality picture on the flyer, insinuating that Bill didn’t really know what that picture was portraying, and just wanted to invoke strong negative emotions towards homosexuals with it.

Then he brought up Bill’s statistics on sexually transmitted infections in the homosexual subculture. He attacked the flyer’s unflattering description of prominent Liberal Party politicians who had been convicted of child pornography and criminal sexual conduct, along with the Liberal Party holding a vote to lower the age of consent to 14.

The prosecutor weaved all of that into evidence of “Hallmarks of Hatred.”  The “Hallmarks of Hatred” is a concept articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada where one could quote from allegedly credible sources to portray a victim group as a menace, predatory, diseased, associated with death, etc., and thus potentially cause people to hate, detest, and vilify the targeted group.  Therefore a “hate speech” crime is committed.

Bill’s response was consistent: Christians have a duty to warn about eternal and physical consequences related to rebellion against God and his flyer was Scriptural, factual, and grounded in how he perceives truth.

To everyone’s surprise the Crown also asked Bill to reveal the identities of the five other costumed Christian activists who were at the parade with him passing out the flyer packages.

Bill didn’t answer and his lawyer objected. Justice Molloy asked the Crown, “Why do you want that information?” The attorney replied, “The police would like to talk to Mr. Whatcott’s activists.”  Justice Molloy upheld the objection and the Crown was unable to continue with that line of questioning.

Wednesday, June 3 – Closing arguments

The final day was devoted to closing arguments by both sides.

The Crown: The prosecution attempted to portray Bill as an unrepentant hater. They argued that Bill’s flyer tactics are “Hallmarks of Hatred” meant to demean homosexuals — portraying them as a threat to children, associating them with disease, and suggesting they were undeserving of equal treatment. Prosecutors argued since Bill knew from previous run-ins with the law years earlier that this kind of language was harmful, and thus his decision to use similar language again was strong evidence he knew exactly what he was doing. They also pointed to alleged inconsistencies in his testimony and his “admission” that he considered dishonesty acceptable for what they say he called “tactical” reasons. From that, they said, this undermined his credibility and supported the conclusion that his real motive was hostility toward the gay community, not religious expression.

The Defense: The defense countered that the legal bar for a criminal conviction is much higher than in the earlier, non-criminal case the Crown kept invoking: The law requires proof that Whatcott actively intended to stir up hatred, not simply that his flyer might offend or upset people. They argued the setting mattered: the flyer was handed directly, in person, to the very people it supposedly targeted, along with Whatcott's real name and contact information — behavior they said made little sense for someone trying to provoke hatred. They also argued the flyer, taken as a whole, expressed concern for the reader's wellbeing and explicitly offered spiritual redemption, which they said runs counter to the kind of negative message the law is meant to capture. The defense maintained Whatcott had deliberately toned down his language compared to earlier material, believing in good faith that he was staying within the bounds of what the law allowed.

The judge pressed both sides on where exactly the line falls between offensive religious or political speech, which is legally protected, and language that rises to the level of criminally promoting hatred — a distinction that appeared to be the crux of the case going into Wednesday's verdict.

A few weeks later, the Crown and defense filed full written closing submissions with the court, expanding on their oral closing arguments.

 The Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto, where the Crown persuaded the leftist justices that Nick Mulé's testimony was important enough to force Bill to face trial again.

Final thoughts

If judged honestly by the facts and directives of the law and the Supreme Court of Canada, Bill should easily be acquitted again.

The whole idea of spending millions of dollars to prosecute a person for a “hateful” flyer that was passed out a decade ago – that can’t even be legitimately proven as hateful – is Orwellian enough.

Added to that, judicial dishonesty is a big problem across Canada. Judges routinely ignore or purposely broaden the letter of the law and higher courts’ adjudications – especially in cases involving “culture war” issues. It happens in the US and everywhere else, of course, but it has become alarming in Canada.

For that reason, we are sadly not optimistic about the pending verdict in this case.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Lindsay Clancy and Toxic Femininity

 

January 24, 2023, three innocent lives were taken away in the most gruesome, untimely fashion. The children’s mother, Lindsay Clancy of Duxbury, Massachusetts (one of the most affluent areas in a very affluent, liberal, and very woke state), claimed to hear voices telling her to kill her children. She then slit her throat and her wrists, then jumped to her death, only to survive, permanently handicapped.

