In this episode, I sit down to talk with former teacher librarian at Beal Secondary School in London, Ontario. Larry Farquharson discusses the persecution he received by the media and his employer for his COVID protocol criticisms, but, even more significantly, his opposition to the removal and destruction of 10 000 books out of a collection of 17000 at the library, a dispute which lead to his removal from the classroom and, ultimately, to his retirement. However, our conversation goes beyond censorship; we speak about the state of the world and how it needs to be changed.
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/board-trustees-say-mass-removal-of-beal-library-books-was-never-disclosed
https://rantagainstthemachine.substack.com/.../open..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/beal-library-old-book-purge-9.7040273
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/audio/9.7039568
https://pub-london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=86412
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/beal-teacher-masks-1.5739327
https://www.ontario.ca/page/thames-valley-district-school-board-financial-investigation
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/audit-shows-how-promotions-and-pay-bumps-contributed-to-tvdsb-s-16m-deficit-1.7538582
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/whats-ahead-for-the-thames-valley-school-board-after-painful-year-of-scandal
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6h09GstHfRMBPARHsMxG7Q
https://propagandainfocus.com/author/mh2_tapq372ilj/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgioHvio9w&list=PL7_Yf1dNI7jTfi4wtjzCBUPolt-ol6Evo&index=1&pp=iAQB0gcJCUwLAYcqIYzv
https://unlimitedhangout.com/author/whitney-webb/
https://firstfreedoms.ca/freedom-under-fire-the-cost-of-censorship-in-canadian-schools-a-librarians-stand-for-intellectual-freedom-interview-with-larry-farquharson/
Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act) amended the Criminal Code to create new offences for intimidating people and obstructing access to religious or cultural spaces, define "hatred", and ban the public display of certain hate and terrorist symbols. It received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026. [1, 2]
The legislation sparked major controversy across multiple sectors:
- Religious Freedom Concerns: Conservative politicians, religious groups, and civil liberties advocates heavily criticized the bill for removing the long-standing "good-faith religious opinion" defence from the Criminal Code. Critics argued this created a risk of criminalizing legitimate religious teachings, sermons, or the quoting of sacred texts if interpreted as promoting hatred. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Threat to Peaceful Protest: Civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Bar Association, warned that vague language defining "obstruction" and "fear" could trammel Charter rights by criminalizing peaceful protests, labor pickets, and legitimate political dissent. [1, 2, 3]
- Law Enforcement Overreach: Advocacy and labour groups argued the broad language granted police excessive discretionary power. Historically, this level of subjectivity raises fears of over-policing and disproportionate enforcement within Indigenous, Black, and racialized communities. [1, 2]
- Government Rushing the Process: Critics condemned the federal government for rushing the bill through the justice committee and truncating parliamentary debate to ensure the law's passage. [1, 2
Protecting Fundamental Rights — Our Concerns with Bill C-9Dec 12, 2025 — Without amendment, it will lower the bar for criminal charges and give law enforcement wide authority with little oversight. This ...
Canadian Labour Congress
Bill C-9 has passed. Here's what you need to know.Jun 5, 2026 — Bill C-9 has passed. Here's what you need to know. ... Bill C-9 is the Combatting Hate Act. The bill is the Liberal government's r...
Canadian Constitution Foundation
The unintended consequences of Bill C-9Feb 4, 2026 — In a nutshell. The CBA Criminal Justice Section and Sexual and Gender Diversity Alliance Section jointly recommend to the federal ...
CBA National Magazine
Larry's letter of resignation: "William Tucker
Director of Education
Thames Valley District School Board
Dear Mr. Tucker,
As a consequence of my attempt to bring clarity, public accountability and transparency to my area of expertise in a public secondary school Library context, I have been punished on multiple fronts, ostensibly in an attempt to silence me, and to force me into obedience and compliance.
When confronted with this level of interference detrimental to the foundational precepts of educating children and youth entrusted to our care to become independent, literate, critical thinkers and doers, I will neither be silenced nor forced or extorted or intimidated into ‘compliance.’
What follows is a further accounting of the events contributing to compelling me to defend school Libraries, and more importantly, the protection of fundamental rights including the freedom to read, and the resulting attempts by the board and school administrations to trounce on those rights.
While I enjoyed the bulk of my career and the interaction with students, the past five years contending with meddlesome and progressively ill-equipped, uninspiring, often unskilled and lacking leadership qualities and most importantly ideologically-driven rather than pedagogically-driven administrators has definitely put a damper on things.
If anyone has been paying attention, TVDSB has been in the news seemingly almost daily, and not for good reasons. This board doesn’t need me to “disparage” or bring harm to its reputation…the former and present ‘senior administration’ (as it likes to call itself) and its obedient enforcers in many school administrator offices has achieved a level of internal and external disrepute and distrust quite spectacularly all on its own.
In short, I believe TVDSB is structurally terminally corrupted, and beyond redemption.
Effective immediately I am retired and no longer an employee of TVDSB. I have no interest in continuing any working relationship with this organization and in accordance with the Collective Agreement, Article L7.01, this is my official retirement notice. While I acknowledge the convention and preference may have been the beginning of the month for submitting an intent to retire, I see no compelling reason for granting such a courtesy given the aggregate and ‘aggravating’ circumstances described below.
Kind regards,
Larry"
