Former May Supporter Sylvia Olsen Echoes Anti-Peace Attacks

As the war in Ukraine escalates, Elizabeth May supporter and biographer Sylvia Olsen has taken to social media to pen an unhinged attack on anti-war activists, further cementing the growing anti-peace and anti-Russian stance that Elizabeth May’s political circle is becoming known for.

Olson’s comments closely resemble the inflammatory and baseless rhetoric recently pushed by former Green Party candidate Sarah Gabriel Barron, who falsely accused anti-war activists Alex Tyrrell and Dimitri Lascaris of “celebrating Ukrainian deaths”. As we recently covered on Global Green News, Barron’s accusations were wild distortions aimed at discrediting left-wing voices who dare to challenge NATO’s role in prolonging the conflict.

Now, Olson, an influential author from B.C. who is also the mother of former Green Party of B.C. Member of parliament Adam Olsen, is following the same textbook moves—casting doubt on peace itself and suggesting that those calling for an end to the war might have ulterior motives.

Attacking Calls for Peace

Alex Tyrrell, one of Canada’s most vocal anti-war activists, recently made a straightforward and rational plea for diplomacy, stating:

Olsen, instead of engaging with the substance of Tyrrell’s argument, dismissed calls for peace with a bizarre theory, claiming that advocating for diplomacy is just another form of manipulation used by powerful men.

The implication is clear: if you oppose NATO’s military escalation, you are a fraud who secretly supports Putin. This line of attack has been repeatedly used to silence peace advocates and manufacture consent for endless war.

Echoing Elizabeth May’s Anti-Peace Entourage

Olsen’s comments fit into the broader pro-NATO, anti-Russian rhetoric that Elizabeth May and her allies have been pushing for months. May herself has doubled down on support for military escalation, while Green co-leader Jonathan Pednault has openly called for more weapons production and military spending.

Instead of allowing for a diversity of viewpoints on foreign policy, the Green Party leadership and its supporters have been working to shut down dissent—attacking anti-war activists while aligning themselves with establishment war hawks like Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould.

Sylvia Olsen’s rant is just the latest in a disturbing pattern. Instead of engaging with legitimate criticisms of NATO’s role, she resorts to gaslighting and misrepresenting the anti-war movement. Her claims mirror classic war propaganda, where any call for peace is treated as suspicious, dangerous, or even treasonous.

Who Really Benefits from Silencing Peace Activists?

What’s most striking about Olsen’s comments is how closely they align with the mainstream Western media narrative—one that seeks to demonize anyone who questions NATO’s actions.

This anti-diplomacy stance directly serves the interests of:

• Weapons manufacturers, who profit from continued war

• NATO leaders, who want to keep the conflict going to justify expansion

• Western governments, who benefit from using the war to distract from domestic issues

The real question is why Elizabeth May’s supporters are so determined to discredit peace activists while giving a free pass to the military-industrial complex.

Alex Tyrrell’s message was simple: peace should not be controversial. Yet, for those in the increasingly pro-war Green Party faction, even the idea of negotiation is seen as a threat.

Rather than attacking peace activists, Sylvia Olsen and others should be asking themselves why they are so invested in prolonging the war—and who ultimately benefits from their aggressive stance against diplomacy.

Olsen Responds and Distances Herself from May

Following the publication of this article, Sylvia Olsen issued a lengthy response attempting to clarify her comments. She insists that her original statement was not about NATO, Ukraine, or militarism, despite having made it in direct response to a discussion on those very topics. Instead, she claims she was making a broader point that calls for peace can sometimes be disingenuous. However, she does not address how her argument was in response to Alex Tyrrell’s call for peace.

Olsen also took the opportunity to distance herself from Elizabeth May, stating that while she once wrote a children’s book about May, she has not recently expressed support for the Green Party or its leadership. She even suggested that she is no longer a member without explaining this change. However, she stops short of outright criticism, leaving her current stance on May’s pro-NATO position unchanged. She also published the following comments doubling down on her initial statement.