Failed white supremacist "law-and-order" Toronto mayoral candidate is now breaking the law by selling Canadian coat-of-arms merch


Originally published at:


Definitely not her favourite 14 words. :sunglasses:


Certainly in the US, most official government seals and logos are trademarked. rather than copyrighted. I’m unsure of how the distinction is managed north of the 49th parallel. (edited to correct my geography)


she’s turned to selling merchandise that bears an illegal reproduction of Canada’s coat-of-arms, calling it the “Canadian Heritage line.”

Just the kind of lazy, hypocritical, and panicked stop-gap solution you’d expect from a right-wing loser like this.

Now watch her try to re-purpose one of the existing but still obscure in North America white supremacist symbols for her merch. She’ll probably take this and slap a maple leaf onto it:




I think we both saw what Cory did there.



If there was one law I thought BoingBoing was all for breaking it was this sort of victimless copying. I can never remember who gets to remix stuff.


Whatever we think of this law, there’s no remixing going on here. This serial screw-up is just slapping unmodified arms and crests on generic merch to make a quick and desperate buck.


Lazy woman should get a job.




Maybe it’s the hypocrisy of calling yourself “law-and-order” then committing petty theft?


@doctorow once again your URL text vs. the article title is pure fucking genius.


Let me be clear about this. I bought that same white sweater with Canadian coat of arms in 1992, and it is not a new product nor the product of whatever person is reportedly selling it like it were something new and illegal, as it is a long traditional tourist product long available in tourist traps across Canada.


I’m sure it does, and that is monstrous (the fees and “licensing” terms for Ordnance Survey maps make Nintendo look like Richard Stallman). However, in England, arms are not trademarked or copyrighted, since that would allow family members to fuck with each other heraldically. Their use is governed by the Court of Chivalry, and something similar might apply in Canada. I have no idea what sort of penalties such bodies can hand out; since the law of arms is medieval, we’re probably talking about a fine of three shillings and/or beheading.

That said, the thing shown in the picture is an “achievement of arms”, i.e. it includes a crest, supporters and a bunch of other stuff that is not part of the arms themselves (the stuff on the shield), and I assume that a specific rendering of an achievement is copyrightable, since someone has to draw the lovely pictures of unicorns and things.


Since the 38th parallel run straight through the middle of the US, you already have your answer. :slight_smile:


Nothing is being remixed… this is just straight up selling a copyrighted product as if it’s her own. Boingboing has never supported that.


The official symbols of the Government of Canada, including the “Canada” wordmark, the Arms of Canada, and the flag symbol may not be reproduced, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes, without written authorization. Request for authorization from the Treasury Board Secretariat …

There does not seem to be a fee.


The law linked to in the article does not support the claim of illegality. The law says that the coat of arms cannot be used as a trademark. Mere reproduction isn’t use as a trademark.


If a company produced that sweater without getting permission from the government to use the coat of arms, it was in violation of the terms of use.

Now I’m sure that many fly-by-night souvenir companies don’t bother to ask for permission, and many don’t get caught. Enforcement in those small-fry cases is likely minimal, since it’s all for the tourist economy, eh?

That won’t be the case here, since the Canadian government will likely frown on an unauthorised commercial use of its symbols that associate them with white supremacy.

I doubt there will be any serious consequences beyond her having to take down those items from the store and perhaps handing over any revenue realised from them so far to the government (unless it’s too paltry to bother collecting).


Well, I’d never heard of her until she pulled this stunt, so it seems she’s doing something right correctly?

Or, y’know, maybe she’s not actually worthy of further attention at all?