Standing trial, the prosecutors argued she was in her right mind to commit these atrocious crimes. The defense argued not guilty by reason of insanity.

For months before the killings, Clancy had been suffering from postpartum psychosis, bipolar disorder, insomnia, intrusive thoughts, suicidal ideation, etc. She voluntarily committed herself to deal with these issues.

Yet she was allowed to return home, to be with her kids, to be their mother.

And she killed them.

Their names were:

·         Cora Clancy (5 years old)

·         Dawson Clancy (3 years old)

·         Callan Clancy (8 months old)

On the fateful day, Lindsay appeared normal and functional. She drove around to pick up another medication. She exchanged frequent texts with her husband. She sent her husband out on an errand purportedly so she could fulfill her plot against the kids. She strangled them to death with exercise bands.

For all the different illnesses and diagnoses that she has listed or cried about, none of them give the impression that they would lead her to hear voices and kill her children. Just looking at the prima facie evidence suggests that the jury should have locked her up for life—and make sure to throw away the key (no death penalty, since it's uber-progressive Marx-achusetts).

The jury deadlocked, eleven to one. The one holdout, a black male, could not get past the fact that this mother murdered her three children, and it just wasn’t right to let her walk away from guilt for this horrific crime. The jury deadlocked, despite defense attorneys’ efforts to remove the one holdout. Prosecutors are preparing the next trial.

 In the public sphere, the discussion has not died down, now that the jurors have come forward to relate what happened. Of nine women and three men, eleven were ready to declare Clancy not guilty. One juror said she was “excited” to file the “not guilty” paperwork.

Sickening and horrific! How much longer will our society tolerate or accommodate mental illness as a catch-all excuse for crimes against children?

Speaking of the three kids: will anyone protest for them? Say their names? Their own mother robbed these poor little innocents of their most precious possession. And the world wants to commiserate with Crazy Lindsay. This is vile. The hordes of liberal white Karens protesting outside of the courthouse wanted to celebrate the harridan who strangled her children.

What is the world coming to?

Massachusetts is not just another liberal enclave in the United States, in some cases worse than California. Woke white liberals dominate, and intimidated non-woke types pretend to be woketo keep their jobs or get elected. Even the Republicans are liberal, including the last “Republican” governor Charlie Baker, who celebrated abortion 100%, pushed the gay agenda with gusto, and palled around with the Democratic hypermajority on Beacon Hill, signing off on legislation to allow confused men in women’s spaces, and allow those same creepy men to sue anyone who didn’t let them go wherever they wanted to.

The moral collapse that is Massachusetts plays an outstanding role in this mess. The witches of Salem have gotten their revenge.

What’s worse, postpartum killer moms are nothing new.

In 2001, Andrea Yates of Houston, Texas, drowned her five children. At trial, she claimed to be suffering from postpartum depression, and therefore not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury convicted her. Upon appeal, the sentence was overturned due to false testimony from one of the psychiatric expert witnesses. At the second trial, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a mental health institution, where she remains to this day.

This outcome was unjust then, and it would be unjust today.

The argument that Clancy should face indefinite confinement in a mental institution vs. prison or capital punishment is unconscionable. Lives matter. Children matter. Laws matter. Protecting those lives in the name of the rule of law must matter. A society that gives a pass or expects compassion for the adult who kills the children is a society that does not deserve to survive.

A larger issue rears its uglier head, though.

Following the Clancy case, the country is witnessing more reports of women killing their children:

Dimone Fleming of New York City: On August 28, 2026, a New York judge found this woman not guilty by reason of insanity for killing her children. In 2022, Fleming stabbed her two boys in a Bronx family shelter following a bout of postpartum depression.

Andrea Faust of Durham, North Carolina: On February 12, 2026, Faust attempted to kill her two sons. Three-year old Percy died from the wounds, while her 23-month old will survive. This crazed mother is going to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Corie Walsh of Frankfort, Illinois: This case is the most disturbing. On September 1, 2026, Walsh—who had been following the Lindsay Clancy case closely—killed her two-year-old son by hanging him from a rafter in the basement.

She was watching the Clancy trial, with all the feminist harpies standing with Lindsay, and she decided to kill her kid.

