You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Culture’ category.
Emanuel Brünisholz, a Swiss repairman, has made headlines for refusing to pay a fine imposed for a social-media comment stating what he says are biological truths: that there are only two sexes as determined by skeletal evidence. Because he wouldn’t pay the fine, he opted instead to serve 10 days in jail. He was convicted under Switzerland’s anti-discrimination laws (Art. 261bis), which have been expanded to include “sexual identities” beyond race, religion, etc. His statement was judged to belittle the LGBTQI community and violate human dignity, though Brünisholz insists he was speaking objective biological fact. (Reduxx)
This case is deeply troubling, because it illustrates a slippery slope: when a judge or prosecutor can criminalize speech that claims a biological fact, simply because some group interprets it as hateful. That is not far off from what proposed Canadian legislation threatens. The Combatting Hate Act, introduced in September 2025, would make it a criminal offence to “wilfully promote hatred” against identifiable groups (including on grounds of gender identity) by any public display or speech. It also aims to streamline prosecutions for “hate propaganda,” remove some procedural checks, and broaden the definition of hate. Critics warn that this will give activist minority claims outsized power over what counts as acceptable speech. (Government of Canada)
If Brünisholz’s case was an outlier, then Canada’s proposals make clear this is a trajectory, not a one-off. Under the proposed laws, someone could theoretically be prosecuted (and even imprisoned) for speaking truths about biological sex if a court determines that such statements violate the new definitions of hatred or hate speech. That means what is scientifically or biologically reality could become illegal speech, depending on who is offended and how strong the activist pressure is. In a Western democracy that claims to defend freedom of expression, this is simply unacceptable.
We must not accept that the mere possibility of offending a protected group is enough for criminal sanction. We must resist laws that hand over the power to judges or prosecutors (or activist complainants) to decide what biological truths are “hate.” Because once speech can be criminalized based on activist interpretation, the foundations of open, free inquiry, reason, and reality are at risk.
Key Comparisons: Swiss Case vs. Proposed Canadian Laws
| Feature | Swiss Case (Brünisholz) | Proposed Canadian Laws (Combatting Hate Act / related bills) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of statement | Emphasis on binary sex; “only man and woman” skeleton argument | Biological sex, gender identity claims could be targeted under new definitions of hate |
| Punishment | Fine convertible to 10 days jail if unpaid | Proposed penalties include imprisonment, removal of procedural protections |
| Law basis | Anti-discrimination / hate speech law expanded to “sexual identities” in Switzerland | Criminal Code, Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions, amendments to CHRA, etc. |
| Risk of censorship | High — statement considered “belittling” a protected class despite appeal to biological evidence | Also high — definitions are broad; courts could side with activist interpretations over scientific or factual speech |
| Freedom of speech concern | Biologically rooted fact may be criminalized if deemed insulting or hateful | Same concern: scientific / truth claims could be suppressed if they conflict with activist definitions of what counts as acceptable speech |
Why This Matters
- Biological Truths Are Not “Opinions” Alone: Things like male vs. female biological sex are backed by sciences like genetics, anatomy, forensic anthropology. If those become “hate speech” when expressed, then reality is subject to legal veto by ideological enforcement.
- The Power to Define “Hate” is the Power to Silence: Under Canadian law, if definitions of hatred or hatred-motivated speech expand (especially by removing required consent, or giving prosecutors more discretion), then more speech becomes liable—not because it causes harm, but because someone claims it does.
- Free Speech is Not Optional: Western democracy is built in part on being able to speak even unpopular or uncomfortable truths. If truth becomes legally risky, we’re no longer free—even if the penalties aren’t always applied.
- Precedent Matters: Once speech is criminalized for some, even “harmless” speech tomorrow could become the target. Laws tend to expand in scope over time. The Brünisholz case shows how “harmless to some, hateful to others” becomes a legal equation.
What to Watch & What to Do
- Monitor what the final definitions are in Canadian bills: how they define hatred, “wilfully promoting hatred,” “identifiable groups,” and what defenses are permitted (e.g., truth, scientific basis).
