Will Dove 00:00 Freedom of speech in our country is becoming a thing of the past. Cancel culture is in full force, seeking to silence anyone who raises, not just dissenting opinions, but increasingly, anyone who refuses to actively promote the causes of the radical left. I recently became aware of a case in Ontario of a city councillor who merely suggested that, as the city could not honor all the special interest groups with their own flag, flags should be restricted only to those which truly represent all constituents, those beings specifically the Canadian flag, the Ontario flag, and the flag of her municipality, Chatham-Kent. For this, Councillor Rhonda Jubenvillle was threatened on social media, and under the authority of the Ford government appointed Integrity Commissioner, sentenced to docking of three months pay – the maximum penalty the Commissioner can impose. Rhonda is being represented by Michael Alexander, the same lawyer who has been defending Drs. Trozzi, Luchkiw and Phillips against the criminal actions of the CPSO. In this interview, Rhonda gives us the full story, a story so shocking an example of cancel culture it left me speechless. Michael also describes how the actions of the commissioner and the council were in fact illegal. But none of that matters, as we as Canadians, now live in country that is controlled by the tyranny of the minority. Will Dove 01:39 Rhonda, Michael, welcome to the show. Michael Alexander 01:42 Thanks, Will, good to be here. Rhonda Jubenvillle 01:43 Thanks for having us, Will. Will Dove 01:45 I wish it was under better circumstances. Yeah, we've, I've heard the story from someone who knows you, Rhonda. But that's certainly not the same thing as hearing it firsthand. Would you please explain, for our viewers, why we're here doing this interview. It's shocking. It leaves me speechless. Rhonda Jubenvillle 02:06 Well, it leaves me speechless, too. And I'm living through it. It started. So I'm a Municipal Councillor. Fairly... I was elected last October 2022. And I've basically I'm going to say, within a month, I have been contacted by the Municipal Integrity Commissioner about things that I posted on Facebook, because that's, that's my primary social media platform that I use. So and these, obviously, she's responding to comments that are coming in to her and I am pretty sure that most of the complaints have been coming from one other councillor, maybe the other predominantly would be one councillor, several, I've been subjected to her quiet line of questioning four times now. And the last one, resulting in a full on investigation and a report and a and I'll get to that in a little bit. So back in April, I brought forward a motion to our capacity. I'm in Chatham-Kent, Southern Ontario. And the motion was to just have three flags outside of all Munich centers in Chatham-Kent. Chatham-Kent is a bit of a unicorn. It's comprised of basically an urban center, surrounded by rural towns, and all together with the little urban center, even our urban center is small, and all towns together they come up to about 104,000 people, that's the population of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. So I have a Notice of Motion forward. Basically, all it was was to state we have three, that- ah... governmental flags, that's all we need, the federal Canadian flag, the provincial Ontario flag and the municipal flag. And that's it. And so I suggested just having all the flags at all of our municipal centers across our municipality, and after that happened, this motion kind of a life of its own because I I'm gonna say it was hijacked by groups that thought I was targeting them and not allowing their flags to fly. But the motion mentioned no other flag other than those three flags that I just mentioned. And you know, I was labeled a bigot, a homophobic, racist whatnot, just because I wanted three governmental flags. Because I thought that covered everyone, there's no discrimination. There's no one being left out. Canadian provincial municipal flag covers everybody, no matter how they align, no matter if they are, you know, conservative or if they're a Christian or if they're LGBTQ, or if they're Muslim or whoever. It covers everybody, because that's what we all are. We're Canadians, in my case, Ontario, Chatham-Kent. Will Dove 05:29 Let me just summarize very quickly before you go on. Basically, all you suggested was that you should restrict yourself to three flags that represent equally everyone in the municipality, because they're Canadians, they're Ontarians, they live in Chatham-Kent. We're not excluding anyone here. Rhonda Jubenvillle 05:49 No. Will Dove 05:50 All right, please continue. Rhonda Jubenvillle 05:52 So you're right. That's exactly what my motion stated. And no other no other groups, no other flags were mentioned. And like I said, it got a life of its own. And there was unfortunately, there was three weeks in between that motion and our next council meeting. So I had groups of enduring vile hate speech, attacks. Death, I'm not gonna say death, because no one said, I'm coming to kill you. I just had people telling me I should be dead. And let me back up a little bit, this all came on the heels of, so our municipality does not have any flag raising policies. And if a group any kind of group wants their