The World from Fort McMurray — Commentary By Former Political Prisoner Brad Love

The World from Fort McMurray — Commentary By Former Political Prisoner Brad Love
On a rare day off I attend Burger King for a 25-cent coffee and I am served by a 12-year-old East Indian boy.  I asked his age.  This town of For. McMurray (Ft. Mac) is awash with temporary foreign workers. Land at the newly opened airport and the facility is awash in Filipinos cleaning and serving.
 
The costliest hotel in town (where politicos constantly meet) is the Saw Ridge Inn which is owned by a native ban,although, no natives seem work there. Its staff is all Third Worlders, some of whom, despite the vast profits this hotel rakes in, are housed in local subsidized housing.  Corporate welfare?  Of course.  The workers who did interior renovations at this hotel were all mainland Chinese.  I asked.  

 
Downtown streets are awash with strolling Africans and Muslims and all of the women seem to be enormously pregnant.  Not good.  While our hospital and other social facilities hold nonstop charity drives to buy equipment, our mayor spends $20 million on a footbridge that will cross a rarely used river.  And tens of millions more will go  on a downtown arena and outdoor rink near city hall.  The bridge and the rink will be deserted come our -40-degree winters.
 
No one asked for this stuff.  Is our city government  simply rewarding their contractor pals with borrowed dollars?  Our delicate media dare not ask hard questions … nor do I.  Despite the billions that Harper wastes on Afghan/Africa/Haiti, our door-to-door mail service gets cut off in 60 days. Meanwhile, I work 80 hours weekly, the government steals half so Harper can fly all his pals to Israel.  I know, BUT DON’T SAY ANYTHING!!!
 
Back in Ontario, which I also subsidize, almost 2 million souls wile away their days on welfare or ODSP while here in Ft. Mac, a steady stream of temporary foreign workers lands at the airport.  No one gets this. 
 
In the parking lot of our downtown mall, dozens of homeless and disoriented natives sleep on lawns and in doorways.  At night, they actually lock the doors on our heated bus shelters to prevent vandalism and sleepovers. No one ever asked for these costly shelters either.  Our local radio DJs will utter “fart and boob” comments but will never talk about what I’ve written and I dare not call them to prompt them either. They might complain of “harassment” again.  Juvenile cowards, all of them!
 
Here’s a prediction:  When Harper/Kenney/Baird leave office, how much you wanna bet that these three stooges for Israel find great jobs with companies like Gerry Schwartz’s Onex Corp for their undying obedience to Jewish causes.    Not a coincidence. Trust me.  No one will question this. 
 
Obesity is a huge problem here.  Too many dollars and nowhere to go. So, they eat fast food like you wouldn’t believe. This will jam up our depleted healthcare in the years to come, Yet, let’s not offend self-inflicted fat people who don’t know what to do with their dollars.  I’ve met grown men who don’t even know what an RRSP is.  ‘Course, they’ve never ever voted and would understand nothing of this letter’s contents.  A 300-pound woman covered in tattoos is not pretty to look at!
 
Now that the holocaust of Gaza is all but complete, certain media types and politicos here mouth off about Israeli’s right to defend itself.  Now of course, if you ever mentioned Canada or Canadian’s “right to defend themselves” or such similar nationalistic themes, especially when it comes to immigration, illegals, foreign aid, etc., these same brash Israel-firsters will be the first to accuse you of being “closed minded and racist” and will set upon you like only the B’nai Brith knows how.  What is good for racist Israel is NOT good for or in Canada. If this same tribe continues to shut down free speech as they’re doing then they should not be surprised when no one speaks up when they come for them again.  They’ve dug their own graves. 
ALL FOR NOW, BRAD.
_____________________________
Brad Love arrested at Toronto free speech meeting in April, 2009 for “breach of probation” for writing more letters.. The eight-man take  down squad of Metropolitan Toronto thought police brought a Globe and Mail reporter in tow.
Political prisoner Brad Love was hammered, in 2003, with the harshest sentence ever — 18 months — under Canada’s notorious thought crimes law, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code for writing opinionated non-threatening letters to elected officials. His probation conditions have been repeatedly tightened over the intervening years so that, at one point, a Judge Hogg (no kidding) ordered him not to write to “any person” without their  express consent. This order was issued, not in North Korea, but in Canada. In 2012, he was convicted of breach of probation for sending information packages to several Jewish groups who had, in fact, consented. He received an additional 18 months and now labours under a further ban not to write to political media or religious groups. Again, this Orwellian trampling of free speech occurred , not in North Korea or the Congo, but in smug, self-satisfied and increasingly repressive Canada.

No Parole For Political Prisoner Brad Love — Whisked Off By RCMP For Another Trial

No Parole For Political Prisoner Brad Love — Whisked Off By RCMP For Another Trial

REXDALE, ON. June 16, 2014. Yesterday was supposed to be a day of rejoicing for free speech supporters in the Toronto area to welcome home local Etobicoke boy, inveterate letter writer Brad Love, Having served over 11 months of an 18 month sentence for breach of probation (sending information packages to four Toronto Jewish groups in 2009), when the usual sentence for such an offence is usually 30 days, Mr. Love was to be picked up by his brother from the Lindsay jail in time for a Father’s Day gathering.
 
The Alternative Forum and the Canadian Association for Free Expression had planned a meeting here tonight to welcome Mr, Love who has been put through a 12-year ordeal, including over 30 months in prison, for writing non-violent, opinionated letters to politicians, police chiefs, media outlets and Jewish groups.
 
I wasn’t particularly worried when I did not hear from Mr. Love on Sunday. After all, it was Father’s Day, the first anniversary of his beloved mother’s death, and he naturally wanted to be with family.
 
A call this morning delivered a boot to the solar plexus and ruined our joys. The collect call was from Brad Love at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay. It was bad news:   “I am being kept here for six more days. The RCMP is going to fly me back to Fort McMurray. I am going to be charged with missing a court date.”
 
The situation is beyond absurd. The Alberta courts have been contacted repeatedly for proof that Mr. Love’s bail conditions, stemming out of a charge for sending “scurrilous material” to several politicians and media officials, had been amended. They know he has been incarcerated in Ontario since mid-July 2013. The cost to the taxpayers of several airfares and the RCMP escort is atrocious.brad love political prisoner
 
A disappointed Mr.  Love observed: “they know I am coming back to Fort McMurray. I live there. I own a home there. I intend to resume my job there and I have posted $2,000 cash bail.”
 
“They are going to fly me, a letter writer, back to Fort McMurray like a dangerous bank robber. What a kick in the balls. What a system! They caused me to miss my Dad’s Father’s Day and the one year memorial of my Mom’s death.”
 
Mr. Love will seek bail on this latest near fanatical enmity of the Canada’s politically correct justice system to silence an opinionated letter writer. “I am going to say to the judge, ‘I’d have been here earlier but the RCMP kidnapped me.’|”
 
Canada’s justice system is increasingly in the hands of Christian-hating cultural Marxists intent on silencing populist opposition to the forced egalitarian agenda.

Political Prisoner Letter Writer Brad Love Flown Back to Alberta in Handcuffs & Chains
 
Curious travellers at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport last Thursday may have wondered who that 54-year old man, in handcuffs and leg irons being pushed in a wheelchair through departures by two Mounties was. Was he some mass murderer? Was he a rapist and killer Paul Bernardo copy cat?
 
No, he was Brad Love, the prolific writer of opinionated non-violent letters to media and politicians – more than 10,000 letters over a 20 year period. At huge cost to the taxpayer, two members of the RCMP had flown to Ontario, picked up Mr. Love, who had been scheduled to be released on probation, Sunday, June 15, and flown him to Alberta. The police never showed him a warrant or any documentation, and, Mr. Love marvels, he had no identification on him but still managed to board an airplane and go through “security.”


 
Having landed  at Edmonton International Airport, Mr. Love was driven to nearby Leduc. The Mounties charged him with missing a court appearance in Fort McMurray last August 7. This charge is bogus and a further piece of political police state spite. Mr. Love missed the court date for the very good reason that he was in jail in Ontario, as of August 1, 2013 serving his draconian 18-month sentence for breach of probation (sending information packages to several Toronto Jewish groups) — a charge that usually attracts a 30-day sentence! However, political prisoners are usually treated more harshly.
 
Peter Lindsay, Mr. Love’s Toronto lawyer, had advised the court in Fort McMurray that Mr. Love was in jail in Ontario, and, therefore, unable to keep the court date.
 
The RCMP opposed granting Mr. Love bail at a bail hearing held by video teleconference. They said people in Fort McMurray would be “appalled” if Mr. Love got bail. Also, they added, he has no ties to the community. “I argued that I had lived and worked there for eight years and few people in Fort Mac have ties to the community. They come from out-of-province to work and make money. The JP (justice of the peace) wanted $1,000 cash bail. I said I had about $960.”

 
“So, I was released on $900 bail. I was turned out on to the street by the RCMP with $60 in my pocket,” Mr. Love told CAFE in an exclusive interview today. “My credit cards had been cancelled. Most of my belongings and cellphone were with a friend in Ontario. I used my $60 to get a cab to take me to a banking machine and I got the money to return to Fort McMurray.”
 
