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

Old December 5th, 2012 #61
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8Man View Post
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.”

Sounds like censorship. Here http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/24/mo...critics-report and here http://www.lfpress.com/2012/11/27/ri...ensoring-media are a couple of recent London Free Press articles condemning censorship... but not the censorship happening at home.
__________________
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 February 4th, 2013 #62
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[fromm]

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish --

Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts

Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals
and against a lifetime gag order at the “Human Rights” Tribunal

In what has become more and more typical in Canada’s repressive thought control regime, the Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed the stay motion filed by Marc Lemire. The stay motion was seeking a short reprieve to allow the court to actually rule on Canada’s draconian shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act.

To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you’re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you … but hey this is CanaDUUH. Sentence first, then we’ll see if the laws ok later.

The Ruling:

In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression. While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom’s enshrines freedom of expression as a “fundamental right”, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as “freedom of speech is an American concept”. As crazy as that is, that’s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.

The Justice found that “the appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal” Gee, even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS* a violation of our freedom of expression. How hard is it to really believe that if the “Human Rights” Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won’t cause “irreparable harm”. And this is not just a hypothetical … the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders / speech bans.

The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre. The “Justice” that writes that “…there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in…” Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate?

This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for “Pre-Crimes” before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada… where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?

Quote:
“Under section 13, citizens are subject to lifetime speech bans--not in the Soviet Union, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Canada. Section 13 prosecutes not crimes but pre-crimes, crimes that have not yet taken place. The phrase “pre-crime”, by the way, comes from a dystopian science fiction story written by Philip K. Dick in 1956. Half a century later, in one of the oldest, most stable democratic societies on the planet, we're living it…”

Mark Steyn
Testimony before Parliament
Oct 5, 2009
Even if we were to follow the Judges “logic”, what exactly would/could Marc Lemire have even put in an affidavit about his future thoughts? It may take up to six months for a ruling on if the law is even legitimate, how does anyone know exactly what they are going to say, weeks or months in advance?

Unlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future. The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might “expose” someone to “hatred” and/or “contempt”. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future.

Two-Front - Maximum Disruption Campaign

After nine years of fighting Marc Lemire, the CHRC must have realized that he is not going to give up very easily. So they took a page out serial Section 13 complainers handbook; Richard Warman’s “Maximum Disruption”. The basic strategy of “Maximum Disruption” is to hit your enemies on as many fronts as possible, and that’s exactly what the CHRC has done.

Marc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional. And at the same time, in front of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!)

The CHRC is hoping that Lemire’s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases. This is why we desperately need your help.

Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought

All of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved, reformed or tinkered with. The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it.

The end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: to Silence Thought. That’s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them, they keep spending and spending. After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial “politically incorrect” opinions on the internet?

It’s just easier to self-censor yourself, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment. And that’s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced. The censors undertake ‘impact prosecutions’ and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary.

Quote:
“Now what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone's right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows? All in all it's much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers.”

John Robson | Ottawa Citizen

“Self-censorship? Me? Absolutely!”
Dec 14, 2007

Take a look at the Marc Lemire case. This is the 9th year of fighting the censors … all because he posted a SINGLE document on his website, that he didn’t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States. As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again.

That made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the “Human Rights” Commission – in their parting “F*ck You” to freedom – continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire.
 
Old February 4th, 2013 #63
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech -- Pass Bill 304

Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member's Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was vague -- communicating views "likely to expose" designated or privileged groups to "hatred or contempt." No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. "Contempt" would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers wer a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher incidents of lung cancer would be "likely" to expose them to "contempt" is not hatred. Truth would not matter.

Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to "shut down" through "maximum disruption" those with an ideology he opposed.

Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a "representative" for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse BY process.

The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead "hate" investigator was questioned during the Warman v. Marc Lemire Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: "None," he responded, "freedom of expression is an American idea." Oh, really?

In our submission, the House of Commons was wise to repeal Sec. 13. We understand that it is now in the process of second reading in the Red Chamber. We urge that it receive speedy consent. It has now been eight months since it was passed in the House of Commons.

There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 ("hate law") of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime "cease and desist" order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is "similar"? Although he tried to tome down his language, he was eventually found guilty of "contempt of court" for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal's order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months!

Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society.

The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. The was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights -- not allowed to talk to the foreign media -- for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag!

In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada. We urge you to do likewise and pass this piece of legislation as expeditiously as possible.

Respectfully submitted.

Paul Fromm
Director

E-mail addresses of Canadian Senators

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], , , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]., [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], vern[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
 
Old March 3rd, 2013 #64
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The FreedomSite Blog

Documenting the chilling effects of Censorship and repression of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The blog is run by Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite (http://www.freedomsite.org).

[see this link to get all the videos, some of which are not included below]
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/...-immortal.html

Doug Christie: In his own Words (Immortal freedom fighter and hero)



Doug Christie: In his own Words
(Immortal freedom fighter and hero)

Forget about the media invective that is currently being hurled at Douglas Christie by the whores in the controlled media party. Doug Christie is a decent, honourable and true fighter for individual liberty and freedom of speech in Canada. You can count on a single hand the number of decent lawyers in Canada, and Doug Christie is one of them!

Find out who Douglas Christie really is – from his own words, in this YouTube video:


Douglas Christie: "Who I Am"

Doug Christie had a long and memorable legal practice. While the media gets in a lather about Doug’s more controversial so-called “racist” and “anti-Semitic” clients (because Doug dared to represent them), they actually only made up a small portion of his legal practice. According to the video above, Doug has represented clients on about 8,000 cases over 37 years as a defence lawyer – generally representing the rights of the individual against the state. His cases range from child custody cases where the state persecuted parents to tax freedom cases.

Douglas Christie is a hero and dedicated fighter for freedom of speech. In my youth, I recollect attending a meeting where he was the guest speaker. I was struck not only by his superior oratory skills, but even more so by both his passion and love for freedom. He brilliantly conveyed the significance of what freedom is all about and how vital it is to resist artificially induced state control over it.

Over the past couple of decades I have become closely acquainted with Doug. The respect that spawned the evening I saw him speak for the first time only deepened with every case and submission that he made on behalf of freedom. His defences consisted of a rare combination of sound logic and reason combined with compelling emotion.

In my case before the Kangaroo court also known as the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, Doug flew all the way from Victoria in order to participate. Typically, he had a major impact but none more poignant than when he raised questions about the “mental serenity issues” surrounding CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. It was vintage Doug Christie!

Here are some of the transcript references of Doug Christie’s submissions to the Tribunal:


Quote:
MR. CHRISTIE: I have heard two explanations which are as frivolous as any I have ever heard in justifying an adjournment of a whole proceeding… To say I am not feeling well, but sit here and talk about it, is inconsistent. There is no medical certificate, and I heard very faintly Mr. Vigna say I'm not physically sick, I don't have a serene state of mind. Very few of us in the difficulties we face always have a serene state of mind. I don't know what that means.

This is not a case of a nervous breakdown or a mental state justifying a psychiatric examination.

… it’s not entirely clear what the cause of Mr. Vigna's mental state is … if Mr. Vigna is providing a medical certificate … If there is a serious long-term mental problem that isn't related to this serious issue, I think it's appropriate that we should know about it.

MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I will provide a medical certificate.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down, Mr. Vigna.
MR. VIGNA: I feel insulted by that comment.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down.

Friday May 11, 2007
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Ottawa , Ontario
The closing submissions Doug gave in my case was a sight to behold. The entire courtroom was mesmerized as Doug hammered away at the pillars of censorship for close to two hours! Doug has a commanding voice and delivery that would make Clarence Darrow jealous.

Doug Christie wrapped up his comments with these very insightful critiques of censorship:

Quote:
We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, and made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor.

If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech.

The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions.

The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity.

Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence.

Hatred and contempt without reference to truth – which is not a Sec. 13 defence – is an invitation to hypocrisy. If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy.
Doug Christie, you are my hero, and I wish you well. For 40 years, Doug has stood (often alone) as the beacon for freedom against state control, censorship and bullying.

You’re in my thoughts and prayers, and so is your entire family.


-Marc Lemire
February 26, 2013

http://www.StopSection13.com
http://www.Freedomsite.org


Universal Principles of freedom of speech
Free Speech lawyer Douglas Christie discusses the concept of universal principles in freedom of speech cases. Is free speech for everyone or just your friends?


Living Free in an Unfree World
Western Canadian Separatist and free speech lawyer Douglas Christie talks about freedom, purpose and self-fulfillment, in an unfree world.


Doug Christie on BBC
Douglas Christie, defense lawyer for Imre Finta in Canada's only war crimes trial, appears on the BBC


http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/...-immortal.html
http://youtu.be/WGLO-bJPswg
 
Old March 3rd, 2013 #65
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The FreedomSite Blog

Documenting the chilling effects of Censorship and repression of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The blog is run by Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite (http://www.freedomsite.org).

[see this link to get all the videos, some of which are not included below]
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/...-immortal.html

Doug Christie: In his own Words (Immortal freedom fighter and hero)



Doug Christie: In his own Words
(Immortal freedom fighter and hero)

Forget about the media invective that is currently being hurled at Douglas Christie by the whores in the controlled media party. Doug Christie is a decent, honourable and true fighter for individual liberty and freedom of speech in Canada. You can count on a single hand the number of decent lawyers in Canada, and Doug Christie is one of them!

Find out who Douglas Christie really is – from his own words, in this YouTube video:


Douglas Christie: "Who I Am"

Doug Christie had a long and memorable legal practice. While the media gets in a lather about Doug’s more controversial so-called “racist” and “anti-Semitic” clients (because Doug dared to represent them), they actually only made up a small portion of his legal practice. According to the video above, Doug has represented clients on about 8,000 cases over 37 years as a defence lawyer – generally representing the rights of the individual against the state. His cases range from child custody cases where the state persecuted parents to tax freedom cases.

Douglas Christie is a hero and dedicated fighter for freedom of speech. In my youth, I recollect attending a meeting where he was the guest speaker. I was struck not only by his superior oratory skills, but even more so by both his passion and love for freedom. He brilliantly conveyed the significance of what freedom is all about and how vital it is to resist artificially induced state control over it.

Over the past couple of decades I have become closely acquainted with Doug. The respect that spawned the evening I saw him speak for the first time only deepened with every case and submission that he made on behalf of freedom. His defences consisted of a rare combination of sound logic and reason combined with compelling emotion.

In my case before the Kangaroo court also known as the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, Doug flew all the way from Victoria in order to participate. Typically, he had a major impact but none more poignant than when he raised questions about the “mental serenity issues” surrounding CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. It was vintage Doug Christie!

Here are some of the transcript references of Doug Christie’s submissions to the Tribunal:


Quote:
MR. CHRISTIE: I have heard two explanations which are as frivolous as any I have ever heard in justifying an adjournment of a whole proceeding… To say I am not feeling well, but sit here and talk about it, is inconsistent. There is no medical certificate, and I heard very faintly Mr. Vigna say I'm not physically sick, I don't have a serene state of mind. Very few of us in the difficulties we face always have a serene state of mind. I don't know what that means.

This is not a case of a nervous breakdown or a mental state justifying a psychiatric examination.

… it’s not entirely clear what the cause of Mr. Vigna's mental state is … if Mr. Vigna is providing a medical certificate … If there is a serious long-term mental problem that isn't related to this serious issue, I think it's appropriate that we should know about it.

MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I will provide a medical certificate.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down, Mr. Vigna.
MR. VIGNA: I feel insulted by that comment.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down.

Friday May 11, 2007
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Ottawa , Ontario
The closing submissions Doug gave in my case was a sight to behold. The entire courtroom was mesmerized as Doug hammered away at the pillars of censorship for close to two hours! Doug has a commanding voice and delivery that would make Clarence Darrow jealous.

Doug Christie wrapped up his comments with these very insightful critiques of censorship:

Quote:
We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, and made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor.

If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech.

The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions.

The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity.

Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence.

Hatred and contempt without reference to truth – which is not a Sec. 13 defence – is an invitation to hypocrisy. If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy.
Doug Christie, you are my hero, and I wish you well. For 40 years, Doug has stood (often alone) as the beacon for freedom against state control, censorship and bullying.

You’re in my thoughts and prayers, and so is your entire family.


-Marc Lemire
February 26, 2013

http://www.StopSection13.com
http://www.Freedomsite.org


Universal Principles of freedom of speech
Free Speech lawyer Douglas Christie discusses the concept of universal principles in freedom of speech cases. Is free speech for everyone or just your friends?


Living Free in an Unfree World
Western Canadian Separatist and free speech lawyer Douglas Christie talks about freedom, purpose and self-fulfillment, in an unfree world.


Doug Christie on BBC
Douglas Christie, defense lawyer for Imre Finta in Canada's only war crimes trial, appears on the BBC


http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/...-immortal.html
http://youtu.be/WGLO-bJPswg
 
Old March 3rd, 2013 #66
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Minorities Rule; Freedom Drools: Supreme Court Curtails Christians Criticizing Homosexuality

Much of the Canadian political and legal Establishment are fantically supportive or abortion and the homosexual agenda -- neither particularly good news for a healthy nation -- while, at the same time, they are openly contemptuous of and can just barely tolerate Christianity.

Free speech suffered another defeat yesterday at the hands of a six-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled on the constitutionality of anti-free speech provisions of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act in the case of William Whatcott who had distributed leaflets proclaiming his strong faith-based opposition to the practice of homosexuality.

Whatcott, the victim of the Court's ruling, told the CBC (February 27, 2013): ""It's dreadful," he said of the decision. "'It's a dark day for Canada.' Whatcott said he refuses to pay the $7,500 in damages as directed by the high court. He also says the ruling means the Supreme Court can impose its morals on the rest of the country and limit free speech.

"Canada’s top court ruled vitriolic anti-gay speech in flyers distributed by a Christian activist is not protected by the Charter.

