Paul Fromm on the 74th Anniversary of the Dresden Holocaustwar crime, bombinmh

Paul Fromm on the 74th Anniversary of the Dresden Holocaust
https://youtu.be/xHswg0Y3iFM
 
 
YOUTUBE.COM
February 13 – 14, 1945 was the war crime ordered by Churchill which bombed and burned to death 300,000…


February 13 – 14, 1945 was the war crime ordered by Churchill which bombed and burned to death 300,000 to 600,000 Germans when the war was all but won anyhow. Paul Fromm is the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression at http://cafe.nfshost.com/ http://www.brianruhe.ca/please-donate/  

Inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize 2019 Awarded to Ursula Haverbeck  Rr

 

Inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize 2019

Awarded to Ursula Haverbeck  

 

– a report from France by Michèle Renouf

 

In the historic city of Vichy, the French spa town in central France – once host and HQ for the wartime pro-Third Reich French government – an inaugural event took place on what would have been the 90th birthday of an English-born man of international significance.  Robert Faurisson, born in Shepperton, West London on 25th January – a half-Scots half-French Classical academic – was acknowledged, even by his powerful enemies, as Europe’s foremost historical Revisionist scholar.  For 40 years, he devoted his powers of deducing from small forensic detail the veracity or otherwise of the fabled “Holocaust of 6 millions European Jews by an unique industrial mass-murder weapon”.

 

His name and historical exactitude method is carried forth via the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize – an idea brought to fruition by the Italian tenor Joe Fallisi, a veteran of the Gaza humanitarian aid flotilla.

 

CAPTION: Joe Fallisi and Lady Michèle Renouf (who together with Guillaume Nichols were the adjudicators for the 1st Robert Faurisson International Prize) present the award to Ursula Haverbeck’s Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.

 

On what would have been the 90th Birthday of Professor Faurisson, a prestigious luncheon in Vichy on 25th January was held.  Prominent personalities and 60 well-wishers from around Europe applauded Senor Fallisi and his two invited adjudicators for awarding the 2019 Prize to Ursula Haverbeck “the grand German heroine of Truth and Justice”. Her Prize was accepted, on his client’s behalf, by Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.  Frau Haverbeck – the rolemodel lady of elegant measured eloquence – is currently detained behind prison bars in the German city of Bielefeld for the next three years, having commenced her sentence in her 90th year.  

 

Those presenting their congratulations for her Award included Jerôme Bourbon the editor of the journal Rivarol, and during his keynote address, Joe Fallisi read a tribute sent by Vincent Reynouard the French revisionist in exile. Addresses delivered in French, German and English were simultaneously translated, including Attorney Nahrath’s by Günter Deckert; and your reporter’s by the late Professor’s personal assistant Guillaume Nichols.  In due course Telling Films will release the day’s events, which began with a respectful visit to the unmarked graveside (as he willed it) of the legendary Robert Faurisson.

 

What was the ‘crime’ of Frau Haverbeck and why do Classicists prize it?  It is nothing more than querying historical orthodoxy by asking normal questions in a courteous manner when investigating any alleged murder even mass murder. She asks:  Where are the remains?

 

Just who is Robert Faurisson and what of him, remains?

 

Dr. Faurisson was professor of modern and contemporary French literature at the Sorbonne in Paris and the University of Lyon. He specialised in the “critical appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media).”


 

In the course of his independent research into the standard story of “The Holocaust” Prof. Faurisson discovered (by detective-method questioning of the archivist), on 19th March 1976 in the Auschwitz State Museum, the building plans of the camp complex’s morgues, crematoria and other installations.  Robert Faurisson was the first to make known those documents, which had been kept hidden since World War 2, and to point out their vital significance.  In two articles printed by the prestigious French daily Le Monde in December 1978 and January 1979 he succeeded in revealing his findings on “the problem of the gas chambers” to the French-reading public.

 

In 1979 Prof. Faurisson, who strove to apply virile Latin exactitude quite normally to historical source criticism, was permanently banned from teaching.  Why? In the international “Guidelines for Teaching The Holocaust” on page 11: “Care should be taken not to give a platform for deniers [sceptics]…nor seek to disprove their position through normal historical debate or rational argument”.  Your present reporter, being a former secondary school teacher and university lecturer, one is bound to say that such a dictate contradicts our classical teaching traditions, once the hallmark of Western civilisation.  One is bound to say…yet nowadays at one’s peril.

