My Censors Are the Real ‘Holocaust Deniers’ — Alison Chabloz

My Censors Are the Real ‘Holocaust Deniers’ — Alison Chabloz

https://alisonchabloz.wordpress.com/2017/12/26/my-censors-are-the-real-holocaust-deniers/

Looking back over the past 12 months, it’s hard to describe my year as being anything other than eventful. Thank you to all my followers, readers and donors – your support has enabled me to continu…

SOLSTICE VIDEO BANNED IN ITALY & GERMANY

SOLSTICE VIDEO BANNED IN ITALY & GERMANY
 


 

Excellent, dear Paul; and so are the viewers’ reactions (you won’t be surprised to be informed that this video has also been made “unavailable” in my country too…). I didn’t like the ambiguous viewer’s comment on “not hiding”.

Kind regards,

Italo VERNAZZA

____

Your film has been censored Zionist totalitarian Merkelstan  (Germany).

Roy

 

Paul Fromm’s Winter Solstice in Germany

ttps://youtu.be/ELRYXyH6eRI

Paul Fromm returned from a very moving outdoor winter solstice gathering in Germany with a bonfire. Paul is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/.
His playlist of over 100 videos is: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list

Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.

Co-host of “The Trump Phenomenon” Radio Show on RBN (week nights, 9:00 p.m. EST)

You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com .

To encourage peace and prevent war, the Brian Ruhe channel has a stunning high standard of truth and bravely raises awareness about the Rothschild, Zionist, Talmudist powers. If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please donate monthly at https://gogetfunding.com/brian-ruhe-i

Paul Fromm returned from a very moving outdoor winter solstice gathering in Germany with a bonfire. Paul is the Director,…

JOY OF A WHITE CHRISTMAS — A MAGNIFICENT CHRISTMAS VIDEO BY EVALION

JOY OF A WHITE CHRISTMAS — A MAGNIFICENT CHRISTMAS VIDEO BY EVALION

https://youtu.be/6oqXZfATPGw

HELP CAFE — SUPPORT FREE SPEECH

                                        HELP CAFE — SUPPORT FREE SPEECH                                                                                                                                                   

                                          Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

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

 

Times of Triumph and Challenge for Free Speech in Canada

            It’s been six months since I wrote to you. What a wild time it’s been for freedom of speech in Canada!

 

                Canadians are heading in two different directions. On the one hand, more and more people are speaking up for freedom of speech. Almost every weekend, somewhere in Canada there is a protest against immigration or radical Islam and prominent in these protests are concerns about Motion-103, now before the Commons Heritage Committee. M-103 was a condemnation of Islamophobia by Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani who is a Mississauga Liberal MP. People rightly fear that out of this will come even more restrictions on freedom of speech. On the other hand, a panicking cultural Marxist elite is striking out in all directions trying to suppress criticism of special minorities — Moslems, Jews, the sexually unusual — LGBTQ etc.

 

Ottawa Library Folds & Cancels Showing of Movie Critical of Islamic Invasion of Europe

                Almost every day, it seems, there is a new issue requiring a response from CAFE and very often a timely video on You Tube. We are amassing a growing audience. Just as I sat down to write this letter to you, I was made aware that the cowardly Ottawa Public Library had cancelled a meeting of Act! For Canada because they were going to screen the movie Killing Europe. Chronic busybody Richard Warman, who apparently had not seen the movie, declared it was “hate propaganda”. Needless to say, it has never been the subject of a “hate” charge or a conviction. CAFE quickly sent complaints to the Ottawa Library and provided our list with the contact e-mails of the Board.

 

Thought Control Forces Lose One: Professor Tony Hall Returns to U of Lethbridge

                The day before, we got good news. Professor Tony Hall of the University of Lethbridge was back in the classroom. Changes in provincial law — yes, Rachel Notley has managed to do one thing right — forced the university to cancel its suspension and  BANNING from, campus of Professor Hall. He had criticized Zionism and insisted that there should be open debate on the holocaust. B’nai Brith, one of Canada’s most strident anti-free speech group, howled and Tony Hall, a tenured professor, was banned from campus last year and faces charges before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. CAFE wrote a number of letters supporting him and I know many of you did too.

