Free Speech Monitor Number 199, July/August, 2012

Number 199                            July/August, 2012

Sec. 13 is Nearly Dead: Commons Gives Third  Reading to Bill to Repeal Internet Censorship

Wednesday, June 6, was a  good day for free speech in Canada. The House of Commons, voting 153-136, gave third and final reading to Bill C-304, Alberta MP Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill that will repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, it’s on to the Senate and likely approval and then Royal assent. We’re advised by one MP that Sec. 13 may be dead by the end of the Summer. Brian Storseth deserves high marks for his perseverance as do his caucus colleagues. However, the real heroes are the many victims of Sec. 13 who fought a lonely fight before kangaroo court “tribunals” usually ignored when not being vilified by the complacent press — people like John Micka, Glenn Bahr, Melissa Guille, Tom Winnicki, Jason Ouwendyk, Terry Tremaine, Eldon Warman (a de-taxer and no relative of arch complaint filer Richard Warman. Special honours go to Marc Lemire for not only fighting and winning against Richard  Warman but also challenging successfully the constitutionality of Sec. 13. Marc’s intrepid lawyer Barbara Kulazska generated the briefs and paperwork that helped discredit this evil law. Marc’s long fight helped expose the police state nature of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Who can forget the Commission’s blind (don’t ask) “investigator” Dean Steacy insisting he gives no weight to freedom of speech as “freedom of speech is an American concept.” Tribute must also go to Doug Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League who have been steadfast allies against Sec. 13 and, especially to Doug for his masterful summation December 13, 2011 at the judicial review of constitutionality of Sec. 13. And modestly, CAFE can share in the credit. We have represented the unrepresented victims in many a Sec. 13 tribunal; we have intervened forcefully during Marc Lemire’s long fight and we have helped raise money for the victims.

Continue reading

Warman to be Subpoenaed in Terry Tremaine Case


Warman to be Subpoenaed in Terry Tremaine Case

VICTORIA. June 28, 2012. Just returned from Regina, Douglas Christie, lawyer for Canadian political prisoner Terry Tremaine, told a meeting of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) that Richard Warman will be subpoenaed as a witness in the “hate” trial of the former university lecturer. Warman is the instigator of a slew of complaints that have targeted Mr. Tremaine in what many observers see as a political vendetta.

Warman who styles himself an “Ottawa human rights lawyer” but who works for the Department of National Defence, filed a human rights complaint under Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) against Mr. Tremaine for his postings on Stormfront in 2005. That April, more than a year before the tribunal heard the complaint, Warman wrote to Mr. Tremaine’s employer at the University of Saskatchewan threatening to go to the police and the press. The university panicked and Mr. Tremaine lost his job. He was then impoverished and unable to afford a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that was to be held in August, 2006.

Continue reading

Hear Paul Fromm Fill in for Maggie Roddin on “The Unsolicited Opinion” Tuesday 10:00 a.m. to Noon

Hear Paul Fromm Fill in for Maggie Roddin on “The Unsolicited Opinion”  Tuesday 10:00 a.m. to Noon
  People can listen  on “The Unsolicited Opinion” via  via studio “B”. 
( RBN has two streams now playing simultaneously and both hours of my show are heard via studio B.)
The call in number is 877-488-5350 for any  callers.  


!* Immigration lies they tell you in Canada & the U.S.A.
* Introducing political prisoner and thought criminal, scholar, diver, and writer, Terry Tremaine.

NEWMARKET, July 13, 2012. It was certainly a “Black Friday” for freedom of dissent in Canada today. One observer wondered whether this was Pnom Penh or Newmarket,. Late this afternoon in an almost deserted courthouse, after a gruelling seven hours of delays, Judge Kelly Wright sentenced letter writer Brad Love to 18 months in prison. Furthermore, “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.

The 52-year old critic of Zionism and massive Third World immigration is, thus, effectively silenced — no letters-to-the-editor, no letters to newspapers or provocative tweaks to police chiefs or politicians.In addition, Mr. Love was also enjoined from any communication, direct or indirect, with the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, Hillel, and Robert Tiffin, the Vice-President of the York University Jewish Students Union. Mr. Love was found guilty of sending information packages to these four, having called them to receive permission.

In 2006, now retired Mr. Justice Hogg imposed three years of probation during which Mr. Love was forbidden to write to anybody, without their prior consent. In May, Judge Wright ruled that the Jewish groups in question had not given “informed” consent when they told Mr. Love, who had not identified himself in phone calls, that he could send them his written material.

In sentencing Mr. Love, Judge Wright tore a strip off this dissident who, over the past 20 years, has penned more than 10,000 letters to newspapers and public officials. The judge agreed with Crown Vogel’s submission that Mr. Love was so dedicated to his views that he cannot be rehabilitated. Previous “court orders,” Judge Wright read in a staccato voice, “have had no effect in curbing Mr. Love’s propensity to share his hateful and hurtful opinions.” His actions, she added, “were deliberate and intentional” in sending material “that was hateful and hurtful of the Jewish community and reflected his deep-seated racist beliefs.”

The Crown, in her arguments, made it clear that the political gagging of Mr. Love was her goal: “Mr. Love, in the Crown’s submission, in a unique offender.” She indicated that her goal was “to prevent” Mr. Love’s “views from hurting other people. We need to protect the public from hateful, scurrilous material.” And, so, he must be silenced.

Patrick Leckie, Mr. Love’s lawyer, argued that the material sent to the Jewish groups was essentially private communication and there had been no victim impact statement or proof of any harm done. He also noted that the Crown had not charged Mr. Love with “hate” for those mailings. He also pointed out, as the Crown had admitted, that there was little case law to guide the judge in sentencing.

