Barry Neufeld Arrested Outside Chilliwack Courthouse
with the help of the BC Courts, the sexual libertines dominating the gender radical cult have made Barry Neufeld into a martyr for the cause of child safeguarding
đ¸ image courtesy of Stuart Parker via Xwitter
A warrant was ordered for the arrest of Barry Neufeld on October 27th, 2025. The arrest warrant concludes a lengthy court battle waged between Neufeld and gender radicals, who have painted a target on the former school trusteeâs back since he bluntly declared in an October 17, 2017 Facebook post that he thought child transitioning a form of child abuse. This particular order involves a defamation claim made against Neufeld by Carin Bondar, who opined about the appropriateness of Bondar for the position of School Trustee, based on a 2014 video that she apparently made, which readers can see below. Bondar made the video, called Organisms Do Evolve, as a parody of the 2013 Miley Cyrus song Wrecking Ball, to teach her students about evolution.
Bondar had tried to serve Neufeld with a summons for quite some time, and Neufeld had dodged all attempts to serve him, forcing the Court to issue a warrant for his arrest. Today Neufeld turned himself into the Chilliwack Courthouse. A group of friends gathered outside the courthouse to show their support, to protest what they see as an injustice, and to pray over him. Drea Humphrey from Rebel News and David Brett from The New Westminster Times came to the Courthouse to cover the story of Neufeldâs arrest.
đĽ video courtesy of New Westminster Times via Xwitter
Transcript of Barry Neufeld Outside Chilliwack Courthouse
with Drea Humphrey of Rebel News & David Brett of New Westminster Times | Nov 24, 2025
Barry Neufeld (00:00) :: Well, Iâm finally turning myself in on a warrant. I was the victim of a very unjust sentence where I was accused of defaming somebody who already had defamed herself. They wanted to examine my finances and determine how and when I can pay the $53,000 that they claim I owe to Carin Bondar. And so Iâm here.
Butâthey had been trying to serve me forâpersonal service for over a year but Iâve had so many threats in my life that I donât go to the door when I donât recognize the person at the door. Sometimes they leave a note behind that they had some company had a delivery for me but I never ordered anything from them so I never phoned them back. So after a year of being frustrated, a bondage lawyer went to the court and asked for permission to serve me by email, but she sent it to an email that I never use. And, so I didnât show up to court and she asked the court to issue a warrant for my arrest. So here I am.
Drea Humphreys (01:45) :: What would it mean to actually have to pay the amount that you owe? Is that something youâre able to do?
Barry Neufeld (01:52) :: I could pay some money from my grocery money and I could go to the food bank. Carin Bondar is a millionaire. She doesnât need the money. Sheâs just doing it out of spite and anger. I suppose I will have to pay something, but Iâm not going to pay it willingly. Theyâre going to have to make an order for me to pay it.
Drea Humphreys (02:17) :: Is it your belief that you may be arrested?
Barry Neufeld (02:21) :: There is a warrant for my arrest that the sheriffs are in possession of. Theyâve had it for over two weeks. They havenât acted on it. itâs a weirdly worded. It says that Iâm supposed to serve one day in Ford Mountain Correctional Centre. Interestingly enough, was delivered to court today by a correctional officer from Ford Mountain Camp. I was a probation officer. I was an officer of this court for many years. I visited Ford Mountain many times to interview inmates. so this probably Carin Bondar thinks is her greatest triumph.
Drea Humphreys (03:09) :: Youâve been through so much on this fight against gender ideology for kids and you seem to keep going, you keep speaking out. Why do so? Whatâs your message for other parents on that?
Barry Neufeld (03:21) :: The reason I havenât backed down is because I believe children are being put at risk by dangerous ideology. Not only dangerous ideology, nowadays modesty, purity, chastity are considered reprehensible and thatâs what Iâve always stood for and Iâm not going to back down. Thatâs why Iâm here.
David Brett (03:45) :: So Barry, do you believe that youâre going to be behind bars today? Or is it going to be just a service to you here in the courthouse?
Barry Neufeld (03:57) :: Depending on the schedule of the court, once the sheriffs take me into custody, they may have to take me downstairs to cells while I wait for a judge to hear my case. Iâm hopeful that Iâll be released today. But if not, I think normally when a person is arrested, they go to the pretrial centre in Surrey. A warrant that says Iâm to serve time in Ford Mountain Correctional Centre is very, very unusual. And I donât know why they made that decision. But when you serve one day in jail, you donât even spend the night. But the judge... you know, things could go sideways. He might say, you know, youâve been so uncooperative, Iâm going to send you to Ford Mountain for 30 days. He could do that. Weâll see what happens.
David Brett (04:55) :: So youâre proceeding inside the courthouse here in Chilliwack now. What do you think is going to happen next when you go in?