 

Lindsay Shepherd — Free Speech Heroine

                More good news. A creepy story from Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. Lindsay Shepherd is a very brave 22 year old woman. She is a graduate student and was teaching a class in communications. She was talking about the issue where some sexual dysfunctionals insist on being called “zir” or “they” instead of he or her. She played part of a TVO debate between University of Toronto psychologist Prof. Jordan Peterson who opposes such nonsense and another professor who supports the use of these made-up terms. All hell broke loose. Some anonymous student complained. She was hauled before her superiors and, in an interview she recorded, she was denounced as a White supremacist and transphobic. She bravely held her ground even when she was advised — incorrectly — that even screening Professor Peterson’s remarks might be illegal. Her future classes would be monitored by her superiors. She held her ground and insisted universities are places for people to explore and debate ideas and that controversy does not create a ‘”toxic” environment. When her recording went viral on the Internet many people rushed to her defence. The thought police at WLU became a laughingstock. Even leftish papers condemned the university’s behaviour.

 

Some Winnipeg Hotels Won’t Let A Controversial Figure Even Rent a Bedroom: Pyongyang on the Prairies

My recent visit to Winnipeg did not end as well. After two well attended and enthusiastic meetings in Victoria and Regina, I arrived in Winnipeg to discover  I had been the subject of a three day smear in the Winnipeg Free Press. I enclose one of these articles. Typical soap opera journalism, the article is full of name calling and denunciation. You’d have no idea what I believe and am presented mostly in the words of anti-free speech activists. I had booked a suite at the Airport Hilton for the meeting, thus, a bedroom. As long as I am sober, orderly and can pay the bill, they cannot deny me lodging. However, I was met by the manager who told me he would not let me enter. He was backed up some  grotesquely fat East Indian who refused to give his name. When asked for reasons, the manager said “circumstances”. I quickly arranged for another location and started contacting my list. About 20 minutes before the meeting, the second hotel manager said he’d spoken to the police and was throwing me out of the hotel. Friends drove me to two more hotels. As soon as I presented my ID, they refused to let me stay. The bald bouncer-like night manager with an ear ring of the Assiniboine  hotel said he “had a bad gut feeling” about me. Clearly, they had been contacted by people high up — we suspect the police — and ordered to violate my civil rights. I am consulting a lawyer and am planning to take action. However, the publicity won us three new supporters who read through the garbage. Because of Donald Trump increasing number of people see the media as liars and purveyors of fake news.

 

Democracy in Ontario:  Uninvited to Testify to Legislative Committee

                On October 10, I learned that the Ontario Legislature was expediting passage of Bill 63 — a draconian measure that would create 150-metre bubble zones  around abortion clinics or abortion providers’ residences. Displaying any sign, slogan even a facial gesture critical of abortion within this zone could result in 6 months in prison or a $10,000 fine. This was definitely a free speech issue, I thought. I called the Legislature and registered for a spot at 2:15 on October 12. That was the only day for the hearings. Meanwhile enemies of free speech and open debate like Warren Kinsella sent protests to the Legislature. The morning of the hearing, the clerk advised me that the committee had voted unanimously — and that included the Tories — NOT to hear me. We circulated our brief anyway.

 

Prior Restraint: Toronto Public Library Bans Victor Fletcher Meeting

            Joining the thought control crew is the Toronto Public Library. They refused to let us book their facilities to host Toronto Street News publisher Victor Fletcher in October. Toronto Street News is a publication that looks at conspiracies and has since 1999. Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation and a violation of the provisions of the Library‘s Rules of Conduct. The Library cannot allow its facilities to be used to support such activities and we have, therefore, denied the booking on these grounds.” Libraries have often stood bravely for making controversial views available to the public. Not any more. One can only argue from past behaviour. Neither the meeting’s sponsor nor Mr. Fletcher nor his paper has ever been charged, much less convicted, under Sec. 319 — Canada’s ‘hate’ laws. I will be appearing at the December 11 meeting of the Toronto Library Board as a delegation to protest.