Let’s assume that with a not guilty verdict in the second trial, Lindsay Clancy gets institutionalized. Massachusetts has a radical leftist out-lesbian governor who just signed off on the most extreme abortion legislation in the country. Feminism and the children be damned is her ideological mantra.  One could see this Salem Witch of a Governor granting a pardon and a conditional release for creepy Clancy. The same unjust outcome could preside in Illinois (another left-wing governor with national aspirations (and waistline) who will pander to Planned Parenthood and NOW).

North Carolina has a pro-criminal Dem governor, too!

There needs to be justice, and there needs to be deterrence. At what point do we presume that these women are suffering some form of deep psychosis? Or is it something else?

Women have been taught that they can make their demands, have their needs, and not care about family or children. This heartless disregard has contributed to greater unhappiness for women.

Women by nature are grumpy, prone to complain, just as men are prone to anger and violence. However, women are not being taught to curb their feminine defects. Men already face repeated calls to curb their sex drive or watch their violent tendencies. Now, it’s gotten to the point that men (and society in general) cannot even confront women’s increasingly toxic Karen-like behavior. In liberal jurisdictions, their abusive conduct is celebrated as a form of progress and a civil right.

This is starting to look like toxic femininity.

This female-coded, unhinged yet increasingly normalized mental instability is becoming a deadly norm, and now women are killing their children, hoping to avoid prison or the death penalty because of “muh hormones.” A few guilty verdicts would stop this madness and save lives.

VIDEO: DO NOT TALK with Charlee Simons: CAGOP Giving in to Homo Mafia

               

Twenty-Five Years Later

 

Twenty-five years later, 9/11 still lingers in our nation’s memory, though not as strongly as it should.

9-11 was the third time our country sustained an attack from a foreign state on our soil. The others occurred during the War of 1812, with the British invading Washington DC and torching the White House, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7^th, 1941.

The murder of three thousand Americans still shocks, and yet it’s so easy to forget that horror. The passage of time is a distraction in itself, and the quiet confidence of restored order can give the public an unwarranted sense of complacency.

Also, a string of foreign and domestic policy victories can dull our commitment to remain vigilant. In 2026, the United States enjoys robust leadership that is putting America First and has made the defense of our homeland a priority, so that a similar terrorist attack could never take place. President Trump has targeted Latin American drug cartels along the southern border. He is taking an aggressive stance against China’s predatory trade practices as well as the nation’s territorial aspirations. Trump’s welcome arrest of communist narco-dictator Nicolas Maduro and the realignment of Venezuela’s politics with American interests have been a boon for American safety and sovereignty.

Lastly, Trump’s necessary war with Iran is the culmination point of a clash of civilizations that exploded on our shores on September 11, 2001.

Al-Qaeda, one of many radical Islamic sects seeking our country’s destruction, succeeded in its long venture to cripple our country with a terrorist attack on that grim September morning. They did cripple us, but our nation fought back, wiping out the Taliban in Afghanistan, then taking out Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks a decade later.

Radical Islam will not rest until the United States—and the rest of the West—submits to Allah or is destroyed. We cannot let that happen. Radical Islam takes no prisoners, insisting on destroying all resistance to its megalomaniacal tyranny.

And that is the real danger: the rise of radical Islam in our nation, among our politicians, with a fawning media class and a clueless electorate unaware or unwilling to challenge its orthodoxy and extension.

In this regard, the United States has forgotten what we should have learned from that awful day.

With the rise of Islam, socialism, and anti-Semitism, all collectivist ideologies contrary to the core values and constitutional norms of our country, we have witnessed increased strife and division among our citizens. Al-Qaeda hoped to ignite this internal strife with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Thankfully, that effort failed, at the time.

For at least a year after 9/11, the American people were united. The churches were filled with citizens praying for our country. Democrats as well as Republicans worked together to mourn for the country, demanding to know how the illegal alien hijackers, including VISA overstays, could remain in the country undetected and undisturbed, long enough to get flying lessons, explosives, and plane tickets without facing deportation.

The world was also united in grief over our terrible loss. From China’s head of state to the French newspaper Le Monde, which declared on its front page “We Are All Americans,” the world stood in solidarity with us. Even Muslim-majority countries like Azerbaijan condemned the attacks. Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to contact Bush and share condolences (even if he may not have meant them). Putin later paid his respects by visiting the memorial site two months after the attack.

Such comity and commiseration are unthinkable in our fractious world today.

