Today was the second day of the hearing into the merits of the $104 million dollar lawsuit against me for infiltrating the Toronto homosexual pride parade with accurate information about the downside of homosexuality and the life saving Gospel while disguised as a “gay” zombie.
To see the redemptive work that got Bill Whatcott and his zombies sued for $104 million dollars go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526
The hearing didn’t have the most pleasant beginning. The court clerk who was not very pleasant on the first day of the hearing began the second day by warning my supporters that if they made any noise the would be thrown out of the courtroom. No one was making any noise and no one argued with her. My side was well attended with around ten supporters. The homosexual side only had Christopher Hudspeth and no supporters in attendance.
The homosexuals’ lawyer Doug Elliot started his arguments with his false allegation that I accuse all Liberals of child sexual abuse. Elliot also made much use of testimony from one of my zombies who decided to identify himself and agreed to submit himself to cross examination by the homosexuals’ lawyers without a lawyer of his own. Elliot used my zombie’s testimony to bolster his argument that my material was extreme hate speech. Unkown to me, I guess my zombie was passing out flyers of his own, as according to Elliot my zombie “found my flyer to be too extreme.” I guess in an earlier exchange with my zombie in Quebec according to Elliot, I commented my zombie’s flyer was “too boring as it lacked a picture of an anal wart.” At that point I nearly gagged on some water as I tried not to laugh.
On a more serious note Elliot used my zombie’s testimony to build a case for conspiracy, reading excerpts from the zombie’s testimony that I swore them to secrecy and engaged in a long period of planning. Elliot argued my zombie’s testimony regarding my planning and secrecy was compelling evidence in favour of an order to compel me under threat of contempt of court to divulge the rest of the names of my other zombies, financial supporters and friends who helped in other ways. Elliot argued I had no respect for the law, parade rules or the welfare of homosexuals. Elliot also accused me of not mentioning the mass murder of homosexuals in Orlando three weeks earlier, unlike the other parade participants who Elliot alleged were mourning the mass murder.
Maybe Elliot was mourning the mass murder in Orlando three weeks earlier while marching in the homosexual pride parade. All of the homosexuals around us where partying and having a good time. Not a word about the victims of the Orlando massacre was spoken within our hearing range by the homosexual pride participants. We only heard complaints about the hot weather, about Black Lives Matter holding us up, and of course happy talk about drugs, sex and partying.
According to Elliot because my flyers were hate speech and because I used deception to gain access to the parade my supporters had no right to privacy.
During these arguments I actually noticed the court clerk was staring at one of my female supporters an awful lot. After awhile the court clerk got up and went to my female supporter who was quietly texting and ordered her to put away her smartphone or she would be immediately ejected from the courtroom. I noted the clerk never asked me or George Smitherman to put away our phones and we both used ours to text quietly. Nor did the clerk ask the Lifesite News journalist to put away her phone that could have been used for texting and tweeting (which journalists routinely do during hearings and trials). An articling student (I think) was taking notes and used her phone to quietly text or google something and she was not harrassed either. Inspite of the double standard my supporter immediately apologized and put away her smartphone.
Half an hour later I saw three police officers arrive and then two of my supporters were removed from the courtroom. I wondered what was happening so I quietly left the hearing to see why my supporters were being removed from the courtroom. When I discovered the court clerk (who was needlessly hostile for two days) called the police to remove my two supporters I immediately pulled out my camera to record the event and get it on the public record that my supporters did nothing wrong to merit having their right to observe an open court proceeding violated. I vouched for their character and behaviour and demanded they be let back in but to no avail. The police ordered me to put away my smartphone and the court clerk was belligerent and out and out lied that my supporters received multiple warnings and dirsrupted the court multiple times.
When it was obvious we would get nowhere with the court clerk or police I asked my unjustly expelled supporters to wait around until lunch. During lunch I told my lawyers what happened and then two of my male supporters and I accompanied the two expelled ladies to the court office where the women made the case they should be reinstated. After lunch my two ladies went back into the court and the court clerk ignored us.
My lawyer argued the Saskatchewan Human Rights prosecution of my speech was not relevant to this case as Saskatchewan Human Rights law is different from Ontario civil litigation law and the context and content of my flyers delivered in the homosexual pride parade is different from Saskatchewan. Dr Lugosi made strong arguments in favour of free speech and the need to follow the law and not prosecute speech, rather than make new law to restrict speech even further.