However, the high court, including Chief Beverly McLachlin, gave broad endorsement to the law’s equality protections for a vulnerable minority against the spreading of 'hatred.'

Justice Marshall Rothstein, writing for the 6-0 panel, found two of four flyers handed out by William Whatcott in 2001 and 2002 in Regina and Saskatoon crossed the line into “harmful” discourse, but two did not. ...

The court said two of Whatcott’s hand-delivered leaflets had “hallmarks” of hatred, targeting gays as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, referring to respected sources like the Bible to lend credibility, and using “vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.”

'It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society,' wrote Rothstein.

The court said the law’s purpose is to 'prevent discrimination by curtailing certain types of public expression' but it is tailored, and does not ban private expression of views." (Toronto Star, February 28, 2012)

Christians are supposed to take comfort from the fact that they can still whisper their views about homosexuals in private -- for the moment.

In a typically Canadian but mischievous approach the Supremos appeared to be even-handed by striking down two of the four counts and throwing freedom a crumb: "In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a small part of the province’s human rights code as an infringement on free speech and religion. It removed vague wording that prohibited the distribution of material that 'ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity' of people on the basis of their sexual orientation."

And they halved Mr. Whatcott's fine imposed for hurting the feelings of one of Canada:s privileged minorities: "On that basis the court trimmed an original order against Whatcott to compensate the complainants from $17,500 to $7,500."

However, Canada:s latest victim of state censorship remained defiant: "The ruling was denounced by the man at the center, William Whatcott of Weyburn, Sask., as rubbish. Whatcott said the ruling criminalizes a large part of Christian speech on homosexuality and morality. Unapologetic, he suggested he may put out another flyer on expressing that viewpoint and it will be written in what he calls his usual blunt and forthright manner."

It may well be that the courts are not the place to guarantee freedom of expression . The political route -- changes of legislation -- may be the way to go and, eventually, the repeal of Trudeau:s cursed Charter of Minority Privilege.

Paul Fromm
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression


Anti-gay pamphlets broke law, Supreme Court of Canada says
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a key part of anti-hate speech law, and maintained penalties levied an anti-gay campaigner.


Anti-gay activist William Whatcott pauses during a break in hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa October 12, 2011.

By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Wed Feb 27 2013

OTTAWA—In an important decision that upheld the main anti-hate provisions in Saskatchewan’s human rights law, Canada’s top court ruled vitriolic anti-gay speech in flyers distributed by a Christian activist is not protected by the Charter.

In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down a small part of the province’s human rights code as an infringement on free speech and religion. It removed vague wording that prohibited the distribution of material that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

However, the high court, including Chief Beverly McLachlin, gave broad endorsement to the law’s equality protections for a vulnerable minority against the spreading of “hatred.”

Justice Marshall Rothstein, writing for the 6-0 panel, found two of four flyers handed out by William Whatcott in 2001 and 2002 in Regina and Saskatoon crossed the line into “harmful” discourse, but two did not.

On that basis the court trimmed an original order against Whatcott to compensate the complainants from $17,500 to $7,500.

The ruling was denounced by the man at the center, William Whatcott of Weyburn, Sask., as rubbish.

Whatcott said the ruling criminalizes a large part of Christian speech on homosexuality and morality. Unapologetic, he suggested he may put out another flyer on expressing that viewpoint and it will be written in what he calls his usual blunt and forthright manner.

Whatcott spent several years in Toronto about 15 years ago, when he led anti-abortion demonstrations in front of Jarvis Collegiate and ran as a fringe candidate in the 1999 provincial election.

The court said two of Whatcott’s hand-delivered leaflets had “hallmarks” of hatred, targeting gays as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, referring to respected sources like the Bible to lend credibility, and using “vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.”

“It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society,” wrote Rothstein.

The court said the law’s purpose is to “prevent discrimination by curtailing certain types of public expression” but it is tailored, and does not ban private expression of views.

While acknowledging it is a limit on free speech and expressions of religious belief, the court said it struck “an appropriate balance” with other Charter values, namely “a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.”

The decision was hailed by advocates of equality rights for gays and lesbians and other vulnerable minority groups, as well as by those who believe it sent a strong signal that Canadian law — whether human rights acts or criminal codes — can be used to counter hateful speech and propaganda likely to cause harm.

“The court wisely held that connecting speech to morality or public debate doesn’t immunize it from restrictions on hate speech,” said Robert Leckey, president of Egale Canada, the advocacy group for gay and lesbian rights that had intervened in the case.

B’nai Brith lawyer Marvin Kurz said the ruling targets only speech that is “the worst of the worst.”

“It doesn’t matter whether I’m offended by what Mr. Whatcott says,” said Kurz. “The question is whether there’s going to be harm.”

Ontario’s human rights code does not have the exact same ban on hateful publications or flyers that Saskatchewan had. Kurz said Wednesday’s ruling nevertheless counters a backlash that had been growing against the use of human rights laws and solidifies overall efforts to fight harmful speech, whether it be anti-gay or anti-Semitic.

Kurz added the court did not establish a hierarchy of rights, or conclude that equality rights should trump freedom of religion and free speech.

“What it says is religion isn’t the only right, and religion cannot be used as a cloak for illegal activity; religion cannot be used as a cloak for hate.”

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which intervened in support of Whatcott’s right to state his religious views freely without limit by the state, offered a muted reaction in a written statement noting that at least the high court made clearer what it does not consider hate speech.

The ruling is in line with a trio of decisions in 1990 (Keegstra, Taylor and Andrews) that saw the Supreme Court of Canada uphold various Canadian Criminal Code and human rights code prohibitions against hate speech.
 
Old November 14th, 2013 #67
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[fromm]

Federal Court Appeal Docs: A devastating critique of Canada's Internet censorship laws (Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Appellant Marc Lemire)


Lemire’s Memorandum of Fact and Law
A devastating critique of Canada’s Internet censorship laws

The Memorandum of Fact and Law (written by brilliant freedom fighter Barbara Kulaszka) is a concise review of the ten years of persecution the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission has dragged Marc Lemire through for daring to post a single article on his website – which he did not even write. It is a shocking and clinical review of all that goes wrong, when an out of control government agency with a “Nazi fetish” is unleashed. From spying on Canadians with the possibility of entrapment, to threatening Internet Service Providers (ISP) to force deletion of content they don’t like.

The Memorandum of Fact and Law is backed up by a mountain of evidence that would put the OJ Simpson trial to shame! At the Federal Court, we have filed thick stacks of evidence in what the court calls “Appeal Books”. These contain the transcripts and evidence from my massive 3 year hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where we beat down the censors and the Tribunal found that Section 13 was an affront to Canadian democracy and freedom.



Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Appellant Marc Lemire

Part I – Statement of Fact

1. This appeal is from the judgment of Justice Mosley of the Federal Court allowing the judicial review application of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “CHRC”) from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal refusing to apply ss. 13(1) and 54(1) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (as amended 1998, c. 9, s. 28, 2001, c. 41, s. 88 ) (hereinafter “CHRA”), on the grounds that the provisions violated s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified by s. 1 thereof.

2. The case arose out of a complaint laid by the respondent Richard Warman against the appellant Marc Lemire on November 24, 2003, alleging that Lemire was violating section 13 of the CHRA by communicating “hate messages” on his website (“the Freedomsite”) and its message board. The complained of material consisted mainly of postings on the website’s message board, made by registered users of the site. [CHRT Decision, at paras. 1, 2, 11 at Appeal Book (hereinafter “AB”), v. 1, pp. 83, 87] Warman sought a cease and desist order and a penalty of $7,500.00 against Lemire. [CHRT Decision, para. 267 at AB, v. 1, p. 173]

3. Warman had been monitoring the Freedomsite for at least a year, but he made no effort to contact Lemire to complain about the messages or ask for their removal even though the website and message board had clear links to report abuses and the usage policy forbade any postings contrary to Canadian law. At the time he laid the complaint, he was a lawyer working for the CHRC. [CHRT Decision, para. 115. 116, 140, 143 at AB, v. 1, pp. 122, 123, 132, 133; see AB, v. II, p. 554 for email to Warman]

4. Lemire received notice of the complaint in March of 2004, after he had already removed the message board from the website some months before. After being notified of the complaint, he voluntarily removed the only other matter complained of, an article entitled “AIDS Secrets”, in an effort to settle the matter. The CHRC made no response to Lemire. [CHRT Decision, at para. 14, 188 at AB, v. 1, p. 87, 149; “AIDS Secret” document found at v. 1, p. 189-195; AB, v. III, p. 637]

5. The CHRC investigator, Hannya Rizk, was informed by Warman in September of 2004 that he had come across another website, jrbooksonline, which he alleged Lemire operated. He asked her not to tell Lemire about it until the police could take “a good look at it.” She acceded to this request but admitted in testimony before the Tribunal that she should have told Lemire about the new allegations against him. [CHRT Decision, para. 15-17 at AB, v. 1, pp. 88-89; Rizk memo to file at AB, v. II, p. 561]

6. Rizk testified that Warman was the person who trained her at the CHRC’s offices in how to use two investigative techniques used in the Lemire case.

7. CHRC hate investigator Dean Steacy interacted with Lemire anonymously as “Jadewarr” on Stormfront, trying to illicit from him why he had laid a complaint under s. 13 against the RCMP. Steacy admitted that depending on the answer Lemire had given, he would have used it against him in the complaint process. Steacy also posed as a racist in other investigations using the “Jadewarr” account. [AB, v. III, pp.830-838; Steacy “Jadewarr” emails, AB, v. II, p. 377-409; “Jadewarr Stormfront postings, v. III, p. 650-654]

8. Steacy also signed up on Freedomsite but this was not disclosed to Lemire. The CHRC, through its counsel, subsequently admitted very near the end of the hearing that it was the position of the CHRC not to disclose the fact that anonymous identities were being used in s. 13 Internet cases, a violation of the disclosure rules of the Tribunal and natural justice.

9. The CHRC did not contact Lemire again for over a year after notifying him of Warman’s complaint. It eventually sent him the Investigator’s Report on April 15, 2005 which recommended that the matter be sent to a Tribunal. The report included and relied upon not only the material which had already been taken down or voluntarily removed, but also another website, jrbooksonline, and a further posting allegedly made by Lemire on the Stormfront message board. [CHRT Decision, para. 15-17 at AB, v. I, pp. 88-8]

10. Repeated requests by Lemire’s counsel for conciliation or settlement or mediation were ignored by the CHRC and/or refused by Warman even though the additional material complained of in the Investigator’s Report on the Freedomsite was voluntarily removed, when Lemire received the Report. [CHRT Decision, para. 172, 182, 283, 284, 289 at Appeal Bk, Vol. 1, pp. 142,147, 178, 180, 187-188; Correspondence by Lemire’s lawyer with CHRC documenting requests for conciliation etc., at AB, v. II, pp. 479-508; AB, v. III, p. 644, 648]

11. This treatment of Lemire mirrored other cases where the CHRC pursued complainants for years through the process even though the material and even the websites had been down for months or years. Examples are:
(a) Warman v. Northern Alliance 2009 CHRT 10 – The case proceeded to Tribunal in 2009 even though the impugned materials were from 2003 and the website had been down since 2006, from before the time Warman laid his complaint. [Decision, para. 16] The CHRC pulled out of the case only at the last moment on the grounds there was nothing to remediate.
(b) Warman v. Harrison, 2006 CHRT 30 – The case proceeded to Tribunal even though all of the impugned materials had been removed from the Freedomsite in early 2004 before Harrison even obtained notice of the complaint.
(c) Warman v. Wilkinson, 2007 CHRT 27 – The website was taken down in December 2003, months before the respondent received notice of the complaint in August of 2004. [para. 45-48]
(d) Warman v. Guille 2008 CHRT 40- When served with the complaint, the respondent Ms. Guille immediately removed from the Canadian Heritage Alliance website the material that was possibly in breach of section 13 of the Act. The complaint nevertheless proceeded to a full Tribunal hearing. [para. 189]
(e) Warman v. Bahr, 2006 CHRT 52 – In May of 2004, the WCFU website was taken down [para. 70] Warman filed complaint in June of 2004. [para. 4]

12. Lemire challenged the constitutionality of s. 13 and related remedial provisions in s. 54 of the CHRA, arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (hereinafter “SCC”) in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 SCR 892 was distinguishable given the amendments to the CHRA adding a penalty and special compensation remedies to s. 13 and expanding its ambit to the Internet and computer networks. Taylor had held that s. 13 was a violation of the constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was a reasonable limit under s. 1 thereof.

13. The Tribunal dismissed all complaints against Lemire except for the one article posted on the Freedomsite entitled “AIDS Secrets.” Only 8 persons from Canada had viewed the article, a number which would include Lemire, Warman and the investigators at the CHRC. [see: para. 208 of CHRT Decision at AB, v. I, p. 156] The Tribunal refused to make any order against Lemire, however, on the grounds that s. 13(1) in conjunction with s. 54(1) and (1.1) were inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter which were not a reasonable limit within s. 1 thereof.

14. The Tribunal held that section 13 could no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature which was at the core of Taylor’s finding that the absence of intent to discriminate did not so deleteriously impinge on s. 2(b) rights so as to make intolerable the provision’s limitation on freedom of expression. As such, it no longer met the Oakes minimum impairment test under s. 1 of the Charter.