Twenty-five years later, the New Yorkers elected a radical Muslim immigrant for mayor, who condemns America, who calls collectivism ‘warm,’ who attacks Israel with impunity over false charges of genocide, who refused to condemn Hamas; who, having signed an executive order commemorating 9-11, handed the pen to the former attorney for Al-Qaeda operatives; whose very presence would make a mockery of the victims and their families, hence those same families having signed a petition banning him from the memorial ceremony.

However, I can’t share in their sorrow too much, since the same voters elected Commie Muslim Mamdani as their mayor. There’s a price to pay for forgetting.

Is there a remedy?

Commemorating those losses, that tragic day is a starting point, but what do you do about an entire city that elects a man who spitefully dishonors the memory of those victims? What do you do when an entire political party (the Democrats) is siding with radical Islam, determined to cover up the crimes of evil doers while pretending to care about the past harms done to our country?

We have a choice, and we have a responsibility, not just to remember what happened, but to understand why it happened, and to remain vigilant so that the circumstances and plots which led to the horrid harms on our nation’s soil never happen again. Are Americans willing to meet that challenge?

 

Rest in Peace, Charlie

 

A year has passed, and Charlie Kirk’s absence still hurts.

I didn’t believe it the day that it happened. I dismissed the long-range shot taking out the founder and leader of TPUSA as some AI fever dream from another disconcerted leftist. In reality, the fevered leftist made the nightmare come true.

Sadly, this absence is felt not just in his demise, but in the relative ease with which the world has passed on. How can the world continue as if nothing happened? My hometown of Torrance, CA, to the credit of the city council and staff, flew flags at half-mast in his honor. Yet one of the city council members lamented his “controversial” comments, too.

This year, we have witnessed demented, perverted people celebrating his death, including drag queens dressing up as Charlie with fake wounds gushing out of their necks.

Such is the division our country faces in this momentous time. Angry Democrats, embittered socialists, and violent communists don’t care how many lives are lost, how many cities are destroyed, or whether the United States survives another two hundred and fifty years. Such recrimination was unheard of among members of either party thirty years ago. Today, the majority of Democrats hold a dim view of our country, and no doubt a dimmer view of those who love America and want young people to share in that love once again.

Understandably, they trained their ire on Kirk.

He was more than counter-cultural. He was counter-revolutionary, undermining the Grand March through the institutions which have poisoned two generations of Americans.

Kirk was turning the tide on this mad self-destruction.

The left couldn’t stand by and allow that to happen.

One militant leftist made sure of that, and hence the fatal shot at Utah Valley University.

His assassination was tragic, evil, and preventable.

His political enemies rejoiced over his sudden death, exploiting the use of firearms to mock his support for the Second Amendment and his rigorous defense of the right to keep and bear arms. His passing only exposes all the more why law-abiding citizens need firearms, even in the most innocuous and presumably most secure locations.

Why did Tyler Robinson take him out? He was a sexually confused, deviant man, enamored with another confused man who thought he was a woman, and an animal. Kirk’s opposition to sexual degeneracy and appeal to moral order offended him.

Charlie embodied the antidote. He married young, had two young children, wanted a third. Following his untimely passing, darling videos have resurfaced, embracing the warm, fatherly character of this godly man. Kirk focused on rebuilding the man, the family, and the country. The Left and its putrid acolytes oppose all of it, and militantly so.

Charlie was not afraid to push past LGBT-DEI-CRT as a strict identity. He spoke to individuals as such, even those who vehemently disagreed with him. He debated in good faith, seeking to understand his fellow interlocutors from their perspective, then correct them. He was rarely at a loss for words, and not simply because he wanted to fill the air or hear himself speak. When he spoke, when he asked questions, when he engaged with college students (and their professors) with adept aplomb, he was making a case and making the difference.

One year later, commentators, pundits, and podcasters seem less interested in telling the truth, and more invested in getting a reaction. They are harvesting likes, views, shares, clicks, and outrage to pump up their profile and triumph as king of the (Dung)Hill of social media trash talk. Jerry Springer would have been appalled, but only because he hadn’t taken advantage of the broad, new media of social media in such sick, indefensible fashion.

The cause of truth and effective advocacy were well-wedded in Kirk. How to get the truth out, and get people to understand without triggering their immediate defense mechanisms: that is not an easy task.