Justice Perrell expressed concerns about the rights of Whatcott supporters being exposed to such a massive financial liability as a $104 million lawsuit for the simple “crime” of donating a few bucks to my cause or offering me a bed during my travels. By the afternoon the arguments were wrapped up and me and my supporters went out for a coffee. We all pray that God will help Justice Perrell to arrive at a just judgment. The decision is reserved for a later date.
My first day at Ontario Superior Court got off to a bit of a raucous start. I noticed on the homosexual side no actual supporters came out to support the litigants. Only the two homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth who are suing me for $104 million dollars and their rather bloated legal team of two lawyers Dr. Scott Fairley, Doug Elliott and three articling students/ paralegals came out to the hearing. On my side a dozen or so supporters came out, along with me and my two lawyers, Dr. John Findlay and Dr. Charles Lugosi. The courtroom that was reserved for us was rather small and could not fit all of us. The court clerk (who seemed hostile to my side) announced some of the people who wanted to see the court proceedings were going to have to leave.
A few rabble rousers who I did not really know showed up to support me and they started arguing with the court clerk that everyone should be accomodated and no one should have to leave as people have a right to an open court and that means being able to see the proceedings. The court clerk became visibly angry and an argument broke out between her and the rabble rousers. I cringed and encouraged people to be gracious when in court, but I must note if the rabble rousers did not speak up some people would have missed the court proceedings. As it was the court clerk after arguing with the rabble rousers was able to find a couple more chairs and everyone who came out to support me was able to see the proceedings.
Unfortunately, once people were seated one of the ladies who was with the rabble rousers decided to use her smart phone to start recording the court proceedings. The homosexuals’ lawyer Doug Elliott noticed her doing this and alerted the court and insinuated I was known to do things like that. The judge ordered her to shut off her phone immediately. In actual fact I was rather annoyed with her and rebuked her when the court recessed and my lawyer expressed his displeasure with her as well. The lady left shortly afterwards. One of her friends who left with her had his own experience with Canadian censorship as he spent two years in prison for criticizing the Islamicization of Canada.
Much of the oral arguments made by the lawyers centred around technical issues as to whether or not a class action lawsuit was an appropriate vehicle to sue me and my supporters for infiltrating the homosexual pride parade with my truthful and accurate Gospel flyers (disguised as “zombie safe sex packages) that warned of the health, social and spiritual harms related to the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexual pride marcher in the 2016 Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade marches with a picture of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ painted on his crotch.
The homosexual side argued my flyers were “hate speech,” that they were prima facie illegal, that they deserved no legal protection, and that they harmed the marchers and Liberal Party members who marched in the Toronto homosexual pride parade. Conversely, the homosexuals’ lawyers called the Toronto homosexual pride parade an “advancement of democracy.” While the homosexuals’ lawyers cited my Whatcott Supreme Court decision as evidence my flyers are “hate speech” that hurts homosexuals and Liberals. I note neither the Whatcott Supreme Court decision, nor the two lawyers arguing this case produced so much as a shred of evidence that anyone was seriously harmed by my flyers. They simply parrot this falsehood as if it is fact. At one point the homosexual side compared my flyers attacking the Liberal Party members who support homosexual pride to the Ku Klux Klan’s murder of white people who were supportive of black rights and ending segregation.
In the afternoon the court clerk yelled at my supporters that they would be removed from the courtroom if they made anymore noise. In actual fact my supporters were very quiet and I heard no noise at all. During the afternoon break I found out two of my supporters brought on the court clerk’s wrath because they quietly exchanged a note between them that was written on paper expressing a thought about what was said in the court case. In noted George Smitherman played on his phone during court quite a bit, but the court clerk said nothing to him.