 

In February 1979, the Spanish magazine “Interviu” published the canny sleuth-minded half-Scotsman’s discovery of these Auschwitz concentration camp drawings.  Three decades later the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had the chutzpah of the conman to flourish these documents before the United Nations General Assembly and swindle-speak that they proved the existence of mass homicidal gas chambers. At a conference on Holocaust in the European Union parliamentary building in Brussels, during question time, your present reporter held up that Spanish magazine to contradict Netanyahu. In fact those were building plans denoting only small and normal delousing chambers suitable for clothes, hair and other lice-infested items.  Although on the drawings there appears the label “gas chamber” the areas thus clearly designated are incapable of accommodating human beings.

 

As per the Professor’s experience at German wartime concentration camps when speaking up publicly, I was advised to depart the E.U. building (and Brussels) very swiftly! Belgium is among the 20 countries to adopt debate-denying disdain of the four inseparable Classical Virtues to, instead, institute laws in grotesque submission to the Allied victors’ 1945-46 Nuremburg Court Trial legal farce, and later on in 2000 its allied International Guidelines for Teaching the Holocaust on the equally subjective terms of a religious faith as opposed to objective forensic science. In both the Nuremburg Trial-founding laws and the “Holocaust” Teaching Guidelines, each suppress the norms of defence where evidential exhibits in defence of the Accused’s case are denied their free and fair submissions before court or classroom.  

 

Trials in modern-day Europe still occur where one’s lawyer risks prosecution if the judge asserts he/she is “defending an historical revisionist client too well” and thereby breaking the still reigning Allied victor-oriented, specifically anti-democratic, anti-National Socialist state laws. Two decades of firsthand experiences while reporting on these Alice and the Queen of Hearts, stacked pack of Cards-like courtroom parodies yet one never gets over seeing that it’s ‘First the Verdict’ in sovereign-less Germany; and in so-called secular France the State Prosecutor prays openly to “Yahweh to protect the court from his evil lips”(as eye-witnessed in Faurisson’s trial in Paris 2007). In each place there are kept no courtroom transcripts of revisionist trials.

 

Robert Faurisson interviewed outside court during one of his many Paris trials

 

In rare cases, only those who attend in the public gallery have any chance of hearing the Defence submissions if permitted by the judge.  In the recent case in Munich of the Schaefer siblings, Alfred Schaefer – (now in prison for the next three years for non-threatening lecture videos and raising his arm in a harmless Roman salute) – was permitted by the judges to screen his de-conditioning teaching videos – but!  The judge ruled that note-making in the public gallery was forbidden and sent in police officers to supervise. Any report would have to rely on direct access to the Defence team. And the Defence team must dance on the wire when giving his/her observations since judges are required to be on the lookout for lawyers acting (for revisionists) too enthusiastically. Lawyers are prosecutable if seen to be too much on the side of their client! In normal nations where citizens have sovereignty over who frames their laws, lawyers are presumed by obligation and by all to act enthusiastically in the interests of all their clients.  The world needs to take an interest in this politicized anomaly.

 

Professor Faurisson had great difficulty in France to find a lawyer brave enough to represent him.  At his trial in Paris in 2016 where your reporter acted as his sole defence witness during the case against him for his speech made over 10 years ago at the Teheran Conference 2006, afterwards his barrister Maitre Damien Viguier suffered accusations threatening his practice.

 

In consequence of the ventured exposé ‘behind enemy lines’ at the EU parliament, Dr. Zuroff the Head of the nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Centre certified that “Renouf is dangerous for she puts an attractive face on an ugly movement”. So now we know: It is they who put an attractive facade on their ugly anomaly – for a swindle-speaker deploys projection of his own intentions upon his prey. That being so, then the empowering gentile aspirations of the inseparable four Classical Virtues: Temperance (measure); Justice (unbiased); Wisdom (with scientific attitude); Courage (born of empathy versus vainglory) are a truly emboldening shield …seen as threatening by such Jews. For decades, French government agencies under pressure from influential private bodies have waged a concerted campaign to silence Prof. Faurisson.  Even his unmarked grave (as per his will made as a precaution by him long ago in 1997) is regularly vandalised of its floral tributes. Yet Robert Faurisson remains the calm deep eddying exponent of those Classical Virtues. His influential Latin “exactitude” towards all areas of history without exceptions thus persists with the Robert Faurisson International Prize.