Just before the judge sent the letter]-writing dissident off for another 18 months in prison — his original sentence when convicted in 2003 under Canada’s notorious “hate law” Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code — Mr. Love briefly addressed the court. He pointed to the seats in the courtroom, empty except for Mr. Love’s brother and two members of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, which has backed the outspoken dissident, and a young policeman waiting to slap the handcuffs on him. “Where are the people who claimed to have been hurt or offended by my letters?” he demanded. “They’ve never shown up in the three years of this trial.”

He also warned that his sentence “would have ramifications in limiting the freedoms of other people who come after me.”

The judge adopted almost to a word the Crown’s sentencing requests and, as she had all through the trial which had stretched over three years, rejected all of the defence’s submissions.

Mr. Love will be seeking bail and release pending an appeal of both the verdict and ferocious sentence and an appeal of a rejected constitutional challenge to Judge Hogg’s original “over broad” order, Mr. Love’s lawyer Patrick Leckie said outside the court. “There’s no way Superior Court will endorse the terms of Judge Hogg’s order,” or this order, he added.

The day’s proceedings were a measure of Ontario’s sclerotic court system. The sentencing had been set down in a dedicated courtroom for 10:00 a.m. However, various remands and other matters delayed the Love matter until 12:30. By 1:00, it was time for lunch. Back at 2:15. A further recess had to be called to locate documents the Crown should have had for the file. At 4:10 the judge announced she’d need 20 minutes to consider her verdict. Court resumed at 4:48 and Mr. Love soon after 5:00 p.m was carted off to the cells and political silence, just like his dissidents in Communist China.

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to “Hate Law”

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to “Hate Law”

For the third time in a week a major newspaper or columnist has called for the end of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law,” Now, that Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been repealed by the House of Commons and is all but certain to pass the Senate, the remaining legal throttle on free speech on the Internet is the “hate law.” Today, the following excellent article by columnist Andrew Coyne appeared front page int he National Post (July 10, 2012) and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, among other outlets.

Last week, in reaction to publicity CAFE had put out about the Terry Tremaine Sec. 319 case, moving its way at a glacial pace through the courts in Regina, the National Post picked up the story. On July 4, columnist Marni Soupcoff wrote a column entitled “Tremaine’s platform for neo-Nazi views helpfully provided by Canada’s criminal code.” While gratuitously slagging Mr. Tremaine, Soupcoff said: “The real problem lies with section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which makes “willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group” by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation” an offense punishable by prison time. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 in the Keegstra case that the provision is constitutional. But the Tremaine case is reminding us that constitutionality doesn’t make a law sensible or desirable…..
The trouble starts once the government enters the equation, at the invitation of section 319(2), and sets itself up as the arbiter of whether Tremaine’s ideas are simply too offensive and disagreeable to legally abide. Suddenly, then, to counter this hefty power to subjectively vet a citizen’s speech and decide whether it should land him behind bars for a several years, the government forces itself into the position of having to provide Tremaine a far prettier platform than he’d ever have been able to achieve on his own.”

The next day, the National Post weighed in with an editorial questioning Sec. 319: “. However, he will now be treated to a media-publicized trial in a Canadian courtroom, in which he will be able to air his nasty views for the benefit of mainstream journalists.”

We can only hope that calls will continue and grow for Canada to be rid of this minority-inspired piece of censorship that would be more fitting in Red China or despotisms like Burma (or Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself this week.)

Paul Fromm



Continue reading

Terry Tremaine’s “Hate” Case Attracting Media Attention & Criticism of Sec. 319 (“hate law”)

Terry Tremaine’s “Hate” Case Attracting Media Attention & Criticism of Sec. 319 (“hate law”)
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON.,
M9W 5L3
The Editor,
Dear Sir:
Re: “Handing hatred a microphone,” (National Post, July 5, 2012), if this were any other than a highly charged political case, your headline and conclusion (“hatemongers such as Mr.Tremaine”) would have contained the mandatory “alleged” hatred. The Terry Tremaine trial on charges of “willful promotion of hate” hasn’t even started yet. Presumably, that’s what the trial will determine: whether or not Mr. Tremaine’s political opinions expressed on the Internet on several U.S. websites constitute “hate.”
I agree with your condemnation of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” You ask: “How many Canadians had heard of Mr. Tremaine before the charges against him were laid. … We hadn’t.” Your ignorance is a scandal.
The Canadian Association for Free Expression has sent regular report on Terry Tremaine’s travails over the past six years, including to your paper and many other media outlets in Canada..
Mr. Tremaine has been the victim of a political vendetta by Ottawa civil servant Richard Warman. In 2005, Mr. Warman launched a human rights complain against him under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Before any tribunal had been convened., Mr. Warman approached Mr. Tremaine’s employer, the University of Saskatchewan with a complaint. Mr. Tremaine lost his job as a lecturer and was unable to afford a lawyer for the human rights Tribunal. Next, Mr. Warman launched a complaint with the Regina Police under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Cod – the case at hand.
For the past four years, Mr. Tremaine’s bail conditions have prevented him from posting his views on any “White supremacist” website. Too bad his name isn’t Wei Wei. This Chinese dissident was jailed and then stripped of his political rights for a year and was not allowed to talk to the Western media during that time. Many Canadian papers came to his defence and protested Red China’s denial of freedom of speech. Rightly so.
However, the always self righteous Canadian media is often silent with abuses closer to home. Mr. Tremaine has been gagged four times as long as Mr. Wei Wei, with no end in sight..
Paul Fromm

Continue reading

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

Interview with Marc Lemire

The only Canadian to ever win at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Join Kari Simpson and Ron Gray as they speak to free speech champion Marc Lemire, the leading force in the campaign to remove the oppressive Section 13 from Canada’s Human Rights Code. Is the tide finally turning in favour of free speech in Canada?

Watch the interview: