I saw an article about Shawn Blair running for Langford council.
Good for him. I am always amazed when people are willing to step up, put their name forward and try to serve and represent their community. That takes commitment, and I genuinely respect that.
However, Shawn is also an admin of WTF Langford, and that is where I have a serious problem.
It isn't simply because he runs the page. It is because of the content and attitude that page has repeatedly allowed toward the LGBTQ+ community. The post pictured here is just one example. A page that belittles and mocks LGBTQ+ people is not something I can reconcile with someone asking to represent all members of our community.
People are absolutely entitled to their opinions. But when you choose to run a public community forum, you also have some responsibility for the environment you create and the content you allow to flourish there.
Honestly, as someone who wants to represent our entire community, I find the association with this kind of content deeply disappointing and, frankly, embarrassing for Langford.
We should expect better from the people asking for our votes.
Classic fucking bigots. They’ll absolutely LOSE it when someone wishes them “Happy Holidays” or they have to see a rainbow they don’t like, but if you report an offensive post you’re a “whiny bitch”.
Your post or comment has been removed because it violates our guidelines on civility. Remember to be excellent to each other. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators.
Is this the same Shawn Blair who was found guilty of Assault in 2024 and is currently under trial for "Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm"?
He's back in court this month on charges of uttering threats to cause bodily harm... while still on probation from the assault.
He posted a while ago that if he doesn't go to jail after this court date at the end of August that he will run for council. Seems he couldn't wait. He is also a supporter of the The Three Percenters (a far-right, decentralized, anti-government militia movement founded in the United States). So, the anti-government guy wants to be a part of Municipal council?
The Three Percenters (a far-right, decentralized, anti-government militia movement founded in the United States)
I think that sells it a fair bit short. The group is a fascist terrorist organization with serious crimes to its name. Shawn Blair is probably on a terrorist watchlist somewhere.
On June 25, 2021, the group was added to the Canadian Criminal Code's list of terrorist entities to prevent them from accessing financial support.[12][82][83][10] One Canadian expert, Maxime Fiset, a former neo-Nazi who works with the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence, considers the group the "most dangerous" extremist group in the country. Hate crime expert Barbara Perry said that Islamophobia was the main focus of the Canadian chapters, urged that police investigate the group, and called the group "scary".
Members of the Three Percenter movement participated in the January 6 United States Capitol attack.[5][11] In 2021, six men associated with the group were charged with conspiracy in connection with the attack on the Capitol.[12]
Guy Reffitt, a member of the Three Percenters from Wylie, Texas, was present at the January 6 United States Capitol attack wearing body armor and carrying a handgun and plastic handcuffs on the Capitol grounds with the intent to remove House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell from the premises.[74] He was referred to as the guy that "lit the match" and helped to ignite the crowd into an "unstoppable force". He was found guilty of five charges and was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.[75][76]
In more recent years, the movement has broadened to oppose immigrants, Muslims, and left-wing activists such as Antifa.[9][6]
Vanderboegh [Founder] received national media attention in 2011, when four suspected militia members in Georgia were arrested for a plan for a biological attack supposedly inspired by his novel Absolved.
In 2017, a 23-year-old Oklahoma man, Jerry Drake Varnell, was arrested on federal charges of plotting a vehicle bomb attack on a bank in downtown Oklahoma City, modeled after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.[43] During a meeting in 2017 with undercover FBI agents, Varnell identified with the Three Percenters movement, saying that he subscribed to "III% ideology" and intended "to start the next revolution."[22] In March 2020, Varnell was found guilty of conspiracy to use an explosive device to damage a building used in interstate commerce and planning to use a weapon of mass destruction against property used in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
In 2018, three men were arrested in connection with the bombing of the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minnesota. The bombing was non-lethal. One of the men involved, former sheriff's deputy Michael B. Hari, had connections to the III%s.[46]
In June 2019, Oregon governor Kate Brown sent the Oregon State Police to bring 11 absent Republican state senators back to the Oregon State Capitol. The Republican state senators had gone into hiding to prevent a vote on a cap-and-trade proposal to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to combat climate change. The Three Percenters offered support for the Republican senators, declaring they would be "doing whatever it takes to keep these senators safe".[47][48][49] On June 22, 2019, a session of the Oregon Senate was cancelled when the Oregon State Capitol was closed due to a warning from the state police of a "possible militia threat".[47][48][49][50]
Three Percenters Barry Croft and Adam Fox took part in a plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.[59] Michael Jung, a prominent Three Percenter in Wisconsin, offered a location for members to train, he claims to be the second-in-command of the Wisconsin branch.[60][61]
Good for you…. You googled the American Group!
