TDF and James Kitchen appeal Monique LaGrange decision to Alberta Court of Appeal

Written by TDF’s Legal Team

The Democracy Fund (TDF), together with lawyer James Kitchen, will appeal a recent Alberta Court decision involving school trustee Monique LaGrange. Mrs. LaGrange was a trustee of the Red Deer Catholic school board until the board disqualified her as a result of memes she posted and media interviews she gave, of which a majority of the trustees disapproved.

Mr. Kitchen has now filed his Notices of Appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal, which can be read here and here.

In 2023, Mrs. LaGrange shared a meme on her personal Facebook account outlining her concerns about the increasing indoctrination of students into Queer theory and transgender ideology. The meme featured two side-by-side images: one of young children holding swastika flags and the other of young children holding pride progress flags, accompanied by the caption, “Brainwashing is brainwashing.” The post garnered support but also criticism, especially from teachers and other school trustees. One of the trustees submitted a complaint alleging that by posting the meme Mrs. LaGrange had violated many sections of the new trustee code of conduct.

Following a hearing in September 2023, a majority of the board of trustees determined Mrs. LaGrange had breached the code of conduct. The board imposed several sanctions, including that she cease making any public statements in areas touching upon or relating to the 2SLGBTQ+ community, issue a public apology, and complete sensitivity training at her own expense.

Mrs. LaGrange refused to issue an apology and maintained that her actions were consistent with her commitment to protecting children, stating, “I was elected to stand up and protect our children, and that is what I am doing.”

Shortly thereafter, another trustee submitted a complaint about Mrs. LaGrange, alleging that she had again violated the code of conduct and also breached the sanctions by posting another meme and doing two media interviews. The meme was a popular one depicting a wolf with colourful make-up with the caption, “I just want to read some books to your chickens”.

After a second hearing, a majority of the trustees again determined Mrs. LaGrange had breached the code of conduct and the sanction regarding public comments. The board then disqualified her as a trustee, effectively kicking her off the board.

The lawyer for Mrs. LaGrange, James Kitchen, said:

“This case is the first of its kind. Never before has an Alberta board of school trustees kicked another trustee off the board for what effectively amounts to a disagreement regarding expressed political and religious beliefs (disguised, in our view, as trustee misconduct). Such an outcome has been made possible by the recent adoption of trustee codes of conduct by Alberta school boards. These new codes enable a majority of trustees to censor and cancel individual trustees with whom they politically disagree. In this case, it appears that a majority of politically left-leaning school trustees applied the code of conduct to a politically disfavoured trustee in order to censure, humiliate, and remove Monique for her outspoken opposition to the sexualization and indoctrination of young students.”

TDF and Mr. Kitchen challenged the board’s decision at a judicial review at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. The Court varied the board’s apology requirement but otherwise upheld all of the board’s findings.

TDF litigation director Mark Joseph expressed concern over the broader implications of the case, stating:

“Disqualifying a democratically-elected representative based on public comments sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines free speech rights, tolerance for political diversity, and representative democracy by allowing officials to impose ideological purity tests on electoral candidates. The proper response to allegations of bad policy is repudiation at the ballot box rather than official disqualification. If upheld, this decision will pose a significant threat to democratic rights in Canada.”

About The Democracy Fund

Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.

Related Topics:#AlbertaCourtOfAppeal #JamesKitchen #MoniqueLaGrange #RedDeerCatholicRegionalSchools #TheDemocracyFund feature

Up Next

‘Don’t Write About The Laptop’: Two Reporters Allege Outlets Killed Stories About Bidens

Don't Miss

Over $100,000 cash seized by RCMP in Red Deer drug bust

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Chinese Election Interference – NDP reaction to bounty on Conservative candidate

Censorship Industrial Complex / 12 hours ago

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Uncategorized / 15 hours ago

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on March 30, 2025

Todayville

By Cam Wakefield

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.

This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.

What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.

The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?

A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.

Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.

Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.

For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.

So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.

But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.

Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.

“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”

Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.

Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”

One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.

Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?

What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.

Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”

Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.

After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.

So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.

This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.

Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?

It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Reclaim The Net values your free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Thank you.

Make a one-time donation

Censorship Industrial Complex

They knew it was a lab leak all along

Published on March 15, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Newly Revealed Documents Confirm Lab Leak Coverup

Quick Hit:

The global debate over COVID-19’s origins has taken a dramatic turn after newly uncovered reports indicate that intelligence agencies in Germany had determined with near certainty that the virus originated in a Chinese lab as early as 2020. Despite this revelation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly chose to suppress the findings, aligning with a broader pattern of obfuscation by Western governments and media outlets.

Key Details:

German newspapers Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, concluded in early 2020 with 80% to 95% certainty that COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China.
The intelligence was based on a combination of public-domain research and classified investigations under the code name “Saaremaa.”
Merkel’s administration allegedly buried the findings, with her successor Olaf Scholz continuing the suppression, ensuring the information remained hidden from the public until now.

Diving Deeper:

Journalist Alex Berenson detailed the shocking revelations in his Substack op-ed, underscoring how “the American media is doing its best to ignore the biggest news this week.” Berenson criticized legacy media outlets for fixating on the five-year anniversary of COVID-19 while sidestepping the implications of newly surfaced intelligence.

According to Berenson, German intelligence reached its high-confidence conclusion after analyzing public materials and conducting covert operations. “The material… indicated that there had been some risky research methods used there [at the Wuhan Institute of Virology], compounded by breaches of laboratory safety rules… [and] so-called gain-of-function experiments, in which viruses occurring in nature are manipulated [to become more dangerous or transmissible],” he wrote.

Rather than alert the world to the evidence, Merkel chose to suppress it. Berenson sarcastically noted, “Who immediately told the world of the findings and demanded a full investigation into what China’s totalitarian government knew and when it knew it? Nah, I’m funning you. Angela stuffed that report in a drawer and got back to doing what she did best, destroying Germany’s industrial base to make Greta Thunberg happy.”

The refusal to disclose this intelligence aligns with a broader pattern of deception from both governmental and media institutions, which spent years dismissing the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Berenson noted that during early 2020, “Dr. Anthony S. Fauci and Peter Daszak… were gently steering their fellow scientists towards a conclusion that COVID’s origins were 100 billion zillion percent natural.”

Even after Merkel left office in 2021, Scholz’s government continued to keep the intelligence under wraps. “The BND told her replacement, Olaf Scholz, ‘without the results finding their way to the public’ — as the British newspaper The Telegraph delicately put it,” Berenson wrote. Now that the findings have emerged, the German government has not denied the reports, leaving Berenson to conclude, “There’s about a 100 to 100 percent chance they’re true.”

The final takeaway? “We all sorta knew this already, right? Both the lab leak and the coverup,” Berenson observed. “But there’s knowing and there’s knowing. And it looks like the same American news outlets that spent 2020 and 2021 lying (or, at best, being hopelessly credulous) about China and COVID still aren’t ready to come clean.”

As new evidence continues to surface, the question remains: Will legacy media and world leaders finally acknowledge the lab leak theory as fact, or will they continue to deflect responsibility and protect their preferred narratives?