Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 16th, 2009 #41
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Appetite For Censorship

Ezra Levant, National Post
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has given itself another report card. The last one, released in November, 2008, didn't quite work out as planned: Professor Richard Moon, who was paid $50,000 by the CHRC to write a short review of its conduct, surprised everybody by calling for the repeal of the commission's censorship powers.

The CHRC immediately garbaged Moon's report. Its press release accompanying the report didn't even mention Moon's chief recommendation, and announced instead that a do-over review would start immediately. Needless to say, no outsider was trusted to write this one.

It's not surprising that the CHRC gave itself a glowing review this time. But what is remarkable is that, far from being chastened by the public condemnation its bad behaviour has provoked, the CHRC has called for even more censorship in Canada.

The CHRC already has a 100% conviction rate for censorship prosecutions -- no one in 32 years has ever beat the rap. That's not hard to believe when you learn that truth, fair comment and honest belief are not legal defences in human rights hearings -- the commission operates more like a kangaroo court than a real court that way. And look at how vaguely the censorship law is written: Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act says it's an offence to communicate anything "likely to expose a person... to hatred or contempt." The word "likely" is amazing: The CHRC doesn't have to prove you've actually done anything, just that you might in the future. And all they have to prove is that you said something that might cause one person to have hard feelings about another.

So it's not just a speech crime. It's an emotion crime, too.

That's an un-Canadian law, and it's an embarrassment that an organization with the words "human rights" as its middle name would be behind such an attack on our civil liberties.

What's new is the CHRC's suggestion that Canada's Criminal Code be stripped of its free speech protections, too.

Right now, the Criminal Code has a hate speech crime in it. But, unlike the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code has important defences built right in. Section 319(3) specifically protects anyone who was telling the truth, or believed what he was saying was true. Religious views are specifically protected, too, as are other defences.

Pesky civil rights -- like the right to speak the truth -- are a big reason why police don't have a 100% hate speech conviction rate like the CHRC does. So in its new report, the CHRC suggests that the defence of truth be removed from the Criminal Code.

How perverse is that? A human rights agency is telling the police to reduce its commitment to civil liberties. Could you imagine a genuine human rights activist -- say, Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King -- calling for more power for the police and less for political dissidents? If a government agency like the CHRC had been around in the United States in the 1960s, or India in the 1940s, is there any doubt that it would have prosecuted King and Gandhi for saying things that "exposed" people to "contempt"?

But that's not all. Like obscenity laws, censorship laws are necessarily vague and subject to abuse by police and prosecutors. So, as an added safety measure, Criminal Code hate speech charges cannot be laid without the personal approval of the Justice Minister. The CHRC calls this an improper "barrier" to prosecutions, and asks that it be removed.

That's not surprising. At the CHRC, there is no oversight --no internal affairs committee, not even a written ethics code.

It's astounding that an organization as dysfunctional as the CHRC would have the hubris to tell Canada's police forces how to do their business. It's depressing that its advice to police forces is to strip protections for civil liberties out of our Criminal Code.

This report is the second PR exercise the CHRC has bought in eight months. It is spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on damage control, including $15,000 to pollster EKOS and $10,000 to lobbyists Hill and Knowlton. Real courts don't spend money on pollsters and spin doctors. But real courts aren't held in as much public disrepute as the CHRC.

We've heard more than enough from the CHRC. It's no longer a civil liberties organization. It's a self-perpetuating industry full of empire-building bureaucrats, global junketeers and political bullies.

Now it's time for Parliament to act. There is multi-partisan support for Parliamentary hearings into the CHRC's censorship powers and its operational misconduct.

When real civil rights groups -- from the B'nai Brith to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- say the CHRC is broken, then you know it's time to fix it.

[email protected] - Ezra Levant is the author of Shakedown:How our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...tml?id=1699304
 
Old June 16th, 2009 #42
F.W. Braun
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,463
Default

Globe and Mail & Ottawa Citizen Denounce CHRC censorship





In the end, freedom of speech and expression are unduly trammelled by hate-speech legislation, whether the criteria involve the inferred contents of someone's head, or the supposed likelihood of the effects of words, or both. Words that actually incite physical violence should remain punishable under the Criminal Code, but human-rights legislation and the Code should be free of dangerously vague prohibitions of speech.


Globe and Mail

June 15, 2009







And remember the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission’s position on Freedom of Speech:





MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.



Lemire Transcript: page 4793

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/06/...-denounce.html
 
Old January 18th, 2011 #43
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fines man $12,000 for ‘homophobic’ remarks

by Thaddeus Baklinski
Mon Jan 17, 2011 14:57 EST

MONTREAL, January 17, 2011 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A Montreal man has been ordered to pay $12,000 to his homosexual neighbors for allegedly directing “homophobic” remarks at them, by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal. The homosexual couple has a history of pursuing lawsuits and complaints against neighbors.

Theo Wouters and Roger Thibault had accused Gordon Lusk of calling them “faggots” during a June 2006 incident involving Mr. Lusk’s son.

