Canadian Nationalist Conference Successful Despite State Persecution

Editor’s note: Despite sharing a similar name, Dominion Review is not affiliated with Dominion Society.

On August 29th, the Dominion Society of Canada (DSC) hosted a sold-out conference bringing together domestic and international speakers.Taking place in Burlington, the event was originally announced for Hamilton and was elevated to the status of international incident by legally dubious political policing, the likely unconstitutional interference of federal agencies, and numerous violations of political neutrality by local municipalities and charitable organizations.

Launched in 2025 and swelling to several thousand members by 2026, the DSC exists to advocate for immigration restriction and Canadian nationalism. Controversially, this includes a ten-year halt to immigration and the deportation of millions of non-citizen residents.

DSC’s first conference, this was a deciding moment for the increasingly notorious organization and was strongly opposed by left-wing and anti-nationalist groups, including local civic and social planning organizations, the Jewish rights and advocacy group B’nai Brith, Hope Not Hate, and the state-backed Canadian Anti Hate Network.

The event nearly passed with little notice. But moderates and liberals across the country were alarmed at a chilling assault on free assembly and expression mobilized against DSC at all levels of power.

Ahead of the event, the Hamilton Police Service urged venues “to consider the impact this event and its messaging may have on the broader community when making decisions about hosting it” and claimed “the messaging associated with DomCon is divisive and exclusionary and can negatively impact the sense of safety and belonging within our community”.

Dominion Society founder Daniel Tyrie condemned the move to use police resources to dissuade venues from hosting the conference: “Today we learn that they are going venue-by-venue to pressure businesses into canceling on us or refuse our booking. Is this an appropriate use of police resources in a city as dysfunctional as Hamilton?”

In a call with Wire Tap Media, Inspector Darren Murphy denied that Hamilton Police Service (HPS) were engaged in political intimidation, and confirmed the steps taken by HPS to keep DSC out of Hamilton.

For her part, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath made it clear that DSC would not be tolerated in the city. She reportedly sent a letter to venue owners telling them to be “be aware of the Dominion Society’s stated mandate and the nature of the event when considering any booking connected to the organization”. The letter uncritically cited a claim by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to the effect that DSC is “part of Canada’s broader white-nationalist movement”.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) characterized the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police as “deliberately us[ing] government power and influence to stifle political expression” and described the “City’s refusal to rent City-owned venues to the Dominion Society” as “a direct infringement of freedom of expression.” Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said, “The City of Hamilton and Hamilton Police are using both direct action and their influence to exclude a viewpoint they disagree with from the entire city. This is unconstitutional and fundamentally at odds with the way a free and democratic society operates.”

At the federal level, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) effectively denied Austrian immigration restrictionist and remigration advocate Martin Sellner entry to the country by deviating from usual procedure and prolonging the decision to the last minute.

Charlie Downes, spokesman for British political party Restore Britain, explained that he was detained by the CBSA for several hours and questioned about DSC, his personal opinions, his party’s funding sources, and their policy proposals.

Importantly, it is not within IRCC’s or CBSA’s lawful mandate to deny entry on the basis of peaceful and non-violent political activity. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), foreign nationals can be found inadmissible on security grounds (section 34), such as when a person is suspected on reasonable grounds to engage in espionage, subversion, terrorism, or acts of violence that endanger people in Canada. Political opinion or membership in a group that engages only in lawful advocacy, protest, or non-violent political activity is not a listed ground for inadmissibility. Canadian security agencies (including CSIS) have stated they do not investigate lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent.

Ultimately, DSC held their conference successfully and received international publicity. Most counter-protestors remained in Hamilton, and the few present in Burlington were kept from the venue by security and local police. The event’s success would not have been possible had Canada’s institutions remained faithful to the democratic virtues they so often pontificate on at home and abroad, as the persecution of the event ended up boosting its prominence. 

Fringe or not, DSC has no record of political violence or extremism, and represents a growing segment of Canadians who feel that Canada’s immigration policy has been too irresponsible for too long. A 2024 poll found that over 60% of the population consider immigration too high. Another found that nearly half of all Canadians support mass deportations.  

Whether one supports DSC or finds it abhorrent, all can acknowledge the threat to democracy inherent in government- and state-funded attempts to exclude thousands of young people from peaceful and legitimate political activity, and to suppress expressions of opinion shared by millions of Canadians.

Though on paper we have more rights than ever before, our traditional liberties have never been so threatened, and our phenomenal experience of freedom so oppressive and panopticon-like. Lest it become illegitimate, shambolic, and tyrannical, our democracy must stand on principles.

It is not for government officials or state power to alienate lawful acts and persons. It is not for police services to enforce feelings or coerce small business owners. Most importantly, it is not for the federal government to dictate the permissible policy preferences of the Canadian people.

In the wake of this event, Canadians should consider not only the security of their personal liberties, but the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars poured into activist charities which work to manufacture opinion, launder justification for state suppression, and serve as extensions of state influence.