 

What was it that these vandals strive, by every brutal means, to silence?

 

Like a smarter greyhound who cuts straight to the chase (not round the designated track), Faurisson went directly to catch his query.  A distinction was being conjured, so he suspected, to render all other wartime murder of an enemy since the dawn of human recollection, incomparable with “The Holocaust” by an alleged uniqueness relying upon an upstaging industrial mass murder weapon. He sought to nail this difference by examining the scientific feasibility of that unique weapon (and was not diverted down a track about a “holocaust by bullets” which is not at all unique in modern history).

 

The statement published in Le Monde on 21st February 1979 and signed by 34 French historians confirmed his suspicions that the existence of this unique mass weapon was intended to rely upon a scandalous acceptance by faith alone:

“It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers”.

 

Authenticating disputed texts, the Professor became an authority on the 20th century novelist, Louis-Ferdinand Céline.  We are reliably informed by Michael Hoffman (who reported on the Zündel Trials from the press gallery) that Céline’s friend and factotum, Albert Paraz, the chemical engineer turned writer, penned an introduction to Rassinier’s The Lie of Ulysses, which led Robert in 1980 to turn to a cache of Céline’s letters published by the distinguished Gallimard press in Paris as Lettres á Albert Paraz. In one of these, reproduced on p. 276 of the book, Céline wrote the following: “(Rassinier) tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber. That’s quite something!”

 

This seemingly minor quip set the sleuth-hound racing.  Intuitively, he had already suspected that there was some fabulous superstition at the “holy of Holies” heart of the homicidal gas chamber allegations.  Faurisson tells us that this led him to examine an actual gas chamber at San Quentin prison in California, where he was to contrast the “submarine-like door” on this monumental gassing apparatus there, with the flimsy wooden door on the Auschwitz “mass murder chamber”.  With his nose for the telling little details in eyewitness testimonies, the Prof. sought to discover the extraordinary, hours-long measures for safely decontaminating the chamber, with the alleged gassing facility and casual behaviour of the operatives whom testimonials alleged carried out industrial mass murder at Auschwitz-Birkenau while smoking and eating as they handled the toxic bodies.

 

Prof. Faurisson played several leading roles in both of the Ernst Zündel “Holocaust trials” in Toronto, Canada (1985 and 1988).  Owing to this method of real world facts-testing, one of his legendary contributions to Zündel’s defence in 1988 – as praised by Michael Hoffman – was to introduce the participation of Fred Leuchter, an American gas chamber execution specialist. The foxy Prof was also instrumental in arranging for Leuchter’s unbiased forensic examination of alleged mass homicidal gas chambers in Poland, and in publishing this American expert’s groundbreaking conclusions. At that 1988 trial the expert witness submission of the Leuchter Report as forensic evidence was a groundbreaking first. It was to undermine those deferential 34 French historians – who shut their door marked “obvious” subjective orthodoxy.

 

A decade later and Faurisson had seen his chance to challenge such “obviousness” as nonsense when in 1984-5 the Toronto Zündel trial began. It was Faurisson who provided much of the ammunition with which to arm the “battling barrister” Douglas Christie for him vicariously to demolish “the Jewish doyen of Holocaust historians” Dr. Raul Hilberg’s unsubstantiated standard claims.  During this unique cross-examination, as a witness for the Prosecution Dr. Hilberg admitted that he was “at a loss” to provide a single document or proof that there had been an order for “extermination” as alleged in his book: The Destruction of the European Jews.  This leading expert “Holocaust historian” – on the witness stand for the first time and ‘never again!’ – concluded that the “industrial mass murder of 6 million European Jews” was carried out by “a consensual mind-reading” – a world first “bureaucratic” telepathy commensurate with a “magical” instrument which needs no forensic proof of its existence.  Hilberg refused to attend the second Zündel trial in 1988 claiming it would be too stressful for him to answer “trivial questions”.