Mr. Love is seeking to resume employment. He faces his first court appointment — a date to set a date — on June 30 in Fort McMurray.
 
Mr. Love notes an odd coincidence. One of the public officials he is accused of “harassing” (by sending letters or phoning) is a reporter for Fort McMurray Today. Several years ago, he filed a complaint against this newspaper for running “aboriginal only” employment ads. They blatantly proclaimed racial discrimination in a way that would never be allowed if the ads said “Whites only.”
 
Similarly, another of those complaining against him is a local OXFAM campaigner named John Crossley. He and his wife are employed by Keyano College. Mr. Love some years ago challenged Mr. Crossley who was promoting OXFAM at a public display, Mr.  Love had argued to a shocked Mr. Crossley that most foreign aid was wasted and that OXFAM should be putting the needs of Canadians first. Mr. Love also filed a human rights complaint against Keyano College for running an “Indians only programme.” Both complaints were dismissed — not unusual for the pathologically anti-White “human rights” industry mindset.
 
“This has been a set-up from the get-go,” an angry Mr. Love concludes

James Keegstra, Dedicated Christian, Free Speech Martyr and Free Thinker Dead at 80

James Keegstra, Dedicated Christian, Free Speech Martyr and Free Thinker Dead at 80
 
James Keegstra will some day be recognized as a sincere, gentle man, whose politically incorrect views resulted in his being crushed by a media frenzy, a frightened citizenry and a judiciary sharpening the barbs of Canada’s speech repression laws. When, in 1990, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (now Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) by a narrow 5-4 margin, it became clear — and has with each passing year — that Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a fraud. Far from guaranteeing traditional rights Canadians had enjoyed under Anglo-Saxon Common Law — rights like freedom of speech, —  the Keegstra case helped Canadians see that they had been granted certain privileges by their government which could quickly be snatched away by government, for a good reason, of course.
 
The year 1985, one year after George Orwell’s year of apocalyptic horror, brought Canada into the eerie age of thought-crimes trials. Three convictions that year – Ernst Zundel in February under the archaic “false news” law, later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, James Keegstra in July, and Don Andrews/Robert Smith in December, under the “hate law” – saw Canadians tried, convicted, and, in two trials (Zundel’s and Andrews/Smith) sentenced to prison for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political their or religious views which is, incidentally, how Amnesty International describes a political prisoner – a fact that puts Canada in a somewhat embarrassing situation.
 
Born in 1934 in Vulcan, Alberta of Dutch immigrant parents who were dairy farmers, James Keegstra earned a university degree in education. He moved to Eckville, Alberta in 1968 and began teaching high school social studies. He was also a mechanic. Jim’s quiet demeanor and shyness, seen in many of the photos of his trial, won him a following. Both in his school and the larger community, James Keegstra was well liked. His easy going informality appealed to small town Albertans who soon elected him to the Eckville council and then elected him as mayor.
 
The Calgary Sun (June 13, 2014) reported that, after a 13 year successful teaching career, Mr. Keegstra ran afoul of his board of education: “Keegstra remained unmoved after being ordered to stop teaching Jewish conspiracy as a fact in social studies class and was canned from his teaching position in December, 1982. While some of his students felt betrayed by the Holocaust denier, most of his pupils rallied around Keegstra, who was then Eckville’s mayor.But that was only the beginning of a 12-year courtroom odyssey that would test the country’s limits of free speech.Soon after being dumped as Eckville’s mayor, Keegstra was charged in January 1984 with willfully promoting hatred. …

While Keegstra insisted he was defending free speech and the truth, prosecutors argued his poisoning of young, captive minds couldn’t be ignored. After a 70-day trial, the ex-teacher was convicted and fined $5,000 — a decision that was to be overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1988.

That same year, an arsonist using cans of gasoline tried to torch the ex-teacher’s Eckville home, a move he called “an act of terrorism” and an attempt to muzzle his views.

In December 1990, the country’s supreme court upended the lower court’s ruling by insisting the law was constitutional and the case was sent back to the court of appeal.

A retrial was ordered in April 1991 — a decision many in Keegstra’s hometown decried. ‘I think it’s a silly waste of money … Eckville has been taking lumps for this for the past eight years,’ said the town’s then-mayor Bill Scott. …

Said Keegstra: ‘There’s no freedom of speech in the world — we’re all under Zionist and communist control.’ In the summer of 1992, Keegstra was found guilty and handed a $3,000-fine but the defendant appealed by arguing the judged erred in responding to jurors’ questions. But the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the second conviction and again sent the case back to the Alberta Court of Appeal for sentencing.

By now, Keegstra made his living in Eckville as an auto mechanic —a man his lawyer said had been punished enough, impoverished and vilified by the media. In 1996, he was given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service — preferably for victims of discrimination.”

In opening his final summation in James Keegstra’s first trail, July 11, 1985, his lawyer Douglas H. Christie, the Battling Barrister, said: “Mr. JamesKeegstra is a man of 51 years of age. His life’s work and chosen vocation for 21 years was teaching. He is the man who served as Mayor of his town for several years. He was described by all but Robert David as a sincere and honest man. He served what he believed to be God, Queen and country. He was fired from his job. He has lost his career, lost his right to practice his vocation. He has been destroyed as Mayor. He has seen his reputation destroyed, and so has his family. He has suffered all this as a sincere and honest Christian.”
 
What was James Keegstra’s sin? In their headlines, like the Globe and Mail’s (June 14, 2014) “Holocaust denier who waged lengthy battle dies at 80″, the media flagged him as a “heretic.” The new secular religion of the West is the “holocaust.” To challenge or question it in any way is heresy and heretics must be punished with total destruction. “Holocaust denier” is a vague term that simply connotes evil or heretic. Virtually no one denies that Jews were killed in World War II. However, the term suggests the person so labelled does adopt this absurd view.
 
Most people accused of “holocaust denial” see the Hollywood version of WW II as a vast exaggeration and, worse, unlike most accounts of history, one that is used today to extract huge sums of money from Germany nearly 70 years after the war and to influence public policy. For instance, in 1999 when six rusting shiploads of Chinese illegals slithered into British Columbia waters, Canada’s Jewish Minister of Immigration Elinor Caplan said she was not going to be a gatekeeper and invoked the holocaust. Thus, if you want to keep out queue-jumpers and gate crashers, you’re a Nazi and want another “holocaust.”
 
The “holocaust” story is Jewish tribal history. It is, like all tribal histories, self-centred and self-focused. However, under huge pressure, the political elite in the West has adopted it as their own religion. Religion is, essentially, a matter of faith. Those who point to contradictions in the tenets of the “holocaust faith” — for instance, the claim that it was the greatest crime in history, in a century that saw the deliberate extermination of 8-10-million Ukrainian farmers in Stalin’s efforts to break the resistance to collectivization — are branded as “holocaust deniers” or heretics. Debate over.  Fire him. Make it impossible for him to earn a living. Off to prison with him.
 
James Keegstra was a deeply religious man and a stubborn Dutchman. These were both his salvation and his curse. Mr. Keegstra firmly believed that there had been various conspiracies, including  ones heavily influenced by Jews, that explained much of the history of the past 300 years. As a committed Christian, he felt obliged to convey these truths to his students. He did not compel them to accept his views but sought to challenge them. After some parental complaints, the school board told him to stick to the curriculum. His faith and determined nature led him to continue offering these alternative ideas to his students.
 
Much is made of Mr. Keegstra’s unusual curriculum. As a former teacher, eventually fired due to Jewish lobby pressure, not for my classroom behaviour but for my political views espoused on my own time outside school property, I knew of many teachers who injected a strident leftist political agenda into their English or history classes. One Catholic high school teacher. in the early 1980s,  insisted that his senior religion class attend and participate in leftist “peace demonstrations.” Some English teachers I knew indoctrinated their students with White guilt and strident “anti-racism.” [What this political agenda had to do with teaching grammar, writing skills and English literature, who knows, and the authorities didn't care.]
 
 
Once the complaints against James Keegstra went public, the media, egged on by self-interested minorities, went into a frenzy. The small town of Eckville didn’t know what hit them. Few journalists adopted a balanced perspective. Like pirhanas in a feeding frenzy, they smelled blood in the water and razor-teeth flashing raced in for the kill.
 
James Keegstra’s lawyer, Doug Christie, described the process that would be visited upon many of other politically incorrect dissidents — Ernst Zundel, Malcolm Ross, Terry Tremaine,  to name just a few: Demonize, isolate, criminalize. First there is an orchestrated media campaign of denunciation. The victim is isolated. Friends go silent. Would-be supporters note the treatment meted out to the heretic and decide to draw back. They don’t want the same fate for themselves — friends of the heretic are as bad as the heretic himself. Now with the victim thoroughly isolated and virtually friendless, it is safe for the state to move in for the kill with criminal charges.
 
The people of Eckville who had liked and supported James Keegstra were appalled at the publicity and apparent vilification of their town. They began to draw back. James Keegstra retained a small but loyal following of supporters, many of them Social Crediters. Many of his former students and townspeople stood by him. But others sought a way for this whole thing to go away.
 