For now, Kirk has possible, likely, or erstwhile successors. Ben Shapiro, certainly. Shortly after Kirk’s murder, Shapiro stared into the camera and said, “F--- You!” to all the nefarious elements celebrating Charlie’s demise in the hopes that such an egregious crime would silence his successors.

Not a chance.

Besides Shapiro, Glenn Beck, and Steve Crowder, even Steve Deace could pick up the mantle. Ben is the best bet, in my view, for his long legacy of sticking to his principles, articulating a clear message while arguing cogently with interlocutors, whether they agree or disagree. This is not to say that Crowder, Beck, or Deace don’t have integrity or consistency of message. Ben’s youthful appeal can bridge gaps, I believe.

There’s also the issue of Shapiro’s growing family. What a blessing indeed, one that will inevitably limit the time he can devote to reaching the masses left and right with Restoration of American Greatness through the meeting of the minds. Also, Shapiro is a commentator, not an organizer the way Charlie was.

Kirk’s TPUSA organization assembled an unprecedented ground game, working with party leaders and conservative activists alike, connecting citizens with accessible technology to walk precincts, connect with voters, and make the case for Trump.

And get him re-elected.

This kind of organizational as well as intellectual skill is unparalleled. Can anyone step into the void, fusing all these elements, and advance Kirk’s cause?

John Doyle is another contender, more youthful, but does not have the name recognition or trial-by-fire of interacting with larger audiences. Can he organize voters, activists, and pundits across the country to a greater cause, like electing a sound and effective improvement to President Trump in 2028?

Kirk had an unshakeable knack for drawing together disparate interests, not just among the political left and center, but especially among the right. The right is divided over immigration, Israel, Islam, government intervention in the economy, the limits to force to shape culture, etc. Kirk wrestled with these issues, but he never wavered from the main focus: Making America Great Again, and more importantly, Godly Again.

The spiritual angle cannot be ignored. John Adams warned the early Republic that the Constitution was written for a moral people. That moral center is fracturing. That moral compass is losing its bearing. And the slog of podcast successors is reveling in the confusion rather than eliminating it.

Kirk’s legacy faces destruction from this bevy of so-called successors, who have sought to obscure, even dirty, his legacy by disparaging his work with others, misrepresenting his statements, or attempting to overtake his leadership and legacy in returning President Trump to the White House.

Candace Owens is the most egregious offender, lying about the circumstances surrounding Charlie’s assassination, unfairly implicating Ericka Kirk in his demise, even suggesting that she profits off his violent departure. This is evil, as Jeremy Boreing righteously declared.

Thankfully, TPUSA is stronger than ever, and Ericka has displayed an unmatched grace under fire, leading the organization to greater glory that vile opponents had sought to destroy. A grieving widow, she could have ended the operation and turned inward to care for herself. But she knew that Charlie would not have wanted that. She serves despite her suffering, and for that, she deserves nothing but our thanks and praise.

Rest in Peace, Charlie.

Letter to the Editor: The 80s Were a Charmed Childhood

(Response to  Ryan Reynolds is Wrong: The 80s Were Awesome, Man!)

Just read your article on the 80s at American Greatness, and as someone who grew up in Torrance and once worked at the Del Amo Fashion Square Mall in its heyday, I loved it!

I'm curious where you went to high school, and if your childhood was filled with summers along the strand from Torrance Beach to the Redondo Beach Pier.

After getting married in 1988, life permanently took me away from Torrance, first to Orange County, then San Diego County, and finally two decades in San Jose before being liberated by COVID to work permanently remote - we opted for Provo, Utah, where kids still play in the neighborhood streets like I did in the 70s and 80s.

I can't imagine ever returning to live in California, though pictures of my childhood beach will always evoke that eternal feeling of "home" when I see them. The rest, not so much!

I went to South, preceded by Calle Mayor Middle and Arnold Elementary. It was a charmed childhood.

One thing I really miss about the Del Amo Mall is that my church used to rent out the entire mall on New Year's Eve for a dance and celebration, which went from Sears on one end all the way down to Montgomery Ward on the far side. 

On either end and in the middle, there were live bands which played music from the 40s-50s(?) on one stage, the 50s-60s on another, and then contemporary 70s-80s on yet another. It was absolutely epic.

Unfortunately, the annual event ceased after rival Polynesian groups got into a violent confrontation one year.

Tom W.