For at least 30 years, populist dissidents, like Paul Fromm the late Ron Gostick, revisionists like David Irving and others have faced the problem of holding meetings. You think there’s freedom of speech in Canada? Forget about it! Organized Jewish groups, when they get wind of a meeting, lean on the hotel or hall management. Sometimes the pressure is subtle: You wouldn’t want to be seen to side with the “neo-Nazis” against the Jewish community. Sometimes it’s more blatant, with threats of boycott or, worst of all, bad publicity from a lamestream media all too eager to smear perceived enemies of Jews. Sometimes the threat comes from organized “anti-racist” groups which threaten violent protests. Sometimes there actually are violent protests. While that meeting may go on, it’s likely the last one the dissident group will ever hold in that venue. You think a contract means anything? Most hotel managers have the morality of a crack whore. Signed agreements mean nothing. And the police? Well, they can’t be counted on. Sometimes they do, in fact. protect a threatened meeting in a professional manner. All too often, though, they counsel management to cancel the meeting “to avoid trouble” — trouble the donut munching cops are paid handsomely to prevent.
Thus, most populist or revisionist meetings are not widely advertized. This, of course, limits the effectiveness of public outreach, to say nothing of their trampled rights. Along comes Blood & Honour, a Calgary-based group of mostly young men and women. They have rented a large secure meeting space in an easily protected area. In a statement earlier this year, their leader Kyle McKee, an experienced young man with a decade of organizing and activism under his belt, made the following offer to CAFE and other populist and libertarian groups: “Blood and Honour Canada’s Calgary chapter has been very active and growing and our efforts have been focused and professional. The benefits of dedicated people are now being passed forward to you by way of an offer to use our own private venue for your meetings when in Calgary so the money otherwise spent for the basic expenses of doing your work can be repurposed to even more activity on your part. Also this means no more hotel cancellations and scrambling to find new venues in Calgary.” Thanks to Blood & Honour, we held a large, well-advertized meeting in early March for English song writer singer and holocaust skeptic Alison Chabloz.
Mr. McKee adds: “Blood and Honour Canada’s Calgary chapter also keeps busy with regular weekly gatherings and regular events. If someone is interested in attending any of these they can contact us at our website 28canada.com and if anyone is interested in helping by way of donation this can be done by joining and subscribing to our web forum that is linked to on our main website 28canada.com or in person at any of our events. Blood and Honour Canada (Club 28) is a nationalist organization and European cultural group operating independently of any political party. It is our goal to raise awareness of issues concerning our nation and the people here, as well as to unite those people with a legitimate interest in securing the future of our European cultural identity under one common banner. Blood and Honour Canada is a secular organization promoting intelligence, common sense and self-preservation while encouraging a broader understanding of all the religions which have been crucial in the forming of our great European Identity.” It runs an active education programme for its own members.
So crazy has political correctness become and the supremacy of minorities that a Canadian senator trying to score a point against free speech is forced to cringe and apologize for having used the word “nigger” as an example of language that hurts people and that must not be allowed.
If he offended people by using the word in that context, he apologizes unreservedly, Pratte said.
‘Obviously I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, he said. ‘I accept it was an improper choice of example . . . and I apologize that for that.’ Committee witnesses at the Senate legal affairs committee were making free-speech arguments while debating the Liberal government’s legislation to bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.
If passed, the legislation would make it illegal to deny someone a job or to discriminate against them in the workplace on the basis of their gender identity or how they express it. It would also amend the Criminal Code to extend hate-speech laws.”
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Kevin Pillar — Latest Victim Punished by Privileged Minority
For years CAFE has warned that the most mortal enemy of freedom of speech, after the organized Jewish lobby, is the homosexual lobby. The LGBTQ crowd are the newest privileged minority whom one dares not criticize without the roof falling in on you, all of this aided by Establishment collaborators.
The latest victim is Toronto Blue Jays centre fielder Kevin Pillar. In Wednesday’s night’s losing game against the Atlanta Braves,having struck out, he yelled “faggot” at the Braves’ pitcher. Actually, in its report, THE NATIONAL POST (May 18, 2017) coyly wouldn’t even say the offensive word which earned Pillar a two day suspension and a denunciation by his team’s own management:
“It took the better part of a day, but Kevin Pillar eventually figured out what he needed to say.
The use of a homophobic slur, as the Toronto centrefielder has now acknowledged he used on Wednesday night, is an absolute liability offence. Anger, embarrassment, the frustration of losing three in a row to the freaking Braves, none of it excuses using that epithet in that space: the middle of a baseball diamond in a game watched by hundreds of thousands of fans.
Language matters, and whatever the fallout of the Pillar incident, it’s these kind of things that slowly make change happen.