 

YOUR WARD NEWS Postal Ban Review Continues

                The review as to whether Judy Foote had reasonable grounds to issue the Interim  Prohibitory Order, banning YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine from sending mail — any mail — in Canada resumes today. CAFE is taking an active role and will continue to do so. On November 2, the Committee issued a series of preliminary rulings. First, they decided that the minister had not provided reasons for her decision. They also ruled they could consider the constitutionality of both the minister’s arbitrary actions and of those sections of the Canada Post Corporation Act itself. More hearings will be held.


 

YOUR WARD NEWS Charged With “Hate”

                After several years of fevered agitation, especially by Jewish censorship groups like the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, with active assistance from anti-free speech meddlers like Warren Kinsella and Richard Warman, the Moslem Attorney General of Ontario Yasir Naqvi — he comes from a country (Pakistan) that doesn’t much value free speech — laid his second “hate law” charge in six months. The victims this time, Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine, publisher of YOUR WARD NEWS. This is going to be an important battle and CAFE is already on board as an active participant in the defence. Dr. Sears intends to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 319 as well. Prune face Canada is actually charging a satirical paper for making people laugh. Our grim guts rulers would fit right in with the tyrants in Pyongyang.

 

                The Evangelist versus the Transgendered: Whatcott Human Rights Tribunal — The Opening Shots

                Across the country in Vancouver the hearing of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal into a complaint by Ronan Auger who says he is transgendered against evangelist Bill Whatcott for critical leaflets he distributed during last May’s provincial election is still in its preliminary stages. We are supporting Mr. Whatcott’s motion to dismiss this complaint as frivolous and petty. CAFE also  supported the successful application of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms to join us as an intervenor supporting Mr. Whatcott’s rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

                Indeed, a very busy Fall. All of this takes money and, as always, we must rely on you. Please help Christmas to arrive early for CAFE and send us your most generous support to continue to make all this possible. We are at a dangerous crossroads in Canada with many people speaking out against our suicidal immigration policies and in defence of free speech. But, equally those trying to change our country beyond recognition and impose diversity and special rights for privileged minorities are desperate and dangerous as they try to squelch those who speak up. More than ever, CAFE’s work is vital.

                Merry Christmas! my fellow truth seeker  and friend of free speech,

 

                Paul Fromm, Director

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

___  Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE fund its interventions in the YOUR WARD NEWS  case (denial of mailing rights and now “hate law” charges).

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, and to produce more timely You Tube videos in this age of Internet alternative media.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2018 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#____________________________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:______________________________________________________________________

 Name:__________________________________________________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________________________________________________           

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

CAFE’S SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF BILL WHATCOTT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRANSGENDERED OGER’S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BEFORE B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

CAFE’S SUBMISSIONS  IN SUPPORT OF BILL WHATCOTT’S MOTION TO DISMISS TRANSGENDERED  OGER’S COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BEFORE B.C. HUMAN RIGHTS  TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before

the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Morgane Oger

COMPLAINANT

AND:

Bill Whatcott

RESPONDENT

 

SUBMISSION BY INTERVENER CAFÉ (CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION) ON RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

1.     The BCHRCode is narrow + specific as to what it covers, + doesn’t allow tribunal leeway to invent or make up rules or concepts not specifically provided for.

2.     The concept of “hatred” or “hate” has been narrowly defined by SCC in Whatcott v Sask. (HRC), [2013] SCJ no. 11. These passages from the SCC Whatcott decision confirm “a Modified Definition of ‘Hatred’ “: [56]  First, courts are directed to apply the hate speech prohibitions  objectively . In my view, the reference in  Taylor  to “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions” (at p. 928) should not be interpreted as imposing a subjective test or limiting the analysis to the intensity with which the author of the expression feels the emotion. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances surrounding the expression, would view it as exposing the protected group to hatred. [57]  Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred and contempt” is to be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects. [58]  Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue. Is the expression likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others? The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not, in itself, sufficient to justify restricting the expression. The prohibition of hate speech is not designed to censor ideas or to compel anyone to think “correctly”.