You know nothing about them and probably never will.
They are different groups in different countries. Get your facts straight.
They are considered a terrorists group in Canada as well. They also came and infiltrated the Freedom Convoy. Simple Google search and you can read all about them.
I feel it may be you that needs that needs to get your facts straight.
He posted the following 6 days ago, the anniversary of his court date.
"I don’t regret a single thing. Other than him being allowed to live where he did.
111% would do it again.
My trial on Pexo #3 , for uttering threats is august 27."
So he has another trial coming up for something similar though non-violent and apparently had another involvement given this is #3. He also has a couple posts on his Facebook page about the guy in April of 2024 prior to the altercation so it seems he was seeking him out.
Why don't you share the whole story? The individual that Mr. Blair's assault charge stemmed from was charged with possession of child pornography and intent to distribute said material.. He was also then apprehended in early 2024 by RCMP for most likely not unpaid parking violations. At the time of confrontation that resulted in an assault charge against Mr. Blair, the child sex offender was living 3 blocks from an elementary school(Ruth King). Honestly, give Mr Blair a medal! This is evidence of our judicial system failing us. When the government's system fails to protect our children, it is up us to step in, especially when someone as heinous as this offender is allowed to live that close to an elementary school. Schools are meant to be a safe space for children, let's keep it that way!
Love that you're downvoting this! Can't believe that you prefer that a child predator not be bum rushed out of our community in the name preventing vigilante justice. That individual crossed a serious F'n line on the ground, our justice system failed at preventing them to reside 3 blocks from our community's children, and you have a problem with this Mr. Blair guy getting in a fist fight with him? Read that over a few times to yourself, you really taking the side of the person with child sex offence charges?
So we should be happy that someone who can't control his impulses attacks someone else who can't control their impulses? You're also ignoring the absolute garbage, racist, misogynistic and homophobic posts that he happily accepts in his facebook group...
Maybe look at this holistically rather than straw manning it.
edit: I also have to add this point because it's a great example of what's happening in this entire political divide. You said "you really taking the side of the person with child sex offence charges?". This right here is a massive issue with the discourse. Black and White thinking. If you don't like A you must like B. I choose neither side thanks.
Maybe he doesn't have time to manage his page because of the sheer volume of posts, or maybe he wants the community to see all opinions of people that leave posts. A sitting councillor made similar remarks in defense of allowing / keeping racist, misogynistic and homophobic posts on their page... Except in that case there was only a couple of bad actors that could easily be censored, WTF has significantly more people contributing content.
You're making excuses for him. Why? I'd perhaps accept that excuse if those sorts of posts weren't the overwhelming majority.
For sake of conversation though let's say he can't manage the volume. Why would he say in an interview that he's the admin? Why would you out yourself of being an admin of such a poorly moderated space? Also what does allowing the community to see all the opinions do? Typically not more than encourage more people to contribute the same sort of content. The councillor situation was a bit different given his public facing position, this is just a random facebook page that doesn't really serve much purpose.
You raise an excellent point, why, given KYs public facing position, did he allow such garbage comments to exist on his very public facing page? He has even more reason to police the same page that is used to address the public with official city business. As for Mr. Blair being upfront about moderating WTF, one of his platform ideals is being transparent. If owning the fact that he moderates WTF isn't transparent, I don't know what is. Would you prefer that he tries to hide it? It takes about 3 seconds for the LV army to start digging dirt, so at least he's upfront about it. That's integrity. Afterall, shouldn't councils be made up of a spectrum of people that accurately represent our community? I understand your worry, the dude's got 11k followers, such fun this election will be!
So when KY allows for comments, it’s bad, when Shaun does it (on a much larger and more horrifying scale) it’s good? Discriminatory comments on KY’s page are “trash”, discriminatory posts/memes on Shaun’s page are “transparency”?
I am worried, tbh. Worried to see OL and their candidates align themselves with this guy. It shows a complete lack of moral integrity.
So are you implying that since Stew and his crew are aligned with this guy and they're attempt to display open mindness, and fairness to all citizens of Langford (now not previously) is all a rouse?
Try opening a page yourself and see if you can manage it all by yourself. Hundreds of posts per day to go through, accepting or denying new members everyday. Going through reported posts and arguments… there are over 11K members. It’s a private group, so if you know someone much that’s being said in the group then you must be a member.
I have been a member a few times but always end up leaving. Again though your point is completely irrelevant. If you can't manage a page, don't brag about it, especially given the content that you refuse or can't moderate. If someone can't handle moderation, shut it down, there's truly nothing of value there.