Even if one agrees that a school board could fire James Keegstra for not sticking to its curriculum, what happened next resembled a witch trial. It was not enough that Mr. Keegstra was fired, a vindictive province took away his teaching certificate, and, therefore, his ability to support his family as a teacher. Frightened townspeople voted him out as mayor.
 
But that was still not enough for the politically correct. A heretic must not just be exiled; he must be destroyed. As burning at the stake had gone out of fashion, a political trial under Canada’s “hate law” seemed the next best thing. By now, Mr. Keegstra was being subjected to triple jeopardy.
 
An amazing incident recounted by Doug Christie illustrates this point. After the guilty verdict in James Keegstra’s first trial was announced, the foreman of the jury approached Doug Christie and gave him a substantial cheque: “I want to be the first to contribute to Jim’s appeal,” he said.
 
Doug Christie was flabbergasted. “Why? Why?” he asked. “You had the power to acquit him.”
 
The foreman replied: “We liked Mr. Keegstra, but all the publicity. You know what it’s doing to this town.” So, convenience led otherwise good people to toss James Keegstra, a man they liked,  under the bus.
 
I heard much the same thing from my district union leader during Peel Board of Education hearings into my firing. He told me: “Mr. Christie, your lawyer is brilliant. His speeches on freedom of speech are powerful and eloquent, but you’re going to lose.”
 
“Why?” I asked.
 
“Because,” he answered,” the day after they fire you, the phone calls stop.” In other words, it was not a matter of high principle but merely convenience. If the censors and thought control fanatics can raise enough noise about the heretic, convenience will dictate the sacrifice of the heretic to shut them up.
 
The long trials reduced James Keegstra to penury. He eked out a modest living as a mechanic and later as a custodian. He died June 2, 2014.
 
The Calgary Sun (June 14, 2014) reported Mr. Keegstra saying on the eve of his first trial: ““I don’t want to be a martyr, I just want justice,” Keegstra told reporters in February of that year as his case began. “He did not get his wish: He was a martyr to political correctness and he never received justice.”
 
James Keegstra, as even his tormenters acknowledged, remained unbroken — again his strong Christian faith and Dutch stubbornness. As the great French chanteuse Edith Piaf sang: “Je ne regretted rien.” So too, James Keegstra: “It’s been a long fight and I think it’s been worth it,” he said.
 
What sustained him? As one who knew James Keegstra on and off for 30 years, I can say that it was the loyal love of his lovely wife Lorraine who stood by Jim through all the abuse and punishment and his abiding faith in God. And, yes, that old quiet Dutch stubbornness and resolve.
 
My fervent hope is next time bossy boots Canada lectures Russia about outlawing homosexual propaganda and proclaims our attachment to freedom of speech, that President Putin scoffs and whispers in Harper’s ear: “What about James Keegstra? Free speech, ha!” — Paul Fromm
____________________________________
 
For a copy of Doug Christie’s brilliant summation at the first Keegstra trial, read Thought Crimes: The Keegstra Case(available from C-G\FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, for $5.00 posdtpaid.)
 
 
Terry Long’s Appreciation of the Life of James Keegstra
Canadian patriot and school teacher Jim Keegsta was prosecuted in 1983 under Canada’s then existing Hate statute for claiming the so-called “Holocaust” was “exaggerated”. He subsequently became the first nationally vilified martyr for Canadian freedom of speech in Canada. That claim was subsequently substantiated when the world Jewish Congress in conjunction with the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland lowered the number of gassing victims at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million in 1990. So for any apologist who says the numbers don’t matter, it did to patriot Jim Keegstra who lost his job as a teacher and mayor of the town he lived in and was continuously vilified and slandered by the national media ever since. As a result, he was defunctionalized socially, politically and economically. Like heretics in the middle ages who denied that the earth was the center of the universe, you don’t deny the state religion of the west and get away with it. The only difference between then and now is that they’ve found a more civilized way of burning people at the stake.
 
There were other Canadian martyrs before Jim, people like my good friend and mentor John Ross Taylor from Toronto who spent a year in jail in the late 1970s for a telephone message talking about the Jews and their machinations, but Jim Keegstra was the first to really go national in a big way. I guess THEY figured at the time that Canadians had been dumbed down enough that it didn’t really matter what kind of outrage was perpetrated against traditional freedoms, notwithstanding that those freedoms went all the way back to the Magna Carta, and they were right. In fact the Keegstra case was the first one to my knowledge where a Canadian judge in his final address to the jury stated, “The truth is not an issue in this case”. If the truth is not an issue in a court of Law, then what the hell is? I still haven’t figured that one out and obviously Jim Keegstra hadn’t either.
 
The RCMP even stationed armed snipers on the roof of the Red Deer, Alberta, court house when Jim was being tried. Canada it seems must be protected against heretics at all cost.
 
Jim Keegstra was a friend and patriot who went out like a man. He will be sadly missed.    
Terry Long 
 

 

si-220-james-keegstra-61456 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAFE Submissions in Federal Court of Appeal: Marc Lemire v Canadian Human Rights Commission & Richard Warman

CAFE Submissions in Federal Court of Appeal: Marc Lemire v Canadian Human Rights Commission & Richard Warman

Court File No.: A-456-12

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

BETWEEN:

MARC LEMIRE

Appellant

 

- and –

 

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

RICHARD WARMAN

Respondents

 

- and –

 

AFRICAN CANADIAN LEGAL CLINIC

CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Interveners

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE INTERVENER,

THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

______________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

Solicitor for the Intervener,

The Canadian Association for Free Expression:

 

Barclay W. Johnson

1027 Pandora Avenue

Victoria, BC V8V 3P6

 

Phone: 250-418-3255

Fax: 250-370-1655

 

PART I: STATEMENT OF FACTS:

 

  1. In Mr. Lemire’s case, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found a single infraction of Section 13(1), in regard to an article on Mr. Lemire’s website that he did not write. The website in question was located on a server in the United States. Similar material is legally available to Canadians from many other servers, located in the United States and other locations. There is no evidence that anybody aside from the complainant downloaded and read the particular article in question.
  2. In these circumstances, no evidence exists which could possibly tie the obscure article in question to any of the negative effects of hate propaganda described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Human rights commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 SCR 892 and Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.
  3. In considering the case of Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada did not have the benefit of expert testimony to review the Kaufman Report, which was a substantial portion of the Cohen Report relied upon by Parliament when passing Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The testimony of Dr. Michael Persinger, a professor of psychology and biology who testified before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on February 22, 2007, demonstrates that the Kaufman Report used an outdated psychological methodology in dealing with the issue of “hate”:

“MR. CHRISTIE: Now, in neuropsychological, do you use the term hate?

 

DR. PERSINGER: We don’t use the term hate. We use the term aversive stimuli. Hate is a subjective experience and is just simply one of the many labels that people apply to aversive experiences. So we study aversive experiences very, very significantly and frequently including looking at the correlates of brain function. But the term hate is simply one of the many labels that can be applied to an aversive experience.

 

MR. CHRISTIE: Why wouldn’t you use the term hate in any of your research?

 

DR. PERSINGER: Primarily because it’s arbitrary. Secondly, because it’s highly subjective, and third very difficult to quantify because it’s a term that’s used so indiscriminately that you really can’t use it effectively. The term aversive stimulus also is not as pejorative. In other words, it doesn’t have connotations.” [See Examination of Dr. Michael Persinger, pg. 2884(3 - 22)]

 

  1. Dr. Persinger goes on to explain why the context of the internet is far less likely to generate adverse stimulus than that of a telephone answering machine (as in Taylor) or unsolicited pamphlets delivered door-to-door (as in Whatcott). On the internet, messages are only delivered to willing recipients who specifically request them. In addition, internet message boards (such as Lemire’s website) are interactive and allow readers to respond:

    “MR. CHRISTIE: If I were to give you a hypothetical where there are messages in one location which you must go and find, but you also have the option of placing messages equally accessible to the whole world about your own point of view, could you explain how that would affect the ability of an individual to adapt to aversive stimuli?

     

    DR. PERSINGER: I think I understand the context. If, for example, there is an aversive message posted?

     

    MR. CHRISTIE: That’s correct. If I could use a specific example, hoping not to offend anyone if I were to say, I saw a message somewhere that said, all scots are mean, bitter, vicious, dower, penny-pinching, overly aggressive individuals. But I had the option of putting up a message that said that that’s only me and a few other scots and there are some good ones, would that affect the capacity to adapt to what was an aversive stimuli?

     

    DR. PERSINGER: Certainly. There are two options here. One, if it’s a free operant society in the sense that you have choice to read it or not, okay –

     

    MR. CHRISTIE: That’s one premise?