In light of these three principles, where the term “hatred” is used in the context of a prohibition of expression in human rights legislation, it should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. [85]…prohibiting…any representation which “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

The words “ridicules”, “belittles” or “affronts the dignity of” are said to lower the threshold of the test to capture “hurt feelings” and “affronts to dignity”that are not tied to the objective of eliminating discrimination. To the extent that they do, they are said to infringe freedom of expression in ways not rationally connected to the legislative objectives. [87]  Since the decision in  Taylor , the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has interpreted s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code , including the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of”, to prohibit only those publications involving unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification: see  Bell  at para. 31;  Owens , at para. 53, and  Whatcott (C.A.) , at paras. 53-55. [88]  Although the expansive words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” have essentially been ignored when applying s. 14(1)( b ), it is a matter of concern to some interveners that “the legislation has never been amended, and no declaration has ever been made to read down the impugned law” (Christian Legal Fellowship factum, at para. 22), and that the express wording of the provision contributes to its chilling effect (Canadian Journalists for Free Expression factum, at para. 5). [89]  In my view, expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings that were found essential to the constitutionality of s. 13(1) of the  CHRA  in  Taylor . Those words are not synonymous with “hatred” or “contempt”. Rather, they refer to expression which is derogatory and insensitive, such as representations criticizing or making fun of protected groups on the basis of their commonly shared characteristics and practices, or on stereotypes. As Richards J.A. observed in  Owens , at para. 53: “Much speech which is self-evidently constitutionally protected involves some measure of ridicule, belittlement or an affront to dignity grounded in characteristics like race, religion and so forth. I have in mind, by way of general illustration, the editorial cartoon which satirizes people from a particular country, the magazine piece which criticizes the social policy agenda of a religious group and so forth. Freedom of speech in a healthy and robust democracy must make space for that kind of discourse. . . .”[90]  I agree. Expression criticizing or creating humour at the expense of others can be derogatory to the extent of being repugnant. Representations belittling a minority group or attacking its dignity through jokes, ridicule or insults may be hurtful and offensive. However, for the reasons discussed above, offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a justification for infringing on freedom of expression. While such expression may inspire feelings of distain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred. [91]  There may be circumstances where expression that “ridicules” members of a protected group goes beyond humour or satire and risks exposing the person to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. In such circumstances, however, the risk results from the intensity of the ridicule reaching a level where the target becomes exposed to hatred. While ridicule, taken to the extreme, can conceivably lead to exposure to hatred, in my view, “ridicule” in its ordinary sense would not typically have the potential to lead to the discrimination that the legislature seeks to address. [92]  Thus, in order to be rationally connected to the legislative objective of eliminating discrimination and the other societal harms of hate speech, s. 14(1)( b ) must only prohibit expression that is likely to cause those effects through exposure to hatred. I find that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14(1)( b ) are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of addressing systemic discrimination of protected groups. The manner in which they infringe freedom of expression cannot be justified under s. 1 of the  Charter  and, consequently, they are constitutionally invalid. [93]  It remains to determine whether the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” can be severed from s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code , or whether their removal would transform the provision into something which was clearly outside the intention of the legislature. It is significant that in the course of oral argument before this Court, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan endorsed the manner in which the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” were read out in  Bell . I accept his view that the offending words can be severed without contravening the legislative intent. [94]  Given my determination that these words are unconstitutional, it is time to formally strike out those words from s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code . The provision would therefore read: (b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground. [95]  Accordingly, I will proceed on the basis that the only word in issue on this appeal is “hatred”. Interpreting that term in accordance with the modified  Taylor  definition of “hatred”, the prohibition under s. 14(1)( b ) of the  Code  is applied by inquiring whether,  in the view of a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances, the representation exposes or tends to expose any person or class of persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. [99] Having concluded that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14(1)( b ) are not rationally connected to the objective of prohibiting speech which can lead to discrimination, I also find them constitutionally invalid because they do not minimally impair freedom of expression. [109]  Restricting expression because it may offend or hurt feelings does not give sufficient weight to the role expression plays in individual self-fulfillment, the search for truth, and unfettered political discourse. Prohibiting any representation which “ridicules, belittles or affronts the dignity of” protected groups could capture a great deal of expression which, while offensive to most people, falls short of exposing its target group to the extreme detestation and vilification which risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group. Rather than being tailored to meet the particular requirements, such a broad prohibition would impair freedom of expression in a significant way. [110]  The Saskatchewan legislature recognized the importance of freedom of expression through its enactment of s. 14(2) of the  Code . To repeat, that provision confirms that “[n]othing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the law upon any subject”. The objective behind s. 14(1)( b ) is not to censor ideas or to legislate morality. The legislative objective of the entire provision is to address harm from hate speech while limiting freedom of expression as little as possible.