15. The Tribunal based its decision on two grounds:
(a) The penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) of the CHRA made s. 13 more penal in nature such that it could no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory;
(b) The manner in which s. 13 has been applied evoked a process that had been anything but conciliatory. In this case, the CHRC dealt with and referred the complaint to the Tribunal even though the Freedomsite message board and most of the other material complained of had been removed. This had occurred in other cases as well. Repeated requests by Lemire’s counsel for an opportunity to mediate or conciliate a settlement were refused even though the CHRC had the authority to appoint a conciliator under s. 47 of the CHRA. Statistics led in evidence showed that only 4% of s. 13 cases were settled over a ten year period, while almost the opposite was true for general complaints under the Act. The CHRC itself published material on its website stating that while it generally offered to mediate complaints, it did not do so in the case of hate message complaints. [Decision, paras. 283-286] The Tribunal held that it was entitled to examine the real and factual context in which s. 13 existed and was applied in determining whether it remained a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter. [CHRT Decision, para. 287-290 at AB, v. I, pp. 179-180]

16. On application for judicial review by the CHRC, the Federal Court held that the Tribunal was correct to decline to apply s. 54(1) (c) and (1.1) of the CHRA and it issued a declaration that the provisions were of no force or effect. However, the Federal Court found that the Tribunal erred in failing to apply s. 13 and ss. 54(1)(a) and (b) of the CHRA. It therefore allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to issue a declaration that the “AIDS Secret” article was in contravention of s. 13 and to exercise its jurisdiction under ss. 54 (1)(a) or (b) of the CHRA to consider the issuance of a remedial order against the appellant. [FC Judgment, AB, v. I, p.8-79]


Part II – Statement of Points in Issue

17. The points in issue in this judicial review are the following:
(a) Did the Federal Court err in holding that the Tribunal was not entitled to examine the real and factual context in which s. 13(1) existed and was applied in determining whether it remained a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter?
(b) Did the Federal Court err in holding that the severance of the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) and (1.1) was justified in law, and if so, whether such severance “saved” the constitutionality of s. 13(1) under s. 1 of the Charter?
(c) Did the Federal Court err in holding that the violation of s. 2(b) of the Charter by s. 13(1) and s. 54 (1) and (1.1) was justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society?


Part III – Submissions

Severance of the Penalty Provision:

18. It is submitted that the Federal Court erred in law in holding that severance of the penalty provisions, which the CHRC conceded was unconstitutional, rendered s. 13(1) a reasonable limit on s. 2(b) rights.

19. In its analysis of the legislative history of s. 13 and 53, the Federal Court misread the CHRA at para. 18-19. At the time Taylor was decided, the only remedy available was a cease and desist order under s. 54. Amendments in 1998 added new special compensation of up to $20,000 and a penalty of $10,000. A further amendment in 2001 extended the section from telephones to computer networks, including the Internet. [see Schedule B for Bills amending s. 13 and 54] This appears to have seriously misled the Court.

20. The SCC held in Schachter v. Canada [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679 that there is “no easy formula by which a court may decide whether severance or reading in is appropriate in a given case” [para. 77] and that “[s]everance...will be warranted only in the clearest of cases...” [para. 85]

21. The legislative summary of Bill S-5 [which added the penalty amendments] stated the penalty and special compensation were “a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organisations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.”

22. The 1998 amendments reflect the fact that Parliament deemed the importance of the objective to be served by stopping hate was such that penal sanctions and large special compensation awards were necessary. It described the objective as the stopping of “hate crimes”.

23. The penalty clauses reflected the intent and objective of Parliament in 1998 to chill, punish and deter expression as set out in s. 13(1). They are the pith and substance of what Parliament wanted to attain in the legislative scheme around s. 13. Not to be ignored, also, was the inclusion of large special compensation provisions.

24. However, in 2012, the House of Commons passed Bill C-304, repealing s. 13 and 54 of the CHRA. The Bill is now at second reading before the Senate. The intent of Parliament in doing so was to protect freedom of speech. This factor must be considered in the severance analysis since the House of Commons did not simply repeal the penalty provisions but the entire scheme contained in s. 13 and 54. [see: Bill C-304]
The infringement of s.2(b) of the Charter by s. 13 and s. 54 is not saved by s. 1

25. It is submitted that s. 13 and its remaining remedy provisions of s. 54 fail to meet the proportionality test set out in Oakes. This failure is amply shown by the evidence of how s. 13 has been used and applied over the past 30 years. The Federal Court erred in law in holding that, in a s. 1 analysis, the Tribunal was not entitled to review this evidence, including rates of conviction, conciliation, settlement and dismissal. The Court erroneously characterized the Tribunal’s analysis as a “challenge” to the CHRC’s administrative jurisdiction which could not be “collaterally questioned”. [para. 56 and 57]

26. The Federal Court’s reliance on Eldridge v British Columbia (AG), [1997] 3 SCR 624 at para 20 [Eldridge] was in error. Eldridge held that administration of a statute could not, in itself, render a statute unconstitutional. Eldridge dealt with a law which was constitutional on its face. Taylor found s. 13 to be a violation of s. 2(b) of the Charter. The issue is therefore whether it could be saved on a s. 1 analysis. Eldridge has no application in these circumstances.

27. The Tribunal never challenged or reviewed any individual decision of the CHRC but instead examined patterns of operational outcomes over a period of some 30 years which showed that s. 13 was not being used in a manner furthering the remedial objectives of the legislation but was being used in a manner that was punitive and had a profoundly chilling effect on freedom of speech. [see Sch. A attached for Charts summarizing s. 13 cases]

28. In the majority decision in Taylor that s. 13 was proportionate to its valid objective, the SCC relied repeatedly on the fact that s. 13 was found in human rights legislation whose purpose and procedures were remedial and conciliatory. [see paras. 37, 53, 61, 69, 75, 83] The majority specifically relied on “the legislative framework encouraging a conciliatory settlement” and “the conciliatory nature of the human rights procedure” in upholding s. 13. [para. 75 and 53 respectively]

29. The minority judgment by McLaughlin J. (as she then was) also dealt with the issue of whether the CHRA’s remedial procedures could save the legislation. She wrote:
In my view, it is no answer to the absence of rational connection between the broad sweep of legislation and its objectives, to say that in practice, Commissioners and members of tribunals may choose not to enforce the overbroad aspects of a provision. Rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter cannot be left to the administrative discretion of those employed by or retained by the state. This is not a case where constitutional problems are raised only if one presumes that administrative officials will exercise their discretion in a manner contrary to the Charter. Rather, the power to infringe the Charter is delegated explicitly or by necessary implication by the provision, and so it must stand or fall on its own terms: see Lamer J. in Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, 1989 CanLII 92 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, at p. 1078. [emphasis added]

30. The CHRC and the Tribunal both were given the explicit right to infringe the Charter rights of those accused of violating s. 13 and the 30 year history of how both have used this power is highly relevant to any s. 1 analysis, as is implicit in the Taylor reasons by both Dickson, C.J. and McLaughlin, J., both of which considered the scheme of the CHRA as highly relevant to the s. 1 analysis.

31. When the evidence shows the administration of s. 13 is not in accord with the purpose and object of the law as contemplated by the court in Taylor and has affected freedom of speech in a deleterious manner, that evidence is relevant and admissible in any s. 1 analysis, contrary to the finding of the Federal Court in this case.

32. The CHRC has aggressively pursued expanding its mandate under s. 13, from telephones to computer networks (Citron v. Zundel, 2002 CanLII 23557 (CHRT), and justifying other measures deleteriously affecting freedom of speech under s. 27(1) (h) of the CHRA which provides that the CHRC “shall, so far as is practical and consistent with the application of Part III, try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices referred to in sections 5 to 14.1.”

33. The Tribunal correctly examined “the real and factual context in which s. 13 existed” including the procedural operation of “the legislative framework”. The SCC has held that the Oakes test under s. 1 must be applied flexibly, having regard to the factual and social context of each case. [RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, para. 133]

34. The Tribunal had before it the statistics published by the CHRC itself in its Annual Reports or pursuant to Access to Information requests which showed beyond doubt that s. 13 is not used in a remedial or conciliatory fashion. In the 30 year history of the provision, not one respondent before a Tribunal had ever had a complaint dismissed prior to Lemire. The rate of settlement prior to being sent to a Tribunal or while before a Tribunal is the exact opposite of those for all other complaints made under the CHRA. The CHRC has appeared at and carried every s. 13 case since its inception on the grounds that cases under section 13 are of such significant public interest, analogous to a Crown prosecution. The only respondents ever jailed for contempt of Tribunal orders are respondents in s. 13 complaints. [see: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Heritage Front, [1994] F.C.J. No. 2010; Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1980] F.C.J. No. 119; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1987] 3 F.C. 593; Canada v. Winnicki [2006] F.C.J. No. 1092 (F.C.); see AB, v. III, p. 809]

35. When Dean Steacy, a lead investigator at the CHRC in hate messages, was asked what value he gave freedom of speech when he investigated complaints under s. 13, he replied:
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. [AB, v. III, pp. 764-765]

36. The CHRC handling of the Lemire case showcased the prosecutorial methods used. The Tribunal made no findings that the CHRC’s actions were right or wrong. It used these facts to show that the administration of the provision was not used in the manner and for the purposes contemplated in Taylor and therefore no longer met the Oakes test.

37. The Federal Court’s findings of fact regarding the attempts made by Lemire to obtain conciliation or settlement were in direct contradiction to the evidence which showed repeated letters and telephone calls by Lemire’s lawyer to the CHRC to request conciliation or settlement discussions. The findings of fact made by the Tribunal on this issue were not challenged by the CHRC in the judicial review. Nevertheless, the Federal Court took it upon itself to overturn these findings of fact in the absence of any challenge to them by the CHRC and in the absence of any evidence of overriding and palpable error. [see paras. 60-61 of FC Judgment at AB, v.1, p. 44-45][Air Canada Pilots Assoc. v. Kelly, 2012 FCA 209 at para. 40; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 SCR 235]

38. The Federal Court endorsed the actions of the CHRC in refusing to accept voluntary removal of allegedly offending material as a reason not to bring the full force of the law against a respondent. The Court stated at para. 62: ‘Absent a cease and desist order there was nothing to prevent the strategic removal of material in violation of the Act and reposting of it as soon as the complaint had been withdrawn. [...] Bad faith of this nature would render the process essentially meaningless and ineffective and is hardly consistent with the objectives of the legislation.” This finding by the Federal Court indicates that it accepted that the remedial procedures outlined in the CHRA should not be used for s. 13 and that any remedial actions taken by a respondent should be assumed to be made in bad faith to stymie s. 13 complaints . There was no evidence of bad faith on the part of Lemire before the Federal Court and it cited none to support this statement. This was an error in law and directly contradicts the object and purpose of the CHRA as a remedial statute.

39. The Federal Court judge further held at para. 63 that “Section 13 cases, while few in number, tend to be among the most intractable handled by the Commission due to the nature of hate speech. They do not lend themselves easily to mediation or conciliation.” Given this view of s. 13, the Court should have recognized that hate speech is best left to the criminal system where defences and procedural safeguards are provided to protect freedom of speech since remedial procedures are not appropriate “due to the nature of hate speech.” In the criminal system, the consent of the Attorney General is required for prosecution. No such brake exists under s. 13, opening the way for use of the law by serial complainants. [see the report of Prof. Richard Moon, which recommended the repeal of s. 13 and leaving the prosecution of hate propaganda to the criminal law]

40. The CHRC itself has administered s. 13 in a manner that bears no resemblance to a human rights regime, such as its relationship with police and the types of investigative techniques it used in s. 13 cases. Internal documents showed that the CHRC regularly communicated with police forces about respondents, exchanged information pursuant to an oral agreement and obtained evidence from police that had been seized in raids pursuant to search warrants under the Criminal Code. Evidence obtained from police included Crown briefs setting out the most personal information about respondents, Witness Statements, information obtained from the CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) system, motor vehicle databases, police surveillance of meetings and rallies, personal contacts with police by respondents on other matters, information obtained in executing search warrants including CDs of personal hard drives seized by police and the police forensic analysis of such hard drives. Police officers have been important witnesses in s. 13 hearings such as Warman v. Kouba [2006] CHRT 50 at para. 88, 89, 95-98; Warman v.Bahr [2006] CHRT 52 at para. 46-60; Warman v. Kulbashian and Richardson, [2006] CHRT 11 at para. 74-90] where police evidence was used to establish the identities of anonymous posters on the Internet. [AB, v. III, p. 828-829; 839-844; also see also AB, v. II, pp. 352-376, 591-592; AB, v. III, pp. 638-640, 748, 839-844; for documents showing a continuing and close relationship between the CHRC and various police services; police also posted hate messages on Internet forums, see AB, v. II, p. 555] The CHRC also wished to obtain “more direct access” to confidential police investigative databases such as CPIC. [AB, v. II, p. 361]

41. Under s. 8(2)(f) of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, the Minister of Justice may sign agreements with provinces allowing them access to personal information on individuals collected by the Federal government. Evidence showed that such an agreement had been signed with Manitoba. This means Canadians subject to a s. 13 complaint are subject to having any information they provide sent to police forces across the country without their knowledge or consent or any warnings whatsoever. The CHRC also justifies assisting police under s. 27 of the CHRA which allows it to assist any government organization. [AB, v. II, pp. 362-364; see AB, v. III, p. 640-641 for the type of information Harrison provided; AB, v. III, p. 766; 772-773]

42. Section 13 investigators have been trained in computer investigative techniques given by the Canadian Police College. They have attempted to obtain information from s. 13 respondents using false identities and posing as racists. There were attempts by CHRC investigator Dean Steacy to “chat” with Lemire using the pseudonym “Jadewarr” with respect to a complaint Lemire had laid with the CHRC and it was admitted that his answer could have been used against him. [AB, v. II, p. 377-409; AB, v. III, pp. 650, 823-827, 830-838]

43. In this case, Warman laid criminal complaints against Lemire and Harrison after laying the section 13 complaint. Police contacted the CHRC to get copies of evidence but didn’t follow up after being requested to put it in writing. This was not disclosed to Lemire for over three years, nor was there any notice that what he provided to the CHRC might be handed over to police. [AB, v. II, pp. 510-511; AB, v. III, 635, 638-639, 665, 731-735]

44. The CHRC has not been even-handed in its use of s. 13; it has targeted only certain types of speech and certain types of individuals. All respondents have been white, generally young and poor. Almost all could not afford a lawyer. The CHRC has consistently administratively dismissed complaints against major corporations (AOL), police (RCMP) organizations which it considers stakeholders (CAERS) and its director (Alan Dutton) or against Richard Warman himself. When CAERS and AOL agreed to take remedial measures such as installing filters, the complaints against them were dismissed. The CHRC gave no such options to Lemire, even though in his case the message board was already down. The history of the administration of s. 13 indicates that the s. 13 is an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression as respondents are treated differently depending on who they are. [AB, v. II, pp. 340-350 [Sec 13 spreadsheet]; pp. 428-456 [complaints dismissed]; AB, v. III, pp.749-762; 763 [Steacy testimony on CAERS complaint; see Charts in Sch. A attached.