flag raised, they contact the mayor's office. So it's basically a unilateral decision, which go up in which flags don't go up. So every week you'll see different flags being raised up and down our flag poles in Chatham-Kent, a lot of special interest groups, you know, you'll have Kiwanis or Diabetes Association or, you know, just every, anybody, an association that has a flag can put a request forward, for their flag to be flown. So in this situation, a group called Right to Life Kent, which is a, it is a pro life organization, but they also... education in this organization to help women who have unplanned pregnancies navigate their waters, and you know, offer consulting and advice to help them with the challenge that they're coming up against. So if if a woman wanted to have an abortion, give them options to have an abortion, if they want to give the child up for adoption they will give them information on how to do that and if they want to carry the b and and be the, be a parent to the child they'll help them with that as well. So this organization put a request in to have their flown for a week. So it was ignored, it wasn't declined, it just wasn't, it was completely ignored. And they reached out to me and I'm and I'm not I'm not a member of this organization, I mean I I am pro life, but not a member of that organization. So I have no invested interest in the organization. Anyway, they reached out to me. They the the request had gone unanswered for three weeks. So I reached out to see why it hadn't been answered. And my request was unanswered. So I put, that's why I put this flag motion forward because I thought we can't pick and choose which flag we put up and which flags we don't put up. We should just make it simple so that no one is discriminated against and everyone is included. We, we really as as municipal officials, we should not pick and choose which organizations we give support to. We should just keep it simple so that's why I thought that was a pretty simple you know, figure that out and let's just keep it simple with three flags but that didn't work. So three weeks happened. I got attacks. Death wishes... a witch reached out to me and told me, don't know, I forget her wording because I don't understand that but some kind of spell I was going to be under and [unintelligible]. I received a thank you card from the Satanic Temple Abortion Clinic, which is a real thing. I've looked into it, they actually exist, that someone donated to them on my behalf. Anyway, my motion came on April 24. And it failed. So most of the council decided we shouldn't just have the three flags that we should have other flags. On that same night, another councillor put forth a motion to develop a flag party, since we don't have one. And after that, things kind of settled down a bit. And so what are we three months later, three, four months later, I get another phone call from the Integrity Commissioner stating that I'm being investigated again for the fourth time. And this was due to a constituent had reached out to me because they were upset that it was on the day of homophobia transphobia. And I just want to be clear, I am not anti LGBTQ by any means. I believe everyone has a right to be who they want to be. But I don't I'm not it I don't align pride movement. So and I have a right not to so that's not an ideology that I follow. So anyway, someone reached a constituent reached out to me they were upset because on one on one of our local high school flagpole underneath the Canadian flag was pride flag and they were upset I I'm going to assume they were upset because it was the pride flag. And because it was on the same flagpole as the Canadian flag. And then if you if you refer to the Canadian Government of Canada's website, you'll be right there under flag etiquette. That no other flag shall fly under a Canadian flag on the flagpole it's just right there under etiquette. It's not a law and I understand that but it should be respected by by all of us Canadian. And here was a blatant blatantly a school in our education system was going against the etiquette of flag flying underneath the flagpole. So are flying underneath the Canadian flag on the flag pool. So I I posted on and about it on Facebook. And I just encouraged constituents if they were concerned that to respectfully and I used the word respectfully, respectfully reach out to the school, and let them know that it's [unintelligible] and they're not in approval of having the Canadian flag or having a flag, whatever flag it was, and I did not focus on flags whatever flag it was flying underneath the Canadian flag. So that kind of took on a life of its own because it was the pride [unintelligible]. And you know, again, people started saying I was what are all those buzzwords, homophobe, transphobe, bigot, I mean, hate all these things. And the Integrity Commissioner basically said I was inciting hate and violence. And I was going to be reported to council for bullying, harassing and intimidating other councillors and members of the public have which I've never interacted with another councillor about any of this nor have I interacted with a member of a member of the public other than what I have interacted a number of public one time with one person that reached out to me and she ended up apologizing