Universities are Private Property: Widdowson Visits Thompson Rivers University

though in certain circumstances they may be subject to the Charter

The claim made by the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation that “the Remains of 215 Children Have Been Found at Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS)” has divided Canadians since the 2021 announcement about the results of a GPR scan near the school. FN and their allies maintain the discovery of soil anomalies prove the stories of the FN Knowledge Keepers regarding children in the residential school system who went missing and were murdered by religious operators of the residential school(s).

The reaction to the narrative of mass/unmarked graves of children seem largely divided along political lines, with progressives defending the claim and conservatives rejecting it. Many reasonable people question the narrative, when they learn that a GPR scan led to the claim about the existence of mass/unmarked graves.

Recently this claim became the subject of heated debate at Thompson Rivers University.

What Happened?

Mass/unmarked graves truthers Dallas Brodie, Jim McMurtry and Francis Widdowson recently travelled to Thompson Rivers University (TRU) in Kamloops to challenge the mass/unmarked graves narrative. Naturally TRU didn’t welcome them, calling the event unsanctioned. So, the three truthers stood outside the university, attracting a crowd of students who opposed the presence of individuals whom they labeled “denialists.”

The truthers insist that they had the right to a presence on the campus to stage an open debate because a university campus is a centre of higher learning, and as such, it’s a place where people should have the freedom to vigorously debate and challenge controversial ideas. The truthers sought to force an open debate on the issue of the interpretation of GPR findings of 215 soil anomalies on an apple orchard near the Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS). Supported by their progressive allies, indigenous leaders and groups take the results of the GPR scan as proving the existence of mass or unmarked graves of 215 missing children they claim died by the hands of the religious operators of the residential school. Indigenous leaders and prominent FN spokespersons insist that they always knew, because Knowledge Keepers held the knowing of the mass murder of the children.

What’s the Background Story?

To give readers a backstory perspective, Francis Widdowson had visited TRU in May, to mark the fourth anniversary of the announcement of the unmarked/mass graves. Together with Kathy Drake, and Simon Hergott, Widdowson conducted a Spectrum Street Epistemology.

TRU officials didn’t welcome Widdowson’s presence on their campus in May, and in fact three administrators confronted them and tried to stop them from proceeding with their event. “The Director of Risk and Safety Services, Steve Pottle, said that TRU’s use of space policy meant that they couldn’t proceed with the event without being granted permission, and they were asked to leave the property,” states the caption of the YouTube video of the May 2025 visit to TRU, called Trouble at Thompson Rivers University, which I found on Widdowson’s YouTube channel.

So TRU made it clear they didn’t want Widdowson on their property to publicly challenge the claim that “the Remains of 215 Children Have Been Found at KIRS” and they certainly didn’t want her to return in November to force an open debate on the issue.

What’s the Deal, Anyway?

I disagree with the decision to use this strategy to challenge and/or change a sacredly held belief. For one, the targeted population will always see these unsanctioned events as a form of attack. Furthermore, I question whether such events can take place on private property. Yes, university campuses are private, though in some cases the Charter can apply. A cursory glance at the literature and case law tells me that university campuses are subject to Charter, to the degree that they implement government programmes, under which students’ freedom of expression must receive protection.

What Does Case Law Say?

The case law proves far from consistent when it comes to Charter application for university campuses.

In University of Toronto (Governing Council) v Doe et al., Justice Markus Koehnen granted the University of Toronto an injunction against the encampment, despite his assessment that the protest behaviour didn’t meet the standards for hatred, racism, violence, vandalism (para 212). In his July 2024 decision Koehnen wrote “case law is clear that exercising freedom of expression is not a defence to trespass” (para 220). He also wrote that “there is ample judicial authority that says protestors do not have the right to occupy property that doesn’t belong to them” he asserted (at para 181).

In BC Civil Liberties Association v. University of Victoria, 2016 BCCA 162, BC Court of Appeals Justices Saunders, Willcock and Dickson dismissed the appeal on BC Civil Liberties Association v. University of Victoria, 2015 BCSC 39, finding that “the Charter does not apply to the University’s regulation of its outdoor space. The University is not government and was not implementing a government program.” This case involved an anti-abortion student group who received approval from the university Vice-President to stage a protest, and the Vice-President revoked permission on advice of the Student Society.

In Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2010 ABQB 644, Justice Strekaf stated that she was “satisfied that the University of Calgary is not part of the government so as to make all of its actions subject to the Charter,” (para 51). Strekaf also noted that “a non‑government entity such as the University may still be subject to the Charter when it is implementing a specific government policy or program,” (para 57). So, a decisions taken by a university campus become subject to the Charter when they involve the university implementing a government policy. In the Pridgen case, the judge ruled that the university’s decision to discipline the student for a Facebook post about a faculty member violated the student’s Charter rights (para 118).

University of Waterloo professor of political science and constitutional law Emmett Macfarlane stated the following in an interview regarding tent encampments with City News Toronto. “It may be true that university campuses have the legal status of private property, but I think there’s a broader principle here in that they are not like any other private space. They are public institutions and public universities, and the use of their space as part of a public forum for free expression is well established.” In this comment, Macfarlane compared public parks and university campuses to Parliament Hill.