3.     All Code-created prohibitions + offences can only be read + interpreted subject to the superior freedoms + rights enacted in the Charter, especially section 2(b) thereof, namely, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion + expression, including freedom of the press + other means of communication.

4.     The Courts in Canada + USA have given paramount importance to freedom of expression in the context of elections, as evidenced in the Canadian SCC decisions of Figueroa v Canada [2003] 1 SCR 912, + Thomson v Canada [1998] 1 SCR 877, + the USSC decision of Citizens United v FEC. Free expression must be given free rein in the vital matter of free democratic elections.

5.     Any member of the public, any citizen, has the absolute right to raise any matter about an election candidate, including: fitness for office, good character, honesty + truthfulness, trustworthiness, faithfulness to others (including one’s spouse and/or children), lying about anything including about oneself, sexual misconduct, sanity (being free of mental disorder or delusion), political agenda (including candidate’s desire, as here, to punish, harrass or bully citizens.

6.     Nobody has a right not to be offended, to protection of so-called “dignity”, “feelings”, “reputation” or “self-respect”. These aren’t in the Code, and no Tribunal has the right to make up or invent concepts from “whole cloth”. It’s not the purpose for which Code was initially enacted, to protect people from actual tangible + palpable harm from true discrimination in matters like employment, houding, + services offered to the public.

7.     Each citizen has the right to express his/her doubt or disbelief that any person has the right to claim any special privilege under the Code.

8.     Each citizen has the right to question the validity of any claim by a person to be of a gender or sex that doesn’t correspond to reality, & to question any demand by someone to be addressed as or referred to as being of a certain gender or sex, or to be referred to by certain pronouns if that does not correspond to reality.

9.     It is submitted that any cases decided by BCHRT or any other tribunal, contrary to the charter or the Code, are wrongly decided + must not be followed. This would include the Browne, Sheridan, waters + dawson decisions. Alternatively, these cases must be distinguished on the basis the facts differed from those in the present case.

 

All of which is respectfully submitted by the Intervenor, the Canadian Association For Free Expression (CAFÉ), this 22nd day of December, 2017.

  Per:  _______________________________

Paul Fromm, Director

CAFE & JCCF Granted Intervenor Status for Bill Whatcott’s Motion to Have Oger’s Transgendered Discrimination Complaint Dismissed as Meritless

CAFE & JCCF Granted Intervenor Status for Bill Whatcott’s Motion to Have Oger’s Transgendered Discrimination Complaint Dismissed as Meritless
 
On December 1, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Justice Cenre for Constitutional Freedoms , both pro-free speech intervenors in a complaint before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission were granted intervenor status in a special application filed by Mr. Whatcott seeking summary dismissal of the complaint by flamboyant transgendered activist and failed NDP candidate Rona Oger, formerly married and who has fathered two children, but now styles himself a woman and uses the name “Morgane”. Oger filed the complaint in retaliation for Mr. Whatcott’s distributing 1,500 leaflets during last May’s provincial election arguing that, if Oger cannot even get his gender right, he dopes not have the judgement to be a good MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly.
 

​Ronan Oger                                                                                                    Now “Morgane” Oger

 
CAFE and JCCF were both accepted as intervenors in this motion and have until December 22 to file their submissions, CAFE’s Director Paul Fromm and JCCF attorney Jay Cameron were told today.
 