to council so I just want to be clear and saying there has been one interaction. Anyway as she reported me to council and and said I was guilty basically. I was good till proven guilty of harassing bullying intimidating and they were going to remunerate my pay take away my pay for three months. And that was her suggestion to council and council voted in favor of her suggestion to take away my pay. So you can't remove me because our our the Municipal Act doesn't allow that. I'm sure If it did, they probably would try to, but they removed me. So I'm still gonna go to council. And I will still participate fully voting and bringing motions forward and serving my constituents. And here I am. Will Dove 15:16 Okay, so I just wanted to clarify one thing, Rhonda, you were talking about interaction interacting with a member of the public, who she said had subsequently apologized to the council. And you're right on to say that she found you guilty. When you say she in this case, I assume you're talking about the Integrity Commission, right? Rhonda Jubenvillle 15:32 You're right. Yes, yes. Yes. Will Dove 15:35 Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Rhonda Jubenvillle 15:36 Well, yes. Because I, I, I'm being I'm gonna say charged, interacting with other counselors, so intimidating, bullying, harassing them, and I have never interacted with another [uinintelligible] on any of this. And the mem- and members of the public. So I haven't interacted with any members of the public, either, except for this one person, kind of encapsulate that story. This person had sent an email to council, excluding me, saying that I was an ultra right hate radical conservative, there's no place for people like me at Chatham-Kent, they need to get rid of me. And I know who this person is. She's, she's a business owner in our in our town, and I patronized her her business for many years. So I was kind of blindsided by it. So I did respectfully reach out to her and asked her why she said all of these things, and had some interaction, which is all documented, because it was, it's, I have documentation of, of the interaction, and it was, it was all fine. It was good, nothing bad about it. And ultimately, in the end, she ended up sending another email to council apologizing for what she said about me. So I just that was my only interaction that I have had with a member of the public about anything to do with, you know, the pride movement, or LGBTQ or, or anything like that. I so it's just bizarre that I mean, things that I haven't done. Will Dove 17:25 [unintelligible]. Rhonda, I'm gonna have further questions for you. Now, Mike, I want to get to you. A lot of my viewers know you, I've interviewed you. You've represented Doctors Phillips, Trozzi. Allegedly, you've you've been very active in defending people who've had their rights violated in the last three years. How did you get involved with Rhonda's case? And please walk us through the steps that you've taken to represent her up to this point. Michael Alexander 17:50 Well, I'm actually from Chatham-Kent, Will. Michael Alexander 17:53 That's where I grew up. My grandfather owned the local radio station. And he started broadcasting there in 1921. So I was based there for many years, because that's where my family had its business. And I go back to Chatham on a regular basis. So Rhonda heard about me, so she gave me a call and asked me to help her with his case. So that's how we got connected. And so and so what I have done here is tried to get Rhonda a substantial reply to the allegations made against her because the legislation and the code of conduct that has been just being used by a municipal council in the forum was passed in the form of a bylaw. There is no real right of reply there now in any kind of administrative decision making, you have charges or allegations, and then you have a right of reply. That's called natural justice. So with this system they have set up there is no right of reply, I was given a preliminary opportunity to make a few comments in a letter to what appeared to be the forthcoming report, like I was getting some idea of what the Integrity Commissioner said. But then once she delivered her 47 page report, we were not given an opportunity to make written submissions in response before a decision would be made by council. So I argued for a written reply and with the city solicitor, and he and the Integrity Commissioner, I guess, had to concede that I had a point and so we weren't given an opportunity to reply. But then at the meeting itself, the Integrity Commissioner was given essentially as much time as she needed to address a report, I was only given five minutes in front of council to address the report. So there's an imbalance here in terms of the basic rules of natural justice. The big problem here overall, Will, is that the allegations that have been brought forward by the Integrity Commissioner, are not supported by factual context. For instance, one of the allegations is that someone who is at a council meeting in the public, in the section where the public can can sit and watch proceedings, somebody spat on another councillor, and by inference, this person is supposedly one of Rhonda's supporters and now, therefore, we must impute the act to Rhonda that she encouraged her, incited [t. Well, we don't know who spat on there, what had happened, whether there are witnesses, whether the so called supporter is, actually is, and even if the person is a supporter of Rhonda, um, you know, did Rhonda say or do anything to incite that conduct. So we just have nothing that allegations, when you tag somebody, in that way, it's an attack upon reputation and character, it's defamation. And all the allegations that have been brought forward are like this, she abused me, she humiliated me, all her supporters said this or threatened me or whatever, fine. You know, if third parties are involved, you have to make the allegation against them. And there are civil and criminal remedies for that. You can make complaints and your your complaints can be advanced under our existing system. It's quite another thing to say that Rhonda's responsible for what anonymous third parties supposedly have done to other members of council or said to other members of council. So this whole thing, it is so outrageous, even hard for me in some in a certain respect to explain it to you because it's a big nothing burger from beginning to end. But at the council meeting itself it was quite striking is that the people who came out against her, the council members who spoke against her, made all kinds of vague references to the so called supporters, these anonymous people. And it didn't have anything to do with Rhonda at all. But these ghosts, who were mentioned in this proceeding, are supposedly connected to Rhonda and she's [unintelligible]. How that's possible based on the evidence before us is beyond reason to explain Will Dove 17:53 Okay. Michael Alexander 18:37 Now, Michael, these, these integrity commissioners that I believe were appointed by Doug Ford's government. What powers do these people have? Michael Alexander 21:57 It's, it's pretty amazing. Well, I wasn't aware of this until Rhonda came to me with her case, but the Municipal Act was changed in 2018, or 2019. An amendment was made and municipalities in the province were required to have integrity commissioners. And they're required to adopt codes of conduct. And the Integrity Commissioner who's some lawyer or other person appointed by a city council can come in, and essentially be a Grand Inquisitor, and accuse a council member of intimidating, bullying or abusing other people. There's also some sort of, it's a weird improper influence provision in the Chatam code that allows the Integrity Commissioner to attack somebody for exercising undue influence. Well, when this all breaks down, undue influence turns out to be exercising your right to freedom of expression to persuade people to take a certain policy position. Okay, this is allowed in a democratic country, a guaranteed free expression, but under the Code of Conduct, it's forbidden. So we have in every municipality an Integrity Commissioner, and some sort of unique code of conduct, but that tends to deal with these with these kinds of issues. And the commissioner can come in, and the commissioner is investigator, prosecutor and judge. Because that's a violation of basic principles of natural justice, the investigator cannot be the prosecutor, the prosecutor cannot be the judge. When you think about the prosecutor is trying to, to win the case, to get a conviction, so you can't have the prosecutor to also be the judge, that's a very clear conflict of interest and brings bias in the proceeding. And yet this is allowed under this Integrity Commissioner setup established by the municipality. So the whole thing is wrongheaded from the very beginning, I'm shocked that a Conservative government would bring this in. This started under the previous government, that Liberal government with Wynne as Premier, and it seems to have been just brought forward by the bureaucracy into the Ford government and was rubber stamped. But in rubber stamping this this this Integrity Commissioner and his or her functions, you've essentially set up an opportunity for an outsider to come in and squelch political debate on the grounds that it's intimidating bullying or abusing. Will Dove 21:57 Right. Michael Alexander 23:02 So it is it's being used to shut down the free expression, it isn't said this. Will Dove 24:26 Yeah, so let's be very clear about this and I I'm going to borrow the term you used, this Grand Inquisitor gets handed these powers to go after anyone who's saying something that they don't like, and forget about rule of law because I believe you said it was like a 47 page written report that they filed against Ronda, you're not allowed to file a written rebuttal. And at the hearing, this Grand Inquisitor gets to speak for as long as she wants. And you get five minutes to respond. Michael Alexander 24:55 That's right, Will. Will Dove 24:56 Okay, this sounds like a kangaroo court to me. Michael Alexander 24:58 It absolutely is a kangaroo court, there is no other way to describe it. Will Dove 25:04 So somebody somewhere, has decided that Rhonda has to be silenced. And they're going to use these Ford appointed grand inquisitors to do exactly that. And forget about rule of law. Forget about, as you said, natural law's course to work. They're just they're just going to basically crucify her. Michael Alexander 25:22 Yes. And what this comes down to, Will, and I hit this note very