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.
Sec. 13, one of the two evil tentacles of state censorship of the Internet, hangs on by just a thread of its putrifying tissue. Still, it’s depressing that only one Liberal (Newfoundland and Labrador MP Scott Simms) voted for Bill C-304. Postmedia (June 7, 2012) reported: ” ‘It’s a really important step for freedom of expression in our country,’ Storseth said Thursday, the morning after the bill passed third and final reading in the House of Commons. There hasn’t been a tremendous pushback as you would have seen seven or eight years ago when this issue first really arose, and I think it’s because there has been a fruitful debate in our country.'”
Sadly the NDP’s Justice critic spouted utter nonsense in opposition to getting rid of this power of censorship: “Canadian police departments reported 1,401 hate crimes in 2010, or 4.1 hate crimes per 100,000 population, according to recently released data from Statistics Canada. New Democrat public-safety critic Randall Garrison said Wednesday that, due to the large number of hate crimes, the human-rights commission needs to have the power to combat the issue online and force individuals and groups to remove websites containing hateful speech. Removing the sections from the human-rights code will effectively strip the commission of its power to educate Canadians and shut down inappropriate websites, he said. ‘We do have a serious problem,’ Garrison said. ‘If you take away the power to take (websites) down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even to talk to people about it and educate them about it.'” We see with brutal clarity what the game is — silence critics, have websites, not just an offending phrase or remark, removed. This was the demand in the Marc Lemire case, until the defence team revealed that complainant Richard Warman had posted on the Freedomsite. If ALL the Freedomsite, even the address, as Warman once contended, was “hate” then surely Warman’s comments under one of his sneaky pseudonyms on the Freedomsite were “hate” too. The entire removal of dissident Terry Tremaine’s site http://nspcanada.nfshost.com is the demand of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which is hellbent on tossing him in prison for “contempt.” The site contains movies and much material from mainline sources, including many of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. Yet, the demand is for its total suppression. “Hate crimes,” as reported lovingly in police statistics, are seldom prosecuted and even less frequently result in a conviction. The puny numbers refers to “reports” rather than confirmed “crimes” and are mostly graffiti and insults — really small potatoes.
With ill grace, some of the leftist bloggers are now spreading the line that the opponents of Sec. 13 made their lot worse: Someone using the pseudonym “chapel” wrote on leftist BigCityLiberal’s blog, “Those opposing Sec. 13 bit off their nose to spite their face. No more silly servants sang [sec] questions on hate related issues; now big burly cops and the threat of jail are the real deal.” Not exactly. The remaining censorship tentacle is Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code – the notorious “hate law”. However, and this is a big however, unlike Sec. 13, there are defences — truth, sincerely held religious belief or opinion, material discussed for the public good.
Johnathan Kay of the National Post (June 7, 2012) rejoiced at the demise of Sec. 13: “Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups. All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of ‘human rights.”
Free Speech Setback — Brad Love Convicted on all Seven Counts of “Breach of Probation”
NEWMARKET, May 28, 2012. Will the Canadian judicial system send an inveterate letter-writer back to prison for expressing his opinions in apparent contravention of a judge’s probation order that might have served as a model for the Red Chinese for silencing dissent? The answer must wait until a sentencing hearing on Friday, July 13. Former political prisoner Brad Love was convicted on all seven counts today in provincial court this morning for breach of probation. Two of the charges dealt with failure to report in person to his probation officer in Ontario after Mr. Love moved to Alberta to take a job in the oil patch in the Spring of 2006. However, five of the charges dealt with packages of material Mr. Love had mailed to the York University Students’ Union, Hillel, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress in conjunction with End Israeli Apartheid Week in March, 2008.
The charges stemmed from a February 13, 2006 order by now retired Mr. Justice Hogg who ordered three years probation for the letter-writing dissident. One condition, that effectively gagged Mr. Love from expressing his political opinions, ordered Mr. Love not to send any material by mail, FAX, electronically or in person to anyone, except by request. Thus, even a letter of complaint to a credit card company for a disputed charge might be a breach. Madam Justice Kelly Wright rejected Mr. Love’s evidence that he had called the five groups and said he’d read some of their recent views and asked for permission to send them his own. All, he testified, gave him permission. However, the judge stretched the words of the ruling even further and ruled “permission would have to have been directed to him personally. In his calls, he did not provide his name or a description of the type of material he would be sending.”
One observer in Court commented after the judgement that the judge had “bared her fangs” today. She said: “I am unable to place any weight on Mr. Love’s evidence.” She denounced his manner, “his disrespect of court and the justice system, his attitude of impertinence.” While noting that “the content of the material [sent by Mr. Love to Hillel] is not relevant,” she immediately denounced it as “offensive and anti-Semitic.” The Crownindicated she’d be seeking a prison sentence. A pre-sentencing report will be prepared and the case goes back to Court July 13 for a sentencing hearing.
Political Prisoner Brad Love at work in the oilpatch
Mr. Love was first convicted under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) in 2003 for sending non-violent letters critical of immigration to some 20 politicians. His parole conditions were successively tightened from not writing to those 20 politicians, to not writing to any elected official, to Mr. Justice Hogg’s ferocious prohibition against writing to anyone, presumably even his own friends, without their express consent.