45. The Federal Court took notice of the legislative fact that Bill C-304, entitled An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), received third reading in the House of Commons on June 6, 2012, repealing s. 13 and its related remedies in s. 54. It recognized that this “is part of the social and political context of the legislation that must be considered when applying the Oakes test...” [para. 86-87] The Court nevertheless refused to give this measure any weight in its s. 1 analysis and erred in doing so.

46. At third reading of Bill-C-304, MP Brian Storseth stated in the House of Commons:
My private member's bill C-304 would help protect and enhance this fundamental freedom, because without freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly hold no value.

Freedom of speech truly is the bedrock upon which all other freedoms are based. Bill C-304 calls for the repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to ensure that freedom of speech is preserved and promoted through an open, transparent and democratic process, which is the Criminal Code of Canada. [May 30, 2012]

47. The debates in the House of Commons showed that Parliament believed the repeal of s. 13 was necessary to protect freedom of speech and that hate speech should be dealt with by the criminal law. [see Globe & Mail editorial at AB, v. II, p. 410 for type of public criticism Parliament was responding to; the CHRC has been well aware of the Canadian public’s wish not to have s. 13 apply to the Internet, see AB, v. III, p. 621-633] The Federal Court erred in failing to respect and weigh this significant factor in its s. 1 analysis. Parliament was responding to the public outrage over s. 13’s censorship of Internet speech and rightfully voted to repeal the law.

Extension of s. 13(1) from telephone tape messages to the Internet

48. It is submitted that the Federal Court erred in law in holding that the extension of s. 13(1) from the telephone to computer communications did not render the provision an unjustifiable limitation on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

49. One of the primary factors which Taylor took into consideration in upholding s. 13(1), as it then was, was the medium of the telephone. Dickson C.J. held that the combination of the telephone and hate material was particularly insidious because it was “one which gives the listener the impression of direct, personal, almost private, contact by the speaker, provides no realistic means of questioning the information or views presented and is subject to no counter-argument within that particular communications context.” [para. 78-80]

50. Dickson C.J. adopted the findings in the Tribunal of Nealy v. Johnston, [1989] T.D. 10/89 where expert evidence by a communications professor, Rene Jean Ravault, established that the medium by which a communication is made is a fundamental aspect of its effect on the listener.

51. Dr. Ravault had given similar expert testimony before the Tribunal in the Taylor case which was accepted by it and summarized in its decision:
The Medium that is Used to Transmit the Communication: There is a difference between the effect of words spoken over the radio and words spoken over the telephone. The latter is more personalized and the degree of concentration is stronger. A tape recorded message, however, is not as effective as the exchange which takes place in a telephone conversation. [Smith v. Taylor [1979] T.D. 1/79, p. 15]

52. The communications medium is therefore an essential part of the context in the analysis of s. 13(1) under s. 1 of the Charter and the fundamental change in that context by the extension to the Internet distinguishes the law as it stood at the time Taylor was decided.

S. 13 now extends to all communication media

53. When the Taylor decision was made in 1990, s. 13 applied only to the telephone, a medium which at the time was limited to voice communications. The legislation did not limit any other medium or type of expression, such as newspapers, television, journals, or books.

54. The types of expression covered now by the legislation includes audio and video content, books, music, plays, documentaries, government documents and information, political speeches, academic and other journals, newspapers, wire services and magazines, voice over Internet (VoIP), blogs, message boards or discussion boards, and real time data such as current stock market quotes, social media such as Twitter and Facebook. S. 13 also applies to smart phones, which can communicate text messages, video and photos to a friend across a room or around the world. This intrusion into freedom of expression, without any defences of truth, fair comment, political and public interest speech, vastly increases the chilling effect of the law and is not an acceptable limitation on s.2(b). [AB, v. II, pp. 457-468 (Klatt expert report re Internet)]
Internet and computer mediated communications are interactive and dynamic

55. The Internet provides every means of questioning information and of counter arguing, the two vital factors missing in the telephone message context as noted by the majority judgement in Taylor. Canadians can put up websites, write comments on message boards or comment boxes, write comments which can be distributed on websites or sent out by email, tweets or text messaging. Message boards and blogs give visitors the immediate ability to respond to other messages with equal prominence as the original posting. [see AB,v. 1, pp. 198-200 and AB, v. II, 469-478, AB v. III, pp. 621-633 for examples of message boards]

56. The Internet gives the free opportunity to respond and full opportunity for the educative functions of the CHRC and any other group which wishes to rebut what they consider to be “hate.” Dr. Karen Mock, the expert called by the CHRC before the Tribunal, repeatedly testified that education was an essential aspect of fighting hateful views. [AB, v. III, pp. 691-696; see “The Ethics of Controversy” (AB, v. I, p. 259) and “Attacking Brandenburg with History”, (AB, v. II, p. 294) “Censorship: Still a burning issue” (AB, v. II, p. 336) for views on the viability of censorship]

Section 13(1) now applies to the media and the press

57. Newspapers, radio and TV stations and magazines are published on the Internet so that any limitation on freedom of expression on the Internet includes limitations on freedom of the media and the press, something which was not an issue with telephone answering machines and their approximately one minute messages. This is an unacceptable violation of section 2 (b) of the Charter which cannot be justified under s. 1.

58. In Grant v. Torstar Corp. [2009] S.C.J. No. 61 the SCC reiterated the principles contained in the major trilogy of cases affirming the importance freedom of expression and freedom of the press. It held:

42. Freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy. Many years before the Charter this Court, in the Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, per Duff C.J., suggested that the Canadian Constitution contained an implied right of free expression on political matters. That principle, affirmed in cases like Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, and Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, has stood the test of time.

59. By failing to provide the basic defences of fair comment, responsible journalism, truth and lack of intent to s. 13(1), in a communications context where the press and media publish daily, the provision is no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. The article “AIDs Secrets”, found to contravene s. 13(1) in this case was a discussion of matters of public interest on AIDS which should not have been subject to censorship. [see Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300 for a discussion of the lack of clarify of such laws and the implications for discussions of matters of public policy and interest]

Internet Service Providers and common carrier status

60. One of the most insidious impacts on freedom of expression arises from the fact that access to the Internet is provided by Internet Service Providers or ISP’s, which may or may not have common carrier status exempting them from s. 13.

61. When section 13 was limited to messages communicated by telephone, access to the messages could not be terminated simply by pressuring the telephone company to disconnect the telephone service.

62. Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act 1993, S.C. 1993, c. 38 provides:
36. Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

63. Section 13(1) was enacted at the request of Ontario’s Attorney General who had initially attempted to shut down John Ross Taylor’s telephone messages by pressuring Bell Canada to disconnect his telephone service. [AB, v. III, pp. 655-663] Bell Canada had refused, citing its common carrier status under its act of incorporation and the prohibition on censoring the content of its customer’s communications. The common carrier status relied upon by Bell Canada remains intact today under section 36 of the

Telecommunications Act.

64. Once section 13(1) was enacted, the common carrier status of telephone companies forced those wishing to shut down telephone hotlines to complain to the CHRC and undergo the procedure set out in the statute which included a public hearing and an opportunity for the respondent to make submissions and tender evidence.

65. This situation no longer exists with the extension of section 13(1) to computer communications, including the Internet. ISPs were quickly targeted by the CHRC and by NGOs to remove customers’ material unilaterally. They also became liable themselves under s.13 [see Warman v. Kulbashian, supra, where a small ISP was held liable].

66. Beginning in 1994, the CHRC began writing to and meeting with ISPs regarding how to “deal with” the posting of material that might contravene s. 13. The CHRC has continued this pressure on ISPs and expanded it to include foreign websites and ISPs having no relation to Canada and over which they have no jurisdiction. Letters written to foreign websites and ISPs ask them to take “appropriate” action. It is a form of naked intimidation which the CHRC justifies under s. 27(h) of the CHRA to censor speech. [AB, v. II, pp. 424, 572-590, 593-603; AB, v. III, pp. 609-619, 796-808 [freenets], 664 [zundelsite], 779-790]

67. All contacts with ISPs are made under the authority of section 27(h) of the CHRA as part of the “persuasive part” of its mandate. A senior CHRC policy analyst, Harvey Goldberg, testified that he believed it was appropriate for the CHRC to seek to censor material before a Tribunal hearing was held. [AB, v. III, pp. 736-738, 739-740; 767-771; 800-804; 813-814]

68. Goldberg testified the CHRC wanted to work “proactively” using the powers under s.27(h) and that meant hate messages being dealt with before the problem reached the stage of a complaint being laid. The goal of the CHRC meeting with ISPs was to set up systems to avoid complaints and avoid the CHRT. This included the use of filters by ISPs, acceptable use policies and complaints procedure models having the goal of avoiding litigation. [AB, v. III, pp. 813-814; 818-819]

69. The CHRC expected ISPs to know what material constituted hate under section 13 or to consult their legal departments. [AB, v. III, pp. 815-819] Goldberg, however, also justified articles attacking various ideologies under s. 27 [AB, v. III, p. 774-776]

70. The guarantee to freedom of speech has been gravely damaged by the extension of section 13 to the Internet. Without the protection of common carrier status, ISPs are extremely vulnerable to complaints under section 13 unless they quickly remove material upon complaint. If they do not remove the material, ISPs have found themselves named in complaints under s. 13 for material which they played no part in writing or posting but which simply appear on websites they host as part of their business.

71. A complaint against the ISP, AOL Canada was dismissed because it took “appropriate” actions: it removed the messages, changed its acceptable use policies, put keyword filters on and simplified the process for an individual to complain. The filter prevented certain language from being posted. The changes in the user policies made it clear that violators would be cut off from their AOL account in the event of a violation. [AB, v. III, pp. 740-747]

72. But Dr. Tsesis, the expert called for the Attorney General of Canada, testified that such filters cast “too wide a net” as a means of blocking content, for instance, because the banning of such words as “breast” blocked not only pornography but also sites with information on breast cancer. The CBC had attempted to block anti-Semitic sites by banning the word “Jew” etc., but thereby also banned messages favourable to Israel that were not anti-Semitic. [CHRT Decision, paras. 117-120] By forcing ISPs to install filters, the CHRC is causing, behind closed doors, extreme damage to freedom of expression. As stated by the Tribunal, “Using similar word blocks regarding hate propaganda could also prevent researchers from reaching necessary historical and sociological information on the Internet.” [CHRT Decision, para. 120 at AB, v. I, p. 124; CBC article at AB, v. II, p. 469]

73. Influential ethnic organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress lobbied the CHRC to partner with Canadian police services to “analyze foreign-based website to make a determination as to whether a particular site would, if it or its owner was located in Canada, be deemed sufficiently problematic to be referred to tribunal. Such a determination could then be passed to Canadian Internet Service Providers who would then block access.” [AB, v. II, p. 415]

74. Although the CHRC refused this proposal, it shows how vulnerable ISPs are to those who are determined to censor material on the Internet using section 13(1) as a backdoor to censorship. [AB, v. II, pp. 351, 416-423 for corres. between CJC and CHRC]

75. The effect of section 13 is devastating because ISPs cannot and will not resist pressure on them to remove material on their servers alleged to be hate. ISPs do not have the expertise or interest to determine what “hate” under section 13 is and what is not. They will simply remove the material if it is causing trouble for the business. [AB, v. III, pp. 680-684 for Warman testimony on using corporate pressures; see CJC urges members to report “hate” websites, even if they are foreign based at AB, v. III, p. 620. See also: Warman v. Winnicki, supra, at para 27, Warman v. Kyburz, [2003] CHRT 18 at para. 13, 35 ]

Lack of jurisdiction over international communications

76. Harvey Goldberg, policy analyst for the CHRC, testified that the CHRC could not enforce s. 13 over foreign websites or ISPs and that this was a major problem in meaningful enforcement. He acknowledged that the “Zundelsite”, which contained material for which a cease and desist order was made in 2001, was still operational in the USA even though Zundel was in jail. [see AB, Vol. III, pp. 777-778; 793-795; 810-812; Citron v. Zundel, supra]

77. Tribunals have likewise recognized that in the medium of the Internet, it is difficult to fashion meaningful remedies since material can appear anywhere in the world and be replicated anywhere in the world. [see Warman v. Kyburz, 2003 CHRT 18, para. 81 and Citron v. Zundel, supra, at paras. 295-298]

78. The appellant adopts the s. 1 reasoning in the dissenting opinion in Taylor, that:
Rational connection must be viewed, not only from the perspective of the intention of the legislators, but from the perspective of whether in fact the law is likely to accomplish its objectives. Latitude must be accorded to the legislators, but where it appears that the law is unlikely to achieve the ends or indeed, may have a contrary effect to the objectives by which it is sought to be justified, it cannot be said to be rationally connected to those objectives.

The failure to provide any defences including lack of intent, truth, fair comment

79. The extension of s. 13(1) to the Internet justifies revisiting the finding in Taylor regarding the failure to provide any defences such as truth, lack of intent and fair comment in the proportionality test under s. 1. The communications context of telephone answering machines meant that the messages subject to the provision were pre-recorded voice tapes of approximately one minute in length. [see: Smith, supra, p. 2] The communications context of the Internet includes limitless material from books and journals, historical documents, newspapers and TV programs. It includes religious tracts such as the Bible.

80. The subjection of the full spectrum of knowledge to s. 13(1), where there are no defences, especially that of truth, is an extraordinary violation of traditional notions of freedom of expression. It is not a reasonable limit on s. 2(b) rights in the communications context of the Internet.