hard, not only in my oral submissions, but in my written submissions. What we have here is some people are upset, because we caught in the hurly-burly of public life around some very controversial issues. Michael Alexander 25:35 And so there's been a lot of blowback constituents. Well, you know, like, grow up, you're a politician, people are going to disagree with you. So you have to have to deal with that. And I think this whole thing boils down to some council members are offended that some people don't like their positions. And they're putting it all on on Rhonda's shoulders. So I've made the point, the Supreme Court has said, it's very clear that there is no, there can be no regulation of speech because somebody deems it offensive. Because unfortunately, that's just art of free expression, the pursuit of the truth, somebody may call into questions, our deeply held beliefs and opinions. But that's the price we pay to get to the truth, we have to be prepared to be offended if we're going to have a free democratic society that, you know, aims at being a rational society, where we are concerned about the truth of the matter. And so I made this point with them. And it just it fell on deaf ears. But what's going on here is some people are offended, that there have been disagreements about some issues that deserve to be debated in the public domain. And so that's at bottom, what's going on here. political disagreements have essentially been criminalized. Will Dove 25:35 Right. Will Dove 26:53 Rhonda, I said I was going to have a number of questions for you. And I do. You were elected in October of last year. And you said it wasn't very long after that before you first heard from this Integrity Commissioner over things you'd posted on Facebook. Rhonda Jubenvillle 27:06 Yes. Will Dove 27:06 What things? Rhonda Jubenvillle 27:09 Um, gosh, I don't even remember. She has brought so many forwards to me. And then some things really didn't make sense, for example, [unintelligible] constituent posted about the results of oh, it was in regards to our municipal new employees. Any new new hires in the municipality at the time that I came on last fall, it was a requirement that they had to be vaccinated. So I had put a motion forward to drop that requirement, that new employees should no longer be vaccinated, because actually, the municipality was hiring back all of their non-vaccinated employees that they had previously let let go. So I said we still have this requirement, if there are people working for the municipality that are not vaccinated. So I put a motion forward to drop the requirement for new hawks to be vaccinated. And, you know, every vote is public, every result I should say is, is public. So a constituent posted the result. And he attached some verbiage which he he didn't say something right, I can't remember. But I, I followed with a comment, just clarified what he had said and, and that way, you know, I respectfully told him what he said was a little bit wrong. And I just clarified it, one of my supporters, so I was all fine. But then all of the ensuing comments were attacks on the councillors that voted against it. And not from me, they were from other people. So this was one of the posts that was brought forward to me by Integrity Commissioner on someone else. Somebody, not me, not my Facebook, another person's Facebook, that I just merely commented in, and all the ensuing comments were, you know, like, I mean, they weren't attacks, they weren't death threats or anything but they were attacking the other councillors, their character, how they voted and whatnot. And that was brought forward to me because I was, I was supposed to clarify all these people and go back and tell them they can't talk like that. And it wasn't even on my Facebook. So this is, this is what I'm dealing with. Somebody wants me to censor comments, not only on my own Facebook, but on other people's Facebook. And to be quite frank, I may first comment. And I don't think I went back really to look at all the all of the ensuing comments. Will Dove 30:09 So let's... Rhonda Jubenvillle 30:10 This stuff is [unintelligible] Will Dove 30:12 I'd just like jump in to point out how ridiculous this is, you... Will Dove 30:16 ...this, this, yes, this Integrity Commissioner, this Grand Inquisitor come after you for saying things that somebody somewhere doesn't like, but that's not it. They want you to become an act of censor yourself. Rhonda Jubenvillle 30:16 I know Rhonda Jubenvillle 30:30 Correct. And I told her I will not do that. I said I am sorry, I will not censor comments unless, you know, someone's threatening or threatening violence or if it's a pretty harsh comment. Absolutely. I will do it. But if it's just a matter of somebody doesn't like a councillor. That's their right. They don't have to, and I'm not going to answer and tell them they can't say that. So I don't think she liked that I have that stance. But no, I believe in free speech, whether against me or for me, I believe in it. Will Dove 31:12 Yes. And I'm glad you said that, because you've given me the perfect introduction to my next question. When you made a recommendation or tabled the motion before the council, that there should be only... because only those three flags are representative [of] everyone who was in