Pillar did his learning on the fly. In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday night’s incident in Atlanta, when he shouted the homophobic f-word at Braves pitcher Jason Motte, Pillar apologized for being immature and stupid and said he was ‘a competitive guy and (it was) the heat of the moment.’”
However, according to reporter Scott Stinson, his apology wasn’t nearly enough. He hadn’t grovelled for having made a nasty comment about a privileged minority. A day later, he’d been given the word about the choking ideology of political correctness and whom you may and may not insult. Preachy reporter Scott Stinson explains: “It was an unacceptable response to the use of a homophobic slur on the playing field, while representing his team and his sport. Pillar’s statements on Wednesday night, while contrite and sincere, never addressed what he actually said, making it appear as though he was primarily apologetic for losing his temper. By Thursday afternoon, he had at least identified the missing part of that apology. He said on his Twitter account that he had ‘helped extend the use of a word that has no place in baseball, in sports, or anywhere in society today.’ Pillar said he was ‘completely and utterly embarrassed’ and apologized to everyone involved, including ‘the LBGTQ community for the lack of respect I displayed.’”
Not long after that, the Blue Jays released a statement that said the organization was “extremely disappointed” by the comments Pillar made on Wednesday night, and it also apologized to everyone, including the gay community. About three hours before Thursday’s game, the Blue Jays suspended Pillar for two games after discussions with Major League Baseball and the players’ association.”
Now, a frustrated player shouting an insult at the pitcher might not be very sportsmanlike, but does it really merit this selective punishment? What if he had shouted “asshole”, “mother fucker”, “goof” or some other insult. Likely nothing! It wasn’t losing his temper that was the sin but saying something derogatory about a privileged minority.
Freedom spontaneity and sports are being choked by political correctness
Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters
After Canada’s Jewish lobby, the most mortal enemies of free speech in Canada are the activists the the LGBTQ homosexual/lesbian/transgender
From the start, the claim was preposterous, but with Canada’s courts deeply infiltrated by homo-friendly elements and the Cultural Marxist creed of victimology, one never knows. As the LifeSiteNews report below explains, the judge threw out the class action suit BUT preached that the plaintiffs might pursue other civil actions against Bill and his band. To that end, he ordered Bill to reveal the names of his supporters. Bill announced he’d rather go to prison. His lawyers are appealing the judge’s extraordinary order.
In the never ending battle to secure our ancient liberties of free speech from the demonic clutches of the thought control freaks, this is definiItely a case to watch.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
ONTARIO, April 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario judge has ordered a Christian who evangelizes homosexuals to identify his financial backers and anonymous friends who helped him hand out info packets about the physical and spiritual dangers of anal sex at Toronto’s [Gay] Pride Parade last year. “There could be serious repercussions for me, including prolonged jail time if I don’t comply with the order to disclose the names of my supporters,” said Christian activist Bill Whatcott. “Generally, Christians should comply with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or when the order is unjust in the eyes of God,” he added. Homosexual activists last year launched a $104 million class-action lawsuit against Whatcott for defamation after he and a handful of friends infiltrated the [Toronto Gay] Pride Parade dressed as green “gay zombies.” They handed out what looked to be free condoms in packets that said “Zombie Safe Sex” but which contained messages about the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexual practices. The messages encouraged active homosexuals to change their lifestyle and accept the Christian faith.
Last month, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, ruling in Hudspeth v. Whatcott that the homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth could not claim defamation of an entire group, such as the Pride Parade participants or the “LGTBTQ2SI Community,” but only of individuals. [You need a politically correct guidebook to keep track of the growing number of sexually weird privileged groups.]
But then in a surprise move in the same ruling, the judge ordered Whatcott to deliver the names of a half a dozen anonymous “zombies” who helped hand out the info packets as well as the “unidentified financial backers” who funded the group’s expenses. The judge argued that knowing the identities of the individuals who helped Whatcott was “necessary” to the homosexual activists if they were to decide in the future to go ahead with further legal action on grounds that the judge himself suggested.
But Whatcott said he would rather go to jail than betray his friends and supporters to homosexual activists who have publicly promised to “punish them” with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
Instead of letting Whatcott face jail time for being in contempt of court in not handing over the names of his friends and supporters, Whatcott’s lawyers are appealing the ruling.
In the appeal, Charles Lugosi and Findlay McCarthy argue that Judge Perell “erred” in ordering Whatcott to reveal the identities of the members of his group after having dismissed the case. “Once it was determined that the action could not proceed as a class proceeding and that the representative plaintiffs [Smitherman and Hudspeth] had no cause of action, then the action should [have] been dismissed, as the plaintiffs were no longer capable of representing members of the classes,” they argued in the appeal.