The lawyers for my side argued (in my opinion effectively) that the class action was not an appropriate vehicle to sue me for alleged defamtion and hate speech at the Toronto homosexual pride parade. My side also did a good job in arguing my flyers are not ‘hate speech’ and are in fact a legitimate part of the democratic debate in Canada. I would love to show you my flyers that were disguised as “Zombie Safe Sex” packages, but I won’t be able to until these proceedings are over, I suspect.The flyers contained pictures of diseases that are common afflictions related to the homosexual lifestyle, statistics related to diseases that ravage the homosexual subculture, accurate information on the complicity of Liberals in child sexual abuse, and the Gospel. Not surprisingly the homofascist side regurgitated the error in fact promulgated by the Supreme Court of Canada that I call all homosexuals pedophiles. In actual fact I never said that, nor do I believe that to be true. But my flyers do articulate correctly that the homosexual subculture is more tolerant of sex with children than the mainstream culture and the Liberals, just like their LGBT allies appear to be more tolerant of child sexual abuse than they ought to be. Liberals and homofascist lawyers might not like hearing that, but truth while no defense in so-called Canadian human rights law, is a defense in defamtion and if the shoe fits one should wear it.
The hearing will continue tomorrow. Those who wish to witness in favour of religious liberty will be doing so at the corner of Queen St and University at 9:00 am.
The hearing will continue from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm in courtroom 9….
In Christ’s Service
“But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak.”
True Canadians, please click on the website citizengo.org, read about Motion 103 that would criminalize speech deemed “islamophobic”
FREE SPEECH IN CANADA IS IN DANGER!!!
Join this petition! MP Irqa Khalid (Sponsor), MP Ron McKinnon (Joint Seconder), MP Raj Grewal (Joint Seconder), Interim Conservative Party Leader Rona Ambrose, New Democratic Party Leader Tom Mulcair: Stop the speech restrictive “anti-blasphemy” Motion 103!: http://citizengo.org/en/node/41042?tc=gm
|Stop the speech restrictive “anti-blasphemy” Motion 103!
YOUR URGENT HELP IS NEEDED! Motion 103 is currently being considered by Parliament and is scheduled for a vote on Thursday, February 16th. The motion will encourage legislation that would criminalize speech deemed “islamophobic” and lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of sharia, Islamophobia, Irqa Khalid, RonCanada. If that happens, criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada.
Antonia Blumberg, the Associate Religion Editor for the progressive liberal disinformation site that some consider to be the online equivalent of a newspaper, the Huffington Post, has come to the defence of the anti-Islamophobia motion that Iqra Khalid, the Liberal MP representing Mississauga-Erin Mills has introduced into the Canadian Parliament. In doing so she has lived down to the stereotype, popular here in the Dominion of Canada, of the Yankee who spouts off about things of which she knows nothing.
Regardless of whether it is a non-binding motion or a bill, there is a very real threat to freedom of speech here, of which anyone familiar with the Liberal Party’s long war on the traditional rights and freedoms of Canadians would be well aware. There are many parallels between what the Liberal Party is doing now and what it did in the 1970s under the leadership of the father of the present federal premier. Then, as now, it decided that it was the government’s place to combat ideas and attitudes that the Liberals considered to be unacceptable. At the time it was racial and religious prejudice in general, and anti-Semitism in particular that the Liberals were going after. Warning Canadians that the threat of a potential Canadian Fourth Reich existed if these attitudes were not drummed out, stomped down, and extirpated with extreme prejudice, the Liberals, bereft of any sense of irony, established a Canadian equivalent of the Gestapo and the NKVD/NKGB/MGB/KGB in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Although progressives will undoubtedly sputter with offence and rage at the comparison in the last sentence it is entirely apt and valid. The difference between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the secret police of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes is one of degree not of kind. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought you before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal you would not end up facing a firing squad or being shipped away to a forced labour camp. At most you would be fined an exorbitant and crippling amount of money, slapped with a lifetime gag order, and have your career and reputation completely and utterly destroyed. Nevertheless, the Canadian Human Rights Commission exists for the same reason its Nazi and Soviet equivalents existed – to track down and punish those considered guilty of what, in Orwellian Newspeak would be called crimethink. It was negative thoughts about those designated as “vulnerable minorities” that the Trudeau Liberals considered to be crimethink, rather than negative thoughts about the regime itself, as was the case in the Third Reich, Soviet Union, and Orwell’s 1984, but it was crimethink all the same, and those charged with crimethink found that there was very little in the way of defence available to them. More perhaps, than was available to the unfortunate victims of the totalitarian regimes, but much less than has been traditionally available to the free subject-citizens of one of Her Majesty’s realms. The Liberals were able to get away with this by classifying the legislation – the Canadian Human Rights Act – which the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal enforced as civil rather than criminal law. Civil law does not come with the same legal protections of the rights of the defendant that exist under criminal law. The progressive supporters of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its enforcing bodies deceive themselves, however, if they think this legislation exists to help people settle disputes among themselves, and not to punish people whose thoughts are considered criminal by the “Natural Ruling Party of Canada” as the Grits so arrogantly designate themselves.