- Watch penalties: whether fines only, or possibility of imprisonment; whether Criminal Code or human rights tribunal; how strong the burden of proof is.
- Pay attention to how administrative procedures work: whether prosecutors need prior approvals, whether individuals or groups can privately instigate charges/complaints, whether there’s ability to appeal.
- Support and defend free speech, especially for dissenting or scientific views. Speak out when persons are penalized for expressing what others call “politically incorrect truths.”
References
- “Swiss Man Opts For Jail Time Instead Of Fine After Being Charged Over ‘Transphobic’ Social Media Post”, Reduxx, Sept 26, 2025 — Brünisholz case. (Reduxx)
- “Combatting Hate Act: Proposed Legislation to Protect Communities Against Hate”, Government of Canada, Sept 19, 2025 — summary of proposed amendments, hate definitions, penalties. (Government of Canada)
- “Canada Introduces Legislation to Combat Hate Crimes, Intimidation, and Obstruction”, Department of Justice Canada news release, Sept 19, 2025 — details on new offences including intimidation, obstruction, containing identity grounds. (Government of Canada)
Every September 30th across Canada, Orange Shirt Day (now National Day for Truth and Reconciliation) is observed with solemnity. Citizens wear orange, school announcements, flags, ceremonies, all to remember Canada’s residential school system. It’s portrayed as a day to heal, teach and reconcile. But when you scratch beneath the surface, something troubling appears: decades of government dependence and ritual symbolism have not ended the suffering of Indigenous peoples; instead, they may have become a vector for grift, misdirection, and a self-hating narrative that benefits activists more than the communities they claim to help.
The origin story is widely told: Phyllis Jack Webstad, a six-year-old Indigenous girl, arrives at the St. Joseph Mission Residential School wearing a new orange shirt her grandmother bought, only to have it stripped from her, never to be returned. That orange shirt became a symbol: a signifier of loss, assimilation, the shaming of identity. The symbol is powerful. However, many of the policy promises, social programs, treaties, financial transfers, and activist campaigns tied to this narrative have failed to produce meaningful outcomes. Indigenous communities still suffer high rates of poverty, addiction, substandard housing, educational deficits, health disparities. Charities, NGOs, and governments use the orange shirt repeatedly — for visibility, for fund-raising, but without accountability or measurable improvement. The result? A recurring narrative of victimhood and dependence that seems endless.
Worse, this narrative is used to silence dissent. If you question the efficacy of current reconciliation policies, or ask why measurable metrics remain so poor, you are accused of “denial,” “insensitivity,” or “racism.” If you point to failures of governance, internal corruption, or poor leadership within Indigenous administrations, you are told you are denying colonial oppression’s continuing harm. The universal assumption is that the only problem is insufficient funding or lack of heartfelt apology — never that the policies themselves, or their administration, may be part of the problem. This is pernicious because it stifles honest discussion, innovation, and real solutions. Orange Shirt Day is no longer just a remembrance day; it’s become a sacred narrative that many are afraid to critique — and in a liberal democracy that prides itself on free speech, that should set off alarm bells.
Suggested Improvements / Alternatives
- Shift the emphasis from symbolism to outcomes: Measures of educational attainment, health improvements, housing quality in Indigenous communities compared over 10, 20, 30 years.
- Hold those in authority accountable: Indigenous governments, federal & provincial governments, NGOs — what have they done concretely?
- Allow critique: Encourage the voices of Indigenous people who say reconciliation policy has failed, rather than centering only activists’ rhetoric.
- Reduce dependency: Focus on policy reform that encourages independence, local governance, entrepreneurship, merit-based support, not perpetual victimhood.
References
- Orange Shirt Day, The Canadian Encyclopedia. Details on the origin with Phyllis Webstad, residential schools system, “Every Child Matters.”
- Al Jazeera: “What is Orange Shirt Day and how is it commemorated in Canada?” — background, statistics, origin story, ceremony and observance practices. (Al Jazeera)
- Centennial College Library Guides: institutional summary of Orange Shirt Day history & schooling context. (Centennial College Library Guides)
- Peace Arch News: Orange Shirt Society founder’s concern about Orange Shirt Day being co-opted, misremembered, or replaced in official messaging. (peacearchnews.com)
- Montreal CityNews: issues with merch, designers, t-shirts, people profiting off the symbol. (CityNews Montreal)
The Taliban’s gender apartheid in Afghanistan has erased decades of women’s rights, yet Western feminists remain largely mute. This selective outrage undermines global solidarity and demands scrutiny.