The following is evangelist and victim Bill Whatcott’s motion, filed December 8.
 
Dear Mr. Rilkoff, Ms Quail and others,
 
I am filing my application to dismiss on the following grounds,
BC Human Rights Code:
 
27 (1) A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a
hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the
following apply:
(b) the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint do not
contravene this Code;
(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
And the Word of God:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female.”
Matthew 19:5
 
There is a very high threshold which must be established for a finding of ‘hate speech’ under
provincial human rights codes further to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision
in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 467, 2013 SCC 11
(CanLII). The flyers are not even remotely close to meeting that threshold.
 
According to the Supreme Court in that case:
The definition of “hatred” set out in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, 1990 CanLII
26 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892, with some modifications, provides a workable approach to
interpreting the word “hatred” as it is used in legislative provisions prohibiting hate speech.
Three main prescriptions must be followed. First, courts must apply the hate speech prohibitions
objectively. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context
and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to
hatred. Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” must be interpreted as
being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words
“detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and
offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks
causing discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the
effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or
group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to
justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to
incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of
the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate
discrimination. In light of these three directives, the term “hatred” contained in a legislative hate
speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person,
aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person
or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
 
In my submission, simply expressing the opinion that the Complainant is a man does not
possibly rise to the level of hate speech. The fact that the Complainant was a political candidate
and narrowly lost is irrelevant to whether the speech is hate speech under Whatcott SCC 2013.
 
The Tribunal must first ask, “whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and
circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred.” The flyers
do not expose the Complainant to hatred. The flyers express the opinion that the Complainant is
a man, and that people should not vote for someone who pretends to be a woman for the
purposes of an election. The purpose of the flyers is to bring transparency to the democratic
process – voters deserve transparency. Saying that someone should not vote for a candidate is not
exposing them to “hatred”. The flyers express a protected religious belief that gender is male and
female, and not subject to change. That is not hate speech. That is an opinion, and we have
freedom to have those under section 2(b) of the Charter in this country.
 
Second, the Tribunal must restrict its consideration of the whether the flyers were “hateful” to a
definition of hatred that restricts itself to the one the Supreme Court of Canada outlined
in Whatcott: “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and
“vilification””. The flyers do not even begin to approach extreme manifestations described by
“detestation” and “vilification”. The flyers don’t advocate violence or persecution – they advocate
not voting for the Complainant. That does not even remotely qualify as “hate”.
 
Third, the Tribunal must focus on the expression and consider whether it was “likely to
expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being
expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the
author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is
irrelevant.” The result of the community was predictable: they either told me I was an
idiot, or they ignored me. No one read the flyer and “vilified” the Complainant. No one
acted out against the Complainant. The Complainant has pointed to no harm at all from the
flyers, except to claim that the Complainant lost the election because of them, which is
irrelevant to a consideration of this matter, and no link has been established between the
election result and the flyers, in any event.
 
I could not be successfully sued for defamation for the content of the flyers: the
Complainant fathered two children with a biological woman that the Complainant was
once married or in a common law relationship with. It is not hateful to highlight biological
reality. The Complainant identifies as a woman, but the Complainant differs
physiologically from a biological woman. It is not hate speech to point this out.
 
Lastly, many millions of people in Canada believe and express the biological reality of sex
as being male or female. The statements in the flyers are not unusual. They represent a
common understanding of biology that is both accepted in science and taught in religion.
In Whatcott, the Court delineated the line between protected expression under the Charter
and hate speech:
“In my view, expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does
not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings that were found essential to the
constitutionality of s. 13(1) of the CHRA in Taylor. Those words are not synonymous with
“hatred” or “contempt”. Rather, they refer to expression which is derogatory and
insensitive, such as representations criticizing or making fun of protected groups on the
basis of their commonly shared characteristics and practices, or on stereotypes. As
Richards J.A. observed in Owens, at para. 53:
 
Much speech which is self-evidently constitutionally protected involves some measure of
ridicule, belittlement or an affront to dignity grounded in characteristics like race, religion
and so forth. I have in mind, by way of general illustration, the editorial cartoon which
satirizes people from a particular country, the magazine piece which criticizes the social
policy agenda of a religious group and so forth. Freedom of speech in a healthy and robust
democracy must make space for that kind of discourse . . . .
 