that municipality. I must assume that points in the past LGBTQ flags have been flown. You said that you did this in part in response to the fact that a pro life group wanted to have a flag flown, their request was completely ignored. And so may I assume that when you tabled this motion, the majority the people who were attacking you are from the LGBTQ community? Rhonda Jubenvillle 31:50 Yes, they were. They they all have and all of the deputations that night of the motion were all from members of of the of that group. I think one person might have been, she appeared to be representing all special interest groups. So but other than that, every deputation against my motion was from someone representing the LGBT community or the pride movement. Will Dove 32:18 Right. So here, I have to make this observation because I I've done many interviews now and news reports on the, I started calling them the alphabet community because they keep changing the acronym and I can't keep up with it, [unintelligible] where they, they want to talk, they want to keep preaching inclusivity. But can you see what's going on right now is anything other than what they want is inclusivity for them? Not for any who disagrees with them? Rhonda Jubenvillle 32:45 Well, I brought forward so I received a plethora emails, I mean, and I answered every single one, whether they were against me or for me, some of them were pretty harsh, but I still reply to them. And the harsher they got, the nicer I became in my replies. And I point that exact hypocrisy that why is it okay for the pride flag to fly? But what about special interest groups? Why Why can't their flag fly? If we're gonna fly the pride flag and let's fly the pro life flag as well. And I would be all for that. But I I don't believe that we are we have the right to pick and choose we can't pick and choose. For example, Chatham-Kent, is very, it's a very conservative stronghold. And there are a lot of Christians here as well. It's a very Christian stronghold here. So I'm going to assume the fact that there are a lot of Christians here that means there are a lot of pro life people here and that flag the pro life flag would have represented just as many people or if not more people than what the pro when then what the pride flag represents in Chatham-Kent, for example, we just had a pride parade last weekend because it was Pride Week, and an afternoon of pride events. And I asked some that I knew who were there and I asked how many people were there. And I was told between one and 200 people, and this is coming from a community of a hundred [unintelligible] thousand. So I'm just trying to find the rationale as to why this organization gets so much special treatment when they're in our, in our municipality when they're such a small portion of the population. And again, I believed everybody does have a right to be represented. But I just don't think any I don't think everybody should be.. I don't think all of these special interest groups should be elevated above other groups. We all deserve equal treatment. Will Dove 35:15 And plus, we have a problem. And I have to say, I think that your your suggestion is brilliant. I would love to see municipalities across our country adopting this idea that generally fly three flags. [unintelligible] here's where it goes, Okay, now, LGBTQ community putting up their flag, which, you know, 20 - 25 years ago would never have happened. So it's a short step from there before we've got some pedophilia group wanting to fly their flag. What happens when the Ku Klux Klan shows up, and they want to fly their flag? Rhonda Jubenvillle 35:43 Exactly. Will Dove 35:46 Nobody really can be the person who gets to decide who gets to have their flag flown and who doesn't. And so the logical solution is, we just put up the three, the ones that are representative of everyone who is in that municipality. Michael, I want to get back to you. There was a 13 - 3 vote from the council against Rhonda. [unintelligible]. But I'm missing something here. What was that vote for exactly? Michael Alexander 36:12 That was for penalty. Under the legislation, the Integrity Commissioner can ask for a penalty. In the form of docking a council member's pay. Maximum penalt- penalty is three months. So she asked for the maximum penal- penalty, and she got it. Rhonda and I were somewhat surprised by the vote because, in anticipating where different council members might be on this issue before, we had thought that the matter might be decided either way by one, one or two votes. So I was quite surprised by the 13 - 3 decision. In fact, I guess I can say I'm shocked by it. And so you know that so that's how it went down. Will Dove 36:54 And may I assume that Rhonda was not allowed to vote. Michael Alexander 36:58 No, Rhonda wasn't allowed to vote. However, under the Code of Conduct as it reads in Chatham-Kent, a complainant cannot be present for the vote and cannot vote in the event, for instance, that a council member's complaint. We know for a fact based on one of the allegations in the record, that a council member is one of the complainants and we know who that council member is, if she remained for the whole proceeding, and she voted. So under the Code of Conduct itself, now, council finds itself in a conflict of interest. On that