     

    DR. PERSINGER: That’s the important feature. I mean, if you read it and become offended, you also have an opportunity in a free operant setting not to read it and to avoid it. That’s also your choice, if you had that opportunity. On the other hand, you also have a chance to respond to overcome what I guess would be the most appropriate explanation, the categorical error. And a categorical error is over-inclusiveness, to say all scots are this way, all scots are that way. That’s the limit of human language.” [See Examination of Dr. Michael Persinger, pg. 2891(16) – 2892(25)]

     

    PART II: STATEMENT OF ISSUES

     

  2. The internet is a new and unique medium, not contemplated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor, and not considered in Whatcott. Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it applies to the internet, does not meet the rational connection portion of the Oakes Test, and is therefore not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    PART III: SUBMISSIONS

  3. It will be respectfully submitted that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it relates to the totally new medium of the internet, does not pass the Oakes Test and is therefore an unconstitutional infringement on the right to freedom of expression. In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 SCR 892, when Section 13(1) was upheld by the narrowest of margins by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Respondent was accused of disseminating hateful views using the telephone, a medium which the court found was “particularly suited” to the distribution of hate propaganda, and linked to its negative effects:

    Simply to label telephone communications as “private”, however, does not justify the conclusion that s. 13(1) is overbroad.  As was noted by the CCLA, the telephone is a medium which allows numerous organizations to present information and views to a sizable proportion of the public, whether through active calling or the use of recorded messages.  While conversations almost always take place on a one-to-one basis, the overall effect of phone campaigns is undeniably public, and the reasonable assumption to make is that these campaigns can have an effect upon the public’s beliefs and attitudes.  Indeed, in the recent case of Nealy, supra, expert evidence presented to the Human Rights Tribunal by Dr. René-Jean Ravault, who also appeared before the Tribunal in Taylor, suggests that the telephone is ideally suited to the effective transmission of prejudicial beliefs, and in this respect the Tribunal stated (at pp. D/6485-86):

     

    This brings us to the second and more specific contextual reason which justifies the compass of the provision and that is the medium through which the hate messages are communicated.  We have earlier pointed to the important testimony of Dr. Ravault as to the attractions and advantages of telephone communication to racists and white supremacists in terms of connecting with and attempting to influence those in the community who are for one reason or another bewildered or disaffected by events and forces over which they feel they have no control.  Dr. Ravault was also able to demonstrate how the authors of hate messages are able through subtle manipulation and juxtaposition of material to give a veneer of credibility to the content of the messages.  The combination of the telephonic medium and the material is, we believe, particularly insidious, because, while a public means of communication is used, it is 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.

     

    I agree with the Tribunal’s comments regarding telephone communications and hate propaganda, and find its observations to be helpful in rebutting the contention that the private nature of telephone conversations makes especially difficult the imposition of constitutionally valid limitations upon expressive telephonic activity.  Those who repeatedly communicate messages likely to expose others to racial or religious hatred or contempt are seeking to gain converts to their position.  The evidence of the Cohen Committee, referred to extensively in Keegstra, and expert testimony given before the Tribunals in both Taylor and Nealy, suggest that hate propaganda often works insidiously to spread a message of intolerance and inequality, and that the telephone is particularly suited to this mode of communication.” [Emphasis added]

     

  1. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable in principle as a totally different method of communication. To search out and access a website requires a conscious choice of an internet user to read the content within. Furthermore, the internet is interactive in nature, allowing for response, dialogue, and debate. Finally, the type of content being prohibited is legally available from any number of private internet sources outside of Canada. Without a corresponding prohibition on downloading and reading hate propaganda, the prohibition against Canadians uploading hate propaganda does nothing to make hate propaganda less accessible to Canadians.
  1. In Taylor, all members of the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that Section 13(1) infringed upon the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority (by a 4-to-3 margin), however, found that this infringement was justified as a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter, in accordance with the Oakes test, described by the court as follows:

The tests for determining whether an infringement on a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society were established in R. v. Oakes, supra, and have been adhered to ever since.   Two requirements must be satisfied.   First, the objective which the limit is designed to serve must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right.   Second, if such an objective is established, the party invoking s. 1 must show that the means chosen to attain the objective are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.   To conclude that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified, the Court must be satisfied of three things:

 

1.  The measures designed to meet the legislative objective (in this case s. 13(1) of theCanadian Human Rights Act) must be rationally connected to the objective;

 

2.  The means used should impair as little as possible the right or freedom in question; and

 

3.  There must be proportionality between the effect of the measures which limit theCharter right or freedom and the legislative objective of the limit on those rights.   This involves balancing the invasion of rights guaranteed by theCharter against the objective to which the limitation of those rights is directed.

 

  1. The majority decision, penned by Chief Justice Dickson, found that Section 13(1) could be justified under the Oakes Test because it had the valid objective of preventing harm:

“It can thus be concluded that messages of hate propaganda undermine the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contribute to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality.”

 

Section 13(1) can only pass the Oakes Test insofar as it is rationally connected to preventing the aforementioned individual and social harms of hate propaganda.

  1. In 2001, Parliament passed subsection 13(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend subsection 13(1) to apply to the internet:

“(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.”

 

Therefore, Lemire is a case of first instance, the first constitutional challenge of Section 13 in the context of the internet. In this context, it will be respectfully submitted that Section 13(1) has no rational connection to the protection of dignity and self-worth of target group members, nor to the prevention of social harms associated with hate propaganda.

Dignity and Self-Worth of Target Group Members:

  1. In regard to the harm caused to members of the target group, the same reasoning cannot and does not apply to the internet as would apply to a publicly-advertised telephone hotline. In the context of the internet, material is transmitted at the request of the recipient. Internet users are free to choose from a wide variety of sources, originating around the world and certainly not limited to Canada. In Lemire’s case, the material was never in fact located “in Canada.” A Canadian such as Richard Warman had to seek the material in the United States to be offended. If and when applied to the internet, Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act empowers the Tribunal to award “compensation” to the complainant for communication solicited by and deliberately downloaded by the complainant himself. The content is not even “in Canada” until requested. The act of making data available to those who seek it out is tantamount to a private conversation, not to the public dissemination of hate propaganda to those sincerely wishing to avoid it. The communication only occurs when requested by the recipient and is not normally available to anyone else. It is certainly distinct from the active communication of ideas through public speech to people who might or might not want to hear them. It is also distinguishable from a communication broadcast to all who have not requested it.
  2. In the recent case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the hate speech provision in Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Act on the grounds that it prohibits only public and not private communications:

“[83]   … The prohibition only limits the display or publication of representations, such as through newspapers or other printed matter, or through television or radio broadcasting. In other words, it only prohibits public communications of hate speech.  The Saskatchewan legislature does not restrict hateful expression in private communications between individuals. While one would expect private expressions of hateful messages might inflict significant emotional harm, they do not impact the societal status of the protected group.”

 

  1. The application of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to private conversations would not be a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Oakes Test for the simple reason that policing private conversations between consenting adults is not rationally connected to the objective of shielding target groups from hate propaganda. Even more so, it is not proportional to the objective. Like most private conversations, the groups know nothing about it to be insulted, defamed, or injured. Those individuals who were not party to the conversation would not be aware of any effects of hate propaganda in the first place; therefore, banning the conversation would not protect them from any harmful effects. The application of Section 13(1) to the internet is likewise not rationally connected to the protection of target groups because the internet, by its very nature, involves choice on the part of the recipient. Just as criticized groups can choose not to engage in private conversation with individuals who disseminate hate propaganda, they can choose not to visit websites which disseminate hate propaganda.
  2. In the defamation case of Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that merely making something available does not amount to “communication”:

    “Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content.” [See Crookes v. Newton para. 30, emphasis added]

The Supreme Court of Canada relied upon an extensive body of law in coming to this conclusion, including constitutional principles stemming from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Abella, writing for the majority, found that the implementation of the Charter, together with technological advancement, had increased the prevalence of freedom of expression considerations in defamation cases:

“Pre-Charter approaches to defamation law in Canada largely leaned towards protecting reputation. That began to change when the Court modified the “honest belief” element to the fair comment defence in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, and when, in Grant, the Court developed a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest. These cases recognize the importance of achieving a proper balance between protecting an individual’s reputation and the foundational role of freedom of expression in the development of democratic institutions and values (Grant, at para. 1; Hill, at para. 101) … Interpreting the publication rule to exclude mere references not only accords with a more sophisticated appreciation of Charter values, but also with the dramatic transformation in the technology of communications.” [See Crookes v. Newton para. 32, emphasis added]

 

  1. Like the defendant in Crookes v. Newton, Mr. Lemire did not write the content in question, nor did he promote or advertise it. He merely made it available for those who wished to engage in a private conversation or debate.
  2. In Crookes v. Yahoo, 2007 BCSC 1325, the BC Supreme Court found at paragraph 26 of its decision that “communication” of defamatory content takes place at the time such content is downloaded, not when it is uploaded to a web server:

“[26]   With respect to internet communications, the site of the alleged defamation is where the damage to reputation occurs: Dow Jones Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, (2002), 194 Aust. L.lR. 433 (H.C.); Barrick Gold Corp. v. Blanchard and Co., [2003] O.J. No. 5817 (S.C.). It is when a person downloads the impugned material from the internet that the damage to the reputation may be done, and it is at that time and place that the tort of defamation is committed.” [Emphasis added]

 

  1. Thus, it is clear that if the message causes group defamation (as set out in Section 13(1)), it is Warman’s download that committed it. The presence of hate propaganda on the internet does not necessarily affect the dignity and self-worth of target group members. Such material will only be seen by those who seek it out.