I agree. Expression criticizing or creating humour at the expense of others can be
derogatory to the extent of being repugnant. Representations belittling a minority group or
attacking its dignity through jokes, ridicule or insults may be hurtful and offensive.
However, for the reasons discussed above, offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a
justification for infringing on freedom of expression. While such expression may inspire
feelings of disdain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred.”
 
The complaint should be dismissed because there is no reasonable chance it will succeed in
light of the law in regard to hate speech from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Under section 27(1)(b), the Complaint should be dismissed because the flyers are not a
contravention of the Human Rights Code.
 
Finally, the flyers are clearly in harmony with Matthew 19 in the Holy Bible, and I would
like to remind the Chairperson and everyone else reading this; God is the highest arbiter of
right and wrong and one day we will all stand before Him.
 
In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

YOUR WARD NEWS “Hate Law” Case & Kinsella’s Charge of Threatening” Set Over Until January 4

YOUR WARD NEWS “Hate Law” Case & Kinsella’s Charge of Threatening” Set Over Until January 4

TORONTO, December 21, 2017. With the Crown hinting that charges of “uttering threats” launched in a private prosecution by Warren Kinsella may be dropped,  January 4 was set down as the date for next court appearance, the Crown told the Court

Publisher Leroy St. Germaine and editor Dr. James Sears are also charged with two counts of wilfully promoting hate under Canada’s notorious “hate law” against women and Jews. This case was put over also to 10:00 a.m. on January 4.

Inline image 2

The Crown told the Court it is “still deciding whether to proceed with the charges” of uttering threats.

The uttering threats refer to a non-threatening sentence in  the summer issue of YOUR WARD NEWS. Warren Kinsella, a mortal enemy of the satirical newspaper tried two police and several Crowns and was told the comments did not rise to the level of threats. Nevertheless, on June 21,he laid a private charge against Mr. St. Germaine and Dr. Sears, a charge which the Crown has since taken over.

The National Post (June 21, 2017) reported that in the Summer, 2017 issue of YOUR WARD NEWS, editor Dr. James Sears explained “that his family had been targeted by a ‘hoax’ complaint to the Children’s Aid Society. In his column, Sears accused Lisa Kinsella of …  being responsible for the complaint. Kinsella, for her part, vehemently denied any involvement.Sears said he waited months to inform his ‘thousands’ of friends and followers about the apparent CAS investigation due to fear that ‘some hothead who cares deeply about me and my family, would lose it and do something illegal, like bludgeon the Kinsellas to death.’” That passage, the Kinsellas alleged, constitutes a threat.

Kinsella went wild over a story. A person who is all elbows and insults in politics, Warren Kinsella went scurrying to the Metropolitan Toronto Police. The National Post’s account continued:  “Kinsella brought the article to Toronto Police, but she was told that there was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.Toronto Police spokesman Mark Pugash told the National Post that a detective looked at the case, then asked the advice of a Crown attorney. That Crown attorney, in turn, asked another Crown. ‘Both Crowns came to the same conclusion as the detective’ Pugash said, “which was that there wasn’t enough evidence.'”

So, the Metropolitan Toronto Police and two Crown Attorneys found no evidence of a crime. Still, the relentless Kinsellas initiated a private charge. This harassment is a time and resource waster. Dr. Sears and Mr. St. Germaine had to attend a court hearing August 2. The Kinsellas did not attend.

Neither Kinsella was in Court today. “This is the 7th or 8th appearance in this matter,” Dr. Sears told the Court: “I want the charges dropped by the next court date and, if not, I want an immediate date set for a judicial pretrial conference. This has been over six months and every delay has been the Crown’s fault.”

Again, there was no sign of the Kinsellas following up on the time and money wasting judicial mischief they’d caused.