Lusk, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Canadian military, was acquitted of charges of “homophobic comments,” death threats and threatening assault in a provincial court over the incident involving the two homosexuals who were alleged to have driven recklessly down their street, endangering the lives of children, including Mr. Lusk’s son, who were playing road hockey.

A witness of the incident testified at the court of law hearing that Thibault had run a stop sign and almost hit one of the children. The same witness testified that in an earlier incident Thibault had run over a tennis ball with which the children were playing road hockey.

Mr. Lusk maintained at the hearing in 2006 that when he was informed of the incident he went to speak with his neighbors but denied uttering death threats or threatening assault.

However, the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, reportedly using evidence from hidden cameras at the homosexual couple’s home, ruled “by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant, by his behaviour, his comments and his attitude, has violated the rights of the plaintiffs, on the basis of their sexual orientation,” and ordered Lusk to pay the homosexuals “moral and punitive” damages.

The homosexual couple, who are reported to have a history of pursuing lawsuits and complaints against neighbors whom they believe have “homophobic” attitudes, told the National Post they were “very happy” with the Human Rights Tribunal ruling, saying “It sends a message to the rest of Canada that homophobia is not acceptable.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/que...t+Headlines%29
 
Old January 18th, 2011 #44
Alexander M.
Senior Member
 
Alexander M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,231
Alexander M.
Default Canada is zionist jewish occupied territory

Readers, and commentators, to this blog periodically ask me what it is like living in Canada, and is Canada better off than the United States especially during this time of growing economic uncertainty and hardship. I have constantly told them that Canada is just as controlled by the criminals as the United States is, and that our representatives in Parliament in Ottawa bend over backwards for their Zionist Jewish masters!

To again show further proof that Canada is nothing more than another Zionist Jewish occupied territory, I turn to a new article, courtesy of the European Jewish Press, at www.ejpress.org, entitled: "Canada's Prime Minister warns about "growing Anti-Semitism" around the world." THis is absolutely disgusting to see the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, again grovel to his Zionist Jewish masters! Here is that article for my own readers to view and ponder:


http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot....-occupied.html
__________________
Experience molds perception.
 
Old January 19th, 2011 #45
8Man
"moderate" radical
 
8Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 33 Thomas St NY 10007
Posts: 3,420
8Man
Default



Canadian PM Stephen Harper shames all thinking Canadians with his abject grovelling to Zionist entities. He's the only world leader that openly brags about being a self-abuser on behalf of Israel.

It also seems PM Stephen Harper has a history of being a CSIS operative.
__________________
FreedomSite "Israel's values are Canada's values" Canadian PM Paul Martin, Nov. 13 2005
ZundelSite "An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada" Canadian PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 16 2010
 
Old April 25th, 2011 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Comedian Fined $15K For Insulting Lesbian Couple

A Canadian comedian has been fined $15,000 by a human rights tribunal for unleashing a tirade of sexist and homophobic insults against a lesbian couple in the audience. But some are concerned this decision will limit the rights of performers.

http://jezebel.com/#!5794709/comedia...lesbian-couple
 
Old April 25th, 2011 #47
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Don't miss the comments at the link above, they show that a lot of Canadians really like being told by the government what they can and can't think and say.
 
Old April 25th, 2011 #48
Nick Apleece
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 643
Nick Apleece
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Don't miss the comments at the link above, they show that a lot of Canadians really like being told by the government what they can and can't think and say.
Damn, there sure are a lot of lickboots in Canada. When I think the U.S. population can't get more sycophantic, I just need to look north.
 
Old April 25th, 2011 #49
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Thought control in all Western countries. They don't know that censorship is the hallmark of tyranny. And they have a notion that State Coercion will be for thee, not for me.

The Founders said NO LAW for a reason- to avoid establishing the precedent of censorship.
 
Old June 11th, 2012 #50
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[huffington post's attitude: anyone opposed to the judeo-left and its 'progressive' agenda is a hate-filled extremist who should not be allowed to speak his mind without being arrested, convicted and jailed.]

Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause's Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee

A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it's being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it's being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists.

Bill C-304, introduced by Conservative backbencher Brian Storseth, repeals Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans hate speech transmitted over the Internet or by telephone. It passed third reading in the House of Commons on Thursday and is now headed to the Senate.

[...]

The new law doesn’t make hate speech legal on the web or by phone -- hate speech remains illegal under the Criminal Code. But by removing it from the Canadian Human Rights Act, it takes away the authority of the country’s human rights commissions to investigate online hate speech and request that violating websites be taken down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06...ust_reloaded=1
 
Old June 11th, 2012 #51
Bruce Rideout
Flight Instructor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Above You, Look up, Behind You, , Too Late
Posts: 231
Bruce Rideout
Default

Odds are when they come they'll get the address wrong and blow away that annoying Rapper next door and his dog, finally bring some peace to the neighborhood. A good thing.
 