 

Since the farcical victor’s ‘justice’ of the immediate post-war Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the Zündel Trials were the first where the world ever heard the cross-examination of so-called eyewitnesses to the “mass homicide gas chambers” confess to using “poetic licence” in their testimonies.  Again, Faurisson was instrumental in mobilising the defence material with which Doug Christie confuted – as Michael Hoffman witnessed – the neurotic fraudulence of the standard “homicidal mass gas chamber” eyewitness. David Irving referred to these as “psychiatric cases” – a fact which got him banned from Austria for sixteen years (and later on a sentence of three years for those words he uttered sixteen years before to an undercover honey-trap journalist).  Mere questions and opinions. In France, on 13th July 1990 the Gayssot Law was enacted specifically to gag one man (Faurisson) to discontinue his human right plus scholarly impulse, to question.

 

How did the “traditional enemies of free speech” (as the British historian David Irving identifies them) strive so brutally to silence “Holocaust heretics”?

 

Like Irving, Faurisson has had to defend himself many times in court for his forensic-backed writings and statements. After Irving’s case in Austria (2006-2007), where his Viennese attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller succeeded on Appeal to win the early release of Irving from a three years’ sentence, the Austrian authorities passed into law that no-one in Schaller’s field could henceforth practice after age 70 (though by then this outwitting strategist was aged 85!).

 

In the case of Faurisson, he was convicted in France on numerous occasions under an anti-Revisionist law especially drafted against him in July 1990 called the Fabius-Gayssot Law. He has suffered at least ten physical assaults, one of which was a near successful attempt at murder by self-proclaimed (yet never convicted) “Sons of Jewish Memory”.  His only book in English “Just Who is Robert Faurisson?” informs that he had seen his bank account frozen and had visits to his home from court officials who threatened him and his wife with seizure of their belongings to cover damages imposed by civil judgments against his “heretical” publications. His family life had been repeatedly disrupted and thrown into turmoil by such harassment. His health had suffered terribly with chronic nerve pains in his face in consequence of those cowardly assailants the “Sons of Jewish Memory” having kicked this harmless senior citizen so repeatedly in the face and chest. Despite all this, the indomitable Classicist has permitted nothing to influence his own gentlemanly conduct.  Neither siding with Left nor Right, Jew nor Gentile, regardless of race or creed, Prof. Faurisson sustained his vigilance against prejudicial judgment in his strictly objective application as his aspirational work method. He lived what he taught his students right up to the day of his sudden death.

 

Having spoken with sparkling lucidity during his triumphant 90 minute swansong at a private Shepperton Conference organised in the UK at his own request – on returning to Vichy on 21st October 2018, the Prof collapsed and died instantly in his hallway of a fatal heart attack.  Admittedly, the nearly aged 90 yet ever-sharp Professor was not in the best of health. After all, his half a life-long legal Kafkaesque court battles to silence him from nailing down the “Holocaust” mass murder facility had taken their toll, along with the 10 physical beatings which had hospitalized him, requiring facial reconstructive surgery leaving his facial nerves in chronic trauma. Yet the added stress of such a sabotage act (instigated by a vengeful sycophant who had criminally diminished him as senile under video platforms comments) must have drained him. Indeed (speaking about the person who was in concert with the sycophant) he said this “insistence” to wear him down had “exhausted” him during the three days before his flight.

 

Yet he rose to deliver a masterful 90 minutes’ speech, reminding his attentive audience of 70 personally invited guests that:

 

In a December 1980 interview with the French radio network Europe No. 1, Faurisson summed up the results of his study of “the Holocaust” in a sentence of about 60 French words. In English it reads: “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”
 “That sentence,” he declares 38 years on at Shepperton, “needs no changes.”

 

Ursula Haverbeck in court with her attorney Wolfram Nahrath

 

In summing up the Prize Day, one could do no better than to cite the words from Attorney Nahrath’s acceptance speech on behalf of the winner Ursula Haverbeck of the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize, when he declared:

 

“The first awarding of the new Prize shows the magnanimity of the judges.  The special aspect about it is the fact that the award is given to a German lady. A fine lady of the people, a defender of her nation against wrong-doers – generous, full of life and vitality, loving to laugh, full of benignity, and full of courage”. This Award, a step “towards peace and justice”.  A triumph of the “Virtus”.

 

All sensed at that Vichy haven the Prof’s contentment.