So, does Thompson River University declaring Widdowson a public nuisance and issuing a trespass warning violate her Charter-based freedom of expression? Well, probably not, if we consider the case law regarding a university making decisions about the use of its grounds. Also probably not if we look at the case law that says expression of freedom doesn’t provide an adequate defense against trespassing. And probably not when we consider that Widdowson and the other two truthers who accompanied her do not have student status at the TRU campus.

Discussion

It’s clear the story “the Remains of 215 Children Have Been Found at KIRS” has become a part of an integral identity myth of the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation. The GPR findings align with the oral tradition of the Knowledge Keepers, say FNs leaders and activists. I appreciate the sacred place oral tradition holds in the story of any peoples. Oral tradition serves an integral role in the understanding of who we are, how we developed, and how and why our culture has formed as it has done. It’s an enduring form of collective self perception and identity. However oral tradition does not form a historical record of any peoples. Myths shared through oral tradition don’t take the place of history, they teach us cultural values we need to grow and thrive in our society. For example, the Torah is not a historical document, it’s a religious text that contains stories to guide humanity ethically and morally.

The mass/unmarked grave claim creates a problematic situation for Canadian society.

First of all, GPR cannot detect human remains, it can only detect soil anomalies. Soil anomalies cannot confirm any oral tradition myth of human remains of children murdered by Catholic religious. Researchers have offered more plausible explanations for the detected soil anomalies. FN leaders and activists, as well as many survivors of residential school, refuse to engage these plausible explanations.

Second, I don’t see how First Nation Knowledge Keeping differs from Jewish Rabbinical oral tradition, nor from the Islamic transmission of Hadith, nor from the transmission of the Christian story of the incarnation of Jesus. These oral traditions underpin sacred myths at the heart of identity in each of the three Abrahamic religious traditions. Jews and Christians don’t want to engage in an open debate about the archeological reality of the myth of Moses and exodus. Muslims don’t want to engage in an open debate about the mental stability and credibility of Muhammad, vis à vis the visions they say he had, which inspired the Quran.

So, I see this confrontational approach to the challenging the mythical narrative of the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation as futile and even inflammatory.

I see it as akin to going to a mosque and telling Muslims that Muhammad was a mentally ill narcissist who made everything up or who had a vision from a demon and that they must listen to you, because you read a book that Ali Sina or Salman Rushdie wrote. Can the reader imagine if a group of self declared truthers took it upon themselves to go to any institution to force an open debate on the veracity of the claims made by the Islamic myths? Many of us know how heated a discussion of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa compound can get when we challenge that origin story myth. Muslims do not seem convinced by reason and historical facts about the Temple Mount site. Can readers imagine truthers showing up at a public institution to challenge the story of exodus or the existence of Moses? What about the existence of Jesus and the veracity of the incarnation myth? It’s worth noting, even though it’s an aside, that each of these three Abrahamic religions would respond differently to challenges of their sacred identity myths.

I think readers can grasp my point here. What I believe about any of these traditions doesn’t matter, that’s not what I’m interested in now, here in this article. My beliefs will become clear when you read some other essays I’ve written in this Substack publication. Like I said, my beliefs don’t factor into this discussion. Suffice it to say that Christianity has a LONG and PAINFUL history of blood libelling Jews. That’s unacceptable and hateful. It’s diabolically wrong.

Anyway, I digress.

So, we seem at an impasse as a country. How do we resolve it? How do we reconcile these differences of perspective?

We must be able to have open dialogue and debate about the residential school system. We must be able to challenge mythical claims. We must be able to meet stories with healthy skepticism. We must be able to say no, that’s inaccurate, in response to the claim that the Remains of 215 Children Have Been Found at KIRS. We must accept the established fact that GPR doesn’t identify or detect human remains. We must establish the ethic that blood libel crosses the line into bad faith dialogue and dehumanisation and even hate. It’s not at all unreasonable to expect that anyone must provide physical evidence of their claims of mass murder or the existence of mass or unmarked graves that form a part of a genocide accusation.

All that said, we must also remember that beliefs are not reasonable, and so we enter into futlie terrain when we attempt to challenge a sacred belief with logic, reason, and facts.

While the intention behind staging open debates seems noble, I think the strategy of showing up uninvited to an institution located on private, and demanding a debate seems an unreasonable and hostile demand made on people at that institution. What can we accomplish by grandstanding? What can we accomplish by inflaming the already tense and friable social situation? I don’t see the greater good here, and I do see the sincere intention.

Both, reader, I see both here — I don’t think any of the truthers who went to TRU harbour malfeasance or ill intentions against FN people. I think the truthers passionately believe in their mission to bring truth to this issue, I think they care about the disingenuous claims made and the detrimental and demoralising effect it’s had on Canadian society as a whole. I think the truthers care deeply about Canada.

Based on the video clips of students and protestors who came to meet Widdowson, McMurtry, and Brodie, it’s clear that the students and protesters lack the emotional maturity and intellectual fortitude to disagree on an important issue in a reasonable and polite manner. It seems alarming that post secondary institutions have cultivated an environment that thwarts vigorous debate and seeks to shut down important discussions on vital topics because they feel uncomfortable. It’s indeed true that universities must create environments where discussion can take place without verbal abuse, without physical aggression and violence. Universities have failed in their duty to educate young people when they’ve become focal points of radicalism and secular fanaticism masquerading as “social justice.”