Let’s see, Ontario’s eccentric courts say I can’t refer to Richard Warman as the “high priest of censorship.” So, okay, this meddling lawyer, ensconced doing something or other in the Department of National Defence, doesn’t want Torontonians to be able to receive a community tabloid entitled Your Ward News through the mail. The politically correct long ago ceased debating with those who have a problem with the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism or the self-serving Hollyweird version of WW II. Disagree with them and they want to gag you and shut you down.
Local leftists, including sometime Liberal Party backroom boy Warren Kinsella, have been gunning for Your Ward News for over a year. the Main Street offices of the tabloid have had their windows smashed numerous times by the apostles of “tolerance” and “inclusion”. Then, about a year ago, the critics flipped out and tried to pressure Canada Post not to deliver the satirical tabloid. Some posties from the notoriously leftist Postal Workers Union, which for years has has a significant contingent of Maoists, threatened they would not deliver it. The complain that it is “hate” Even under Canada’s notorious “hate” law, the accused must still be afforded a trial before his writings can be declared hate.
In a healthier society, the critics would be urged to write a letter-to-the-editor, start a paper of their own, or, if they are offended beyond all endurance when Your Ward News arrives in the mail, they can simply toss it into the Blue Box for recycling. However, we live in a mean, Puritanical society assailed by domineering followers of political correctness who want to gag all dissent from their agenda.
So, along comes Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman. Your Ward News is delivered in the eastern part of Toronto. Almost certainly Mr. Warman didn’t find an unwanted copy delivered by the mailman. So, in the normal scheme of things, what’s it to him?
Anyway, he’s taken to letter writing to try to pressure Canada Post into not delivering Your Ward Newsbecause some of its views and irreverence don’t please Warman’s Ottawa sensitivities.
National Observer (March 8, 2016), an online news commentary, reports: “A prominent Ottawa human rights lawyer is after Canada Post to drop distribution of a newsletter that he says contains misogynist, homophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate propaganda.
Richard Warman wrote Public Works Minister Judy Foote and Canada Post president Deepak Chopra in early March to ask for a halt to the postal distribution of a Toronto publication called Your Ward News.
Warman told National Observer that the newsletter was something he was aware of that was floating around the Toronto area.
“It had sort of a bad smell. When I finally had the chance to look at it closely, I was shocked to see the kind of bigotry that was being disseminated through Canada Post.”
In an email response to National Observer Tuesday, Foote said, “I have reviewed some of the material in question and I too find it highly offensive and well outside the norm of Canadian values. I have reached out to my colleagues to determine the best way forward in addressing this issue.
“This includes whether the material constitutes an offense under the Criminal Code.”
Your Ward News claims distribution of 300,000 and a readership of one million within Toronto. Canada Post delivers the publication unwrapped, meaning anyone is able to see the content.
The most recent issue of the quarterly publication (it was previously monthly) shows on its cover a bizarre collage of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surrounded by women in bikinis. Beside him, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne waves a gay pride flag.
Two men are depicted on crosses, one of them clearly meant to be Christ; the other sprays blood on former advisor to Jean Chretien, Warren Kinsella, and in a word balloon says, “See you in hell, Kinsella!”
The entire spectacle is headlined “Marxist Lackeys Attack.”
Inside, the paper contains a number of racist slurs directed mostly against Jews and Muslims. The back page invites people to attend “The 1st Annual Old-Fashioned Toronto Anti-Marxist Book-Burning.”
The purported ad states that among books welcome to be burned are “FemiMarxist garbage by authors like Margaret Atwood; EnviroMarxist Agenda 21 propaganda by scientific sellouts like David Suzuki, etc.” ….
“In his letter, Warman tells Canada Post that he is concerned the Crown corporation’s distribution of the newsletter might constitute a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act as the agency is “party to the dissemination of discriminatory material to the general public.”
Warman warns the Crown corporation that if it persists in distribution of the paper, “I will pursue the matter accordingly,” and cites, among other things, an example of defamatory libel in the newsletter against Warren and Lisa Kinsella.” …. [Actually, Your Ward News is a tabloid newspaper, not a newsletter.]
“While Warman’s letter is the most recent attempt to have Canada Post stop delivery of Your Ward News, it’s not the first time.
In May 2015, Arthur Potts, the Ontario MPP for Toronto’s Beaches-East York riding sent a letter to Canada Post’s Chopra asking the Crown corporation to reconsider its delivery of the newsletter.
In his letter, Potts noted that Toronto’s Hate Crimes Unit was probing a complaint about the then-current issue of Your Ward News, which featured “several offensive and anti-Semitic articles and caricatures.”
The Toronto Hate Crimes Unit could not be reached for comment. It’s not known whether the paper is still under investigation at this time.
Potts wrote that he was not only deeply concerned by the paper’s content and his constituents’ complaints, but added the fact that Canada Post delivered the paper, despite repeated complaints, “suggests that the Crown corporation may endorse its content.”
Canada Post did not respond to National Observer’s queries. The Crown corporation operates at arm’s-length from the government.
Megan Whitfield, the president of the Toronto Local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, told National Observer that a number of postal workers have complained about having to deliver the publication.
However, Whitfield said Canada Post has threatened to discipline any workers who refuse to carry the newsletter.
“Both on the cover and inside they’ve had some very offensive material,” Whitfield said of the publication. At the very least the Toronto Local wants to see the publication shrink-wrapped in dark plastic so that the contents can’t be seen in the mail.
Of Canada Post, Whitfield said: “They just continue to allow it to go through.”
Latest episode of The Martinez Perspective with guest Paul Fromm.