Outside the Court a disgusted Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, which has championed Mr. Love in his eight year ordeal, said: “A couple of weeks ago the press featured wall to wall coverage of Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident who was being kept under house arrest for his outspoken political views. The press cheered as he somehow managed to scale a six-foot wall, walk several miles to meet an associate to be spirited away and then seek shelter at the U.S. Embassy in Peking. Yet, the Canadian press has studiously ignored Mr. Love’s plight,” Mr. Fromm charged. “Once again as free speech is being butchered,” the press is nowhere to be found. There is no difference between Mr. Chen and Brad Love. Both men have criticized politically powerful elements in their society and both have suffered punishment and state efforts to gag and silence them.Somehow,” Mr. Fromm, who has told the Brad Love story to incredulous U.S. audiences, concluded, “our press finds it easier to expose and denounce the silencing of dissent when it occurs on the other side of the world than when it occurs right here at home.”
Dissident Bloggers Arthur Topham Latest Victim of “Hate” Charge
Arthur Topham is an engaging and personable free thinker living in Quesnel, British Columbia. For years, he has been the editor of The Radical Press, first as a newspaper, and then as a blog. He started, as he’d admit, as someone on the left in the hippie scene in the 1970s. However, he was always passionately attached to freedom of speech. About a decade ago, he championed Ernst Zundel during the horrific assault by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the Zundelsite and, later, during his persecution under the now utterly discredited “national security certificate” hearings, which resulted in the deportation of the dissident publisher, then a landed immigrant, to Germany and a five year prison term for doubting the Hollywood version of World War II. He earned the denunciations of some of his former leftist friends for his principled defence of free speech.
Over the years, Arthur became increasingly outspoken about the vile influence of the Zionist lobby in Canada. Not surprisingly, retaliation and an effort to gag Mr. Topham followed in short order. Organized Zionists have consistently sought to silence, jail or have fired anyone who questions their views. Dissent means human rights complaints, jail or unemployment. The list of the victims of the Zionists is long: eccentric John Ross Taylor, publisher Ernst Zundel, gentle school teacher Malcolm Ross, journalist and war hero Doug Collins, yours truly and many others. Just this week, French comic Dieudonne M’bala M’bala was denied a Montreal concert venue after ferocious lobbying by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and, of course, loudly applauded by the League for Human Rights (that doesn’t include free speech) of B’nai Brith. In 2008, Harry Abrams, long-time Victoria operative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, launched a Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) complaint against Mr. Topham for some of his postings. The Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened on Mr. Topham’s behalf. After Marc Lemire’s historic victory, September 2, 2009, when Sec. 13 was declared essentially unconstitutional by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Tribunal looking into the Topham complaint was adjourned sine die.
Sadly, that didn’t mean the end of the judicial persecution of this brave man who has continued to champion victims of persecution. Earlier this week, Arthur was arrested and charged with “hate”, under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate” law. Arthur’s friend Hans Krampe reports: “Arthur Topham, publisher of the Radical Press website, was arrested on May 16, 2012, at 11:30 am on the Barkerville Highway near Quesnel, B.C., put in handcuffs and taken to jail. Apparently, Arthur’s home had been staked out for quite some time by the RCMP. The warrant for his arrest read ‘commission of hate crimes.’ While in jail, Arthur’s house was raided and his computer equipment confiscated, including all his files. During the raid, Shasta, Arthur’s wife, wasn’t allowed into her home for 9 hours. Once the RCMP had taken what they wanted — we wonder where the bugs are now hidden — and finished questioning Arthur, he was released at 11:00 pm. Arthur is now back home again, but prohibited from sending ANY e-mails or expressing any opinions about the issues all too familiar to us. In other words, freedom of speech, which he so passionately fights for, has now been stymied by unconstitutional somersaults, technically and “legally” muzzling him, for the time being. Without compunction, might is right in Canada.
Arthur advises NOT to send him any emails, since those would only wind up at the RCMP instead. What Arthur would like to have send to him — by snail mail etc. — is money, since he is — always has been — chronically broke. It would help to defray some of the legal expenses he will now incur. Arthur has asked Doug Christie, prominent defence lawyer in the Ernst Zündel case, for legal assistance and Doug agreed to help him without hesitation. — Hans Krampe”
Freethinker Arthur Topham
In an interview, Douglas Christie, the Battling Barrister, confirmed that he will be acting for the freethinker in the Cariboo. We’re still waiting for the specifics of the charges. The persecution of Arthur Topham follows the model of the suppression of pro-free speech dissent practised by professional censors and the Zionist lobby and enabled by the laws of Canada. One route is to tie the dissident up in a lengthy and costly “human rights” hearing. This happened to Terry Tremaine. Next, charge him under the Criminal Code for “hate.” The police raid the victim and seize (steal) his computer. [Don’t count on ever getting it back.] When this happened to lecturer Terry Tremaine, CAFE raised money and replaced it within 10 days. The goal is to take away the resources that allow an Internet to function. After some time, the dissident is charged. Then, a pliant judge imposes bail conditions that involve silencing the dissident until the trial which might be several years away. In Mr. Topham’s case, he is not allowed to use e-mail.