The Plight of Afghan Women
Since the Taliban’s 2021 return, Afghan women live under the harshest restrictions in the world. Girls are banned from schooling beyond sixth grade. Women are barred from most employment, forbidden from traveling without male chaperones, and compelled to wear full coverings. More than 80 edicts—54 targeting women—have stripped them of agency.
The results are devastating: suicide rates among Afghan women now exceed those of men, a stark marker of despair. The UN describes Afghanistan as the most repressive state for women globally, with its system of gender apartheid potentially amounting to a crime against humanity. Afghan women themselves say they feel “invisible, isolated, suffocated.”
The Silence of Western Feminists
Where is the outrage? Western feminists—so vocal on reproductive rights, pay gaps, and representation—have been notably quiet. In 1997, the Feminist Majority Foundation spearheaded a campaign against Taliban “gender apartheid,” mobilizing U.S. media and Congress. No such mobilization exists today.
Instead, Western feminist discourse remains centered on domestic struggles. Social media cycles amplify abortion battles or workplace equity, while Afghanistan’s crisis rarely trends. A 2022 Human Rights Watch panel highlighted Afghan women’s sense of abandonment—forgotten by those who once claimed solidarity. The silence is more than neglect; it erodes the credibility of a movement that champions global sisterhood.
The Opposition’s View
Defenders argue Western feminists are rightly focused on where they wield influence—local policy fights over abortion or workplace equity. Others fear that advocating for Afghan women risks repeating colonialist “savior” narratives, as post-9/11 rhetoric did.
But caution has curdled into apathy. Silence neither elevates Afghan voices nor restrains Taliban oppression. If anything, Western feminism’s past complicity in militarized “rescue” campaigns demands more careful, accountable solidarity—not retreat.
The Takeaway
Irony abounds: a movement quick to decry domestic patriarchy turns mute before a regime that has locked women in their homes. Afghan women are not asking for saviors, but for allies who will amplify their voices and challenge their erasure.
Consistency is the true test of principle. Championing equality at home while ignoring gender apartheid abroad is not solidarity—it is privilege. The Taliban’s repression is their crime, but Western feminim’s silence is a stain on its conscience.
References
- UN Women. Women in Afghanistan: From Almost Everywhere to Almost Nowhere. Link
- Human Rights Watch. Afghan Women and Western Intervention: A Conversation. Link
- Atlantic Council. In Afghanistan’s Gender Apartheid. Link
In Canada’s high-trust society, the rule of law cannot endure selective enforcement. When certain groups are shielded from consequences while others face harsh penalties for identical actions, the principle of equality before the law collapses. What emerges instead is favoritism by creed or identity—a betrayal that fragments unity and breeds resentment.
Uneven Standards in Practice
Toronto street prayers (August 2024). Hundreds of worshippers staged outdoor prayers at a busy downtown intersection, apparently without permits, halting traffic. Police did not intervene and later described the disruption as lawful. Few doubt how a Christian congregation attempting the same would have been treated: injunctions would be swift, fines inevitable. The point is not hostility toward prayer, but the evident double standard.[1]
Reckless firearm discharge in Muskoka (August 2025). Videos surfaced of men firing rifles and pistols from a snowmobile bridge near MacTier. Ontario Provincial Police confirmed an investigation, warning that careless use of firearms can bring Criminal Code charges. Yet similar celebratory gunfire at cultural festivals, whether at South Asian weddings or Indigenous gatherings, often receives muted responses or “contextual” exemptions. Danger is danger, regardless of tradition.[2]
Pro-Palestinian marches in Toronto (2024–2025). Demonstrations repeatedly blocked major roads, including rallies where smoke bombs were deployed from overpasses. Despite millions spent on policing, arrests remained rare—only 24 across hundreds of events by March 2024. Contrast this restraint with the 2022 Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, where the Emergencies Act was invoked, bank accounts were frozen, and police forcibly dismantled encampments. The contrast is glaring: enforcement appears to hinge less on infractions than on identity and political alignment.[3][4]
Mill’s Warning on Law and Liberty
John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty (1859), emphasized that genuine freedom depends on impartiality of the law. If rules are applied based on popularity or group identity, he argued, society replaces principle with prejudice, inviting arbitrary power. Selective enforcement, Mill warned, is a subtle but corrosive path to tyranny—not only by the state but by favored factions within society.[5]
Restoring Trust
A society built on trust cannot thrive under inconsistent law enforcement. The law must apply equally, regardless of race, religion, or political leaning. To preserve legitimacy, policing standards should be codified and subject to independent oversight. Discretion is unavoidable, but unreviewed discretion becomes favoritism. Equality before the law is not optional—it is the bedrock of Canadian unity. Without it, trust will wither, and division will prevail.