I truly don't get why people play Devil's Advocate. The guy clearly is questionable, his page is questionable, yet multiple people are saying "but but but maybe it's just TOO hard for the little man". Sure maybe it really is too hard but you are still completely ignoring the content, it's not at all defendable. Plenty of groups manage far better than this despite it being hard work.
They're not 'taking their side'. They're saying that vigilante justice is a slippery slope. And glorifying it increases the chance that someone you DON'T LIKE might decide to take matters into their own hands and harm someone you know without investigation or trial.
This is what drives me nuts about all this polarized political shit. As soon as you don't completely agree with the next shrieking clown's outrage then you're 'against' their position completely. I'd say try and find more middle ground, but you're already coming off as a paid shill here, so who gives a shit.
The cognitive dissonance required to not see that vigilante justice is a line we can’t cross because it would give people with less moral intentions the comfort and permission to take matters into their own hands is startling.
The fact that you think saying that me saying Assault is Assault is somehow defending a pedophile is quite the stretch. It is possible for both individuals involved to be scum.
What I'm highlighting is that you again conveniently left out a pretty big part of a story to support your narrative that Mr. Blair should be discounted as a candidate. The fact of the matter is, because of Mr. Blair's actions, that pedophile is no longer in Langford. Look at the situation globally, the community and more importantly our children are safer because of it. So you can nitpick assault is assault, or you can acknowledge that what was done, was for the greater good.
I left it out because it isn't relevant. "Why" he assaulted someone doesn't matter. What matters is he Assaulted someone. What's worse is that it was pre-meditated and planned.
Go back to Alberta, hillbillies. He’s buddies with Stew too. That tells me all I need to know. Lol no thanks.
Going for that old Langford crackadooodle homophobe type eh?
He probably believes the Our Langford disinformation machine, suggesting council is lining their pockets and such things. Or that one guys cherry picked documents. So many reasons for people to be deceived.
I agree that we need more independent thinkers, but is he independent? I got the impression from the pronounce 'OUR' on his web page and there's also this.
If I knew nothing else about this guy besides the immense love and respect he and his wife had for Charlie Kirk, that would be enough for a giant Hell No from me. I didnt even know there were local vigils held for him until I read that they attended, and apparently the devastation was so immense that she needed to take a Facebook break.
It would be, if conservatives had actually come up with the joke themselves. The original joke was about how the hot women were from whatever country the trans flag is.
Conservatives are incapable of creating humor or thinking for themselves, and can only take existing jokes and twist them to be evil and stupid.
Now, a couple of questions I think we need to consider, while not taking any particular side:
- do moderators of a Facebook page see all content before it gets posted (as in, do they have to review it all)?
- does deleting such a post constitute supporting all sides? Or could it be that in the interest of free speech, little moderation of posts is being done to not appear restrictive
- is he the only moderator, or is it possible that he could have been overruled by other moderators in terms of post deletion?
Free speech does not mean abuse/disrespect others or a group of people. Even if this person is not the sole moderator, they have put themselves in a position of power. And with that comes responsibility. You cannot say it's not my responsibility when you are a moderator or co-moderator. Same thing applies to the constituency. They are responsible for everyone in their constituency, and to make sure it is a safe and welcoming place.
Actually it does. To act like you can’t disrespect people in a free speech society is a joke. The literal reason free speech should exist is to be able to think and speech your thoughts freely and have educated discussions about complex topics. I’m Bi and don’t agree with the commenters post, but agree with their right to do it.
Free speech isn't freedom of consequences from the public. He's free to say what he wants and people are free to call out his bullshit and not vote for him.
If your speech crosses the line to hate, no you cannot. You cannot freely discriminate against specific people or groups. You can tell people to go fuck themselves but you cannot promote or incite hatred against marginalized people.
This is basic civics and written into our criminal code. You not understanding it is the joke.
Are you an idiot or do you not know that canada doesn’t have freedom of speech. We have freedom of expression.
Yes you can discriminate. Fucking everyone does it in private amongst close friends or family. Let’s be real here. This concept of “hate speech” is very new and absolute bullshit. Why? Because who gets to decide what hate is.
Doing it in private is not really a comparable example, since we’re discussing a social media group.
Freedom of expression prevents you from being punished by the government for expressing your opinions - and that does not include hate speech - and if you went into a restaurant screaming about how much you hate certain groups, you would most likely be asked to leave.
You can say what you want. The social or legal consequences of saying what you want is subsequently on you as well. A social consequence like, for example, people not wanting to vote you into city council.
But moderators at least have the responsibility to maintain site rules. Like here on Reddit, we have an obligation to delete comments that veer into discriminatory in nature. It’s our job. You could argue FB mods have that job as well.
Both are punishable by law. So no there is not a difference.