81. The extension to the medium has allowed s. 13 to catch messages, in the Harrison case, which were posted at a rate of several every few minutes, many of which were nothing more than angry rants. The chilling effect of catching such irrelevant rants far outweighs the benefit. [see AB, v. II, p. 562]

82. Dr. Mock gave testimony that truth is an essential element in deciding whether expression was, as she defined it, hatred or contempt. She also testified that it was possible for someone to experience hate or contempt when hearing truthful statements. [AB, v. III, p. 720-721] She agreed with the proposition that to make the distinction between criticism and contempt, one had to decide whether what was being said was factually true or not. [AB, v. III, pp. 719]

83. She testified that in determining how far a person was allowed to go in criticizing a group before it became contempt, one of the factors to be examined was whether it was “lies that are being promoted.” [AB, v. III, p. 716] She testified that it would be appropriate in a section 13(1) hearing to give the respondent the opportunity to attempt to prove the truth of the premises upon which a respondent had based his expression. [AB, v. III, 720-721] It was the “constant repetition of half truths, lies, exaggerations, stereotypes, etc.” that created a climate where people were dehumanized. [AB, v. III, p. 685]

84. Dr. Tsesis testified that the assessment of truth or falsity of a statement would be a “critical part” of the assessment of the nature of an expression and its effect. He testified: “I think it would only be logical for a court to inquire into its truth.” [AB, v. III, p. 724] He said that a person should be allowed to prove that a statement was true, even though it exposed an identifiable group to hatred. [AB, v. III, pp. 725-726]

85. Dr. Downs, an expert called by Lemire, testified: “Truth the often inconvenient...offence alone can't be grounds for censorship unless we want to end up not being able to discover new truths.” [AB, v. III, p. 727] He also quoted Deborah Lipstadt, who opposed laws against Holocaust denial, on the grounds that it harmed the truth-seeking process. By placing Holocaust denial into the hands of the state for punitive enforcement it was taking it out of the truth determination process. [AB, v. II, p. 563; AB v. III, pp. 728-730; see also “Illiberal Europe” at AB, v. II, p. 567 for the extraordinary chilling effect of such laws.]

86. It is respectfully submitted that this testimony by the government’s own witnesses shows that truth is an essential part of determining whether in fact words complained of are “hate” or expose to “hate.” By failing to provide this important defence, as well as any other standard defences such as fair comment, s. 13(1) fails to meet the proportionality test of section 1 of the Charter.

87. The Federal Court failed to consider any of these relevant factors in its decision.
Subjectivity and vagueness of “hatred” and “contempt”

88. In the dissenting judgment in Taylor, Justice McLaughlin (as she then was) stated:
“Where does dislike leave off and hatred or contempt begin? The use of these words in s. 13(1) opens the door to investigations and inquiries for matters which have more to do with dislike than discrimination. The phrase does not assist in sending a clear and precise indication to members of society as to what the limits of impugned speech are. In short, by using such vague, emotive terms without definition, the state necessarily incurs the risk of catching within the ambit of the regulated area expression falling short of hatred.” [...]

“Moreover, the chilling effect of leaving overbroad provisions "on the books" cannot be ignored. While the chilling effect of human rights legislation is likely to be less significant than that of a criminal prohibition, the vagueness of the law means it may well deter more conduct than can legitimately be targeted, given its objectives.”

89. The Lemire complaint and its process have validated the reasoning of McLaughlin J. regarding the vagueness of the words “hatred” and “contempt.” The complaint included two entire websites, the Freedomsite and JRBooksOnline [see AB, v. II, p. 509], which comprised thousands of pages. The chilling effect on speech on the Internet has been incalculable. It is no comfort that after years before the CHRC and the Tribunal, the appellant was found guilty of one short essay, when he was prosecuted and forced to defend against such a massive complaint.

90. The evidence before the Tribunal proved the correctness of McLaughlin J.’s dissenting judgment on this issue. The evidence of Dr. Persinger established that “hate” was simply a label that people applied to aversive experiences. In neuropsychological studies, “hate” was not a term that was used. The term used is “aversive stimuli.” [AB, v. III, 708-709]It is the culture that defines aversive stimuli. Stress is influenced by how the person perceives it, the label the society gives it and how they are reinforced for it. Problems arose when the individual did not have the tools and strategies that allowed them to adapt and respond. [AB, v. III, pp. 708-711]

91. Dr. Mock (like Mr. Goldberg) testified that the services of an expert would be required in identifying “hate” in fine cases and that anyone publishing would especially want to consult his lawyer. [CHRT Decision, para. 121 at AB, v. I, pp. 124-125; Mock testimony at AB, v. III, p. 715]

92. People being held liable under s. 13(1), however, are not publishing houses or
newspapers with legal departments and editorial control. The Internet is peopled by ordinary individuals. Any word that requires the services of an expert and a lawyer sitting by the computer is not a definable word.

93. The meaningless of the word “hate” is shown by the almost limitless types of communications alleged before Tribunals to be “hate”. They include jokes, books, essays, historical commentary, message board postings, cartoons and poems. The range of articles in the Lemire complaint alone shows that no one can predict what could be caught by the legislation.

Rational connection of s. 13 to the alleged harm caused by hate

94. In Taylor, the SCC held that people subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress. [para. 37, 41, 42] It did not in fact have any expert evidence before it on this issue but presumed this type of harm could be caused by hate propaganda and that the objective of the legislation was therefore a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.

95. It is submitted that this Court is justified in revisiting the issue of harm given the extension of s. 13(1) to an electronic, dynamic medium of communication which is fundamentally different from pre-recorded telephone messages. What harm resulted from a taped voice recording cannot be presumed to be the same in a dynamic and interactive medium such as the Internet where people can easily rebut and respond to what they perceive to be hate and where opposing viewpoints are abundant.

96. Dr. Persinger testified that he had read that part of the report of the Cohen Committee written by Harry Kaufmann, PhD. which asserted that individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress resulting in a loss of self-esteem and feelings of anger. He testified that Kaufmann’s conclusions were out of date and based on social psychological theories which, in large part, had now been shown to be inaccurate. [AB, v. III, pp. 705-707; see AB, v. I, p. 251 for an example of modern research]

97. Persinger wrote in his expert report that there was no direct experimental evidence that listening to verbal behaviour that directly or indirectly identified that experient diminished to any significant extent the self-esteem of a person. The studies cited by Kaufmann were not experimental studies but correlational studies. Correlational studies meant that there were two variables and they were related. It did not mean cause and effect. In these correlational studies, even the strength of the effects was extremely small. [AB, v. III, pp. 712-714; Expert report at AB, v. I, p. 242]

98. The term “psychological distress” used by Kaufmann, and quoted by the majority in Taylor, was so vague that it was meaningless. Kaufmann’s conclusion that hate propaganda produced feelings of anger and outrage in people ignored two critical controlling variables: firstly, that frustrative aggression occurred when there was no opportunity to respond freely and secondly, when behaviour (including beliefs) that had been rewarded by group consensus was no longer rewarded, it was followed by outrage and emotive behaviour. [AB, v. III, p. 704; AB, v. I, p. 242]

99. Persinger’s evidence established that the conclusions regarding the harm alleged to result from hate propaganda have never been proven in cause and effect studies. In the correlational studies cited by both Kaufmann and Dr. Mock, the effect was so small as to be meaningless. [AB, v. I, pp. 712-714]

100. Dr. Mock relied on anecdotal examples to prove harm which would not be addressed by s. 13– i.e. - post-911 focus groups of Muslims who stated their identity was being affected by things they were reading in newspapers and by slurs and name-calling at school and the supermarket. [AB, v. III, pp. 686-690] The rationality of hate laws must be put in question when the CHRC’s own expert repeatedly pointed out that people suffer the alleged harm of hate every day in their lives simply by going to the supermarket or reading newspapers.

101. One of the studies cited by Dr. Mock, however, the Bryant-Davis study, contained statements on the state of research in this area which are highly relevant to the issue of harm caused by hate propaganda. These showed that few researchers conceptualized racist incidents as forms of trauma and therefore there are few studies examining racist incidents as such. Further, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (4th ed., 2000) limited the definition of trauma to incidents that are physical in nature, such as serious injury, rape, and assault, but excludes verbal abuse, emotional abuse and social alienation, such as nonphysical racist incidents. [AB, v. I, pp. 220-241]

102. The study made several important comments about how people respond to racist incidents:
“While not all persons who experience racist incidents will be traumatized, some persons develop posttrauma symptoms in response to racist incidents.” [AB, v. I, p. 220]
“No universal, so-called cut and dried responses to psychological traumas exist. Even acknowledged traumas such as child sexual abuse may produce sequelae of varying toxicity in survivors.” [p. 221]
“Individual differences in personality, resilience, coping style, unique personal experiences, strength of ethnic self-identification, family closeness, etc. may buffer or mediate responses to psychologically toxic events.” [p. 222] “We have observed that some survivors of racism report feeling empowered by their experiences.” [p. 222]

103. The Bryant-Davis paper shows that the response of people to what is termed “hate” will be highly individualized. Dr. Mock agreed that individual differences in personality and coping styles had the effect of mediating responses to psychologically toxic events. She stated that there was no study of the percentage of people fitting into any of those categories. [AB, v. III, p. 717] She agreed that the paper recognized that an individual’s strength of ethnic self-identification was a very important variable in how someone would react to material as being hate or not. [AB, v. III, pp. 699-700] An example of this was Dr. Mock’s own reaction to a letter by Ernst Zundel published in a London newspaper, which hurt her very much, yet she admitted it was not hate and others would not be hurt by it. [CHRT Decision, para. 157 at AB, v. I, p. 139; Zundel letter at AB, v. II, p. 566; testimony at AB, v. III, p. 697-698, 701-703]

104. The use of censorship to stop psychological harm is a blunt instrument that does not meet any valid objective in the face of such evidence. Indeed, the law causes the opposite result because it appeals to those who are most ethnically or group identified and therefore leads to division, not harmony as each strongly self-identified group starts using complaints to assert its interests. [see AB, v. II, pp. 604-608 as Goldberg lobbies ethnic groups re s. 13; AB, v. III, p. 791-792; other meetings, AB, v. III, pp. 820-822 all of which were justified under s. 27 of the CHRA]

105. Dr. Mock admitted that there was no study, being a controlled experiment, that showed hate and extremism on the Internet led individuals and groups to commit violent acts or hateful acts. [AB, v. III, p. 722-723] This was an important admission because it was one of the reasons given in Taylor for holding that s. 13(1) was justified.

106. The second study relied upon by Dr. Mock was “Hate Speech: Asian American Students’ Justice Judgments and Psychological Responses” by Boeckmann and Liew (2002) which found that participants in the study who highly identified with their Asian American social identity would punish Asian-targeted hate speech more severely than those who had a low identification with an Asian American identity. [AB, v. I, pp. 201-219]

107. The Boeckmann paper is important because it shows again that even individuals who self-identify with an ethnic group have strong variations of self-identification and these will cause very different psychological reactions to material as being hate or not.

108. It is submitted that the non-use of s. 13 by minority groups in Canada shows that no meaningful harm is being addressed by it. After the complaint against Taylor, there were no complaints under the legislation for 10 years. In the thirty year history of the legislation, there have only been 100 complaints. Of these, almost 30% had insufficient evidence to be dealt with by the CHRC or were withdrawn. Even this small number does not represent grievances by members of minority groups since it has been inflated by the serial complaints of Warman, a white male. [AB, v. II, p. 425-427]

109. Of all complaints filed with the CHRC, s. 13(1) complaints have been and remain an extremely small percentage. In the years 2002-2006, section 13 complaints comprised only 1% of all the complaints filed. [see Charts at Schedule attached]

110. In other words, Canada has a general population that deals well with expression, values the right to expression and does not experience the harm that is said to justify section 13. Canadians overwhelmingly prefer open debate, not censorship of the Internet.[see AB, v. III, p. 826-827]
The allegation of “hatred” in s. 13 imports moral blameworthiness and stigma

111. It is submitted that the allegation of hatred itself imports a moral blameworthiness and stigma absent in other discriminatory complaints. These are not absent because s. 13 is found in a human rights statute.

112. As the SCC observed in Taylor:
. . . the conciliatory nature of the human rights procedure and the absence of criminal sanctions make s. 13(1) especially well suited to encourage reform of the communicator of hate propaganda. [emphasis added]

113. The word “reform” means “to improve morally; persuade or educate to a better life”, “to give up sin or error; become better”. [see Funk & Wagnalls, Standard College Dictionary, New York]

114. Tribunals have not seen s. 13 in a remedial way. In acknowledging that in the medium of the Internet, it is difficult to make “meaningful” remedies in stopping discriminatory hate speech, Tribunals have consistently resorted to justifying cease and desist orders as “public denunciations” of respondents having important “symbolic” value. This imports the moral condemnation and stigma which Taylor believed was absent from human rights legislation. [Warman v.Tremaine, para. 148; Citron v. Zundel, para. 300; Warman v. Kyburz, para. 82; Warman v. Harrison, 2006 CHRT 30, para. 71, 72].

115. The history of s. 13 confirms that Courts, Tribunals, the CHRC and complainants have seen respondents as blameworthy individuals who can only be stopped by cease and desist orders and penalties. The Federal Court below affirmed this view in paras. 62-63 of its decision. The conclusion must be that any proscribing of hatred in law must be solely left to the criminal sphere where the accused is accorded procedural safeguards and defences which recognize the importance of freedom of speech. Parliament recognized this with the repeal of s. 13 and 54 in Bill C-304.