References
- “Toronto residents upset after Hamas supporters blockade busy intersection.” Juno News, Mar 21, 2025. Link
- “Gun video sparks OPP investigation.” MuskokaRadio.com, Aug 28, 2025. Link
“UPDATE: Bracebridge OPP investigating social media videos depicting unlawful firearm use.” MyMuskokaNow, Aug 28, 2025. Link
“OPP seek public help in identifying men firing guns off bridge in Mactier.” Barrie360.com, Aug 30, 2025. Link - “Police arrest two at pro-Palestinian rally that delayed Trudeau event in Toronto.” CityNews, Mar 15, 2024. Link
“Palestine solidarity protesters attacked by police in Toronto.” People’s Dispatch, Apr 3, 2024. Link
“Violent Crackdown at Land Day March.” The Grind Magazine, Mar 31, 2024. Link - “Canada convoy protest.” Wikipedia, accessed Sept 2025. Link
“TD Bank freezes accounts that received money for Canada protests.” Reuters, Feb 12, 2022. Link - Mill, J.S. On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son, 1859.
In the machinery of modern media, false narratives do not emerge spontaneously. They are the product of deliberate groundwork: the careful shaping of public perception before an event occurs. Borrowing from military doctrine this tactic is called operational preparation of the environment (OPE) which are defined as activities that enhance situational awareness and set conditions for future operations.1 When adapted to the information domain, OPE becomes narrative control: seeding frames, priming audiences, and conditioning reflexive responses that can be triggered later for maximum effect.
Adversaries whether geopolitical rivals, activist networks, or opportunistic elites exploit this tactic by sowing division. The result is a public primed for outrage, where engineered crises and isolated incidents ignite prearranged narratives. Spotting these patterns is the first step toward resisting them.
Repetition and Priming
Narrative preparation often begins with repetition. Specific terms are echoed across platforms until they seem self-evident. Phrases like “stochastic terrorism” or “rising anti-LGBTQ hate” do not spread organically; they are priming devices. For instance, drag events framed as battlegrounds for “bigotry” and “inclusion” gain prominence not because of isolated incidents alone, but because media amplification primes audiences to see a pattern of systemic oppression.2
Consider also the long arc of the “racist policing” narrative. From Ferguson in 2014, through the cases of Michael Brown and Breonna Taylor, to the killing of George Floyd in 2020, framing evolved but the groundwork ensured predictable outrage.3 Media studies confirm that such coverage often prioritizes framing over fact, shaping reflexive responses rather than reasoned analysis.4
Selective Amplification
Once the ground is prepared, selective amplification takes over. An isolated incident for instance, graffiti on a council office, a slur at a rally—balloons into emblematic proof of a “hate wave.” Counter-evidence, such as a shooter’s non-binary identity, often disappears from coverage because it disrupts the narrative arc.5
This is not journalism as truth-seeking; it is journalism as engineering. Narrative amplification corrodes credibility, manufacturing crises that serve political and cultural goals. International rivals such as Russia and China employ similar techniques, weaponizing narrative dominance in conflicts and domestic politics alike.6
Case Study: Edmonton Public Schools
A recent example illustrates how this process operates in Canada. In 2025, the Edmonton Public School Board (EPSB) was accused of “book banning” after it questioned the suitability of certain titles with explicit sexual themes. Activist networks and sympathetic media framed the issue as a matter of “queer affirmation” and censorship. Yet, as I argued in a prior essay, this was not about censorship at all but about narrative warfare; casting parental concerns as bigotry while advancing a predetermined ideological script.7 The case demonstrates how operational preparation of the environment works at the local level: emotional language, repetition of “book ban” rhetoric, and selective omission of context primed audiences for outrage.