Whatcott said that the judge ordering him to betray his friends so that homosexual activists can bring legal action against them shows how far the nation has “turn[ed] its back on God” as it “embraces sexual libertinism as its new idol.
Indeed, a judge helping the losing party to refile its claim and ordering the winning party to reveal the identities of friends and helpers to the losers so the helpers of the winning side can be sued is unheard of in property, divorce, criminal, or injury cases,” he said. “Only in a case involving homosexual activism where the homosexual activists are seeking to silence the voice of Christians could such a deviation from established legal norms be contemplated,” he added.
Whatcott has launched a GoGetFunding page to raise $50,000 to help cover his legal costs. So far, he has raised $10,706 (21 percent) of his goal. “If you agree with me this lawsuit is unjust and if you would like to help, please do so,” he wrote on his funding page titled “Help Bill protect his friends and stay out of jail!”
Whatcott’s lawyers are also arguing that the judge erred in denying costs to Whatcott despite having thrown out the case.
“It would be wrong to put a defendant [Whatcott] to the expense of the litigation process if there is no reasonable cause of action against that defendant on the face of the pleading,” they argued.
“Justice Perell, in striking the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable causes of action, should have awarded the defendant to recover the full legal costs of the motion to strike,” they added.
Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel apparently wanted to move to the United States from Germany. (I say apparently because the decision on which I’m reporting, just posted on Westlaw but decided March 31 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Administrative Appeals Office, referred only to one E.C.Z., but both the initials and the facts described in the decision fit Zundel and likely no one else.) He would normally get an immigrant visa, because his wife of 16 years — who is about 80 years old — is a U.S. citizen. But he was classified as inadmissible because he has been convicted of foreign crimes for which the sentence was five years or more:
[I]n 2007 the Applicant was convicted in Germany of 14 counts of incitement to hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of five years in prison.
And though a waiver of inadmissibility was possible — because of extreme hardship to Zundel’s elderly wife — the office concluded that there was good reason to deny the waiver:
The negative factors in the Applicant’s case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. The record shows that the Applicant is a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record indicates further that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews. Furthermore, the Applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions. Thus, we find that the negative factors in the Applicant’s case outweigh the positive such that a favorable exercise of discretion is not warranted.
Now, I think there’s nothing unconstitutional under current First Amendment law about the decision to exclude Zundel. Various Supreme Court cases, of which the most relevant is Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), generally take the view that the First Amendment and similar constitutional provisions don’t apply to decisions on whether to let in an alien. American immigration law has long barred immigration by aliens who have been members of Communist parties; more recently, it has likewise barred immigration by anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” The view seems to be: We have to live with schmucks who are already Americans, but that doesn’t mean we need to let in more. (Of course, the litigation over President Trump’s Executive Order might change this analysis: If the Supreme Court eventually concludes that the order discriminated based on the religious beliefs of most would-be visitors from certain countries, and that such discrimination violates the First Amendment, then — depending on the breadth of the Court’s rationale — that logic might equally apply to discrimination based on the political beliefs of would-be visitors and would-be immigrants, and might thus lead to an overruling of Kleindienst.)
But oddly, the decision suggests that Zundel might have had a legal right under existing law to immigrate after all (even if that right could constitutionally be taken away by a change in the law) — and that DHS’s Administrative Appeals Office might not fully understand American First Amendment law. The office stated,
A foreign conviction can be the basis for a finding of inadmissibility only where the conviction is “for conduct which is deemed criminal by United States standards.” Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I&N Dec. 135, 137 (BIA 1981).
(To give an example of the Ramirez-Rivero principle in action, one 2015 decision held that a 1997 Cuban conviction for “speculation and hoarding” couldn’t disqualify an alien from admissibility to the United States.) But as best I can tell from press accounts, Zundel’s speech that formed the basis of his German conviction would not have been “deemed criminal by United States standards.” Denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments is just not a crime under American law. Indeed, it can’t be made a crime, given the First Amendment.
But here’s what the office said as it went on:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829 (1969).
But, as the office notes, the Brandenburg exception is limited to advocacy intended and likely to produce crime in the next few minutes, hours or at most days (see Hess v. Indiana ), the classic example being a speech to an enraged crowd outside a building, urging it to storm the building. To my knowledge, Zundel’s convictions don’t stem from such behavior.
So the exclusion of Zundel was itself not a First Amendment violation. But, based on Ramirez-Rivero — and certainly the office’s description of Ramirez-Rivero — it appears to have been a violation of American immigration law. And in the process of misapplying Ramirez-Rivero, the office seems to have erroneously concluded that Holocaust denial and the expression of anti-Semitic sentiments would be “deemed criminal by United States standards.” That strikes me as mistaken, though I’d be glad to hear any corrections or clarifications from readers who are more knowledgeable about immigration law than I am.