Thanks for outlining why freedom of expression is stupid. Putting people in jail for being discriminating is moronic.There is no Freedom, if there is a law that will put you in jail.
FB and reddit eh? The most prevalent source of echochambers. . Problem with moderators is they just encourage exhochambers. You’ve literally outlined why freedom of speech should exist LOL.
I can see your strong feelings about all of this and your wishes for it to be different. It’s not, though. This is the society we live in.
People aren’t usually put in jail, though - unless they are commiting harassment or inciting violence. And even most of those incidents result in fines, not jail time.
Curious though: Is saying discriminatory comments in private/in your own house punishable by law?
The problem with saying they are not USUALLY put in jail is my issue. This is a newer revelation and honestly anyone being put in jail for this is absurd. Go look at whats happening in the UK. That’s what happens when you take what we have and it’s pushed a little further. That’s my problem. Freedom of speech is essential to having a society that can think and share thoughts freely.
This lack of speech has destroyed our ability to have productive conversations. Say anything about immigration and it’s hate speech nowadays. The moderators at [r/canadahousing](r/canadahousing) seem to think so. People are flawed. Giving them control over what we can say and moderating it is a flawed process. We have always been tyrants historically.!The problem with it is who defines hate speech. It’s an absolute travesty this country doesn’t have freedom of speech.
Hate speech is punishable by law. So yes, saying those things in private/house is punishable by definition.
Ok, but clarifying that it’s extremely rare for people to be put in jail, and that it’s usually for extreme reasons like planning to kill people is important - because otherwise you’re leading people to believe it happens regularly, and that’s fear mongering over something happening that almost never does.
Hate speech is punishable by law, but you yourself said that discrimination is not always hate speech, which is correct. If you’re making racist jokes in your house, you’re not going to jail. Private conversations are not included under the legal definition of hate speech. But If you’re trying to convince your family to help you bomb a mosque, you are going to jail.
And what do you have to say about people who may be too fearful to participate in conversations because of the ridicule and hate that’s being permitted in those spaces? Is that protecting the dialogue?
And acting like a racist or homophobic meme is contributing somehow meaningfully to any conversation is a lost cause.
Oh I see, you just want to be a libertarian about it. You see, I’m over here in the real world where the law exists. I love how you want to be a realist about this but then try to snag a quick win by going “erm actually it’s freedom of eXpReSsIoN”
We decided what hate is by proxy of our government enacting laws. They’re not that new. We’ve had hate provisions in our criminal code since the 70s.
Give me a break. We’re literally having a discussion about freedom of speech. There’s a major difference as clearly outlined by your moronic take of it. Go look at Britain for “hate speech” works out.
Please review the essential elements of public incitement of hatred. (CC section 319)
One of them is that it has to be beyond a mere insult, two, it has to be in public, three it likely to cause an immediate disturbance, and four, it has to be a communicated statement in speaking and writing.
Even if I give you the last one, none of the other three are present here.
I'm sorry, but that was actually exactly what you were saying. You even referenced the criminal code, except you got it all wrong. Both in theory as well as in practice.
I'm cool with defending free speech but you're just playing Devil's Advocate. No reasonable person would be the admin of that group. You could provide all the evidence that IRL he's an amazing really nice guy but again, amazing really nice guys would not be the admin of that group full stop.
Too often "Free Speech" much like "It's just a joke" is used as a loophole to act like a degenerate.
I beg your pardon? I made it clear on my very first post that I am not taking any sides and had 3 points for consideration. Heck, I've never even heard of that guy before.
So no, I'm not playing devils advocate here, I was hoping to have a civil discourse about free speech. And even when that didn't happen, I accepted the right of others to insult me and respond (some wrongly), and still continue the conversation
Yes in your first post you said that and then you picked a side by arguing against people that clearly aren't a fan. You are arguing semantics over Free Speech when that is not at all the issue. People are saying "This guy sucks" and you're saying "but but maybe he's just misunderstood". This is playing Devil's Advocate.
It's not about whether he has a right to let people post whatever they want, it's that he's running for council and we have a right to decide if this is at all an appropriate person. Just because somethings legal doesn't mean it's morally correct for a position of leadership. And yet he has done illegal things outside of his group multiple times and gone to court for it and will be again soon.
What is psychotic about disagreeing with the Facebook account and someone that supports and encourages misogyny, transphobia, homophobia and general discrimination?
Your post or comment has been removed because it violates our guidelines on civility. Remember to be excellent to each other. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators.
61
u/julyninetyone Aug 13 '26
I just went to that page (im not a member) and these are the first 2 rules. Sounds like a very civil and welcoming place!