Building Inoculation
What does media literacy look like in this landscape? It means detecting the telltale signs of OPE:
- Uniform Surges: Are identical phrases appearing simultaneously across news outlets and social media?
- Emotive Frames: Does coverage push outrage before evidence is fully presented?
- Suppressed Counterpoints: Are inconvenient facts downplayed or omitted?
- Pre-seeded Narratives: Does the framing seem rehearsed, echoing earlier campaigns?
The solution is not paranoia but discipline. Verify facts independently, resist outrage cycles, and name the tactic when you see it—“this is OPE unfolding.” Exposing the method robs it of its power. In the contested terrain of fifth-generation warfare, awareness is both shield and sword.
End Notes
- U.S. Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, s.v. “Operational Preparation of the Environment.”
- Britannica, “Stochastic Terrorism,” and GLAAD, “Accelerated Rhetoric and Anti-LGBTQ Incidents” (2023).
- The Conversation, “Media Narratives and the George Floyd Protests” (2020).
- Reny, T. & Newman, B. (2021). “The Opinion-Mobilizing Effect of Frames: Media Narratives in the Black Lives Matter Movement.” American Political Science Review.
- NBC News, “Nonbinary Identity of Colorado Springs Shooting Suspect Raises Questions” (2022).
- Canadian International Governance Innovation (CIGI), “Narrative Dominance in the Information Age” (2021); Army University Press, “Information Operations and the Modern Battlespace” (2020).
- The Arbourist, “Book Bans and Narrative Warfare: How the Edmonton Public School Board Plays the Queer Pedagogy Script,” Dead Wild Roses (August 30, 2025).
Picture a library, its shelves stripped of Orwell and Atwood, replaced by outrage: this is the activist’s trap. Critical social constructivism—commonly branded as “woke ideology”—does not depend on truth-seeking but on the imposition of narrative, luring well-meaning observers into excusing captured institutions as merely inept (Kincheloe, 2005). To extend such charity is to enable agendas that corrode trust in public institutions and divide communities.
The Edmonton Public School Board’s (EPSB) recent book removal controversy exemplifies this dynamic. In late August 2025, a leaked list of more than 200 titles slated for removal from K–12 school libraries ignited national outrage. The list included canonical works such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Media coverage swiftly framed the list as a right-wing purge: a literary witch-hunt torching academic freedom and signaling Alberta’s dystopian slide.
Yet this spectacle obscures the actual policy. In July 2025, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides issued a directive requiring school boards to remove sexually explicit materials by October 1, 2025, to ensure age-appropriate resources in K–12 libraries (Alberta Ministry of Education, 2025). The directive does not ban classics nor prohibit parents from providing controversial works privately. Its scope is limited: public schools, funded by taxpayers, must not circulate sexually explicit material to children.
Seen in this light, the EPSB’s list appears less a bureaucratic stumble than a narrative maneuver. By placing revered classics alongside contested titles such as Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer—which contains explicit illustrations of sexual acts—and Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy, which describes sexual encounters between minors, the Board ensured the reaction would focus on “censorship” rather than explicit content. The outrage generated by the supposed “banning” of Atwood and Huxley distracts from the substantive question: whether K–12 libraries should carry graphic sexual material at all.
To be fair, some argue this was an honest misstep. Officials under pressure may have over-applied vague guidelines, fearing punishment if they erred on the side of permissiveness. From this perspective, the inflated list reflects incompetence, not ideology. This interpretation has surface plausibility—and acknowledging it is crucial. Yet it falters when weighed against the broader intellectual context.