Barry Neufeld (05:04) :: Well if I go in, the sheriffs will have to arrest me and probably take me downstairs to cells. Thatâs why my preference is to stay outside and â wait for the sheriffs to come out here and get me and then you can all witness what happens.
David Brett (05:26) :: Did you ever think it would come to this?
Barry Neufeld (05:29) :: No, I never thought theyâd push it this far, but Iâm willing to go all the way. Iâm willing to do time in jail if it brings awareness to whatâs happening to children and how our public education system has been so corrupted by profligates and sexual libertines.
David Brett (05:52) :: Okay, so itâs a bit of a waiting game then at this point. Okay, I donât see anyone coming out.
Barry Neufeld (05:57) :: Yeah. By now they must figure out that thereâs somebody out here that they needâ[a woman tells Neufeld she and a group of people want to pray for him] Okay, you do that first.
Thatâs a brief summary of what happened today at the courthouse. For those readers who would like a deeper dive into the history of the persecution endured by Neufeld, youâll find it on the other side of the paywall below. Itâs cost me time and money to retrieve court documents needed to piece the story of this case together, and to place it in the larger context of the lawfare persecution which Neufeld has faced for the better part of 8 years, so thatâs why I have decided to paywall this information I would appreciate your support with a paid subscription or Tip Jar Tip. Below the paywall you will get a more detailed analysis of the Bondar v Neufeld case, complete with screenshots of the court documents. You will also get a bit of analysis on the Hansman v Neufeld case.
So, In 2017, just after the BC government sneakily brought SOGI legislation into effect and forced SOGI on all students, Neufeld made a frank statement about SOGI, in particular, he commented on the trend of brainwashing children to believe they were in the wrong body and needed a sex change or they would die. Thatâs the essence of the gender radical movement, without using any of the gender cultâs own jargon. I refuse to energise the cult of gender radicalism and affirmation by using their own language. I choose to approach this subject matter in an adult manner, and use the actual scientific words for things. Letâs not empower the cult by using their language, in doing so we participate in the obfuscation and the deception that forms the basis of their information and psychological warfare. Just so we are clear, reader.
Teacher and former president of the British Columbia Teachersâ Federation Glen Hansman commented that Neufeldâs views about gender affirmation for children amounted to hate. Hansman went beyond challenging and disagreeing with Neufeldâs views, he launched a personal attack and defamed Neufeld. Justice Ross of the BC Supreme Court dismissed Neufeldâs defamation suit for the reasons stated below.
Notes on acronyms in the ruling:
PPPA refers to the Protection of Public Participation Act, and it exists to limit the use of lawsuits to suppress and discourage expression on âmatters of public interest.â PPPA aims to protect the rights of the public to speak freely on matters of public interest.
WIC refers to WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, a case in which Kari Simpson brought a defamation suit against Rafe Mair because âin his editorial, [Mair] compared [Simpson] in her public persona to Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and skinheadsâ (2008 SCC 40). Mairâs fair comment defense stood and the court dismissed Simpsonâs defamation suit. Itâs widely believed that the SCC redefined defamation with this ruling.
Rather, this is a decision under the new PPPA legislation, which allows for the dismissal of an action if certain criteria are met. The plaintiff commenced a defamation action against the defendant in relation to a matter of public interest. The defendant concedes that some of his words could be capable of defamatory meaning. However, he argues that there is strong precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada, on very similar facts, stating that the defence of fair comment would apply to his statements. I have found that, viewing the facts through the âreasonableness lensâ, no reasonable trier of this case could distinguish the facts in this case from the facts in WIC.
I have further found that the PPPA requires me to balance the seriousness of the harm suffered by the plaintiff and the public interest in continuing the proceeding against the public interest in protecting the defendantâs expression. The plaintiff has an interest in claiming damages and clearing his good name. However, the public has an interest in protecting expressions that relate to public debate. In balancing those interests, I find that the interest in public debate outweighs the interest in continuing the proceeding on these facts. (para 178 and 179 2019 BCSC 2028)
The Judge did not find satisfactory evidence in Neufeldâs submissions to meet the burden of proof required of him to establish that no valid defense of Hansmanâs statement existed. From my reading of the decision, this played a major role in the outcome of Neufeldâs defamation case. Hansmanâs fair comment defense therefore stood.
The burden on the plaintiff is to establish that a reasonable trier of this case at trial âcould conclude that none of the defences advanced would succeedâ (Pointes Protection at para. 84). Based on the analysis set out above, I find that, subject to a finding of malice (which I address below) the plaintiff has not met the evidentiary burden required of him. He has not met the persuasive burden of establishing that there are grounds to believe that a reasonable trier of the case could find that there were no valid defences.