Old June 11th, 2012 #52
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

'Hate' speech would still be a crime, so I don't see what this bill actually does beyond discomfit and somewhat discharter the B'nai B'liers and their Warmans.
 
Old July 30th, 2012 #53
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,202
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Ezra Levant talks at length regarding section 13 and John Ross Taylor, the man for whom the law was made, just to get him.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...12-091744.html
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old November 20th, 2012 #54
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[from Paul Fromm]

The Marc Lemire Internet Free Speech Case -- Part 1

A Bitter Grudging Partial Victory in Lemire Case

In a long awaited decision in the Marc Lemire Internet case, Mr. Justice Mosley delivered his long awaited judgement, October 2, 2012. As we shall explore in Part 2, Judge Mosley should never have been seized with this case. He should have recused himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. As a lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was the point man shepherding through amendments to various pieces of legislation, including Sec.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was now worded to specifically hand over control of the Internet to the Human Rights Commission thought police. He strongly assured MPs that this legislation was constitutional.

Now, wearing his since acquired judge's robes, he's being asked to rule that his baby is unconstitutional. Potential bias? Potential conflict? You bet.

Hamilton webmaster (The Freedomsite) Marc Lemire was one of Richard Warman's most prominent victims. He was hit with a complaint by Richard Warman in 2003 for postings on the Freedomsite. Then, began a six year legal battle. Mr. Lemire not only fought the complaint on the merits but also challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13. He was joined by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and Doug Christie's Canadian Free Speech League.

Impressive evidence was introduced and witnesses led. The dirty tricks, or at least some of them, of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission were exposed. We learned that the chief investigator or Internet "hate" a blind man named Dean Steacy put no weight on freedom of speech investigations as "free speech is an American concept." The very science on which Sec. 13 was based was challenged. The sorry history of Sec. 13 -- a 100% conviction rate -- was exposed.

On September 2, 2009, in a landmark decision Athanasios Hadjis essentially ruled Sec. 13 unconstitutional, albeit on annoyingly narrow grounds. In 1990, by a narrow 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13 on the basis that, while it did restrict free speech, it was essentially remedial, not punitive. However, in 1998, a range of fines and financial penalties was introduced.

On this basis, Mr. Hadjis acquitted Mr. Lemire on all but one charge -- an article about Negroes and AIDS -- refused to apply an penalty and essentially declared Sec. 13 to be unconstitutional as it was no longer "remedial."

We'd have liked to have seen it thrown out on more substantial grounds, Still, a victory is a victory. Within a month the Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review (appeal) its humiliating defeat. After two years of legal jockeying and tens of thousands of dollars spent by those promoting free speech, the appeal was heard in Federal Court, December 13, 2011 by Judge Mosley.

On June 4, well before he rendered his decision, the House of Commons repealed Sec. 13. One might think the judge would simply deliver the coup de grace and put this totalitarian piece of repression out of its misery.

However, Judge Mosley saved his hobby horse. He maintained in the fact of all evidence that Sec. 13 was constitutional and an acceptable denial of free speech. However, the financial penalties are unconstitutional. Marc Lemire is to be sent back to the Tribunal for sentencing. And to add insult to injury, chronic complainer Richard Warman who chose to make this mischief is to be paid for writing his legal brief and for attending the appeal.

Quote:
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1.The application for judicial review is granted and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to;

a.issue a declaration that the publication of the article “AIDS Secrets” by the respondent Marc Lemire constituted a breach of s 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act ; and

b.for determination of whether a remedy for the breach is to be imposed under ss 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Act;

2.It is declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;

3.The respondent Richard Warman is awarded costs for the preparation of his record and his out of pocket disbursements for attendance at the hearing against the respondent Marc Lemire.
The decision is rife with errors and I shall deal with just a few in this Part.

One of the key arguments advanced by Mr. Lemire and especially promoted by CAFE was that the justification for Sec. 13 (and, indeed, for upholding the "hate law", Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) that the Supreme Court bought in 1990 was based on bad science. Frankly, it was "theoretical" nonsense back then, but neuropsychology has made huge inroads and shown us how the human brain reacts. the science they accepted in 1990 is now junk. This is how it goes: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a smoke and mirror job of Indian giving. We are promised all these rights -- free speech, freedom of belief, etc. Then comes the weasel clause, "subject only to such restrictions as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Thus, if Parliament or a provincial legislature has a good goal in mind and, to achieve the goal restricts your rights, that's alright as long as the restrictions accomplish the goal and are not excessive.

In the case of Sec. 13, the Supreme Court accepted that "hate speech" had a bad effect on society. This was all based on a 1965 report by an obscure University of Toronto psychology professor Frederick Kaufman. he argued that minorities were made fearful by "hate speech", that they tended not to want to be themselves and that they withdrew from society and, at the extreme end, abused drugs or alcohol. This being so, Parliament, the Court held, was right to suppress "hate speech."