 

Standing Up for Monika Schaefer — People Rally to Her Cause

Standing Up for Monika Schaefer — People Rally to Her Cause

On Saturday, February 2. CAFE posted Monika Schaefer’s account of the way she’d been humiliated and denied photocopying services  by Sonja Dickey owner of the 3 Sheets Stationary Store & Laundromat in Jasper, Alberta. Miss Dickey refused to do some photocopying because Monika was a “hateful” person.

It is heartening so see the torrent of support from Britain, Europe and across North America admonishing the small town snowflake Dickey and backing Monika.

Well done, free speech supporters.

Here’s just a sample of the e-mails sent thus far.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

___________________________________________________

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;

Website http://cafe.nfshost.com

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

February  2, 2019

Sonja Dickey
P.O. Box 2098,

Jasper, AB,

T0E 1E0

Dear Miss Dickey:

I read on the Internet about a recent incident in your store where you refused to provide service — running off photocopies —  to local musician Monika Schaefer because you believe she’s a “hateful” person.

You are in the business of serving the public, not running a private club. You are obligated to serve anyone who behaves and can pay her bill. Your treatment of Miss Schaefer may well be a violation not only of her rights but of provincial statute. I have asked our in- house counsel to review the law so that we might advise Miss Schaefer further.

I do a nightly radio show entitled “The Fighting Side of Me”. I invite you to be a guest on my show to explain your actions. I heard Miss Schaefer speak recently in Toronto, as part of a cross-Canada tour. Her treatment at the hands of some people in Jasper — shunning, banned from the Legion, subject of a smear campaign to ruin her violin lesson business — was disgusting. Jasper sounds, at times, like a bigoted, judgemental small town right out of some old movie.

I hope you’ll reconsider your treatment of her and consider coming on my show. We can hook up by Skype.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm

Director

_____________________________________________________

Dear Ms. Dickey,

Along with Monika Schaefer I would like to know what you meant when you said you did not want to serve someone ‘who hates’.

 

According to the Merriam – Webster dictionary the definition of the verb ‘to hate’ is:

1to feel extreme enmity toward

2to have a strong aversion to

So…

Do you think ‘hate’ should be quantified on a scale of, say, 0 to 100 according to which 0 means no hate, that is, no dislike or aversion and 100 means complete hate, that is, total and complete dislike or aversion?

In my view, on such a scale Monika’s forthright regard and search for historical truth along with her honorable exercise of the valuable principle of Freedom of Speech merit her an award of 0 on that scale.

What level of hate would you assign to Monika, and for what?

Because of the unprincipled way you treated Monika, I would award you a value of 70 or 75 on that scale.

Now that you know that I feel some dislike of, and disrespect for, what you have done, do you now hate me?  If so, at what level?

Sincerely,

Rudy List, Ph.D. (Mathematics)

P.S.  If I come to Jasper, would you be willing to discuss this with me?

_____________________________________________________________
Dear Sonja,
Recently, you refused service to a brave Monika Schaefer. You need to know that Monika does not hate anyone, as you fervently believe, but stood up for the right to disagree on something – that is not hate – it is our right to debate – to disagree – to challenge – any and all ideas – in Canada so far – to scare people like yourself to keep quiet. You are fearful and obedient to the idea that someone who simply states that she does not believe the official story about something must be run out of town and destroyed – this is the despicable act you and your friends have done – shame on you.
You seem to not understand that your very business depends on free speech – the right to print free ideas. Try that in old Soviet Union, or North Korea or Cuba – you will go to jail for expressing free speech – you could not run your little printing business there – did you know that? Canada is so far not there but you need to understand that Monika stood up for you and me and 35 million Canadians to protect that right. So you can run a business that operates on the principle of free speech that people like Monika Schaefer are willing to fight for on your behalf – and for that you stab her in the back?
The obvious subject is Holocaust gas chambers which has been proven wrong by scientists and engineers – most people, myself included, and many politicians, scientists, academics, lay people, see the Holocaust as a big lie – these were work camps – nothing more – there was and is not any evidence of anything sinister happening there. All Monika did was express her belief that the Holocaust never happened – that is not hate – that is simply a belief and our Canadian right to do so.
Unfortunately you have been drawn into the fear of speaking for yourself and maybe thinking for yourself. Speaking about any subject is not hate speech. It is about questioning the official story. I know for a fact that Monika Schaefer does not “hate” as you put it – she simply reserves the right to express her opinion which I wholly agree with as do millions of others.
By disallowing Monika to use your services you are making a strong statement that you agree that free speech must be killed and stifled if someone does not like your point of view. Well, that is a dangerous thing – I may not agree with you, for example, but I don’t prevent you from running your business or conducting your life. We discuss. We disagree. But we walk away agreeing we disagree – but we do not chastise or disenfranchise each other. Jasper has bullied Monika shamefully. I hope you are proud.
Because Monika stood up for her convictions she was imprisoned in Germany. She was brave and she stood up for principles of free speech, the most fundamental right humans have in a free society. Jasper should be ashamed for victimizing a wonderful productive peaceful soul. In Medieval times people like you watched accused people tied up and burned at the stake and I’m sure you would have been right there watching, cheering and happy at someone being killed for some idea that others disagreed with – is that the world you want? I do hope you have a deep serious think on your actions. I hope you and your fellow Jasperians have a reflection on how you treated a fellow citizen for simply standing up for basic Canadian rights.
Maybe one day you will actually get some guts and conviction and realize that the free speech Monika stands up for is more than you and your many fellow Jasperians have done except condemn someone for protecting what you don’t even know you have. I am sad for you and your friends – you have lots to think about.
Al Majauskas
*****************************
                                                     