basis alone, the decision should be overturned. So they violated their own rules to get where they wanted to go. And I suspect there was a lot of lobbying behind the scenes by this council member to get council to move towards this 13 - 3 result. Will Dove 37:50 Right. Now, that vote, you said that was for a penalty for docking Rhonda three months of pay, now, specifically for tabling a motion that they should only fly three flags. Is that correct? Michael Alexander 38:05 Okay. So your question is right on point, because it's very obvious from the context, that all these complaints arose in relation to the flag motion. But and so I made this point in both of my written and oral submissions that Rhonda has done nothing wrong, she just advance a political position based on the principle of equality. It's a principle of non discrimination. Everybody should have a flag or nobody should have a flag. And yet, the.. her opponents are trying to say she is the racist. She is the one who's discriminating. She's the homophobe, and so on. So it's just a paradoxical and an absolutely confusing attack upon Rhonda. So... Will Dove 38:46 I know. Michael Alexander 38:47 Right but so but during the council meeting, the Integrity Commissioner denied, in response to a question, denied the complaints had anything to do with the flag raising. So if I had been able to provide a rebuttal to that, I would have said, well, what are the complaints about then? Because now it turns out, the complaints are made without any context at all, we don't even know the issue in relation to which the complaints were made. So you see this revealed the whole lie behind it. It's not just the council who are trying to shut down Rhonda's right to free speech and penalize her for having a different opinion, it's the Integrity Commissioner herself. Will Dove 39:22 Okay, so now here's my important question. Since Rhonda wasn't allowed to vote, that means we've got three councillors who voted with her, in favor of her right to freedom of speech. Have they had any sanctions leveled against them? Michael Alexander 39:40 Not that I know of, but who knows what may be coming down? Rhonda Jubenvillle 39:44 Not yet. But the the first [unintelligible] that came to my defense, he's already been investigated, tried and convicted by the Integrity Commission. I already went through this In 2019, so he he's what he's he's a seasoned, this council is is fifth his fifth term. So he's been around for a while. Will Dove 40:14 So 2019. So, I'm sorry, I was assuming that these Integrity Commission is for something recent. How long have they been there? Rhonda Jubenvillle 40:23 I think since 2018. Will Dove 40:26 Okay. I gotta say for Michael Rhonda, like I said at the penis interview, this just leaves me speechless. It's what what a completely sensical suggestion. Let's just fly the three flags. You know, because, you know, they can't possibly fly everybody's special interest group flag. And you've been docked three months pay, you've been attacked. They're still coming after you. And Michael, where are we going from here? Michael Alexander 40:56 Well, Rhonda and I have to make a decision. I certainly, and I put Council on notice that Rhon has a right to judicial review of any decision. I put them on notice before the decision. I also put them on notice that I had advised her that she had a right to sue them for defamation. And if they were to vote in favor of the report, so we will come up with a legal strategy. We're not making an announcement yet. We're going to do a little bit of research to be very precise on how we're going to complain about this. So for the time being, we're keeping our powder dry, but you can expect that we will have a response to this in the near future. Will Dove 41:33 Rhonda, last question. Given everything that's happened since last October, if you had it to do over again, would you run for city council? Rhonda Jubenvillle 41:44 Absolutely, I have. I have an abundance of support. Or, and I have so many people now they're all coming out of the woodwork I I'm receiving I'm being I'm overwhelmed with the support, in a good way it's a little overwhelming. And I'm, I bet you I receive between an email or a phone call. Still. Today, I probably had 10 that came through. So I mean, and that was This is from when was this two weeks ago or a week ago. So they're still coming through the support is still coming through. People don't want me to give up because they see me now as an one of the only voices that represent them on Municipal Council. You know, they they want to know who voted against you, so that we can remember this in the next election not to vote for this person again. Because basically the people that voted against me, they're against many people in Chatham-Kent, and people realize this, they realize what has happened. I feel like I awakened a sleeping giant, I have older people reaching out to me younger people reaching out to me, I do have supporters that are in the LGB community that don't subscribe to all of this other stuff, no way, I guess, they just they just want to be who they are. And they respect that I respect who they are. And we don't need all the rest of the fanfare that goes along with it. I have people from the Muslim community that have reached out to me because