    Social Harms Associated with Hate Propaganda:

  2. Likewise, imposing punitive sanctions against the content of the internet is not rationally connected to the legislative objective of preventing the social harms associated with hate propaganda. There is no rational justification for prohibiting a person from making available an expression which is readily available to someone who seeks it elsewhere by the same means. If it is hate speech and readily available, imposing sanctions on a Canadian does not connect to or advance the prohibition of availability because an American source which is quite legal is just as available and beyond the reach of our law. This would be and is a ridiculous law against availability from a Canadian. It is equivalent to a codex of books prohibited to Catholics which are freely available to Protestants, with one serious exception – the Protestants can go to jail for making it available.
  3. The internet is huge, complex, repetitive, and passive unless sought out by the requesting recipient. Any and all of the content alleged against Marc Lemire is available from a wide range of other sources made available by Americans in America, where it is perfectly legal, protected by the First Amendment. (See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) in the U.S. Supreme Court where, by a 9-to-0 margin, the Court struck down the Minnesota hate law, a content-based restriction on freedom of expression. This case occurred after Taylor was decided.)
  4. It can never be a rational objective to punish the expression by Canadians of words, phrases, content, analysis, or opinions which are readily available from others who are not Canadians in the same place (the internet), at the same time, by the same means, and legally available to all other Canadians. This makes it illegal for a Canadian to make available to Canadians what is just as available to other Canadians from a foreign source, just as easily. Such cannot be a pressing and substantial concern, and is not rationally connected to the legislative objective of shielding vulnerable groups from the effects of hate propaganda. It would only be rationally connected if the prohibition had the effect of making the messages unavailable from any source.
  5. Likewise, the application of Section 13(1) to the internet is not proportional, but impractical, unfair, and based upon irrational considerations. This is because the same effect is as readily available from other sources on the internet. Further, the effects are not delivered by anyone to another against their will. It is totally irrational to punish expression because of the national origin of the speaker. It is more so to punish expression which is not communicated to anyone in Canada unless requested specifically by the pretended victim.
  6. In the recent case of Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada applied its previous reasoning in Taylor to a situation involving pamphlets distributed door-to-door. The court unanimously clarified that a legal inquiry into the issue of hate speech must focus on the likely effects of the hate speech in question:

“[52]                          An assessment of whether expression exposes a protected group to hatred must therefore include an evaluation of the likely effects of the expression on its audience. Would a reasonable person consider that the expression vilifying a protected group has the potential to lead to discrimination and other harmful effects? This assessment will depend largely on the context and circumstances of each case.

[53]                          For example, in the normal course of events, expression that targets a protected group in the context of satire, or news reports about hate speech perpetrated by someone else, would not likely constitute hate speech. Representations made in private settings would also not be captured by provisions prohibiting publication, display or broadcast of the expression, such as in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code.  It may also make a difference whether the expression contains a singular remark that comes close to violating the prohibition, or contains a multitude of or repeated, delegitimizing attacks.

[54]                          Dickson C.J. emphasized this need to focus on the effects of the expression in his reasons in Taylor.  He noted that “the purpose and impact of human rights codes is to prevent discriminatory effects rather than to stigmatize and punish those who discriminate” (p. 933 (emphasis added)). The focus of the prohibition against hate propaganda in s. 13(1) of the CHRA is “solely upon [its] likely effects” (p. 931). Dickson C.J. reasoned that the preoccupation with the discriminatory effects was understandable, given that systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination. Tribunals must focus on the likely effects of impugned expression in order to achieve the preventive goals of anti-discrimination statutes.”

  1. In light of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Whatcott, it will be respectfully submitted that the application of Section 13(1) to the internet is not rationally connected to the prevention of the social harms of hate propaganda. It is indisputable that alleged hate propaganda of all kinds is available on the internet. Much of this material originates outside of Canada. Section 13(1) does nothing to prevent Canadians from making the choice to download hateful material, which many Canadians (including the complainant in this case) have done.
  2. The dissemination of hate propaganda on the internet is less likely to attract Canadians to its cause than it is to provoke critical assessment and response. Punitive sanctions against Canadians who make such content available do not make the propaganda less available or less attractive. Internet users have free reign to disagree and object to material they read on a website, and Mr. Lemire’s website (a discussion forum) was specifically designed with this purpose in mind. In any event, the prosecution of Canadians who merely make material available on the internet has no impact on the ability of other Canadians to download hateful material, and therefore no rational connection to preventing social harms caused by such material merely being posted.
  3. For the aforementioned reasons, it will be respectfully submitted that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it applies to the internet, is not rationally connected to the objectives set out in Taylor, and is therefore not a “reasonable limit” to freedom of expression in accordance with Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  4. In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court in Taylor did not pronounce on the constitutionality of Section 13(1) in all contexts, but upheld it by the narrowest of margins using Section 1 of the Charter analysis in telephone answering machine context, where no response or debate is possible. Such analysis does not have any relevant applicability to the totally different context of the then-unforeseeable internet and is no longer valid in this context. Using the same Section 1 analysis and principles, Section 13(1) does not pass constitutional muster.

PART IV: STATEMENT OF ORDER SOUGHT

 

  1. The Canadian Association for Free Expression requests an order as follows:

    “A declaration that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it relates to the internet, is an unreasonable violation of Section 2(b) of the Charter not saved by Section 1 thereof, and therefore inoperative pursuant to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

 

 

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ___ day of May, 2013.

 

   

 

_______________________________

BARCLAY W. JOHNSON

Barrister & Solicitor

1027 Pandora Avenue

Victoria, BC V8V 3P6

 

Telephone:          (250) 418-3255

Fax:                      (250) 370-1655

Counsel for the Intervener

Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.

 

 

Christian Football Player Denounced by Stampeders for Objecting to First Openly Homosexual NFL Player

 

The fanatical establishment hatred of Christianity has claimed another victim — actually several victims. A Calgary Stampeders wide receiver who objected to the hiring by the NFL of an open homosexual has been fined and denounced by his own team. Other players who criticized this past weekend’s selection by the St. Louis Rams of homosexual Michael Sam (complete with a hug and kiss from his White lover) have also been fined and one has been sent to a Soviet-style “re-education” camp.

 

CAFE has warned that the homosexual agenda which now seems triumphant in Canada and the U.S. will severely restrict freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If you’re not a fan of buggery, you’d better shut up.

CBC News (May 13, 2014) reported: “Calgary Stampeders receiver Maurice Price has been fined an undisclosed amount by the CFL for inappropriate comments about the NFL’s St. Louis Rams draft pick, Michael Sam. ‘The CFL will not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” said CFL commissioner Mark Cohon. ‘Whether it’s race, religion or sexual preference, our values are of acceptance and equality. We fully support openly gay athletes in our league, and in the sports community in general.’” Well, that’s not quite true, Mr. Cohon. You are quite ready to silence and persecute players who proclaim their Christian faith. So much for inclusiveness and tolerance. Believing Christians seem to be neither ‘accepted’ nor tolerated under your regime!

The CBC report continued: “Calgary Stampeders’ Maurice Price now faces a fine after ‘inappropriate negative comments on social media’ towards St. Louis Rams defensive end Michael Sam and openly gay professional athletes.” There’s that vacuous politically correct term of condemnation “inappropriate.” Cohon should have been honest and admitted Price is being punished because he is a professed Christian.

The story continued: “Sam is the first openly gay player to be drafted by an NFL team.’My faith won’t let me accept what took place over the weekend. Sorry, not sorry! #AdamAndEve #NotAdamAndAdam,’ tweeted Price. 

‘And it’s highly disturbing that under the current constitution individuals have been fined for verbalizing their thoughts.’” Indeed it is! Homosexuals are the new privileged minority du jour. People who might object to publish flaunting of homosexuality, whether for personal or religious reasons, had better keep their mouths shut in the new grim politically correct order. Price is a Negro but this status is trumped by homosexuality in the hierarchy of minority privilege.