The precise inclusion of classics alongside sexually explicit texts mirrors the rhetorical tactics of queer pedagogy, which openly embraces provocation as a teaching tool. In their influential article Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood, Harper Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess (2021) describe initiatives such as Drag Queen Story Hour as “strategic defiance” designed to “disrupt normative understandings of childhood” (p. 433). Drawing on José Esteban Muñoz’s Cruising Utopia (2009), they frame queerness as a “future-oriented ideality” (p. 1), using performance and play to challenge authority, destabilize binary categories, and cultivate “embodied kinship” rather than passive empathy (Keenan & Lil Miss Hot Mess, 2021, pp. 434–436).
This framework is not hypothetical. It explicitly advocates the use of aesthetics, provocation, and imaginative unruliness to reshape children’s perceptions. In their words, “Drag pedagogy embraces an unruly vision of childhood as a site of potentiality” (p. 437). Texts like Gender Queer or Lawn Boy, with their focus on sexual exploration and destabilization of normative boundaries, can be read as curricular extensions of this agenda. Their presence in K–12 libraries is not incidental but reflects a coherent intellectual project to prioritize queer cultural forms over developmental appropriateness.
From this perspective, the EPSB’s list functions as a narrative cudgel. By spotlighting Orwell and Atwood, defenders can recast the government’s directive as authoritarian censorship while obscuring the ideological drive to embed queer pedagogy in public institutions. The effect is the same whether activists deliberately curated the list or whether bureaucrats, steeped in activist frameworks, reproduced them unconsciously: outrage is amplified, and the debate is reframed on activist terms.
This is the trap of charitable interpretation. To dismiss the list as simple incompetence is to ignore its functional alignment with queer pedagogy’s playbook: provoke, inflate, and obscure. Even if intent cannot be definitively proven, the effect is unmistakable—a shift of public discourse away from the legitimate question of protecting children’s developmental environments and toward a defensive posture about “book banning.”
The consequences are corrosive. Communities fracture, as defenders of childhood innocence are painted as censors, and activists wield “inclusivity” as a battering ram against parental concerns. Public trust in schools erodes further. And children—the supposed beneficiaries—are caught in the crossfire of ideological contestation.
Children deserve age-appropriate materials in their school libraries—full stop. No law prevents parents from accessing contested works privately, but schools should not be battlegrounds for ideological conquest. The EPSB controversy demonstrates how critical social constructivism (woke) thrives not on truth but on narrative imposition. To resist this, we must reject the activist trap of charitable interpretation and confront directly how such narratives are engineered. Only by doing so can we restore unity, rebuild trust, and protect the integrity of public education.
“Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.”
(Halperin, 1995, p. 62)
References
-
Alberta Ministry of Education. (2025). Ministerial Order No. 2025-07: Age-Appropriate Resources in School Libraries. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/ministerial-orders
-
Keenan, H. B., & Lil Miss Hot Mess. (2021). Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(5), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
-
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.
-
Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. New York: NYU Press.
Taken together, Kincheloe’s twelve assumptions map the intellectual terrain from which contemporary woke ideology emerged. His framework asserts that reality is socially constructed, knowledge is saturated with power, neutrality is impossible, and subjugated voices must be centered. From these premises flow the characteristic behaviors of woke activism: deconstruction of norms, suspicion of institutions, censorship of dissent, and perpetual reconstruction of identity.
The compassionate rhetoric surrounding these practices often conceals coercion. A worldview built on the denial of objectivity readily drifts toward authoritarian enforcement of constructed “truths.” Inclusivity is pursued through exclusion; humility is displaced by moral arrogance.
The way forward lies not in mimicking these tactics but in reaffirming the value of shared standards. Truth tested by evidence, dialogue grounded in reason, and compassion tempered by humility remain essential to democratic life. Kincheloe’s Primer thus serves as a cautionary text: it demonstrates how theories of knowledge can become ideologies of control when detached from the pursuit of truth.
Synthesis.
Woke ideology persists because it offers moral certainty in a fractured world. Yet resistance requires reclaiming dialogue, evidence, and objectivity as the common ground of human community.
Notes
-
Kincheloe, Critical Constructivism Primer, 2–16.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…