In assessing the plaintiffâs arguments, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to state that there may be a finding against the defendant without supporting that argument with evidence and law. Any such argument must be based on the âreasonableness lensâ (Lascaris at para. 33). The legislature must have intended that this part of test would be applicable in some circumstances. It is not sufficient that a plaintiff submit that the defendant may fail to prove some aspect of the defence at trial. In this case, as noted, the defendant will argue the WIC case at trial. The facts of this case are very close to the facts in WIC. The reasoning in WIC would apply to the trial of this action (para 135 and 136, 2019 BCSC 2028).
The Appeals court reinstated Neufeldâs defamation action. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, Neufeld lost his case, when the majority ruled that the chambers judge did not err in concluding that the public interest weighing exercise mandated dismissal of the underlying action or that N failed to adequately challenge the validity of Hâs fair comment defence. Accordingly, his order dismissing the defamation action should be restored. (2023 SCC 14)
Noteâthe court didnât necessarily disagree that Hansman had defamed Neufeld, it prioritised what it took as the public interestâie. protecting the right of an individual to comment on a matter of public interest â over Neufeldâs own personal and reputational interests. Hansman did not suffering any harm from Neufeldâs comments, and Neufeld did suffer harm from Hansmanâs comments. Can we consider Hansmanâs verbal outburst an appropriate and measured response to Neufeldâs comments? Can we consider it warranted or justified? Reader, you tell me. I will let readers judge that.
It is undeniable that Mr. Hansmanâs counterâspeech concerned the importance of ensuring inclusive schools for LGBTQ students through the implementation of SOGI 123. But Mr. Hansman did not limit himself to criticizing Mr. Neufeldâs views on SOGI 123 or to affirming his support for inclusive schools. He made personal attacks and serious hate speech accusations that were likely to cause or that did cause significant harm to Mr. Neufeld. This lowers the public interest in protecting his speech, as âdefamatory statements and personal attacks are âvery tenuouslyâ related to the core values which underlie s. 2 (b) of the Charterâ (para 173, SCC, 2023)
In her dissenting opinion Justice Suzanne CĂ´tĂŠ wrote as follows.
Finally, restricting the availability of tort actions for defamation can have a chilling effect. In the context of defamatory counterâspeech, interpreting s. 4 of the PPPA so as to deprive defamed parties who have suffered serious harm of their day in court could very well be detrimental to public debate. It could prevent those who hold controversial or unpopular views from entering the public arena to share them. This conclusion does not turn the concept of chilling effect on its head. The deprivation, through a court order, of a partyâs right to vindicate a legitimate claim imposes a legal penalty on that party.
In the instant case, the chambers judge erroneously ignored factors aggravating the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by N, despite the fact that they were specifically argued by him. In addition, he gave little consideration to the competing public interests and failed to direct his mind to the quality of the expression, which constitutes a reviewable error. The chambers judge also erred in failing to consider the chilling effect that the dismissal of Nâs claim might have on future expression by others. The harm likely to have been or to be suffered by N strongly militates in favour of allowing the proceeding to continue, and the public interest in allowing Nâs claim to proceed to trial outweighs the public interest in protecting Hâs expression.
So, Neufeld suffered irreparable damage to his reputation, in addition to significant psychological harm from Hansmanâs personal attack and lawfare. By the time this Supreme Court of Canada decision came down, Bondar had already launched her defamation suit against Neufeld for his remarks about her Miley Cyrus parody video. In fact, at one point, the judge in the Bondar v Neufeld case paused the proceedings until the SCC released its ruling in Hansman v Neufeld.
I thought I should give Miley Cyrus a plug, since Bondar has piggy-backed on her artistry to score political points. You can judge the video for yourself, reader, I present it for your viewing pleasure.
Reader, take a look at this excerpt from Bondarâs Notice of Civil Claim, below. What do you think about what you read here?
The literal meaning of the phrase âstrip-tease artistâ is not on its own defamatory. However, a defamatory meaning arises via popular innuendo or, in the alternative, legal innuendo.
Dr. Bondarâs own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with strip-tease artistry. Indeed, a major focus of her career has been on educating the public about sex in nature and decreasing stigma around healthy sexuality. However, and unfortunately, there is a widely held societal view that strip-tease artistry is dishonourable or shameful, and particularly that it is inappropriate of a candidate for public office and a school trustee. There is also a widely held societal view, which the Defamatory Statement engages, that women should not behave in a sexually liberated manner in public, and that women who do so do not have integrity and are not suitable for public office.
Thus, âstrip-tease artistâ has a defamatory meaning by popular innuendo.