Dear Ms. Dickey:
It has come to my attention that you have a customer who is a friend of mine: namely, Monika Schaefer who lives in your beautiful town of Jasper.
Monika reports that you recently asked her to leave your store because you believed she was a “hateful” person.  This seems very curious to me.  A very odd and inexplicable story.
I know that there are always two sides to everything, and I would like to hear yours.
I am a native Texan who lives in New Orleans, Louisiana, but I have lived all over and was once offered a job at the University of Calgary and then another at the Royal Tyrrell (I didn’t take either of them because I was afraid of the winters—but that was before global warming really set in, I guess…).  Anyhow, I love the Canadian Rockies and the province of Alberta and have had great friends up there throughout my life, Banff, Calgary, Edmonton, Drumheller, Fort Macleod, Lake Louise…. so I don’t feel I am a total stranger to the setting… I think Canada is a lovely place and I have always had very special affection for the Canadian people…..
I am writing as a great fan of Monika Schaefer to ask whether you would like to appear on my extremely informal podcast talk show, either with Monika or alone, and explain to her, to my audience, and the world, why you think Monika Schaefer or her work embodies or represents any kind of hatred?
I suppose we are all (all of Monika’s friends and admirers) wondering why you would see fit to exclude a civil rights heroine from your store, to refuse to do business with her.
Won’t you explain, please?  To me privately if not to the world.
I happen to find Monika to be one of the kindest and gentlest, sincerest and truest people I know on earth.  To me, Monika Schaefer and her brother Alfred stand for LOVE and TRUTH above all.  If you disagree, I would like you to tell me, and the world, why.
If you think that the world is an exceedingly simple place, of black and white, I’d like to know how you can possibly put Monika Schaefer in among the forces of darkness.
My invitation is quite real and sincere and my podcast (based in New Orleans) is very informal.  You would not be embarrassed or “trapped” by any of my questions, but I think if you believe sincerely that Monika Schaefer is wrong about something—you should tell her “to her face” in a public forum…..

I hope that you will consider accepting my invitation to speak about why certain people should not be allowed in your store….. why you think their money would “taint” you or your equipment…..
I absolutely believe in freedom of association, and I certainly respect every person’s right to have opinions and even prejudices, but if these opinions are based on a perception different from mine, I am always very interested in hearing it.
To my mind, Monika Schaefer is just a superior person in every way.  But we should never be trapped inside our own worlds, unable to see through other people’s eyes.
Won’t you please explain to me why you would treat this lovely lady so badly as to order her out of your store?
I really want to hear YOUR side of this story… and I think a lot of other people would also…

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht, 
denn alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”
Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

Telephone: 504-777-5021 

This is what I emailed:  (Joe Rizoli)

I just read this incident that you had with Monika Schaefer and I really have to say this, how could you hate somebody so much to refuse their business? Its incomprehensible that people can act like this in this day and age.

If Monika was gay, black, an immigrant, Jewish or anything else this would be front page news.