they as well, they don't subscribe to the whole LGBTQ movement and the pride movement. So I'm getting support from a lot of different areas in Chatham, Kent. And a lot of Christians have been reaching out to me, churches are naming me from the pulpit, which is very humbling for me to find out and praying for me during their services. And I am being contacted by the pastors by the deacons by the priests. So I mean, it's not just me fighting this battle. It's, it is a it's a battle on many levels. So it's, you know, it's a battle of ash, but it's also a battle of information. It's a battle, a spiritual battle. There's many different levels of battles going on here. So I'm here for it, and I'm not going anywhere, so... Will Dove 44:34 Excellent. And so it would be safe to say that despite all the complaints and threats that you have received, the majority of constituents support your position. Rhonda Jubenvillle 44:43 I would honestly say that is the truth that what you're saying is true. And very conservative base, a very Christian base. And with that being said, I don't ask people you know, if they call me for some money, I've asked them to their political affiliation. I don't ask them their religion. Because I, I will advocate for anybody no matter who they are. But I'm just stating what Chatham-Kent is made up of, and I just happen to represent. I am a conservative libertarian, and I am. And so I guess it fits in. I fit in well here. So... Will Dove 45:25 Rhonda, the Rhonda Jubenvillle foundation. I think it's important to talk about that. Rhonda Jubenvillle 45:30 Yes, I do, too. A website in my name called Rhonda Jubenvillle Foundation. And you can access it by typing in rhondajubenville.com. And I saw a lot of people were liking it. And these are people that I know. And I so there let me sidebar this there were a lot of people asking how they could help me financially because they, they know that I'm being docked three months pay and they know that I probably have, or I'm going to have a huge legal bill on my hands. So I think a lot of people thought this was some kind of a, like a GoFundMe. So people were liking it and sharing it. And then I saw it and I thought What is this about? I read it. And someone created this website the day after the council meeting. And someone has put a lot of time and effort into this website. And it fundamentally goes against everything that I am. So it presents, you know, a way to advocate for safe abortions and safe access to abortions and advocating for LGBTQ in the community. So I mean to an innocent person, they wouldn't think anything of it, except for those people that know me know that these are things that I don't advocate for. So this person is being very passive aggressive and how they're trying to [unintelligible] to me. So I have contacted the police, they're thinking it's more of a civil matter, because it's more of defamation. But as Michael said to me, he thinks it's more criminal that they're, they're pretending to be me. And I actually counted the CRA as well, because they're presenting themselves as a foundation, although they're not asking for money, but they are providing links of where you can donate in my name to legitimate organizations. And yeah, so these are the types of things that people are coming at me with. So just so you know, in one way, I'm thinking I'm taking up someone's I'm taking, I'm living rent free in somebody's head, that they are so consumed, that they're making the time taking the time and investing the money in creating this kind of stuff. It's it's very bizarre. Will Dove 48:04 Let's let's just be very, very clear here. Rhonda Jubenvillle Foundation, rhondajubenville.com, you didn't create this. [You had] nothing to do with creating it, you know who created it. Somebody's now taking advantage of your name and the media is happening to promulgate [unintelligible] that do not necessarily reflect your own and to fundraise. Rhonda Jubenvillle 48:24 Correct. Will Dove 48:25 Okay, Michael? Isn't that fraud? Or, at the very least. it's impersonation. Michael Alexander 48:32 That's right. Yes, it's a form of fraud is it's my opinion. It's a criminal offence under Section 403. The Criminal Code you may not impersonate, the word they use in the Criminal Code is personate but we would know it as impersonate, you cannot impersonate another person and, and do so for a personal advantage, and in looking at some of the case law and this this includes cyber bullying under a case law in Canada. So I think that Rhonda is, I had advised Rhonda that she should have a chat with the police about this, encourage them to look at Section 403. And to consider this as one more offense. So I think it's both criminal and civil. It's important. Will Dove 49:13 Rhonda, thank you for bringing some real common sense to civic politics. And I really, truly hope that this interview and other exposure you're getting is going to urge other city councils to consider that we should only have three flags. And Michael, as always, you have been an incredible warrior for justice, and for defending the people who are being persecuted right now in our society. Thank you again for the work you're doing. Michael and Rhonda 49:38 Thanks Rhonda Jubenvillle 49:39 ...for having us, Will. Michael Alexander 49:40 Thank you.