Blumberg, citing the CBC, quotes Justin Trudeau as saying, in defence of Khalid’s motion “You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theater and call that free speech.” This is not a valid comparison however, no matter how many times freedom-hating, totalitarian dolts make it. When you yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, you can create a panic in which people hurt or even kill people in their rush to get out. It is the act of mischief that is proscribed by law, not the idea expressed (“there is a fire in this theatre”). Indeed, if that idea were true, if there actually was a fire in the theatre, we would want that information to be conveyed, albeit in a more orderly fashion.
A law prohibiting so-called “hate speech” is not like this. If the Liberal Party passes a motion condemning Islamophobia and saying that the government must do everything in its power to combat Islamophobia, a hate speech law will be the next step they take. There is abundant evidence in their past track record to show this to be the case. It is the way they think. Such laws exist for one purpose, and one purpose only, to say “you are not allowed to think this or that.” The argument that says that “hate speech” also hurts people like yelling “fire” in a theatre because it can inspire someone to commit acts of violence is spurious, specious and downright mendacious. If one person expresses a negative view of a race, religion, sex or whatever, and another person who has heard this commits a violent act against a member of the group in question, it will not be an immediate, automatic, response like the panic in the theatre. It will involve someone thinking about the negative view expressed, deliberating on it, and concluding that violence is the right way to act on this information. Such a conclusion suggests that there was something wrong in this person’s head already, long before he heard the “hate speech”. Which is why “hate speech” is much less likely to produce a violent crime than calling “fire” in a theatre is likely to produce a panic. It would be more defensible, perhaps, to argue that speech that explicitly calls for a violent response, of the general “kill the ——-s” type, ought to be proscribed, but the “hate speech” that is prohibited by such laws is never limited to just this, and at any rate, this sort of thing was already covered by the laws against incitement that have been around since long before someone dreamed up the idea of laws against hate and which are far better laws being designed to protect everyone and not some designated group.
What the Liberal Party has done in the past in the name of combatting racism and protecting “vulnerable minorities”, however worthy we may or may not consider these goals to be in themselves, is completely unacceptable in a country like Canada. It is now 150 years since men like Sir John A. MacDonald established Canada as a self-governing Dominion under the British Crown, with legislative and judicial institutions grounded in the tradition attached to the Crown, including all the rights and freedoms of the Common Law. The right way to protect “vulnerable minorities” in our country, would have been to do a better job of making sure that the full protection of these rights and freedoms was enjoyed by all of Her Majesty’s citizen-subjects in our free Dominion, whatever their race, ethnic origin, etc. might happen to be. Instead, the Liberal Party opted to give special protection to “vulnerable minorities” and to abridge the traditional rights and freedoms of all Canadians to do so, while doing everything in their power to undermine our British heritage and the tradition from which those rights and freedoms sprang.
It is evident to every patriotic Canadian who loves his country, its true heritage, and its traditional freedoms, and is aware of what is going on that the Liberal Party is preparing to do more of the same, even if an ignorant Yank writing for a silly left-wing trash site is completely clueless as to what is going on.
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
I am shocked to see these organizations supporting such taxpayer-funded indoctrination.In a healthy democracy, respecting our TRADITIONAL individual rights, governments should not be engaged in propagandizing people.
The campaign against Islamophobia is a serious threat to freedom of speech. The term “Islamophobia” literally means fear of Moslems. Is that necessarily a bad thing.? Moslems have repeatedly invaded and occupied parts of Europe for 1200 years. Radical Moslems today engage in terrorist acts of bombing and killing in the name of their faith. Canadians are perfectly justified in wanting to know the beliefs and intentions of all newcomers.
People should also be free to criticize and question other religions. This is not an Islamic state. There should be no immunity from criticism for any gRoup or religion.
Please reconsider your support for such totalitarian measures.
[The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) was founded in 1983 and incorporated as a non-profit educational organization in the Province of Ontario. It s Canada’s major free speech advocacy group and has intervened over the years in numerous court cases and human rights hearings.)