116. It is submitted that s. 13(1) no longer meets the test of reasonable limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the Charter for all the reasons set out above and the Federal Court erred in law in failing to so find. As this is a constitutional issue, the standard of review of correctness applies. [Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 471]
Part IV – Order requested

117. The appellant requests that the Court make the following orders:
(a) The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Federal Court set aside;
(b) A declaration that sections 13 and 54 (1) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a violation of subsections 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , are not saved by section 1 thereof, and as such, are of no force or effect pursuant to sections 24 (1) and 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(c) An order dismissing the complaint against the appellant by Richard Warman under s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act;
(d) An order for costs to the appellant of this appeal and below;
(e) Such further and other order as this Honourable Court may make.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2013.

______________________________
Barbara Kulaszka
Lawyer for the appellant Marc Lemire



Please support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Marc Lemire is the only person to beat the CHRC in it's 33 year history!

Marc Lemire
762 Upper James St
Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario
L9C 3A2
 
Old March 28th, 2014 #68
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Defamation Law in Absurdistan: Two pseudonyms battle it out in an Ottawa Courtroom while freedom of speech is dealt a death blow

Defamation law in Canada is a glaring example of the archaic state of our laws. This week in an Ottawa courtroom, two Internet bloggers – who both use pseudonyms – are going to state their case before a judge. In one corner is the defendant, an inveterate blogger who uses the pseudonym Peter O’Donnell (AKA Roger Smith) who is being sued for saying that another pseudonym “Dr Dawg” (AKA John Baglow) is “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters”. And caught in the middle are Mark and Connie Fournier who run a message board called FreeDominion, where 1 alias apparently defamed another alias in a back and forth message thread.

This case initially started back on August 10, 2010, when pseudonym Peter O’Donnell made a posting on FreeDominion (as part of a larger conversation which occurred across multiple blogs). The posting in part said “I will return to that rather astounding claim but first, the other salvo in the offensive, Dr. Dawg's colourfully illustrated op-ed that describes the conservative base (for which nobody has claimed non-existence) amounts to "yokels with pitchforks." This coming from one of the Taliban's more vocal supporters. I suppose they are super-yokels with Kalashnikovs." (Complained of words in bold) [Quoted from court judgment on case)

So one Internet pseudonym named Peter O’Donnell commented on another internet pseudonym named Dr. Dawg in the heat of a spirited debate. How on earth could two internet pseudonyms ‘slagging’ each other in an online debate … end up being an on-going 3+ year legal ordeal and costing tens of thousands in legal bills? Welcome to the antiquated world of defamation law and its application to the medium of the Internet. While I am not going to specifically refer to validity of the “Dr. Dawg” vs “Peter O’Donnell” case which is currently before the courts – I have some thoughts on the law itself.

Ontario’s defamation law is absurd in its entirety, a relic of the pre-internet world. Once a defamation claim is filed, ‘damages’ are presumed. There is a very low bar to meet, which is that the words … tend to lower a person’s ‘reputation’ in the eyes of a reasonable man. But in the Blogosphere and the Twitterverse, what does that even mean nowadays? How could you quantify what a person’s alias is really worth and should Canada’s over-burdened court system really be the arbiter of these petty disputes?

The internet is unique as a communications medium. When Ontario’s defamation laws were written; a world where individuals could post and communicate ideas by themselves without vast publishing empire could have never even been conceptualized. Perhaps defamation laws were written to protect the reputations of little people against huge publishing empires. 50 years ago, the only outlet for mass communications were limited to TV stations, newspapers and magazine publishers. Nowadays anyone with access to a computer and an idea they wish to communicate can do so with just a few clicks of a button. There is no middle-man controlling the flow of information and this is the inherent design of the Internet, and what makes the internet so popular.

The Internet allows all sides of an argument to present their ideas and enables the readers to determine what is correct and reasonable to them. Just take the mystery surrounding Malaysia flight 370. A quick google search shows over 1 million webpages discussing the topic, with comments ranging from terrorism, pilot error, to an equipment malfunction. The free flow of ideas is liberating to see and empowering for the populace. Most of those webpages are people without a vast publishing empire, or a multi-billion dollar TV station. Readers who are interested in that topic can peruse the various websites and make a determination themselves as to what is real and legitimate information.

What role does the court have in this?

Thanks to Ontario’s absurd defamation laws, the court has jurisdiction on any information that is from or about someone living in Ontario. As a resident of Ontario, I could file a defamation lawsuit against almost anyone, so long as the information appeared (or was accessible) on a computer in Ontario. If the person was outside of Ontario/Canada, it might be difficult to collect any purported damages tho.

Take the above mentioned case (indexed by the court as “Baglow, a.k.a. "Dr. Dawg" v. Smith, a.k.a. "Peter O'Donnell", et al.”). Here you have “Dr Dawg” who apparently lives in Ottawa, who sued “Peter O’Donnell” who apparently lives in British Columbia, for a post on a website located in Panama (!), operated by two people apparently living in Kingston, Ontario. Now an Ontario court is going to decide if a pseudonymous posting on a Panamanian webserver was defamatory of pseudonym living in Ottawa? Can it get any more absurd?

Defamation law has really ‘jumped the shark’. When the courts have to sit and be arbitrators for content on a website located 7,000 KMs away, posted between two internet aliases, what has the law really become and how far will the law go to restrict freedom of expression? If ‘Beast from the East’ can’t be critical of ‘Vancouver Veronica’ on a website located in Moldova, what value does freedom of speech even have in Ontario?

Under Ontario’s crazy defamation law, Kim Jong Un could file a defamation lawsuit against an Ontario Blogger for poking fun at his recent 100% election ‘victory’ via a website in Timbuktu. Is Canada Absurdastan? Absolutely!
It’s time to consider a full repeal of Ontario’s defamation law. We have tried this horrible law for over 50 years; why not give freedom a chance?

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/03/...astan-two.html
 
Old July 2nd, 2014 #69
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

Section 13 is Officially Repealed

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship by Marc Lemire.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/...-repealed.html
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/...ip-part-2.html

Anti-racist == anti-White reaction.
http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca...d-for-now.html


The thing is though that section 13 may be replaced by an even more tyrannical freedom murdering legislation.
__________________
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 July 17th, 2014 #70
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[fromm fowarding marc lemire on censorship in canada]

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]: Modus Operandi of the CHRC: "simple forced deletion of the message"

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]

Modus Operandi of the CHRC: “simple forced deletion of the message”

You can read part 1 here: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/...-repealed.html

[June 29, 2014] Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act was a monstrosity since it’s inception in 1977. It was a piece of targeted legislation to silence one man and his telephone answering machine. But why on earth was it ever put into the Canadian Human Rights Act in the first place? The rest of the Act; is about employment, accommodation, services, etc. And the “Human Rights” Act, was remedial; Unlike the Criminal Code of Canada, it was not meant “to assign or to punish moral blameworthiness” to the people involved.

Why would the censors choose a remedial piece of legislation to target people, when Canada has criminal speech prohibitions, which could actually imprison people? The answer is simple, they didn’t want a Section 13 case to generate any publicity, the way a criminal charge would. They wanted to quietly censor people, in the back room; without anyone seeing what they were really up to.

In a letter dated November 13, 1975, Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan outlined some of the problems they faced when trying to “get” a man named John Ross Taylor. In reference to Taylor’s taped telephone answering machine, Callaghan stated:“The messages usually are topical and political and focus on a wide variety of subjects. However, the emphasis always is racial and federal immigration policies frequently are criticized.”Callaghan continued in his letter: “The messages discuss such matters as immigration, integration and urban crime, all of which clearly are matters of public interest.”The real intent of Section 13 was to silence legitimate non-violent criticism of immigration, crime, multiculturalism and integration. Ontario’s Deputy AG Callaghan summed up the true motivation behind silencing Taylor using the Human Rights Act:“The simple forced deletion of the message which I have proposed could have a major advantage over a criminal prosecution in that, presumably, it would not be attended by great publicity whereas a criminal prosecution, through publicity and polarization, might promote the mischief which it sought to suppress.”

In other words, Ontario’s Deputy AG wanted silence the messenger behind closed doors, “simple forced deletion” as he calls it; and hoped that no one would pay any attention to the gross infringements to freedom of speech that was occurring. And sadly for many years that was the case; marginalized people were crushed under the weight of the repressive state apparatus, without anyone standing up for them.There was some public interest in the John Ross Taylor case, because Mr. Taylor was the perfect media “villain”. He was totally unrepentant and steadfastly believed that what he was doing was proper and fair; some have claimed that in a criminal court, Mr. Taylor’s charge would be thrown out because he did not have the mental faculties to stand trial. Mr. Taylor put a notation in the phone book which read “White Power Message--967-7777”. Certainly most people might have an idea what that message was about prior to calling. In fact, when Mr. Taylor first appeared before the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, he was totally overwhelmed. Part of the Taylor decisions reads “It would appear from Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination of witnesses and his argument that he was attempting to establish the truth of what he said about Jews in his tape recorded statements. Strange as it may sound, the establishment of truth is not in issue in this case.” Yes, strange indeed; this is Canada after all, not North Korea. Was Kim Jong Un presiding at the Hearing; no worse, it was Francis Leddy!With Truth is no defence; it is not surprising that the Tribunal ordered Mr. Taylor to stop putting messages on his answering machine and slapped a lifetime speech ban on him. Mr. Taylor, not one to be pushed around by what some have called a Kangaroo court, left the Tribunal hearing, and immediately recorded a new message on his answering machine. That led to a Contempt of Court charge, for which Mr. Taylor was imprisoned for a year. As soon as Mr. Taylor got out, he said a big F.U. to censorship, and recorded another message on his answering machine. This led to yet another Contempt of Court charge and a one year sentence. In an odd twist of circumstances, the prison officials actually just let Mr. Taylor out after a few days of his second year-long jail sentence. By this time, word of Mr. Taylors exploits reached Western Canada, where lawyer Douglas Christie heard about the treatment of Mr. Taylor and was disgusted. He immediately got involved and represented Mr. Taylor all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The ‘Supremes’ narrowly upheld Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3. Writing for the dissenters on the Supreme Court, Madame Justice McLachlin found that “Section 13(1) of the Act infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter. Where, as in this case, an activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning or message through a non-violent form of expression, this activity falls within the sphere of the conduct protected by s. 2(b).”Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan did not completely get his wish. Not all Section 13 cases “would not be attended by great publicity” but in fact, most were. In the years after Taylor, numerous marginalized people and organizations were crushed by the censors. Terry Long, Bill Harcus, Kevin Lew, Tony MacLeer, Canadian Liberty Net, Charles Scott, Church of Christ in Israel, Randy Johnson, Micka and Machiavelli Emprise Inc., Ernst Zundel, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Craig Harrison, etc, etc, etc.Hate laws only exist in Canada because very few Canadians even know about them. Canadians are perfectly capable of handling the back and forth of debate and do not need the nanny state watching over their shoulders looking for anything that might be “offensive”. Hate laws are political tools to silence certain people. That’s why almost 100% of cases are against marginalized White Canadians, of a certain political stripe, which they categorize as “nazi” or “anti-Semitic”. In the case of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, 100% of the cases they have prosecuted are against White Canadians. It is ironic, that the CHRC goes around to various employers and harasses them about the percentage of minorities they hire, but are blind to the fact they are in fact the biggest racists of all, and only accept complaints against one race. For the CHRC, the only haters in Canada have white skin. It really calls out to file a CHRC complaint! Over the years, to show the hypocrisy of the CHRC, some people have filed complaints against Muslim haters. Surprise surprise…. The CHRC did not accept those complaints.Trifecta against CensorshipWhile Section 13 was happily censoring marginalized Canadians, three cases bubbled to the surface and changed the entire game. Firstly, was my case, which started in 2003 and was the definitive Constitutional Challenge which Section 13 had ever seen. Secondly, was the case(s) against Ezra Levant. These were “hate speech” cases filed in Alberta and at the Federal level. And thirdly were the complaints against Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn, filed at both the provincial (Ontario and British Columbia) and Federal level.While there were different complainants in the three cases, the end result was the same. All three of us were not about to shut up and go away; Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were journalists who wrote for major publications in Canada and I was a webmaster and writer who published the most critical information on the Internet about the CHRC and their corrupt and abusive methods. Along with me posting as much source material and documentation on the Internet as I could get my hands on, was my super talented lawyer and Section 13 expert – Barbara Kulaszka. Barbara is a dedicated warrior for freedom and it was mostly due to her that all the evidence about the corruption, spying, lying and conniving of the CHRC came to light.Over the next few days I am going to go into detail about the three main CHRC / “Human Rights” cases, which brought an end to Section 13. Each case was so important in the overall battle; they deserve a detailed look as part of the CHRC’s censorship obituary.
1.The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/...-repealed.html

-Marc Lemire

Webmaster; Freedomsite.org

Webmaster; StopSection13.com
[1] Heading picture from Radical Press
 
Old November 12th, 2014 #71
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Blasting the Persecution of Christopher Sandau

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/...ook-1.1496455#

Tom Zytaruk
The Now Newspaper.

So let me get this straight. Somebody with a politically incorrect belief system who did not share it with the kids he taught or coached should be fired because a person who holds such beliefs must be regarded as a poor "role model". As one parent said, "You can't be a Nazi and coach kids' hockey".

OK then. Can you be a fundamentalist Christian and coach kids' hockey? For a great many people, fundamentalist Christian beliefs are politically incorrect. Members of the Law Society in this province, for example, recently voted for a policy that would deny graduates of the Trinity College law school accreditation because of principles thought to be, well, "politically incorrect".

Can you express support for the Conservative Party of Canada on your Facebook page and coach kids' hockey? After all, many supporters of the Green, Liberal and NDP parties would consider Conservative ideas, particularly social Conservative ideas "politically incorrect".

But hey wait, you say. Comparing fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives to Nazis is absurd. Nazism is a totalitarian ideology associated with the commission of some of the most horrendous crimes in human history. But guess what? So is Communism. In fact the "body count" of Comrade Stalin or Mao is many times greater than Hitlers'. Funny though, many people with a Communist past in Canada, like former BQ leader Gilles Duceppe for example, were never held accountable by the media for it. In Canada, being a student Marxist has been treated almost like a rite of passage, a forgiveble stage of growing up. Those with a Nazi past, though, were hounded and deported.

Throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties, Leftists and progressives decried the persecution of the "Hollywood Ten" and others, like Pete Seeger, who were blacklisted for their alleged Communist sympathies. (But according to recent revelations by Washington Post journalist and author Diana West, many of these allegations were based on fact.) More than that, at least in Canada, many self-described Communists served on city councils,unions, school boards and taught in schools. Hmm. Interesting. It is also interesting no one on the Left seems to have a problem with a guy getting fired for his far-right beliefs or sympathies or associations.

That leads me to wonder. If Mr. Sandau made his Facebook page "a shrine for Communism", do you think he would have been fired?

Would he have been fired if he questioned the estimated number, 8 million, of Ukrainians killed in the Holomodor, which has long been established as a Plan to wipe put the kulaks? A great many, if not most members of the Canadian Communist Party at one time publicly denied that the Ukrainian "Holocaust" happened, but no one demanded that they be fired. No one, I seem to remember, ever stated that you can't be a Communist and coach kids' hockey (or teach kids in classrooms, as many of them did).
The double standards and hypocrisy over this issue astounds me. But then again, in Canada, it has become par for the course.

Malcolm Ross---a published anti-semite, was fired from his teaching job in New Brunswick even though he was well regarded by students as a good Math teacher who never shared political views with them. The School Board, as I recall, made the argument that Ross, given his off-hours views, presented students with a poor role model. I don't recall the Civil Liberties Union rising to his defence. Meanwhile, in BC, the BC Civil Liberties Union defended a teacher in North Vancouver who was fired by a Catholic School Board when it was learned that he was living common law.

The Board argued that he was a bad role model for Catholic students and that he had violated the values of the school. The BCCLU argued that what this teacher did in his private life was irrelevant to his competence as a teacher. I guess it all depends whose ideological ox is being gored.

In the wake of this story about Mr. Sandau's firing, I am going to have to take a gravol tablet on Remembrance Day, when once again, I will undoubtedly hear someone say "They died so that we could be free". Free? Free to say only things that are deemed to fall within the pale of socially acceptable discourse? Free to repeat only approved history? Is bona fide history only to be written and interpreted by the victors, as Herman Goering cynically said? Apparently.

I had two uncles who fought in the war to rid Europe of Adolph Hitler. One of them didn't come back. I don't believe that either one of them, if they could speak from the grave, who be happy with the kind of country that Canada has become, a place where more and more, people must be worried about what they say. No wonder many have come to regard Canada as a "Soft Totalitarian State".

McCarthyism---from the Right or, as is now the case, from the Left, -- is totally unacceptable. No one should lose his job simply for expressing abhorrent political views.

Tim Murray

PS Please feel free to copy this email to the gutless wonders who serve on the North Delta Minor Hockey Association. No doubt their decision has earned plaudits in every self-righteous bastion of PC groupthink across the land.
 
Old November 12th, 2014 #72
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[outright thievery in canada, as jews influence/intimidate judge into stealing quarter million from NA]


Jewish hate groups and a corrupt Canadian judge denied a white man his dying wish

From Canada, With Love

By Mark Potok, Senior Fellow

A Canadian court this June struck down a bequest valued at about $220,000 that was left by a citizen of that country to the National Alliance (NA), a neo-Nazi group based in the United States that has long promoted violence against minorities (this is simply a lie - and in fact, it's probably a legally actionable lie, had NA the money to pursue it). The presiding judge found the bequest violated Canadian law and public policy.

“The evidence before this court convinces me that in the case of the NA the purpose for which it exists is to promote white supremacy through the dissemination of propaganda which incites hatred of various identifiable groups which they deem to be non-white and therefore unworthy,” wrote Justice William T. Grant of St. John, New Brunswick. “Those purposes and the means they advocate to achieve them are criminal in Canada and that is what makes this request so repugnant.” (Again, how is it the responsibility of the judge to offer his opinion about the the moral quality of bequest? It's not his money. And it's not going to anyone in his jurisdiction. Is the NA not allowed to receive money? Of course it is. It has received money its entire existence. The judge breaks the law to enforce his (or the jew standing behind him's) politics against the will of the man who owns the property. This is outrageous. This is a pure power play by the jews, yet we have to listen to people talk about how we're committing suicide, or doing it to ourselves. I will create an enemy activity thread, and this will be example number one. Yeah, we dumb ol' whites should be our breasts. We're so incompetent to organize. We just have no idea how to do it, or raise funds, or anything else. It's all our fault.)

The judge permanently enjoined any transfer of funds or other parts of the estate, which includes a collection of ancient Greek and Roman coins, to the NA. Instead, he ordered it distributed to the brother and sister of Harry Robert McCorkill, a chemist who reportedly spent time at MIT, collector of historic artifacts, and longtime Canadian NA member who died in 2004. McCorkill’s sister, Isabelle Rose McCorkill, initially challenged the bequest, and she was later joined by two Jewish human rights groups in Canada as well as the provincial attorney general. (love that "later" part, which is complete bs. You can bet the jews gave her the idea. Notice how authority always does what the jews want, not what the white man wants. Even when it comes to the dispersal of HIS OWN PROPERTY. We're not living under a jewish dictatorship? What ever gave you that crazy idea?)

In July, NA lawyer John Hughes filed a notice that the group would appeal Justice Grant’s decision, which it characterized as rife with judicial errors.

In his June decision, the judge brushed aside claims by NA representatives that the group had been unfairly tarred in affidavits from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and others that quoted the group’s foundational documents as well as other materials produced by its officials. "All of these publications can only be described as racist, white supremacist and hate-inspired," the judge wrote.

"They are disgusting, repugnant and revolting." Your opinion matters - why? You don't like a man's politics, so you can take and redistribute his money and materials as you see fit? What part of that is repugnant and dictatorial?

The court decision comes at a time when the NA, which a little over a decade ago was the dominant hate group in America, is struggling to survive. It has gone from an organization that once brought in about $1 million a year and had some 1,400 dues-paying members to a group that is nearly bankrupt and has only a smattering of supporters left. The group’s current leader is trying to sell much of its West Virginia headquarters compound to raise money, and he has sold off much of the wood on the site to logging companies for the same reason. A faction led by the brother of the group’s late founder has sued the NA in civil court in an attempt to regain control of the organization. And virtually all of the major personalities in the group, many of whom enjoyed serious movement prestige, have left.

The loss of the bequest could help finally destroy the remnants of the once-storied NA. The group seems unlikely to survive without a source of new funds.

The court’s initial decision thrilled human rights activists anti-white hate groups in Canada.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which intervened in the case along with B’Nai Brith Canada, said the ruling was “a strong statement. Today, we are fortunate that the National Alliance is a severely diminished group barely holding onto its shrinking membership. The threat was that an injection of about a quarter of a million dollars might have breathed new life into this dying organization.”

“Justice Grant’s judgment was very direct in his findings of fact that the National Alliance is a neo-Nazi group and that their hate propaganda and stated goals of genocide and ethnic cleansing violate Canadian law six ways to Sunday,” added Richard Warman, a Canadian attorney who has brought 16 successful legal cases against hate groups and racist individuals in that country.

The Canadian bequest was first brought to public attention in June 2013, when the SPLC revealed that NA officials appeared close to settling the probate matter and forwarding the proceeds to the NA. Shortly after that, McCorkill’s sister, who like a second brother was estranged from her radical sibling and did not even know he was alive do you get how ridiculous this is? jews joined this process "later" - yet the person suing "did not even know he was alive" - are you kidding me? this is how brazen these liars are. They are nothing but highwaymen, and deserve the fate of same., filed suit, saying that she did not want to see the money go to a neo-Nazi group and that she also hoped to keep the coin collection in Canada. She didn't know the guy was alive, until organized jews came to her and told her they needed her for a front in a lawsuit.

The case against the bequest could never have been made under American law, which has unusually strong free speech and association protections. But Canadian law has a much fuller concept of the public good, and its foundational Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows speech and other “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Canadian law also makes public “incitement of hatred” — “willfully promot[ing] hatred against any identifiable group” — a criminal offense. Except the gift is going to someone in America, not Canada, so the judge has no jurisdiction. That's just the most obvious fraud here. NA is a legal group, and it's not up to a Canadian judge to decide which groups in foreign countries people are allowed to give money to.

Erich Gliebe, chairman of the NA, claimed in affidavits submitted to the court that the SPLC and others were trying to “smear” the organization by quoting its foundational documents and later statements from Gliebe and others. But Grant found that the NA had done nothing to distance itself from those documents.

And they were hair-raising. The affidavit submitted to the court by the SPLC quoted the group’s “What is the National Alliance?” essay as saying that the 
NA would do “whatever is necessary” to achieve “a White living space” and that it would not be deterred by any “temporary unpleasantness.” The document went on to call for “the racial cleansing of the land” and “a long-term eugenics program involving at least the entire populations of Europe and America.”

The SPLC affidavit also quoted an NA bulletin written by the group’s founder celebrating racial violence as “a healthy, red-blooded response to the current situation in America’s cities.” “Ultimately,” the document read in a particularly candid passage, “we will win the war only by killing our enemies.” In yet another document, the group spoke of packing “the homosexuals, racemixers, and hard-case collaborators” into cattle cars and plunging them into abandoned coal mines.

Although Gliebe tried to suggest that the NA had evolved into a kinder, gentler organization since the 2002 death of founder William Pierce, Grant pointed out that Gliebe alleged in a 2011 radio broadcast that “the Jews have lied for decades about the Holocaust,” which he described as a “money-making scheme.”

“[T]here is nothing ‘dated’ about the anti-semitic rantings of Mr. Gliebe, the current Chair of the National Alliance, in his 2011 broadcast,” the judge wrote. “Neither is there any evidence before the court that the NA has distanced itself from its ‘dated’ foundational documents,” a reference to “What is the National Alliance?”

All completely irrelevant. Canada is a jewish dictatorship with bought/intimidated judges. That's the bottom line.

Grant repeatedly referred to the strength of the case. The evidence “consistently show[s] that the National Alliance stands for principles and policies, as well as the means to implement them, that are both illegal and contrary to public policy in Canada,” the judge wrote. “[W]hat it stands for, anti-semitism, eugenics, discrimination, racism and white supremacy, violates numerous statutes and conventions that have been passed by Parliament and the [provincial] Legislatures and endorsed by the Government of Canada, including the Criminal Code.”

The judge also mocked Gliebe’s attempts to portray the NA as a cultural organization interested in European civilization, saying these “feeble protestations only call to mind the attempts by the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany to mask their true intentions through organizations like the Hitler Youth. History tells us that behind the mask lurked some of the worst evil ever visited upon the human race.”

Grant isn't a judge, he's a despot.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...nada-With-Love

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 12th, 2014 at 03:10 PM.
 
Old November 19th, 2014 #73
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/0...ism-of-israel/

Canada criminalizes criticism of Israel: Analyst

Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:55PM GMT

The pro-Israel Canadian government is modifying the country’s criminal code to ban any criticism of the Zionist regime for atrocities against Palestinians, an analyst says.

In a column for Press TV website, Brandon Martinez has analyzed the proposed cyber-bullying law (Bill C-13) by the administration of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“The Zionist ruling clique of Canada, through their front-man Stephen Harper, is seeking to beef up the already-existing Orwellian ‘hate propaganda’ law, which has been primarily used to curtail criticism of Zionists and Israel,” wrote Martinez.

He said Canada’s criminal code is to ban criticism or promotion of “hatred” against people distinguished by “national origin.”

“This means, say, if you condemn Israelis for their inhumane treatment of Palestinians, you could find yourself in court facing down the self-appointed thought police and commissars of political correctness,” wrote Martinez.

He singled out the case of German-Canadian publisher, Ernst Zundel, who has been facing court and jail due to his criticism of Zionists who are “the self-appointed architects of public discourse, the self-declared arbiters of truth and morality.”

The analyst said the Canadian police have refused to provide any protection to Zundel, whose Toronto home has been “torched by Zionist terrorists.”

“Zundel’s story is a testament to the power and control of Jewish extremists in Canada,” wrote Martinez.

Harper is under criticism for its violations of the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada.

Many native Canadians remain among the poorest members of the Canadian society, with most of them suffering poor educational, economic and social conditions.
 
Old November 30th, 2014 #74
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 4,715
Blog Entries: 3
zoomcopter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[“This means, say, if you condemn Israelis for their inhumane treatment of Palestinians, you could find yourself in court facing down the self-appointed thought police and commissars of political correctness,” wrote Martinez.
One of the many perks of being god's self-chosen is the power to define exactly what is good and what is bad, or, in other words, what is an imprisonable offence and what is not....The Chekists called it "wet work"
__________________
Ann Coulter is correct. A VNN poster in Florida needs to file a complaint against Barry Krischer, with the Florida Bar, leading to disbarment and hopefully, imprisonment.
 
Old March 26th, 2015 #75
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Man Who Heckled Anti-Racists With "WHITE POWER" Shot Three Times By Calgary Cop

I have held off commenting on the disturbing shooting last Saturday in Calgary in the hopes that more information may come to light.

Briefly, the facts seem to be that a lone man, now identified as Morgan Thompson, a flea market vendor, noticed a rally by Anti-racist Action Calgary outside city hall. This is part of the annual March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racism (actually, of White people). The event attracted about 15 people. Mr. Thompson reportedly yelled "White Power" at the group and may have sworn and then walked away,

At that point, Calgary police in a van, a seven year veteran and three auxiliaries, chased after Mr. Thompson, caught up to him and blocked him with their vehicle. He ran down an alley, pursued by the unnamed cop and the three auxiliaries farther back. The officer took out his baton. Apparently, Mr. Thompson produced a 14" metal pipe but some reports say it was a bicycle seat. The cop drew his pistol and pumped three shots into Mr. Thompson. He remains in critical condition in hospital.