Photo: Christian Football Player Denounced by Stampeders for Objecting to First Openly Homosexual NFL Player</p>
<p>The fanatical establishment hatred of Christianity has claimed another victim -- actually several victims. A Calgary Stampeders wide receiver who objected to the hiring by the NFL of an open homosexual has been fined and denounced by his own team. Other players who criticized this past weekend's selection by the St. Louis Rams of homosexual Michael Sam (complete with a hug and kiss from his White lover) have also been fined and one has been sent to a Soviet-style "re-education" camp.</p>
<p>CAFE has warned that the homosexual agenda which now seems triumphant in Canada and the U.S. will severely restrict freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If you're not a fan of buggery, you'd better shut up.</p>
<p>CBC News (May 13, 2014) reported: "Calgary Stampeders receiver Maurice Price has been fined an undisclosed amount by the CFL for inappropriate comments about the NFL's St. Louis Rams draft pick, Michael Sam. 'The CFL will not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” said CFL commissioner Mark Cohon. 'Whether it's race, religion or sexual preference, our values are of acceptance and equality. We fully support openly gay athletes in our league, and in the sports community in general.'” Well, that's not quite true, Mr. Cohon. You are quite ready to silence and persecute players who proclaim their Christian faith. So much for inclusiveness and tolerance. Believing Christians seem to be neither 'accepted' nor tolerated under your regime!</p>
<p>The CBC report continued: "Calgary Stampeders' Maurice Price now faces a fine after 'inappropriate negative comments on social media' towards St. Louis Rams defensive end Michael Sam and openly gay professional athletes." There's that vacuous politically correct term of condemnation "inappropriate." Cohon should have been honest and admitted Price is being punished because he is a professed Christian.</p>
<p>The story continued: "Sam is the first openly gay player to be drafted by an NFL team.'My faith won't let me accept what took place over the weekend. Sorry, not sorry! #AdamAndEve #NotAdamAndAdam,' tweeted Price. </p>
<p>'And it's highly disturbing that under the current constitution individuals have been fined for verbalizing their thoughts.'" Indeed it is! Homosexuals are the new privileged minority du jour. People who might object to publish flaunting of homosexuality, whether for personal or religious reasons, had better keep their mouths shut in the new grim politically correct order. Price is a Negro but this status is trumped by homosexuality in the hierarchy of minority privilege.</p>
<p>His own team rudely hurled Price under the bus and firmly solidified its pro-homosexual, anti-Christian credentials: "The Stampeders also condemned the tweets, saying the team was outraged by the offensive comments. 'The comments are repugnant and in no way reflect the organization’s views or values,' the team tweeted Monday. Price, an African-American athlete who was born in Orlando, Fla., has played the last two seasons in Calgary." Of course, Price never said he was speaking for anyone but himself.</p>
<p>However, Price isn't the only victim of the triumphant homosexual agenda: "There have been other disciplinary actions relating to Sam:</p>
<p>•The CFL fined Montreal Alouettes wide receiver Arland Bruce in February for urging Sam on social media to "submit fully to God."</p>
<p>•Winnipeg Blue Bombers defensive tackle Bryant Turner Jr. was fined for a tweet saying "Michael Sam locker-room gonna come with complimentary robes."</p>
<p>•In the NFL, Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones was fined an undisclosed amount and will undergo educational training after he tweeted "OMG" and "Horrible" shortly after Sam's name was announced Saturday. The tweets were taken down a short time later.</p>
<p>Jones apologized for his comments and described them as inappropriate. The Dolphins said Jones has been excused from all team activities until he completes training related to his comments.</p>
<p>Former Mississippi basketball player Marshall Henderson also tweeted that he did not agree with ESPN's coverage of Sam at the draft and was going to boycott SportsCentre until the network stopped running the footage."</p>
<p>"Educational retraining?" It sounds like Maoist re-education and indoctrination -- all for expressing a politically incorrect thought. And this latter atrocity in the supposed "land of the free."</p>
<p>__________________________________</p>
<p>Let the management of the Calgary Stampeders know what you think of their anti-Christian persecution of Maurice Price. You can phone or write to them  or e-mail them online:</p>
<p>Calgary Stampeders,</p>
<p>1817 Crowchild Tr., NW<br />
 Calgary, AB T2M 4R6</p>
<p>Or reach them by phone:</p>
<p>Main switchboard: 403-289-0205</p>
<p>http://www.stampeders.com/contact_us_form'

Homosexual hero du jour Michael Sam

 

His own team rudely hurled Price under the bus and firmly solidified its pro-homosexual, anti-Christian credentials: “The Stampeders also condemned the tweets, saying the team was outraged by the offensive comments. ‘The comments are repugnant and in no way reflect the organization’s views or values,’ the team tweeted Monday. Price, an African-American athlete who was born in Orlando, Fla., has played the last two seasons in Calgary.” Of course, Price never said he was speaking for anyone but himself.

However, Price isn’t the only victim of the triumphant homosexual agenda: “There have been other disciplinary actions relating to Sam:

  • The CFL fined Montreal Alouettes wide receiver Arland Bruce in February for urging Sam on social media to “submit fully to God.”
  • Winnipeg Blue Bombers defensive tackle Bryant Turner Jr. was fined for a tweet saying “Michael Sam locker-room gonna come with complimentary robes.”

     

  • In the NFL, Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones was fined an undisclosed amount and will undergo educational training after he tweeted “OMG” and “Horrible” shortly after Sam’s name was announced Saturday. The tweets were taken down a short time later.

     

    Jones apologized for his comments and described them as inappropriate. The Dolphins said Jones has been excused from all team activities until he completes training related to his comments.

    Former Mississippi basketball player Marshall Henderson also tweeted that he did not agree with ESPN’s coverage of Sam at the draft and was going to boycott SportsCentre until the network stopped running the footage.”

    “Educational retraining?” It sounds like Maoist re-education and indoctrination — all for expressing a politically incorrect thought. And this latter atrocity in the supposed “land of the free.”

    __________________________________

     

     

    Let the management of the Calgary Stampeders know what you think of their anti-Christian persecution of Maurice Price. You can phone or write to them  or e-mail them online:

Calgary Stampeders,

1817 Crowchild Tr., NW
Calgary, AB T2M 4R6

Or reach them by phone:

Main switchboard: 403-289-0205

http://www.stampeders.com/contact_us_form’

Fromm & Whatcott Visit Political Prisoner Brad Love

Fromm & Whatcott Visit Political Prisoner Brad Love
 
 
Photo: Fromm & Whatcott Visit Political Prisoner Brad Love</p>
<p>LINDSAY, Ontario, May 15, 2014. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and free speech warrior and opponent of the homosexual agenda Bill  Whatcott visited Canadian political prisoner Brad Love today at the Central East Correctional Centre here in the Kawartha Lakes region of Southern Ontario.</p>
<p>Beforee entering to visit Mr. Love, who is scheduled to be released on June 15, Mr.. Fromm and Whatcott had to leave their keys, coins,, wallets, jackets and cellphones in a locker. Although they could only see Mr. Love through thick Plexiglas, neither visitor was allowed to bring pen or paper. These insane rules seem designed to discourage visitors and further isolate the prisoner.</p>
<p>"The real Canada is not the country the newspapers tell their readers about," Mr. Love told his visitors. Free speech is fine, they say, if you speak your mind in the Ukraine. Look at the favourable publicity for all those protests in the Ukraine. But not here. If you criticize immigration or Jewish groups, they give you the Brad Love treatment," he explained.</p>
<p>Mr. Whatcott reported to his supporters:</p>
<p>"The last few days have been interesting and busy. Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression asked me to speak at his Alternative Forum and pretty much gave me unmitigated freedom to say what I wanted to say. Paul also offered to take me to the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ont, to see Brad Love for myself. Indeed when I first heard of Brad Love’s story I was highly skeptical as we are supposed to be living in a Parliamentary democracy after all (with a few problems for sure) and I thought to myself there is no way someone could be in jail for writing letters and expressing views. Surely the guy wrote a death threat or something.</p>
<p>Image<br />
Here is the Central East Correctional Centre where Brad Love is being held for his crime of letter writing. Paul Fromm and I went to visit him.</p>
<p>Well actually Brad Love is in jail for expressing views by writing letters to various elected representatives, the Chief of Police for York Region and a couple Jewish lobby groups. While Brad's letters could be perceived as offensive to some, perhaps even to me, they were completely devoid of threats of violence, blackmail, libel or any other thing that one could expect to fall into the jurisdiction of a criminal offense. Brad’s letters were rants about immigration and Zionism. </p>
<p>Now for certain not all of Brad’s views are my cup of tea, but that really isn't the point. Brad Love is in jail for views and only views. His prison sentence is not insignificant either. Brad Love was sentenced to 18 months in prison for his first batch of letters after being convicted under Canada's so-called "hate" law and then he was given another 18 months (the maximum sentence possible) in prison for probation violation after writing another letter. Unlike other offenders who commit crimes like rape or robbery Brad is not allowed to write any letters while in jail. He is not allowed to write friends, family or even his lawyer. </p>
<p>Image<br />
As you can see in the background the Central East Correctional Centre is a maximum security facility. Canada’s notorious letter writer languishes in there, unable to do any productive work. He is allowed into the yard for 20 minutes of fresh air a day.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LINDSAY, Ontario, May 15, 2014. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, and free speech warrior and opponent of the homosexual agenda Bill  Whatcott visited Canadian political prisoner Brad Love today at the Central East Correctional Centre here in the Kawartha Lakes region of Southern Ontario.
 
Beforee entering to visit Mr. Love, who is scheduled to be released on June 15, Mr.. Fromm and Whatcott had to leave their keys, coins,, wallets, jackets and cellphones in a locker. Although they could only see Mr. Love through thick Plexiglas, neither visitor was allowed to bring pen or paper. These insane rules seem designed to discourage visitors and further isolate the prisoner.
 
 
 
 
 
 

“The real Canada is not what newspapers tell their readers about,” Mr. Love told his visitors. Free speech is fine, they say, if you speak your mind in the Ukraine. Look at the favourable publicity for all those protests in the Ukraine. But not here. If you criticize immigration or Jewish groups, they give you the Brad Love treatment,” he explained.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Whatcott reported to his supporters:
 
“The last few days have been interesting and busy. Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression asked me to speak at his Alternative Forum and pretty much gave me unmitigated freedom to say what I wanted to say. Paul also offered to take me to the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ont, to see Brad Love for myself. Indeed when I first heard of Brad Love’s story I was highly skeptical as we are supposed to be living in a Parliamentary democracy after all (with a few problems for sure) and I thought to myself there is no way someone could be in jail for writing letters and expressing views. Surely the guy wrote a death threat or something.

Image
Here is the Central East Correctional Centre where Brad Love is being held for his crime of letter writing. Paul Fromm and I went to visit him.

Well actually Brad Love is in jail for expressing views by writing letters to various elected representatives, the Chief of Police for York Region and a couple Jewish lobby groups. While Brad’s letters could be perceived as offensive to some, perhaps even to me, they were completely devoid of threats of violence, blackmail, libel or any other thing that one could expect to fall into the jurisdiction of a criminal offense. Brad’s letters were rants about immigration and Zionism.

Now for certain not all of Brad’s views are my cup of tea, but that really isn’t the point. Brad Love is in jail for views and only views. His prison sentence is not insignificant either. Brad Love was sentenced to 18 months in prison for his first batch of letters after being convicted under Canada’s so-called “hate” law and then he was given another 18 months (the maximum sentence possible) in prison for probation violation after writing another letter. Unlike other offenders who commit crimes like rape or robbery Brad is not allowed to write any letters while in jail. He is not allowed to write friends, family or even his lawyer.

Image
As you can see in the background the Central East Correctional Centre is a maximum security facility. Canada’s notorious letter writer languishes in there, unable to do any productive work. He is allowed into the yard for 20 minutes of fresh air a day.

Paul Fromm is Back With “The Fighting Side of Me” Radio Show Daily at Midnight; 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Paul Fromm is Back With “The Fighting Side of Me” Radio Show Daily at Midnight; 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
 

Paul Fromm

Paul Fromm
Paul Fromm earned his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in English Language and Literature from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor of Education at the University of Toronto. He did post graduate work at Webster College in St. Louis, Missouri and Waterloo University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He spent 25 years as an instructor in the Ontario, Canada public school system. He is the director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and a longtime advocate for free speech. He is widely traveled and lectures at events throughout the United States and Canada.

 

This Week:

 

* More outrages in Canada’s Temporary Foreign Workers’ Programme — Canadians fired; foreigners hired

* Houston’s homosexual mayor imposes unisex washrooms

* Sharia “honour killings” in Pakistan. Do we want this “diversity” here?

* “Micro-aggression” the latest anti-White censorship campaign on North American campuses

* Update on the Terry Tremaine free speech case in Canada

 

And MUCH MUCH MORE!

 
  Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
12:00 AM Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm
12:30 AM              
1:00 AM Old Time Radio Show Amos and Andy Old Time Radio The Lone Ranger Little Annie Oakley Old Time Radio Old Tme Radio
1:30 AM Music Music Music Music Music Music Music
2:00 AM Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma
2:15 AM Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report
2:30 AM This is The Klan  / Robb and Pendergraft The “Every Day Joe” Show / Bryan Morgan American Hero Classics Bob’s Prepper show On the Beat  Music
3:00 AM Music Under the Gun / Dave Long Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics
3:30 AM Sword of Truth  / Randy Gray Music Radio New America / Billy Roper Political WatchDog / Thomas Robb
4:00 AM Money Matters / Scotch Templeton On the Move / Movement News / Roper Music Cross Examine / Jason Robb Old Time Radio OLD Time Radio Music
4:30 AM Music Music White Women’s Perspective Music Old Tme Radio
5:00 AM The White Side / Rachel May Pendergraft Christian Revival Center Classics Billy’s friend Music American Hero Classics
5:30 AM Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics Sunday, Around the dinner Table
6:00 AM Youth Focus Music Teen Talk / Andrew Thomas Christian Revival Center Classics Music
6:30 AM Old Time Radio Show Music Music Music
7:00 AM Music Old Time Radio Show Old Time Radio Music
7:30 AM Music Music Old Time Radio
8:00 AM Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm
8:30 AM              
9:00 AM Old Time Radio Show Amos and Andy Old Time Radio The Lone Ranger Little Annie Oakley Old Time Radio Old Tme Radio
9:30 AM Music Music Music Music Music Music Music
10:00 AM Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma
10:15 AM Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report Global Minority Report
10:30 AM This is The Klan  / Robb and Pendergraft The “Every Day Joe” Show / Bryan Morgan American Hero Classics Bob’s Prepper show On the Beat  Music
11:00 AM Music Under the Gun / Dave Long Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics Word of Truth LIVE Broadast Christian Revival Center
11:30 AM Sword of Truth  / Randy Gray Music Radio New America / Billy Roper Political WatchDog / Thomas Robb
12:00 PM Money Matters / Scotch Templeton On the Move / Movement News / Roper Music Cross Examine / Jason Robb Old Time Radio OLD Time Radio Music
12:30 PM Music Music White Women’s Perspective Music Old Tme Radio
1:00 PM The White Side / Rachel May Pendergraft Christian Revival Center Classics Billy’s friend Music American Hero Classics
1:30 PM Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics Sunday, Around the dinner Table
2:00 PM Youth Focus Music Teen Talk / Andrew Thomas Christian Revival Center Classics Music
2:30 PM Old Time Radio Show Music Music Music
3:00 PM Music Old Time Radio Show Old Time Radio Music
3:30 PM Music Music Old Time Radio
4:00 PM Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me / Paul Fromm

 

 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
8:00 AM Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Music
8:30 AM
9:00 AM Old Time Radio Show Amos and Andy Old Time Radio The Lone Ranger Little Annie Oakley Old Time Radio Old Tme Radio
9:30 AM Music Music Music Music Music Music Praise Music for All Ages
10:00 AM Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma
10:15 AM Stories of our People Stories of Our People Stories of our People Stories of our People Stories of Our People Stories of our People
10:30 AM This is The Klan  Robb/  Pendergraft Making of a Hero American Hero Classics Bob’s Prepper show On the Beat Music
11:00 AM Music Series Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics
11:30 AM Sword of Truth   Randy Gray Music Radio New America Billy Roper Political WatchDog Thomas Robb
12 Noon Money Matters Scotch Templeton On the Move (News) Music Cross Examine        Jason Robb Old Time Radio OLD Time Radio Praise Music
12:30 PM Music Music White Women’s Perspective Music Old Tme Radio
1:00 PM The White Side  Rachel May Christian Revival Center Classics Freedom Forum Music American Hero Classics
1:30 PM Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics Sunday, Around the dinner Table (Talk)
2:00 PM Youth Focus Music Teen Talk / Andrew Thomas Christian Revival Center Classics Music
2:30 PM Old Time Radio Show Music Music Music
3:00 PM Music Old Time Radio Show Old Time Radio Music
3:30 PM Music Music Old Time Radio
4:00 PM Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Music
4:30 PM
5:00 PM Old Time Radio Show Amos and Andy Old Time Radio The Lone Ranger Little Annie Oakley Old Time Radio Old Tme Radio
5:30 PM Music Music Music Music Music Music Praise Music for All Ages
6:00 PM Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma
6:15 PM Stories of Our people Stories of Our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People
6:30 PM This is The Klan  Robb/  Pendergraft Making of a Hero American Hero Classics Bob’s Prepper show On the Beat Music
7:00 PM Music Series Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics (PENDING) Word of Truth LIVE Broadast Christian Revival Center
7:30 PM Sword of Truth   Randy Gray Music Radio New America  Billy Roper Political WatchDog  Thomas Robb
8:00 PM Money Matters / Scotch Templeton On the Move Movement News Music Cross Examine        Jason Robb Old Time Radio OLD Time Radio Praise Music
8:30 PM Music Music White Women’s Perspective Music Old Tme Radio
9:00 PM The White Side  Rachel May Pendergraft Christian Revival Center Classics Freedom Forum Music American Hero Classics
9:30 PM Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics Sunday, Around the dinner Table (Talk)
10:00 PM Youth Focus Music Teen Talk / Andrew Thomas Christian Revival Center Classics Music
10:30 PM Old Time Radio Show Music Music Music
11:00 PM Music Old Time Radio Show Old Time Radio Music
11:30 PM Music Music Old Time Radio
12:00 AM Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Fightin’ Side of Me  Paul Fromm Music
12:30 AM            
1:00 AM Old Time Radio Show Amos and Andy Old Time Radio The Lone Ranger Little Annie Oakley Old Time Radio Old Tme Radio
1:30 AM Music Music Music Music Music Music Praise Music for All Ages
2:00 AM Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma Stories from Grandma
2:15 AM Stories of our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People Stories of Our People
2:30 AM This is The Klan  Robb/ Pendergraft Making of a Hero American Hero Classics Bob’s Prepper show On the Beat Music
3:00 AM Music Series Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics
3:30 AM Sword of Truth     Randy Gray Music Radio New America  Billy Roper Political WatchDog / Thomas Robb
4:00 AM Money Matters Scotch Templeton On the Move  Movement News Music Cross Examine       Jason Robb Old Time Radio OLD Time Radio
4:30 AM Music Music White Women’s Perspective Music Old Tme Radio
5:00 AM The White Side  Rachel May Christian Revival Center Classics Freedom Forum Music American Hero Classics
5:30 AM Music Music Christian Revival Center Classics Sunday, Around the Dinner Table (Talk)
6:00 AM Youth Focus Music Teen Talk / Andrew Thomas Christian Revival Center Classics Music
6:30 AM Old Time Radio Show Music Music
7:00 AM Music Old Time Radio Show Old Time Radio Music Music
7:30 AM Music Music Old Time Radio
 

007Free Speech Supporters Condemn Anti-Christian Bigotry of the Law Society of Upper Canada

 



​ ​

TORONTO. May 16, 2014. About 30 protesters held a noon-time vigil outside the Law Society of Upper Canada in downtown Toronto today. An eclectic group of Christian spokesmen and free speech supporters joined by the Canadian Association for Free Expression denounced a recent decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) to not recognize graduates of the planned Trinity Western University Law School because of their fundamentalist Christian principles.

