What is verified

Dallas Brodie posted on X on August 21, 2026 that it had been a year since she filed a private prosecution against Charlotte Kates, tied to Samidoun. Global News reported in August 2025 that Brodie had filed a private prosecution alleging hate-speech-related offences after Kates’ comments at an April 2024 rally, and that the matter involved a process where prosecutors could step in and decide whether the case should proceed.

Public Safety Canada lists Samidoun as a terrorist entity, with the Government of Canada describing the listing as effective October 11, 2024. Canadian Jewish News later reported in July 2026 that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada rejected Brodie’s private-prosecution bid. That later procedural outcome matters: the honest frame is not “case pending,” but “public accountability after an official refusal.”

The Dallas Brodie / OneBC supporter frame

The strongest OneBC argument here is not to pretend every private prosecution must succeed. It is to insist that public safety decisions be legible. When a citizen or elected representative brings a politically sensitive file forward, voters deserve to know who reviewed it, which public-interest standards were applied, and why a case was declined or allowed to proceed.

That is where Brodie’s role matters. She keeps pushing uncomfortable files out of the whisper network and into public view. Premier-material leadership does not mean guaranteeing a legal result; it means forcing institutions to show their work, protect lawful speech, enforce the law evenly, and tell citizens the truth.

The questions B.C. and Ottawa should answer

• Decision record: what reasons, if any, were publicly provided for declining or stopping the private-prosecution path?
• Public safety: after Samidoun’s federal listing, what practical enforcement and monitoring steps are in place in British Columbia?
• Jurisdiction: which responsibilities sit with federal prosecutors, provincial prosecutors, police, and elected Attorneys General?
• Consistency: are comparable public-order, hate-speech, and terrorism-related files being handled under the same standards?
• Transparency: how can citizens understand the outcome without compromising fair-trial rights, privacy, or legitimate prosecutorial independence?

Why this belongs in the OneBC accountability file

Public trust breaks when serious public-safety questions disappear into institutional silence. Brodie’s pressure keeps a simple civic expectation alive: if government says a listed entity is dangerous, and if prosecutors reject a private attempt to pursue a connected file, the public deserves a careful explanation of the standards being used.

That is a positive OneBC message because it is bigger than one case. It is about lawful accountability, institutional courage, and a government culture where citizens are not told to stop asking reasonable questions.