WITNESS WHAT DIVERSITY PUSHERS ARE UP TO WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC
[It should be noted that “anti-racism” is a code word for anti-White. Governments are already riddled with anti-White pro-minority “employment equity” programmes. Anti-racism programmes are taxpayer-funded White bashing and propagandizing. Traditional Canadians who oppose immigration that would men their replacement would, of course, be dismissed as “racists”]
“At the provincial level, we call for:
At the federal level, we call for:
NOW, WITNESS THOSE WHO ARE PUSHING THE AGENDA:
L’Assocation musulmane québécoise (AMQ)
The British Columbia Muslim Association (BCMA)
L’Association musulmane québécoise (AMQ)
Canadian Association of Muslims with Disabilities (CAM-D)
The Canadian Association for Muslim Women in Law (CAMWL)
Canadian Centre for Deen Studies
Canadian Council of Imams (CCI)
Canadian Council of Muslim Women – National (CCMW)
Canadian Council of Muslim Women – Montreal (CCMW)
Canadian Muslim Alliance (CMA)
Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association / Association canadienne des avocats musulmans
The Canadian Muslim Vote (TCMV)
Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec (CCIQ)
Collective of Muslim Feminists of Quebec
Downtown Muslim Professional Network (DMPN)
Federation of Muslim Women
Islam Care Centre
Islamic Association of Saskatchewan (Regina Branch)
Islamic Family and Social Services Association (Edmonton)
Islamic History Month Canada (IHMC)
Islamic Shia Ithna ‘Asheri Jamaat (ISIJ) of Toronto
Islamic Society of North America – Canada (ISNA-Canada)
Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA)
London Muslim Mosque (LMM)
Muslim Association of Canada (MAC)
Muslim Coordinating Council of the National Capital Region (MCCNCR)
Muslim Council of Peel
Muslim Society of PEI
Muslim Link Newspaper
National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)
North American Spiritual Revival (NASR)
Ottawa Muslim Association (OMA)
Own It Institute of Canada Ltd.
3Own: Muslim Youth and Family Services
Think for Actions
Windsor Islamic Association
Windsor Islamic Council
JOIN THE E-MAIL PROTEST:
Canada is on the verge of passing what amounts to Islamic blasphemy laws.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Government is quickly proceeding to address unproven increases of “Islamophobia”— and he’s going to do it by curbing the right to free speech.
The government’s anti-Islamophobia initiative began in the form of a seemingly innocuous online petition presented to Canada’s House of Commons. Citing no evidence whatsoever, the petition made a bold claim that Islamic terrorism has been used as a pretext for a “notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada”.
The petition called upon the House of Commons to recognize that terrorists are not real Muslims by condemning all forms of Islamophobia, with no exact definition of what they meant by the term.
That request — with no evidence, not a single case of Islamophobia cited, virtually no public input, and zero attention from the mainstream media — received unanimous consent by Canadian MPs.
The petition was followed in rapid-fire fashion by a second motion sponsored by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid which called for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to produce findings and recommendations within 240 calendar days of the motion’s acceptance. Titled “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination,” the Motion M-103 demands that the government not only condemn Islamophobia in word but that it also develops a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating Islamophobia.
Motion M-103: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And so, it’s anticipated that legislative remedies — legal options — will be front and centre in the Committee’s efforts going forward.
In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam.
Their anti-Islamophobia motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes,
If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.
This unfounded anti-Islamophobia legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sharia law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.
According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.
Muslims do not get special treatment or protections.
Join me in demanding that this motion is rescinded and exposed for what it is: A blatant attack on free speech, and so an assault on the very cornerstone of our Canadian democracy.
The government is not going to proactively ask for your opinion or let you have your say before they vote on this motion.
Considering they voted unanimously in support of the petition that started this sharia creep in our federal legislature, there’s a damn good chance this thing will pass — that is, of course, unless we make our voice heard.
If you agree, please sign my petition below and remind our politicians that it’s their job to defend our Constitution — our rights and freedoms.
Conferencia de Pedro Varela sobre el Holocausto, las supuestas “Verdades Oficiales” y la futura Ley Mordaza dentro de la Jornada de la Primavera Madrileña de…
Conferencia de Pedro Varela titulada “La verdad sobre el sistema que nos esclaviza” en Madrid el día 6 de Noviembre de 2016.