Trinity Western University is an evangelical Christian college in Langley, BC. It requires faculty and students to pledge to follow traditional Christian morality including refraining from sex outside of marriage. Critics say this pledge discriminates against homosexuals. No one is required to attend Trinity Western University. There is a wide variety of secular alternatives.

The proselytizers of the homosexual agenda who have led a campaign, first to deny graduates of this university the right to teach in B.C.(eventually overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada) and then to deny the planned law school legal accreditation (the move failed) now have pressured provincial law societies in to declare that graduates of the law school will not be granted accreditation. So far, the anti-Christian campaign has succeeded in Nova Scotia and Ontario.

One of the protest leaders Rev. David Lynn, founder of Christian Positive Space (www.christianpositivespace.com) said much of Ontario’s curriculum is “biblephobic.” He noted that well over 70 per cent of Canada is Christian. “We say to the Law Society of Upper Canada: ‘You have to be more tolerant. You are saying Christians do not have the right to practise law in Ontario,. You are anti-Canadian.”

Gary McHale, an activist who led protests against the failure by the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce court injunctions against radical Indians who occupied and still occupy private (now Crown) land in Caledonia, Ontario, noted there was an effort to ban graduates of Trinity Western from teaching in British Columbia. “The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and they ruled that religious views should not exclude a person from the classroom. Now, the Law Society of Upper Canada wants to exclude Christians from the practise of law.”


The story of Mr. McHale’s battle against politically correct policing — soft on native thugs occupying land in defiance of an injunction, and harsh on White resident merely driving through their own community or trying to counter-protest the occupation — has just been published by Freedom Press (www.freedompress.ca). It is entitled Victory In the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tier Policing.

A contingent from FreedomPress, led by President Tristan Emmanuel, also attended the protest.

Bill Whatcott spoke of his campaign to keep radical homosexual material — including discussions of anal sex — excluded from elementary school in Saskatchewan. His leafleting led to human rights complaints, a conviction and a $17,5000 fine. He fought this all the way to the Supreme Court which overturned the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals reversing Mr. Whatcott’s conviction. The Supreme Court , “and shame on them,” Mr. Whatcott said, upheld anti-Christian speech censorship and ruled that truth, intent, sincerely held religious beliefs or political opinions were irrelevant. “It was determined that making statements like this is hate. They acknowledged that although my flyers might be factual, if used for a hateful purpose — and they weren’t — advocating traditional Christian views on sexual behaviour could be censored. I have been left with over $100,000 in legal costs” payable to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, called the Law Society of Upper Canada “Christian haters.”

“The issue here,” he said, “is the decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada to not allow graduates of the planned Trinity Western University Law School to practise in the Province of Ontario. The ironic thing is that Trinity Western has not even opened its law school yet and hasn’t graduated a single student. That is the definition of bigotry — to make a decision before the facts are in. The LSUC is very much under the control of the homosexual lobby. The privileges of homosexual trump the rights of Christians. It’s wrong. And we’re standing here for free speech.”

Click on the picture below for the link to hear Paul Fromm’s remarks.

 

Political Prisoner Brad Love to Be Freed, June 15 — Still Not Allowed to Send Mail From Prison

Political Prisoner Brad Love to Be Freed, June 15 — Still Not Allowed to Send Mail From Prison
LINDSAY, Ontario. Political prisoner Brad Love, who has drawn repeated sentences for writing letters to MPs, police chiefs, the media and Jewish groups — none of them threatening, all of them opinionated — will be freed on parole, June 15. He will have spent 11 years in and out of prison, mostly for parole violations (writing more letters). At one point his parole conditions had been expanded by now retired Ontario Judge Hogg so that he was not allowed to write to “any person.” That was in Canada with its hollow Charter of “Rights”, not North Korea.
 
Still the persecution of this opinionated populist working guy and letter writer — 10,000 in over 20 years — contnues in prison.Despite appeals to the Ombudsman, the prison authorities continue to confiscate Mr. Love’s outgoing mail. They tell him it will be in his property when he is released. The Kawartha Lakes Police, who seem to instruct the prison authorities, seem incapable of reading or following court documents. They still maintain that he is under a bail condition, going back to charges last May in Fort McMurray where he was initially banned from “communicating by mail, e-mail or text to any person.” Using material prepared by CAFE, Mr. Love went back to court in July and had these Stalinist conditions amended so that he was only banned from communicating with several media persons and politicians who were the instigators of a “harassment” charge.

 

 

 

 
 
Nevertheless, Mr. Love was charged last fall with “breach of undertaking” (bail conditions) for, incredibly, writing to his own lawyer! After several Court appearances and the production of the Fort McMurray Court transcripts, an Ontario court dismissed the charges on February 5. But the police harassment continues. Mr. Love comments: “I have never seen cops look through bail transcripts for something to get you on. Crime and drugs are everywhere, but these losers worry about a writer who doesn’t even live in this shit hole Third World province!”
 
In another form of harassment, the prison authorities go through his incoming mail with a fine tooth comb. He was recently advised that they were detaining an envelope of newspaper clippings from supporters in Winnipeg. The reason — “too much paper”!
 
Even worse, Mr. Love reports, “My brother visited me in March and was not let in. He sent me $200 by mail and it was returned to him.
Mr. Love’s own lawyer told him “your case receives more police and judicial scrutiny than bank robbery cases.” But, then, that’s not surprising. Political prisoners are always treated more harshly. They are seen as a real threat. Bank robbers just steal money, drug pushers just sell drugs and the State doesn’t get its cut, but people with political ideas might actually change people’s opinions and lead to real change.
On June 15, Mr. Love will walk free but he will not really be free. The judicial Beast will continue to gag him. On July 12, 2012, Judge Kelly Write imposed the following Stalinist gag order: “”Mr.  Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or police organization, except with the express written permission of a political or religious organization that welcomes him as a member or associate and with the permission of his probation officer.”

Photo: Political Prisoner Brad Love to Be Freed, June 15 -- Still Not Allowed to Send Mail From Prison</p>
<p>LINDSAY, Ontario. Political prisoner Brad Love, who has drawn repeated sentences for writing letters to MPs, police chiefs, the media and Jewish groups -- none of them threatening, all of them opinionated -- will be freed on parole, June 15. He will have spent 11 years in and out of prison, mostly for parole violations (writing more letters). At one point his parole conditions had been expanded by now retired Ontario Judge Hogg so that he was not allowed to write to "any person." That was in Canada with its hollow Charter of "Rights", not North Korea.</p>
<p>Still the persecution of this opinionated populist working guy and letter writer -- 10,000 in over 20 years -- contnues in prison.Despite appeals to the Ombudsman, the prison authorities continue to confiscate Mr. Love's outgoing mail. They tell him it will be in his property when he is released. The Kawartha Lakes Police, who seem to instruct the prison authorities, seem incapable of reading or following court documents. They still maintain that he is under a bail condition, going back to charges last May in Fort McMurray where he was initially banned from "communicating by mail, e-mail or text to any person." Using material prepared by CAFE, Mr. Love went back to court in July and had these Stalinist conditions amended so that he was only banned from communicating with several media persons and politicians who were the instigators of a "harassment" charge.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Mr. Love was charged last fall with "breach of undertaking" (bail conditions) for, incredibly, writing to his own lawyer! After several Court appearances and the production of the Fort McMurray Court transcripts, an Ontario court dismissed the charges on February 5. But the police harassment continues. Mr. Love comments: "I have never seen cops look through bail transcripts for something to get you on. Crime and drugs are everywhere, but these losers worry about a writer who doesn't even live in this shit hole Third World province!"</p>
<p>In another form of harassment, the prison authorities go through his incoming mail with a fine tooth comb. He was recently advised that they were detaining an envelope of newspaper clippings from supporters in Winnipeg. The reason -- "too much paper"!</p>
<p>Even worse, Mr. Love reports, "My brother visited me in March and was not let in. He sent me $200 by mail and it was returned to him.</p>
<p>Mr. Love's own lawyer told him "your case receives more police and judicial scrutiny than bank robbery cases." But, then, that's not surprising. Political prisoners are always treated more harshly. They are seen as a real threat. Bank robbers just steal money, drug pushers just sell drugs and the State doesn't get its cut, but people with political ideas might actually change people's opinions and lead to real change.</p>
<p>On June 15, Mr. Love will walk free but he will not really be free. The judicial Beast will continue to gag him. On July 12, 2012, Judge Kelly Write imposed the following Stalinist gag order: ""Mr.  Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or police organization, except with the express written permission of a political or religious organization that welcomes him as a member or associate and with the permission of his probation officer."
Canadian Political Prisoner Brad Love Arrested at a
Free Speech Meeting in Toronto, 2009.