Common sense and every day observation tell us that that's not the way groups respond when they are criticized, even extravagantly. Professor Michael Persinger, led as an expert witness at the Lemire tribunal, sank the scientific ship holding afloat the Supreme Court's justification of repression. Persinger testified that Kaufmann was wrong. On being confronted with "aversive language" ("hate speech" is a loaded term, Persinger testified), minorities either scoff at the comments and reject them or become angry and want to argue or refute them. Neither reaction is a harm to society. In fact, both are positive. So, in fact, beyond a few wounded feelings "hate speech" causes no harm to society. There goes any justification for Sec. 13 This was a key argument.

At paragraph 78, Judge Mosley states: " Most of the interested parties agree that the objectives of s 13, the suppression of hate speech and the promotion of equality, are pressing and substantial. Only Mr. Lemire and the CFSL appear to take issue with that proposition. Neither, in my view, have submitted any valid argument as to why the objective of s 13 is not pressing and substantial and why this Court should depart from Taylor on that point." Well, actually the Canadian Association for Free Expression forcefully challenged the objectives of Sec. 13 in suppressing "hate sch." One wonders in despair whether Judge Mosley even read our submissions or heard our lawyer's summation.

The learned judge continued: "Lemire further questions the legitimacy of the finding in Taylor, that hate speech can cause substantial psychological stress, arguing that the Supreme Court relied not on expert evidence, such as he presented to the Tribunal, but on extrinsic research, to reach that conclusion. (para 80)

And then further: " Chief Justice Dickson arrived at the same conclusion in Keegstra at paras 58 to 80. He stated at para 80:

[80] In my opinion, it would be impossible to deny that Parliament's objective in enacting s. 319(2) is of the utmost importance. Parliament has recognized the substantial harm that can flow from hate propaganda, and in trying to prevent the pain suffered by target group members and to reduce racial, ethnic and religious tension in Canada has decided to suppress the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. The nature of Parliament's objective is supported not only by the work of numerous study groups, but also by our collective historical knowledge of the potentially catastrophic effects of the promotion of hatred (Jones, supra, per La Forest J., at pp. 299-300). Additionally, the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and the stress placed upon equality and multiculturalism in the Charter strongly buttress the importance of this objective. I consequently find that the first part of the test under s. 1 of the Charter is easily satisfied and that a powerfully convincing legislative objective exists such as to justify some limit on freedom of expression." (para 83)

The judge just ignores the unrefuted testimony of Dr. Persinger that the scientific account the Supreme Court accepted was simply bad science.

The judge will not let his legal baby go: "Notwithstanding the recent legislative effort to repeal s 13, I have no difficulty concluding that the objective of the enactment continues to be substantial and pressing." (para 87) Nonsense. So, as he sees it, Parliament was wrong.

Finally, Judge Mosley all but admits that the purpose of Sec. 13 is not to suppress "hate speech" but to silence a particular political ideology: "Apart from the technology, there is little to choose between Taylor’s callers and like-minded individuals looking for confirmation of their views on a white supremacist web site. And the suggestion that they are open to countervailing views can not be taken seriously. "(para 94) The judge rejects evidence from several witnesses that the Internet is far more interactive and functions very differently from a telephone answering machine.

So, should this judgement stand, Marc Lemire would be assessed a penalty, likely a "cease and desist order", a lifetime gag, despite the fact that the law has been repealed by the House of Commons. To add insult to injury, he'd have to pay tormentor Richard Warman for Warman's costs in preparing his submission and his costs in travelling to the hearing from Ottawa. Warman has an uncanny way of persecuting people and still getting paid to do so. Finally, Sec. 13, until its repeal is passed by the Senate, could, theoretically be used to persecute others with the temerity to criticize privileged minorities on the Internet. Yes, on the good side, the financial penalties are gone.

The Mosley decision MUST be appealed.

On October 30, Marc Lemire filed "Notice of Appeal." On November 12, the Canadian Association for Free Expression filed notice that it wished to support Marc as an intervener in the appeal.
 
Old November 25th, 2012 #55
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Anti-terrorism experts say lone white supremacists are the biggest threat in Canada

Canada's foremost free speech attorney Douglas H. Christie has, for more than 20 years, identified the pattern used by Canada's repressive establishment:L "Demonize, isolate, criminalize." Usually with the compliance and connivance of a leftist, impressionable and profoundly ignorant press, the police or groups bent on railroading a freethinker starts the name calling --"white supremacist", "racist", "anti-Semite", "extremist." People seldom examine the substance of the name calling, Just what is a White supremacist? Those of us who oppose the Third World invasion don't seek to impose White or European values on China or Haiti or India. We simply don't want to be overwhelmed.

However, the demonization and name calling are effective,especially as the mantra tends to be repeated. As the media defamation heats up, real friends tend to withdraw, potential friends and supporters hold back. After all, do they want the same treatment - the name calling, the defamation? Now, the victim is demonized and isolated. The final step is the laying of criminal charges or the suggestion that the dissident is somehow a criminal.