On this episode of the Martinez Perspective I am joined by Paul Fromm, a long-time free speech activist, White preservationist and director of the Canadian Association of Free Expression. We discussed Paul’s recent run-in with the “thought police” at the Toronto airport, who, on the orders of the most likely Zionist influence peddlers higher up in the Canadian government, harassed and finagled him in a clear act of state-sanctioned intimidation. Then we touched on some of the finer details of the Arthur Topham thought crime trial in BC, where Zionist hate mongers are seeking to send an elderly blogger to jail for publishing books that are already widely available online.
https://youtu.be/wKF8Ekh3Rqk
by Douglas Murray
February 5, 2016 at 5:00 am
Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech
It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.
Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on,recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.
At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.
Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.
The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in Paris, Cologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.
As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.
The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”
And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.
By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.
Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.
The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.
In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.
.
Conservatives drop immigration committee witnesses after complaints of ‘disgusting’ website
“We’ll plug our ears because we don’t want to hear what you have to say” — the New Openness of the Canadian Political Class
Twice in one week, Canadian officials behaved like bratty children. The Harper government ostentatiously directed our diplomats to walk out of he UN General Assembly prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahme\adenijad’s speech earlier this week. What is the point of having a place to meet the leaders — like them or not — of the world but then refuse to listen? This childish behaviour reminds one of the bratty kid who plugs his ears and chants and makes noise when another child is speaking.
Then, on Wednesday the Conservatives, under Opposition pressure, pulled two of their witnesses, a Montreal husband and wife team who run an immigration reform website. The Canadian Press (September 26, 2012) reported: “The Conservative government pulled two of its own witnesses from an immigration committee at the eleventh-hour Wednesday, calling material on the group’s website disgusting and un-Canadian. Although the witnesses — Madi and Julien Lussier of the Canadian Immigration Forum — were not publicly listed by the committee, they had been scheduled to appear at its first meeting of the current parliamentary session. NDP and Liberal MPs immediately balked at their presence as soon as they arrived at the committee, pointing to elements on the group’s website that they called shocking. Several MPs on the committee are immigrants.
Sections of the site include one on so-called “Chinafication” and “Arabization.” There is also a video interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm and several from a conference of the “racialist” group American Renaissance.
The site is called the Canadian Immigration Report, with the subtitle: “The impact of immigration and racial diversity on Canada and Canadians. A survey on the site asks how long immigration to the West should be halted.’If you want to protect and preserve Canada, stop immigration for at least 50 years,’ Madi Lussier wrote in a comment posted last month.”:
The main problem seems to be that MPs didn’t like what they thought were the couple’s views. That should be irrelevant. MPs MUST hear what Canadians are thinking, not just the immensely selfish and greedy and self-interested immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, social workers, ESL teachers, business leaders seeking cheap labour and high unemployment to keep wages down, and a few who dream of replacing the European founding/settler people of this country with others
The Canadian Press account continued: ” NDP MP Jinny Simms said she was appalled by what she saw on the website…. About 15 minutes later, the Lussiers were told by a committee aide that they would not be appearing that afternoon. Madi Lussier, who is undergoing cancer treatment, ripped off a wig she was wearing and waved it at the committee. She yelled “Shame!” as they walked out the door.
The Lussiers conceded their views might not be in the mainstream, but said the committee members behaved like cowards for not at least hearing them out. They argued their website features a range of views on immigration. ‘Is Canada going to look the way it does now in 150-200 years? Will the values of gender equality still exist? We don’t know,’ Julien Lussier said outside the committee. ‘Will the value of respecting homosexuals, environmentalism and democracy exist when the majority won’t be of European origin?'”
And, then, he final insult of this disgraceful episode. The Lussiers were disowned by the MP who invited them and we, the European founding/settler people of this great Dominion are lectured on what it means to be Canadian by a newcomer from Taiwan: ”
Conservative MP Chungsen Leung’s office had put forward the names of the Lussiers as witnesses. He said that a constituent had told him that the Lussiers were lawyers and he was unaware of what was on their website. ‘The views stated on this website are disgusting and anti-Canadian. I am outraged by them,’ Leung said. ‘I have asked the Clerk that these witnesses be pulled. If they do appear, I intend to tell them the views on the website are abhorrent and un-Canadian.’”
Mr. Leung’s party leader, the Prime Minister, is a huge fan of Israel:”Israel’s values are our values,” he says. In the face of large numbers of illegal immigrants from East Africa, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that these illegals threaten to dilute the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Fair enough. Then, why should it be reprehensible, “un-Canadian” in the words of Chungsen Leung, to not want to see the replacement of the European founding/settler people of this country?
The Regina Leader Post (September 28, 2012) reported:; “In an interview with Postmedia News, Julien Lussier admitted he and his wife’s opinions on immigration are ‘quite avant-garde,’ but that dismissing them so abruptly was unfair.
‘Immigration is public policy. If we can’t talk about our public policy, we have no right criticizing a country like China for shutting down free speech,’ he said.
As for his views on immigration, he said he believes ‘poaching”‘ the best and the brightest from developing countries is unfair to those emerging nations and Canada should not accept any refugees.
Launched three years ago, the website features original content as well as links to both mainstream and alternative media articles. Included are original interviews with white supremacist Paul Fromm and American writer Tito Perdue, the latter of whom is quoted saying ‘the civilizations that black people alone have created … generally turn out to be a kind of hell on earth.'” This was the sixth time they had been scheduled to appear.
It’s almost boring to have to repeat but I am not and CFIRC is not “white supremacist.” That is a discussion stopping smear, a term of abuse. White supremacists insist on imposing “White” standards on the world — like, say, imposing our values on the role of women by force of arms in Afghanistan. We have no such imperialist goals. We are White Preservationists who wish to preserve our people’s position in the land we build, no more, no less.
Here the actual audio proccedings of the committee as they decide not to hear the Lussiers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m0GKZEt0pqg