'Man Who Heckled Anti-Racists With "WHITE POWER" Shot Three Times By Calgary Cop
I have held off commenting on the disturbing shooting last Saturday in Calgary in the hopes that more information may come to light.

Briefly, the facts seem to be that a lone man, now identified as Morgan Thompson, a flea market vendor, noticed a rally by Anti-racist Action Calgary outside city hall. This is part of the annual March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racism (actually, of White people). The event attracted about 15 people. Mr. Thompson reportedly yelled "White Power" at the group and may have sworn and then walked away,

At that point, Calgary police in a van, a seven year veteran and three auxiliaries, chased after Mr. Thompson, caught up to him and blocked him with their vehicle. He ran down an alley, pursued by the unnamed cop and the three auxiliaries farther back. The officer took out his baton. Apparently, Mr. Thompson produced a 14" metal pipe but some reports say it was a bicycle seat. The cop drew his pistol and pumped three shots into Mr. Thompson. He remains in critical condition in hospital.

All sorts of questions:

1. Why was this even a police matter? There was no violence involved. Mr. Thompson had heckled the anti-racists and was walking away. They were making a public statement. He had exercized his right to say he disagreed. Why did a vanload of cops and would-be cops chase after him? Increasingly we have seen police act as political police. A few weeks ago, a Sooke, BC Mountie informed a woman who had sent out an e-mail critical of a local school for flying the Red Chinese flag that a file had been opened on her and "hate charges" were possible if she made any threats. [She hadn't.] More recently Peel Regional Police's "diversity unit" was investigating whether a flyer criticizing genocide through immigration was a "hate crime." So, why did the police not just let Thompson just walk away?

2. Was the nameless officer in uniform? This is crucial. Calgary "anti-racists" -- and let's be clear, "anti-racism" is a code word for anti-White -- have a history of violence. Some years ago, they attacked a White Pride march and threw soup cans at the marchers, and a Calgary Sun reporter was beaten senseless. If the cop was not in uniform, Mr. Thompson might well have thought he was being pursued by violent anti-racists and quite reasonably have run away.

3. What happened in the ally is even more mysterious? A trained officer drew his baton but could not subdue a man with, take your pick, a shorter metal pipe or a bicycle seat? Then, why not use his mace or a taser or call for back-up? Where were the three wannabe cops? Why was it necessary to pump three bullets into Mr. Thompson?
Police have drifted away from their role as enforcers of law and order and become simply an arm of the political power which is stridently anti-racist(anti-White). As a dissident heckling the anti-racists, was Mr. Thompson seen as evil, setting the cops into full Rambo attack mode?

Initially, the media adopted its usual role of soap opera, rather than provider of news, CTV labelled Thompson a "White Supremacist/" The sole basis for this smear was his having shouted "White Power." The slogan doesn't imply domination or supremacy over others. Would "Gay Pride" or "Indian Pride" or "Black Pride" or "Black Power" imply domination? No, all these slogans simply assert empowerment for their people. More recently, headlines have softened to "alleged White Supremacist" (Calgary Sun, March 23, 2015)

4. The mystery deepens. Friends who have known Mr. Thompson for years in the flea market business describe him as apolitical. The Calgary Herald (March 25, 2015) quotes Cathy " Olszewski [who] expressed shock at the words that witnesses have said Thompson uttered before the encounter with police. 'Everybody that I’ve talked to at the market, even the customers are (surprised),' she said.'He never caused an argument at the market, ever. There’s a strict rule, if you show any type of violence, or anger, or racial slurs, you lose your table.'

Racial slurs are completely out of character for Thompson, said Olszewski, noting he has close friends who are not white.' We have homosexuals, we have transvestites, and he’s never, ever made a comment to anybody,' she said."

Now strictly speaking, with all due respect to Miss Olszewski, "White Power" is not a racial slur. It is an expression of White pride.

Interestingly, Mr. Thompson is not known in White nationalist circles in Calgary.

5. And finally, there are the anti-racists (anti-Whites) whose tiny gathering was in early reports described as a "peace rally."

CBC News,( March 21, 2015) reported:

"Jason Devine, an organizer of Anti-Racist Action Calgary's 8th annual rally, said the man [Mr. Thompson] looked agitated and angry. 'Racism is a form of violence and people who are racist tend to be very angry and tend to carry out acts of violence,' said Devine." CBC might have better served its listeners had they pointed out that the delusional Mr. Devine has run for the Communist Party on several occasions. So, "racism" or pride in and preference for your own kind, is "a form of violence" according to anti-White Mr. Devine. The only violence that Saturday afternoon was perpetrated by a Calgary policeman in an alley.

The Calgary Herald (March 25, 2015) added: " Meanwhile, Saima Jamal snapped a photo of Thompson immediately after she said he pumped his fist and 'screamed' white power near the anti-racism rally on Saturday .'It was the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen,' she said. Jamal, who frequently attends and organizes protests in Calgary, said she didn’t recognize the man as part of the regular [White Pride] group that has attended the annual anti-racism rally in previous years. Saturday’s protest was organized by Jason Devine."

So, shouting "White Power" is " the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen." One is tempted to say that this chick doesn't get out much. However, the chunky Miss Jamal is a bit of a hell raiser on her own. Last year, she organized a pro-Gaza rally that turned into a violent brawl. The CBC (November 14, 2014) reported: " A Calgary activist says she wants answers after the YMCA rescinded an award. Saima Jamal was notified several weeks ago that she had won one of the Calgary YMCA's Peace Medals, which honour people who work to advance peace in their communities and the world. Jamal, who formerly worked at the University of Calgary's Consortium for Peace Studies, organized several pro-Palestinian rallies in downtown Calgary this summer — one of which turned violent after several pro-Israeli supporters showed up at the demonstration.

She says she is shocked at the decision and wants to know why the YMCA reversed its decision. 'That displays complete lack of respect for my work,' she said. 'I feel, to tell you the truth, lost. How can someone do this to me, an institution as respectable as the Y?' Jamal says she feels bullied and discriminated against by the YMCA. However, a representative from the Calgary Jewish Federation says they approached the YMCA with their concerns about Jamal when they found out it wanted to give her the award."

Isn't "diversity" fun?'
 
Old March 26th, 2015 #76
EricPowers
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 704
Default

It seems like Canada is more restrictive when it comes to freedom of speech. Though America is more lax concerning "free speech" it hasn't benefited racialists much in getting their message to go main stream. Even the most Popular White Nationalist websites are still outside of the "mainstream".
 
Old April 10th, 2017 #77
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://www.newobserveronline.com/201...26000-for.html

Canadian Insanity: Nurse Fined $26,000 for Facebook Post

The surreal extent of Canada’s far-left nanny-state culture has been illustrated with a fine of $26,000 dished out to a nurse who dared to complain on Facebook about the healthcare treatment afforded to her grandfather.



According to a report in the Ontario St. Catherine’s Standard, Carolyn Strom, a Saskatchewan nurse, was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine plus $25,000 toward the cost of the disciplinary process by the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Association (SRNA).
Strom had been found guilty of “professional misconduct” for writing on Facebook about her grandfather’s healthcare experience.

Her crime was to make a Facebook post in February 2015 about end-of-life care on her personal Facebook page where she commented about the “subpar care” her grandfather had received at a Macklin health facility.

The Facebook post said that “not everyone at the facility was up to speed on how to approach end of life care” and that the staff needed a “refresher on the topic.” She also called for anyone who has loved ones at the facility to “keep an eye on things” and report anything they did not like.



The SRNA discipline committee in its written decision said it “does not seek to ‘muzzle’ registered nurses from using social media or for that matter, any form of public comment. However, registered nurses making public comments and criticisms (in whatever forum) must do so with accordance with the Code of Ethics and Standards.”

The SRNA has given Strom until July 1 to pay the $1,000 fine and three years to pay the $25,000, which works out to payments of more than $700 a month. If Strom fails to pay by those times, her nursing license will be suspended.

Strom’s lawyer, Marcus Davies, called the penalty “absolutely devastating” and said Strom has “no choice” but to appeal. “Because of the size of the financial penalty, there’s no way she can face that reasonably,” he said.

Davies says the SRNA’s guilty finding and substantial penalty set a dangerous precedent.

“The precedent this sets means that really, taken to its extreme, a lawyer couldn’t criticize the law, a doctor couldn’t criticize the health region, so it affects us all ultimately,” he said. “If this becomes precedent, then that casts a chill everywhere.”

Canada is already one of the most restrictive western societies when it comes to freedom of speech, and the fining of a nurse for making completely harmless remarks about a private nursing facility’s treatment of her father is a further indicator of exactly how restrictive that society has become.
 
Old June 19th, 2017 #79
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Free Speech Takes A Big Hit: Bill C 16 Passes Senate & Enforces Special Privileges for the Sexually Confused

Thursday, June 15 was a grim day for freedom of speech. After months of debate and some spirited opposition, the Senate passed.67-11, one of the pet projects of self-described feminist, best buddy of the transgendered and enthusiastic participant in gay pride parades from Montreal to Vancouver, Justin Trudeau. This bill will make criticism of yet another privileged minority -- now gender identity and gender expression -- difficult. If your criticism is deemed "hate" under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada's notorious "hate law", you could go to prison for two years. Under Canada's welter of pernicious federal and provincial human rights (minority special privileges) laws, you might be compelled to call a sexually weird individual by whatever pronoun he/she/it/zee/zuu/zur insists on. As the next story makes clear, this is already happening. CTV News (June 15, 2107) reported: " Nicole Nussbaum, a lawyer with expertise in gender identity and gender expression issues, says she's relieved the bill has finally passed. Parliament has seen earlier versions of the bill for more than a decade, but never approved one. Including gender expression and gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act will 'address the really desperate situation that many trans and gender non-confirming, non-binary people experience as a result of discrimination, harassment and violence,' she said in an interview with CTVNews.ca." Hang on a minute: Violence against anyone, sexually weird, confused or otherwise is already illegal. And, "non-binary" -- meaning not one of two (that is, male or female) -- would seem to suggest people who are seriously confused and perhaps mentally ill. Now, they must be treated with care and their delusions adopted. The CTV report continued: "The Senate took seven months to study and debate the bill, a process that included discussions about whether it would force people to use unusual pronouns.

The Canadian Bar Association, which spoke in favour of the bill, called those fears a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation. 'Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most 'extreme manifestations' with the intention of promoting the 'level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection' that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups,' Rene Basque, president of the CBA, wrote to the Senate legal affairs committee last month." For one thing, Basque is speaking only of the "hate law" here, not the much more loosey goosey human rights laws. Supposing an employer refers to a person who looks male as "he", but is told the person feels like a woman today and wants to be called she or zee or they. If the employer is a traditional Christian or just a common sensical sort and does not want to join this person in their fantasies and insists on referring to the individual as "he", might this not suggest "abhorrence, delegitimization or rejection"? And, if so, the poor employer has big legal problems. Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto was warned last Autumn that, if he did not address the transgendered or sexually mixed-up by the made-up pronoun of their choice, he could face discrimination problems with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Daily Caller News Foundation (June 16, 2107) explained the new law is "making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training. Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code. ... 'Great news,' announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. 'Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.' [Uh, what does sexual confusion have to do with love, Trust Fund Kid?]

Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law. 'Compelled speech has come to Canada,' stated Peterson. 'We will seriously regret this.''[Ideologues are] using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward,' said the professor to the Senate in May. 'The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedies should be sought [is] an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.' Peterson has previously pledged not to use irregular gender pronouns and students have protested him for his opposition to political correctness. 'This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,' Jeff Gunnarson, vice president of Campaign Life Toronto, a pro-life political group in Canada, told LifeSiteNews."
 
Old June 25th, 2017 #80
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

North Korea Lite: American Speaker Arrested in Canada for Smuggling “Hate Speech” on His iPad

If you're an illegal from Ghana or South Sudan or Iraq and you sneak across the border from the U.S., the Mountie who is supposed to serve and protect Canadian, not invaders, will act as an enabler. He carry your suitcase and assist your brood of kids and maybe even buy you a coffee.

However, if you're an American invited here as a visitor and cross legally through the Calgary International Airport, we give you the third degree, seize your iPad and arrest you for "smuggling hate speech". Meanwhile the venue that was to host your speech has been cancelled by another arm of the state because the organizing group is critical of radical Islam. Reporter Cari Keleman rexplained: "A special event permit for the event was denied by Calgary’s Department of Canadian Recreation, according to an article by CBC News, “on the basis that your organization, and messages it espouses, are hateful.

Wild Bill for America, also known as William Finlay, a popular author and speaker, was arrested today, June 24, 2017, at a Canadian airport for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad. He was invited to speak at an event at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” coordinated by Canada’s Worldwide Coalition Against Islam (WCAI) which also has organizations in Europe and Australia. Finlay served as a Navy Corpsman with the Marines before becoming a career law enforcement officer, serving as both a Deputy U.S. Marshal and Deputy Sheriff. A public speaker, frequest guest on radio talk shows, YouTuber and blogger, Finlay says his “mission in life is to encourage and strengthen America’s faith in God and Country. It is not politicians, but individual Americans with the courage to speak out who will keep freedom alive in the USA.”

CBC (June 22, 2017) reported: "The Worldwide Coalition Against Islam (WCAI) has been advertising an event on Facebook planned for Saturday afternoon at Olympic Plaza, dubbing it the Patriotic Unity Mega Festival. But Calgary Recreation denied its application for a special event permit, "on the basis that your organization, and messages it espouses, are hateful," the city told the group in a written response. Despite the rejection, a spokesman for the group said it will hold a peaceful march starting at Olympic Plaza Sunday afternoon. 'We are going to march downtown and show the biased city officials that we will not be silenced,' Jeremy Phillips messaged CBC News from a Facebook account associated with the WCAI.

'It's all about standing up for our rights and freedoms. We are not interested in a violent confrontation or anything like that. It's all about having a peaceful protest.'"

Again, with the Calgary Recreation, we see Canada's pathologically anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-free speech, pro-invader political establishment,


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.
Page generated in 0.32733 seconds.