"When Const. Curtis Rind pulled over a man without a valid driver’s licence during a routine traffic stop, he didn’t expect the man to start arguing that it was his god-given right to use the road. But the man was part of an emerging group of domestic terrorists that police have been notified to be on the look out for because of their anti-government beliefs.They’re called “freeman” or “sovereign citizens,” and basically believe the law doesn’t apply to them, and they shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Rind said. Rind, an officer in southwest division, first learned about freeman citizens a few years ago through notices and information bulletins circulating throughout the police service. In the last six months, Rind said freeman citizens have increased their presence in the city and now seem to be all over the place." (Edmonton Sun, November 7, 2012)

This Const. Rind is a dangerous ignoramus. He was outraged that some mere citizen, who pays his exorbitant salary, actually believes he has "rights" and that driving isn't some state-given "privilege." They may be dissenters, they may be oddballs, but they are not terrorists, if "terrorist" means using extreme violence to further their political goals.

Ever since 9/11, many police and even rent-a-cops and airport security types have begun acting like Rambos on steroids, snarling, throwing their weight around and seeking to intimidate any mere citizen who doesn't act like a submissive sheep/

It gets worse. The Sun report continued: "Anti-terrorism expert John Bain said police should be keeping a close eye on. Speaking at an anti-terrorism workshop Wednesday, Bain explained the different types of terrorists that range from “freedom fighters” such as Osama bin Laden and eco-terrorists such as Wiebo Ludwig, to religious and other extremist groups like white supremacists.At this time, it’s the white supremacist groups that Bain believes poses the biggest threat to Canadian safety."

So "White supremacists" are the biggest danger to Canada's security. In the past 30 years, how many people have been killed by White Nationalists in Canada? To my knowledge, NONE.. "Terrorism" is almost entirely the result of poorly screened immigration. Sikh radicals blew up the Air India plane whose flight originated in Vancouver. Over 300 people died. They killed several Sikh "moderates" in their own community, including journalist Inderjit Singh Hayer.

A radical Moslem immigrant Ahmed Ressam from Montreal was caught on his way to Los Angeles to blow up LAX in 2000. His name was Ressam. There are many radical Moslems in Canada. AN MP told me some years ago he knew that upper scale Moslems in a local mosque were cheering as the planes hit the World Trade Centre. But this "expert" informs the foolish and the impressionable that it is "White supremacists" and freemen who are the real terrorists!

Outrageous!

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

By Pamela Roth ,Edmonton Sun

First posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 06:35 PM MST | Updated: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:25 AM MST

John Bain conducts an anti-terrorism seminar as part of a four-day Advanced Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design course offered to the public by the Edmonton Police Service at the Kingsway AMA branch in Edmonton, Alberta, on November 7, 2012. IAN KUCERAK/EDMONTON SUN/QMI AGENCY

When Const. Curtis Rind pulled over a man without a valid driver’s licence during a routine traffic stop, he didn’t expect the man to start arguing that it was his god-given right to use the road.

But the man was part of an emerging group of domestic terrorists that police have been notified to be on the look out for because of their anti-government beliefs.

They’re called “freeman” or “sovereign citizens,” and basically believe the law doesn’t apply to them, and they shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Rind said.

Rind, an officer in southwest division, first learned about freeman citizens a few years ago through notices and information bulletins circulating throughout the police service. In the last six months, Rind said freeman citizens have increased their presence in the city and now seem to be all over the place.

“When you engage with these individuals in conversation, they quickly make it known who they are and what they’re about. They try to explain that we’re breaching their rights,” said Rind, noting some of them have scripted notes they’ve practiced and explain to officers that they’re impeding their freedom to move freely throughout the country. Some even spout common law from the 1800s.

“It can be a little off-putting as a police officer because almost 98% of the people we deal with understand why they’ve been stopped and are usually apologetic and easy to deal with. These guys go 180 degrees in the opposite direction.”

It’s extremists such as this that international anti-terrorism expert John Bain said police should be keeping a close eye on.

Speaking at an anti-terrorism workshop Wednesday, Bain explained the different types of terrorists that range from “freedom fighters” such as Osama bin Laden and eco-terrorists such as Wiebo Ludwig, to religious and other extremist groups like white supremacists.

At this time, it’s the white supremacist groups that Bain believes poses the biggest threat to Canadian safety.

“You have Islamic extremists and religious extremists — you have a whole mixture in this country, but I think one of the things that has not come on the top yet are white supremacists. They are dangerous to society and they always will be,” said Bain, noting people that are “lone wolves” are more dangerous than an extremist group.

“You can follow an extremist group. You can’t follow a lone wolf because you never know what they are going to do. They are acting individually on their own ideology.”

Canada has been no stranger to domestic and international terrorist attacks that have hit close to home.