POSTED APR 25, 2017 4:48 PM EDT
LAST UPDATED APR 25, 2017 AT 5:04 PM EDT
Procedures have begun for Board of Review hearings over a controversial newspaper that began appearing in mailboxes across Toronto last year.
In June 2016, Canada Post was ordered by the federal government to prohibit delivery of Your Ward News, a publication that sparked allegations of racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism and hate. Judy Foote, the minister responsible for Canada Post, issued the interim prohibitory order under the Canada Post Corporation Act.
James Sears, the publication’s editor-in-chief appealed that order and, as procedure under the Act dictates, Foote appointed a Board of Review consisting of three members to consider whether Canada Post should legally distribute the paper.
Over the last few months, members of the public had the opportunity to make submissions in the hopes of participating in the review.
It has been a divided issue encompassing a debate between proponents of freedom of speech and opponents of alleged hate speech. Here’s what some players on both sides had to say as the proceedings began Tuesday.
Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression:
“This is an incredibly arbitrary and ruthless power all because some politically-correct people didn’t like what’s in Your Ward News. Tough. People should have the right to publish what they want. If people don’t want to read, there’s a garbage can. There’s a blue box. There’s the bottom of the birdcage. What we are seeing is an effort by people who don’t like the content for whatever reason to say, ‘I don’t like it and you can’t read it and you can’t send it out.’ And that’s what this battle is all about…..We used to be a country where we said, ‘Look, I don’t agree with you. But you’ve got a right to your opinion. You’ve got a right to say it. That’s what Your Ward News is.”
“This is pure and simple hate. When people are getting Your Ward News in the mail and they’re getting it at their doorstep, they feel unsafe, they feel targeted in their homes. There’s no place for hate like this in Canada, and we need the decision to stand so hate like this will not continue … When there are pieces of clear discrimination and hate speech that are being disseminated en masse to people’s doorsteps there should be no place for that, and that shouldn’t be allowed.”
Raychyl Whyte, Board of Review applicant
“Someone should still have the right to freedom of speech. I myself know what it is like to have public humiliation, public shame due to libelous comments and presumptions made about me. I know all too well what that is like. However, I still support people’s rights to have their own independent free speech.”
Warren Kinsella, founding member, Standing Together Against Mailing Prejudice
“For the people that have been victimized by this so-called newspaper, that’s a problem. There’s Holocaust denial, there’s propagation of rape, there’s use of the N-word. There’s racism on every single page. It is the most disgusting thing. I’ve been doing this stuff for 30 years. I’ve never seen a publication like this distributed in Canada as widely as this one is and certainly not one distributed by Canada Post … We need to say Canada Post should not be distributing hatred.”
Emilie Taman, co-counsel for James Sears
“It’s not something that I’m necessarily per se excited to be reading about, but I do believe in the constitutional right to free speech, and it’s one that I think is very important to be defended at every opportunity.”
Derek Richmond, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
“Me, personally, I didn’t deliver [Your Ward News] but many of our letter carriers did. A lot of them are very diverse and had to go through the whole day viewing swastikas, viewing hate, viewing sexist material, rape culture. It really affected a lot of our letter carriers.”
Tory Leadership Candidate Andrew Scheer Promises: No Free Speech on Campus = No Federal Money
Did you ever think you’d see a day when the government had to press universities to promote and protect free speech?
Well, here we are.
We are hearing countless stories of universities being complicit in shutting down free speech. Stories like U of T Prof Jordan Peterson under attack for wanting to use traditional gender pronouns, a pro-life group at Wilfrid Laurier having a prior-approved demonstration shut down or of a student newspaper at McGill which refuses to print pro-Israel articles.
Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses. More and more, the establishment of safe spaces, forbidden topics and the banning of speakers and campus clubs, are making our colleges and universities no-go zones for open dialogue.
Academic inquiry on our campuses should apply not only to professors but to students. It’s not just course-work that defines a post-secondary education, it’s people discussing and developing ideas.
On our campuses today, though, there are small but powerful special interest groups bent on imposing their own brand of political correctness. We cannot surrender our basic rights to them.
Something must be done.
That’s why as Prime Minister I will ensure that only post-secondary institutions which actively promote and protect free speech will be eligible for federal grants.
If public universities fail to protect this most basic right, they will lose the ability to apply for federal funding like NSERC, CIHR, and Canada Research Chair grants.
Free speech is important. That’s why I voted against C-16 and against M-103. As Prime Minister, I will ensure that free speech is always protected.
Thanks in advance,
Andrew Scheer, MP