In the alternative, âstrip-tease artistâ has a defamatory meaning by legal innuendo. Viewers of the presentation recording who are familiar with the context of Chilliwack local politics would be familiar with the facts of the 2014 YouTube video and the misogynistic backlash it garnered. Such viewers would reasonably understand the phrase âstrip-teaseâ artist to be referring to that video and evoking the defamatory meaning that Dr. Bondar does not have integrity and, because of her sexually liberated behaviour, is not suitable for public office. (Notice of Civil Claim, p. 4)
The dictionary at vocabulary[dot]com provides a definition for strip-tease artist as follows: a performer who provides erotic entertainment by undressing to music. It defines erotic as giving sexual pleasure; sexually arousing.
Do you think someone who seeks to reduce the stigma around sexual liberty for women, in particular burlesque-type dancing, would react in such a manner? Launching a legal suit of defamation against someone who used the words âstrip-tease artistâ to describe your deliberately provocative video would only serve to stigmatise women who choose to dress in scanty attire, or pose in provocative poses, or dance in a provocative manner. Why shouldnât women seeking positions of power or authority who also seek to destigmatise healthy sexual expression for women embrace all opportunities to do so? It would see to me that Ms. Bondar lost a prime opportunity to smash stigma when she decided to characterise Neufeldâs remarks as defamatory. I wonder what she could have achieved for the sexual liberty of women, and for the social status of strip-tease and burlesque, had she strategised her response to Neufeld differently.
Perhaps Bondar could have taken some inspiration from the First Lady of the United States, Melania Knauss Trump? Mrs Knauss-Trump had a modelling career, it included some nude shots. Critics have tried to grind her harshly on it over the years since Trumpâs first term as POTUS, everyone had an opinion on the First Ladyâs modelling career. The First Lady kept her poise under all that fireâwhatever you think of the Trumps, you must admit that much, reader. In fact, a year ago, Melania Trump stated that she remains proud of her nude modelling work, saying in a September 2024 Newsweek article that âwe should honor our bodies and embrace the timeless tradition of using art as a powerful means of self-expression.â
Alas, I digress.
Letâs get back to the original Wrecking Ball video. Reader, I think we can agree that the Miley Cyrus video, which Bondar parroted in her parody, punches a pretty powerful impact. Thatâs kind of the point, isnât it? The scanty costume worn by Cyrus features as a major part of the video. Furthermore, one could say that popular music culture does seek âto inspire and entertain while challenging societal expectations around beauty, body image, and sexualityâ (America for the Arts, Burlesque Dancer Overview). To be clear with readers, letâs get something out of the way now. I, Bad Hijabi, did not write this piece to give commentary on womenâs modesty. My personal views on that do not matter here. Ultimately, I respect a womanâs right to choose how she dresses and moves through the world as a sexual being â just because I cover my hair and choose modest dress, it doesnât mean I judge or stigmatise women who do not do so. Sometimes I find it tiresome, however, itâs an individual choice and my deigning to judge another womanâs body and the way she dresses does not seem compatible with my practise of modesty nor with my practise of Christianity.
Note: neither do I judge Neufeld for commenting on the video â how can I fault him for doing his ethical duty as he say it? Whatever happened to freedom to comment on a matter of public interest, or fair comment defense, anyway?
Got all that? Good, Iâm glad we are clear on that bit.
Moving on.
Through her parody of the Miley Cyrus video, didnât Bondar seek to educate her students on the science of evolution whilst challenging societal norms imposed on female people regarding their bodies and the sexual liberties afforded them by the overall culture in which we find ourselves? If so, I would think Bondar would embrace the views of any socially conservative critics who expressed an opinion she found regrettable, wouldnât you, reader? It would seem like a delicious opportunity, and maybe even an obligation based on her self-described ethic to de-stigmatise, for Bondar to flip commentary she received as criticism on its head and make it her opportunity for publicity. Just as Neufeld felt it necessary, as a school trustee, to follow through with his ethic and do his duty âlegal, social, moral or personal, to publicly express his honestly held views about other candidates and the electorate, including the target audience of the publication at issue âŚâ (Response to Notice of Civil Claim, p. 3).
I think readers have full awareness of the malicious manner in which members of the radical cult of gender affirmationism have used lawfare to harm and destroy their targets. Over the years we have seen a number of examples of the Wokerati using lawfare to punish conservative critics for their fair comments about matters of public interest, when those fair comments made by conservatives offended Wokerati sensitivities and maybe bruised some egos. It would seem only certain people have the benefit of fair comment defense, or of the spirit of the PPPA on their side, wouldnât it? We commonly lament about the ideological capture of the courts. Does this case add weight to that claim? I think Neufeld made a fair comment, and he had a right to express his opinion about a matter of public interest. And I think Bondar made a provocative video to kill two birds with one stoneâpromote destigmatisation and teach evolution. The only one who defamed strip-tease or burlesque dancing and sexual liberty for women was Bondar, by her defamation case.
I will leave readers with the order for Neufeldâs arrest. Through lawfare persecution, the gender radical cultists have given their gender critical foes a martyr for the cause.