In January 1965, a left-wing radical group bombed three American war planes being retrofitted at an Edmonton airport. Security guard Threnton James Richardson was bound, gagged and shot with a rifle when the perpetrator entered the airport. Two F-84 jets were destroyed and a third was heavily damaged by the bombing. An unemployed German immigrant, Harry Waldeman Freidrich, was arrested by police and charged with Richardson’s murder.

Between October 2008 and July 2009, six natural gas pipelines owned by Encana were bombed near Dawson Creek, B.C. after letters were sent to local newspapers opposing the gas industry.

And during the 1960s and ’70s, groups opposing the Cuban government began targeting Cuban property in Montreal and Ottawa with bombs and a bazooka.

Bain said Canada is vulnerable to terrorism for a number of reasons.

Open sources on the Internet show there are lots of people living in Canada with ties to terrorist organizations, said Bain, but they aren’t the ones carrying out the bombings. Instead, they are the computer scientists, engineers and doctors that are doing all the leg work and planning for the attacks.

The four-day workshop, entitled Advanced Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), is offered to the public by the Edmonton Police Service.

[email protected]
 
Old December 3rd, 2012 #56
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

HATE LAWS WORLDWIDE: WINS AND LOSSES FOR FREEDOM

By Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
December 3, 2012

http://truthtellers.org/alerts/HateL...ideUpdate.html

From my first warnings about Christian-persecuting hate crimes laws in 1989, I have always told of their creator: the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Christian conservative leaders claimed this simple fact-stating was “anti-Semitic.” They preferred to blame homosexual activists. This year ADL took credit more clearly than ever. "Our legal experts pioneered hate crime laws
and work to implement them nationwide."

Hate crimes laws are unique in the history of jurisprudence because they guarantee extra punishment for bias-motivated crimes against certain minorities in a population (homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, etc.). Such protection is not extended to whites, Christians or males. The texts of all hate crime laws worldwide promise equal protection to everyone but do not grant it. Thus, hate laws are blatantly unconstitutional in the democracies which enforce them.

How successful has ADL been in persuading the nations to adopt hate laws? Stupendously. Since Canada’s federal hate law (Sec. 319) was passed in 1971 and Britain’s Sec. 5 of the Public Order Act in 1986, more than 60 western and eastern European nations have adopted federal hate crimes legislation, all closely modeled after the pattern supplied by ADL.

This brief article summarizes the present status of hate laws in Canada, Britain and the United States. There are some glimmers of hope against the stony backdrop of hate laws’ enshrinement in most western nations.

Canada

In 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal astonishingly declared Sec. 13 of Canada’s hate law (forbidding “hate speech” on the internet) to be unconstitutional. It was repealed by Parliament’s House of Commons in June of this year. Although Senate approval is still pending, the next great push by Canadian civil liberties groups (such as Paul Fromm’s heroic “Canadian Association for Free Expression”) is repeal of the original hate law, Sec. 319.

Meanwhile, the most horrendous legal flagellation of offenders continues, such as mathematics professor Terry Tremaine, letter writer Brad Love, and others.

Lovers of freedom everywhere rejoiced with recent acquittal from all hate crimes charges of Canadian pastor Stephen Boissoin. In 2002 Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the “homosexual machine” and “militant homosexual agenda.” A homosexual activist claimed his feelings were hurt and blamed Boissoin’s letter for inciting an attack on a homosexual teacher in Red Deer, Alberta. The Alberta Hate Crime Tribunal found Boissoin guilty of inciting hate and fined him $7000, to be paid to the complaining homosexual. In addition to other punishments, he was gagged from publicly commenting on homosexuality for three years. His 10-year ordeal ended when two Alberta higher courts exonerated him completely.

Britain

In Britain “harassment” (causing someone “alarm or distress” or feeling insulted) is a statutory offense. Britain’s hate law, Sec. 5 of its Public Order Act, says,

A person is guilty of an offense if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.

Popular British actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) leads popular efforts to repeal Sec. 5a. Increasing numbers of writers, comedians, political commentators, social critics and performers cannot pursue their occupations freely without fear of arrest for “insulting” someone. Evangelical Christians are especially under fire.

Sec. 5 charges are increasingly being leveled by police against conservative Christians who object to either the homosexual lifestyle or the government’s plans to institute “gay marriage.”

Adrian Smith is a Christian who recently tweeted, “If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.” Although his position is held by about 80 percent of the British population, Mr. Smith was arrested and charged under Sec. 5. His employer docked his pay 40 percent!

Lifesitenews.com says, "The campaign to reform Section 5 is drawing a surprisingly broad array of supporters. . . The campaign also claims 60 supporters in the Commons and the House of Lords including UKIP leader Nigel Farage.”

After 26 years of folly and persecution of free speech, a movement in Britain very similar to that of Canada could deal a painful blow to ADL/B’nai B’rith and a resounding victory for freedom.

United States

The good news in the U.S. is that, with Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, ADL is unable to push forward new hate laws. Their HR 975 anti-bullying bill, which would make criticism of homosexual youth in U.S. education a federal offense, has languished in committee since conservatives regained power.