More than a dozen free speech supporters jammed the tiny courtroom competing for seats with some two dozen sad sack accused all of whom had their cases adjourned. — Paul Fromm

Jewish Leader Gideon Falter Promises Ruin to Those Who Criticize Jews & Other Privileged Minorities

Jewish Leader Gideon Falter Promises Ruin to Those Who Criticize Jews & Other Privileged Minorities
 
 Alison Chabloz is an English chanteuse and satirist. On January 10, 2018, she faces criminal charges in London, England for communicating, via the public airwaves (You Tube) “grossly offensive material”; namely, satirical songs about people like Eli Wiesel.
 
She was charged privately by Gideon Falter and the well-funded and well connected Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. The Crown saw no merit when first approached but, after private charges were laid, took on the case. Alison’s is a crucial case as the forces of censorship seek to shut down on-line criticism that crosses the subjective and foggy line of being “grossly offensive”
 
The words of Falter — seeking the total ruination of those who criticize privileged minorities are chilling. Take these Zionists, who shout loudest about “hate” but who are themselves vicious haters, very seriously.
 
I know from personal experience. A 6-year campaign by Canadian Jewish groups culminated in my firing as an English instructor after a 25 year career where I had been hailed by my Director of Education as “an exemplary teacher”. My sins? My opposition to this country;s immigration policies and my support for free speech — on my own time, off school property. They sought my impoverishment and the ruin of my family. It is all out war with the forces of censorship and tyranny. 
 
Read Alison’s report below.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 
 
 
Alison Chabloz added 2 new photos.
 
 
 

Excerpts from Gideon Falter’s latest whine in the Jewish Chronicle. My comments in (brackets).

“We must make those who incite hatred pay a ruinous price for their actions. They must suffer criminal sanctions, be thrown out of their professions, and be exposed in the media. When expressions of antisemitism have profound criminal, financial and reputation repercussions, then only the most determined will engage in it.

“This year, Campaign Against Antisemitism has already taken the Crown Prosecution Service to the High Court and won a judicial review over its failure to prosecute an individual for alleged hate crimes ( = exposing vigilante Shomrim). We had to privately prosecute another individual ( = yours truly) after the Crown failed to do so, only for the Crown to change its mind and take over our prosecution.

“Our message is clear: the days of getting away with Jew-hatred are over. We will make sure of that. Our effect is being felt. Despite being one of the most inadequately funded communal charities (Nazis! Nazis everywhere! Donate!), relying almost entirely on the hard work of volunteers, we are referred to by those expressing abusive views on social media, on campuses and at demonstrations as their most powerful and dangerous enemy. They are lucky we are so starved of funds. (We can’t spell ‘anti-Semitism’, but be sure to donate!)

“Our message to the authorities is similarly blunt. With the backing of government ministers who share our dismay at your woeful inaction, we will hold you to account. If you fail to enforce the law with zero tolerance, we will challenge you in court, and we will hold your failings up to scrutiny in the media.” (That’s plod and CPS told!)

(Alas, asides last weekends Hannukah party attended by the Met Chief Constable Cressida Dick no less, it would seem that CAA is slipping from favour. Only one retweet by Falter for Bedlam’s ‘extreme measures’.)

Image may contain: 2 people
Image may contain: one or more people and text

Paul Fromm’s Winter Solstice in Germany

Paul Fromm’s Winter Solstice in Germany

ttps://youtu.be/ELRYXyH6eRI

Paul Fromm returned from a very moving outdoor winter solstice gathering in Germany with a bonfire. Paul is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/.
His playlist of over 100 videos is: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list

Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/

Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.

Co-host of “The Trump Phenomenon” Radio Show on RBN (week nights, 9:00 p.m. EST)

You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com .

To encourage peace and prevent war, the Brian Ruhe channel has a stunning high standard of truth and bravely raises awareness about the Rothschild, Zionist, Talmudist powers. If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please donate monthly at https://gogetfunding.com/brian-ruhe-i

Paul Fromm returned from a very moving outdoor winter solstice gathering in Germany with a bonfire. Paul is the Director,…
YOUTUBE.COM