Canada’s Government has gone too far.
Outlawing nature from the people is the real crime.
Standing Against the Forest Ban in Nova Scotia
At the Embassy of Benevolence, we stand firmly against Nova Scotia’s forest ban. We see this as a warning to all Canadians—a clear sign of how authoritative and tyrannical government actions can become when freedoms are taken without question.
We urge citizens not to blindly trust such decisions, or risk losing their liberties. History shows us that once freedoms are lost, they must often be fought for again, sometimes at great cost.
It is our responsibility to act and support those affected. We are exploring how best to help and intend to send a formal letter to the government warning them of the consequences of their actions.
“The earth is the L-rd’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1)
At the Embassy of Benevolence, we firmly oppose Nova Scotia’s forest ban. This action not only infringes on the rights of citizens but also undermines the undeniable value of nature. Forests are essential for our well-being—both physically and mentally. Studies consistently show that spending time in nature, particularly walking in the woods, reduces stress, improves mood, and boosts overall health. Access to forests is not just a recreational right; it is a vital component of our physical and mental health. To deny this access is, in our view, not only unjust but should be considered a violation of basic human rights.
The government’s claims have shifted from justifying the ban as a fire prevention measure to arguing that they need to restrict access for the safety of individuals due to the inability to send emergency responders in case of injury. This new narrative is a clear contradiction of their initial stance. The truth is that the ban is a disproportionate response—emergency services can still be dispatched to those in need, even if the forests are temporarily closed. This shift in their argument exposes a hidden agenda, one that uses public safety as a cover to enforce control and limit freedoms.
The Biblical perspective calls us to protect both our rights and our land. As the Lord instructed:
“The earth is the L-rd’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1)
Our forests are part of God's creation, and denying people access to them undermines our divine responsibility to care for and enjoy the earth. Furthermore, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18) Denying access to nature is an act that harms individuals and society as a whole, especially when it impacts mental health and well-being.
The government's shifting justification for the forest ban—from fire prevention to the claim of not being able to send help in an emergency—reveals their true motives: expanding control over the people under the guise of safety. This is a dangerous precedent. If we allow this overreach, the government will continue to erode our rights until we have none left to protect.
Citizens must respond. This is a critical moment. If we do not stand up now, we risk losing more freedoms without ever realizing it. The government’s actions show how easily liberties can be taken away under the banner of “safety.” We will not sit idly by. It is our responsibility to fight for these freedoms—for the forests, for our health, and for our fundamental rights as Canadians.
We intend to formally challenge this law by writing a letter to the government, warning them of the consequences of this decision. We must not let this be the first of many freedoms taken from the people.
Impact On Human Health From Limited Forest Contact
The graph above illustrates the potential impact on human health due to limited access to forests. It shows that without forest access, the accumulated stress and negative impact on mental health can grow over time. In contrast, continued access to the woods helps reduce stress, demonstrating the benefits of nature on physical and mental well-being.
This data highlights the importance of regular interaction with nature and the possible consequences of a long-term ban on forest access for the people of Nova Scotia.
Risk of Entering Forest Incase of Injury
This graph illustrates the relationship between wildfire intensity, first responder availability, and the risk of delayed emergency response for individuals in Nova Scotia’s forests.
The orange line shows wildfire intensity increasing over time due to dry conditions.
The blue line represents the number of first responders available, which decreases as more are deployed to fight wildfires.
The red dashed line indicates the risk of delayed emergency response, which rises as fewer responders remain available to assist people who may get injured or require help in the woods.
As wildfire activity escalates, emergency services become stretched thin, increasing the chance that someone injured in the forest could experience a delayed rescue.
Wildfire Risk by Activity
The graph above illustrates the potential impact on human health due to limited access to forests. It shows that without forest access, the accumulated stress and negative impact on mental health can grow over time. In contrast, continued access to the woods helps reduce stress, demonstrating the benefits of nature on physical and mental well-being.
This data highlights the importance of regular interaction with nature and the possible consequences of a long-term ban on forest access for the people of Nova Scotia.
Does This Justify an Outright Ban?
While the risk of delayed emergency response does increase during intense wildfire conditions, an outright ban on all forest access is an extreme measure. The data suggests that:
The increased risk is real but not absolute; it varies with wildfire severity and available resources.
Many people enter forests safely every day without incident.
Restricting access entirely ignores personal responsibility and the ability of individuals to make informed decisions.
Emergency services often have protocols for dealing with multiple simultaneous incidents and can prioritize responses based on severity.
A More Balanced Approach
Given this, a more reasonable approach might be:
“Enter the woods at your own risk” warnings, combined with increased public education on fire safety and emergency preparedness.
Enhanced monitoring and rapid response plans for high-risk areas.
Temporary restrictions only in the most dangerous zones or times, rather than a blanket ban.
What Have We Learned?
This analysis shows that fair and intelligent solutions can come from careful consideration, often more effectively than from current government actions. It raises the question of whether new leadership is needed, or if it’s too late and the government has already compromised its ability to serve the people’s best interests. The power to change lies with the people.
“It's just shameful. There's no rational connection — There's no relationship between you or I or anybody else walking down a hiking trail. That's not causing any kind of risk.”
— John Carpay
Justice Center of Constitutional Rights
"Oddly enough, the woods crews are still in the woods cutting trees. I guess there's no danger from power saws, skidders, feller-bunchers, log trucks and crew vehicles." - Oliver T.
"Oddly enough, the woods crews are still in the woods cutting trees. I guess there's no danger from power saws, skidders, feller-bunchers, log trucks and crew vehicles." - Oliver T.
"It is not about safety, it is about control." - Warren Harrison
"It is not about safety, it is about control." - Warren Harrison
“My rights don't end where your fear begins! Those willing to give up their rights in the name of safety... deserve neither!!” - Kenny Billington
“My rights don't end where your fear begins! Those willing to give up their rights in the name of safety... deserve neither!!” - Kenny Billington