The bad news is that the federal hate crimes law, passed just before Republicans came to power, is now being vigorously enforced. Sixteen cases have been tried and fifteen won by the U.S. Justice Department. A recent Kentucky case misfired for the government when three out of four alleged anti-gay hate criminals were found to be bisexual themselves.

By far the most shocking threat to freedom was this summer’s conviction of 16 Amish zealots, found guilty of the federal hate crime of forcibly cutting the hair and beards of theological rivals. Hate laws have never been enforced by governments when bias-motivated acts are between members of the same minority group. After this unprecedented judgment, Christian defendants await sentencing from 17 years to life in prison for going a step further than shunning and forcibly cutting the revered beards of their Christian antagonists. This case is especially ominous because it represents government prosecution of a fairly large group of Christians, almost the number of a small church. Anti-Christian Jewish ADL relishes the possibility of wide-scale arrests of Christians, even denominations of Christians who are judged by the government to be “haters,” “anti-Semitic,” “domestic terrorists,”“seditionists” in the war on terror. The day before conviction ADL’s Abe Foxman rejoiced in testimony before a Senate committee that enforcement of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act was going forward splendidly.

ADL and the Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center yearn for someone from the right wing in America to commit a bona fide hate crime against a person or persons of a federally protected group. In his testimony, Foxman named Wade Page, Sikh temple shooter and member of a white power rock band, as proof the government should consider the anti-Zionist and anti-Islamic right as primary sources of potential hate-motivated violence. Yet ADL and SPLC remain deeply frustrated that their “perfect shooter,” an unstable person with extensive contacts and association with established right-wing groups and media, has not yet materialized.

Meanwhile, no matter how blatant, bona fide hate crimes by members of protected groups are not prosecuted as such. The Fort Hood shooter (army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who killed 13 and wounded 29 from clear anti-American bias) was, as a Muslim, exempted from federal hate crimes prosecution. So was possibly gay activist Floyd Corkins who attacked Family Research Council offices last summer, shooting a guard in the arm and yelling disagreement with FRC’s social policies. Many other glaring examples of preferential treatment toward members of federally protected groups who commit hate crimes can be found online.

Federal and state hate laws prosecute carefully selected cases that will build legal precedent against whites, Christians, males, and members of the political right, cases authorities are almost certain to win. Each, like a brick, helps build prison walls of legal precedent against the Christian right.

Christian Conservatives avoid Jewish Hate Law Issue

Meanwhile, the religious right, largely weary of the hate law issue and its failed attempts to stem passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is content that Republicans, for the moment, withstand new ADL hate bills. But, with enforcement of the federal hate law now moving forward rapidly, the time is past when the religious right can do nothing. It is vital that the numerous legal think-tanks and advocacy groups on the right begin concerted, wide-scale efforts to persuade Congress to declare the federal hate law unconstitutional. This should be extremely simple, logically speaking, since the hate law blatantly deprives most Americans of equal protection, one of America’s most fundamental values.

It is ironic and pathetic that now, with Canada having suffered under a cruel and vindictive hate law for 42 years and Britain for 26 years, significant efforts are not being made to revoke the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The ADL/Justice Department cabal is setting up the same tyranny for America; but the Christian conservative right, from fear of the Jews who are in the middle of the hate law issue, are afraid to approach it aggressively. The only exception to such massive silence is an occasional article in Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily holding up ADL as an expert on hate crimes/anti-Semitism definitions and encouraging evangelicals to use ADL as a trusted authority! Amazingly, the religious right only becomes increasingly obsessed with what it believes is now the number one threat to freedom: radical Islam.

In protecting ADL from criticism, the religious right believes it will avoid God’s curse on those who criticize His chosen people. Actually, by protecting ADL, the right has effectively made possible passage of 45 U.S. state hate laws, the federal hate law, and many so-called “anti-bullying” hate laws, not to mention proliferation of ADL’s hate laws worldwide, an enormous curse to America and the world.
Listen to Rev. Ted Pike and Jeff Rense discuss this article and the threat to freedom posed by the federal hate crimes law:

Host:
Jeff Rense
2 Dec 12
Topic: Ted Pike Gives an Update on Hate Laws Worldwide
Listen Download (39min, 9MB)

Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call (503) 631-3808.

National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
 
Old December 3rd, 2012 #57
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

1971

Unquote


Pierre_Trudeau Pierre_Trudeau
Pierre TrudeauFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Pierre Elliott Trudeau (disambiguation).
The Right Honourable

Pierre Trudeau

PC CH CC QC FSRC

Trudeau in 1980
15th Prime Minister of Canada
In office
April 20, 1968 – June 4, 1979
Monarch Elizabeth II
Deputy Allan MacEachen (1977–79)
Preceded by Lester B. Pearson
Succeeded by Joe Clark
In office
March 3, 1980 – June 30, 1984
Monarch Elizabeth II
Deputy Allan MacEachen
Preceded by Joe Clark
Succeeded by John Turner
Leader of the Official Opposition
In office
June 4, 1979 – March 3, 1980
Prime Minister Joe Clark
Preceded by Joe Clark
Succeeded by Joe Clark
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
In office
April 6, 1968 – June 16, 1984
Preceded by Lester B. Pearson
Succeeded by John Turner
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
In office
April 4, 1967 – July 5, 1968
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson
Himself
Preceded by Louis Cardin
Succeeded by John Turner
Acting President of the Privy Council
In office
March 11, 1968 – May 1, 1968
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson
Himself
Preceded by Walter L. Gordon
Succeeded by Allan MacEachen
Member of the Canadian Parliament
for Mount Royal
In office
November 8, 1965 – June 30, 1984
Preceded by Alan Macnaughton
Succeeded by Sheila Finestone
Personal details
Born Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau
(1919-10-18)October 18, 1919
Montreal, Quebec
Died September 28, 2000(2000-09-28) (aged 80)
Montreal, Quebec
Political party Liberal Party of Canada
Spouse(s) Margaret Trudeau (1971–1984)
Relations Charles-Émile Trudeau (father)
Children Justin Trudeau
Alexandre Trudeau
Michel Trudeau
Sarah Elisabeth Coyne (daughter with Deborah Coyne)
Alma mater Université de Montréal
Harvard University
Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris
London School of Economics
Occupation Lawyer
Jurist
Academic
Professor
Author
Journalist
Member of Parliament
Politician
Religion Roman Catholic
Signature

Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, PC CH CC QC FSRC ( /truːˈdoʊ/; French pronunciation: ​[tʁydo]; October 18, 1919 – September 28, 2000), usually known as Pierre Trudeau or Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was the 15th Prime Minister of Canada from April 20, 1968 to June 4, 1979, and again from March 3, 1980 to June 30, 1984.

Trudeau began his political career campaigning for socialist ideals, but he eventually joined the Liberal Party of Canada when he entered federal politics in the 1960s. He was appointed as Lester Pearson's Parliamentary Secretary, and later became his Minister of Justice. From his base in Montreal, Trudeau took control of the Liberal Party and became a charismatic leader, inspiring "Trudeaumania". From the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, he dominated the Canadian political scene and aroused passionate reactions. "Reason before passion" was his personal motto.[1] He retired from politics in 1984, and John Turner succeeded him as Prime Minister.

Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect,[2] and they salute his political acumen in preserving national unity against Quebec separatists, suppressing a violent revolt, and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution.[3] Critics accuse him of arrogance, economic mismanagement, and unduly favouring the federal government relative to the provinces, especially in trying to control the oil wealth of the Prairies.[4]

Unquote

===============================================

This life time bum, allowed the Canadian government to be taken over completely while he chased women and partied.

May be one day like in Russia where the memory of Lenin is spit upon will also be the fate in the least for this vacuous epic failure for Canadian Whites in 1971. To have fettered away the right of a people, the White race to defend its self at least politically with robust free speech against all usurpers and enemy aliens.
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp

Last edited by America First; December 3rd, 2012 at 11:18 PM.
 
Old December 5th, 2012 #58
8Man
"moderate" radical
 
8Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 33 Thomas St NY 10007
Posts: 3,420
8Man
Default



Last week Arthur Topham was in court dealing with a Richard Warman complaint regarding the Radical Press website. The prosecution admitted they had not turned over evidence to his defense lawyer. Next week they are planning to request the judge order these additional bail conditions:
1. “You shall not post any information on any internet website that can be read by members of the general public.”

2. “You shall not operate, post to or manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.”
more at: Arthur Topham Legal Update #5
__________________
FreedomSite "Israel's values are Canada's values" Canadian PM Paul Martin, Nov. 13 2005
ZundelSite "An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada" Canadian PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 16 2010
 
Old December 5th, 2012 #59
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

Pierre Trudeau ?

IMO with out any doubt if White Canadian's ever regain control of their regime and return to Nation Hood that son of bitch will be exposed fully and his family can move to itsalie or africa.

The most horrible enemy Canada ever faced out side of joos and chinese are the terrible debased traitorous criminal fools as he, all awards and honors are to be replaced by prosecutions for crimes against White Canada and freedoms if the founding stock awakens in time IMO.

French Canadian's should denounce him ASAP.
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old December 5th, 2012 #60
Bruce Rideout
Flight Instructor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Above You, Look up, Behind You, , Too Late
Posts: 231
Bruce Rideout
Default

I knew at twelve in 1970 that Trudeau had taken my dreams and aspirations into his fist and with a great Chutzprking
Lunger and a Medulla scraping Spit for good measure crunched them into a ball and stomped them to the ground with another gob of his slimy toxic Phlegm added stabbingly from the end of his flicking Trident shaped Tounge for the Coup de Grace. Bastard. I'll cheer the death of that Swamp Thing Forever and Ever.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 AM.
Page generated in 0.21394 seconds.