Monica is a wonderful person and for you to treat her in this way is really disappointing to me…or better yet, shameful…

Joe Rizoli
Framingham, Massachusetts USA

*****

(My email, Diane King)
Dear Ms. Sonja Dickey:

I just learned about what happened to my dear friend, Monika, in her attempt to acquire services at your copy business. I’ve visited Canada for years and am continually astounded at the increasing restrictions and soviet-style prohibitions imposed on regular Canadians for what? AND what did she do to you? I can only conclude that you must have received word from the higher-up soviet-style elite to tell you what to do or like she said, that you ARE afraid of consequences to doing normal business with her.

I do understand the concern about retribution (though I doubt you fully understand other than what someone MIGHT have told you about her), but I don’t accept the ‘ caving’ into their thugocracy.

We of those who cherish freedoms are appalled at your behavior and truly, you SHOULD be ashamed. You owe her an apology at the very least and some free service for her trouble. You can fix this.

Disgusted,

Diane King
Nacogdoches, TX, USA

****************
Dear Sonja,

I hope this email finds you inundated with comments regarding your refusal to serve Truth Warrior, Monika Schaefer based on spurious allegations flung at her by a certain international group of trouble makers who have a significant nest in Jasper.  Refusing someone a service which you advertise you will perform for recompense based on lies, innuendos, and ignorance is not a very good way to conduct business.  Especially not in a nation where free speech is still valued; albeit seriously under attack by the entity you no doubt are aware of and who likely contacted you and scared the bejeebies out of you.  In my opinion, you are a coward and stand contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights.  If you are a Canadian citizen, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely, Gertjan Zwiggelaar, B.A., B.Ed. &c.

(Richard Edmonds)
Dear Ms. Dickey,

I write to you as a Briton who as a young man lived in Canada. In the 1960s I lived in the province of Ontario and worked in the smelter of a nickel-mining company at Falkenbridge, Sudbury.

I learn that you have refused to serve in your store a woman whom I have got to know, Monika Schaefer. As you might know Monika Schaefer was recently released from a jail in Germany where she had been incarcerated for eleven months for the “crime” of expressing her non-violent opinions. All shame on the German judicial authorities that their law-books make Free Speech a criminal offence. Thank goodness that we Britons and including Canadians, of course, enjoy Free Speech in our lands.

All that said, I cannot understand your refusing to serve Monika Schaefer and your talk of “hatred”. Monika Schaefer, a music teacher and resident of your town of Jasper, is a pleasant, mild mannered middle-aged woman who takes a lively open-minded interest in the world. Surely we can all rub along and leave talk of “hatred” behind us ?

Yours sincerely, Richard Edmonds

***************

Dear Ms. Dickey,
 

Well said, Mr. Richard Edmonds!

 
Good grief, your ill-treatment of dear Monika, a sweeter person of non-hatefilled disposition one could ever hope to meet!   
 
A shop-keeper who cannot allow herself to recognise her own personal experience of Monika’s firm but sweet nature – a personal experience which should over-ride that shop-keeper’s evidently media-emboldened, hate-indoctrinating prejudice.

 
Talk about turn-speak!
Bravo Monika Schaefer for standing your ground as always with role-model courteous dignity; shame on any media-gullible, hate-compliant shop-keeper.
 
Yours truly,  Lady M. Renouf

_______

Subject: to Sonja Dickey in Jasper, Alberta: regarding your treatment of Monika Schaefer
To: <3sheets@telus.net>



Hello Sonja,

As a defender of free speech I’m dismayed at the way you treated Monika Schaefer. Please consider that when it comes to being turned into an outcast for speaking your mind she is historically in good company. You can go back into early Greek society where you find the philosopher Socrates who had to drink poison because his opinion did not agree with that prevailing among the people of Athens. Others that come to mind are Galileo and Martin Luther. A Czech religious leader, Jan Huss, was burned at the stake for proposing a change in the creed of his time – and there are many more.

 

Why are you giving support to what we call the “Politically Correct”? That is the tyranny of the ruling oligarchy that has produced one war after the other. Why are so many people acting like

brainless sheep? In the end they will all be led to the slaughter. Why don’t people start to think on their own rather than relying on the opinion of others? All it requires is to inform oneself beyond the

mass media and read some books that certain people try to suppress? Of course, Sonja, it is much more convenient to follow the herd than to do your own research. What else can I say? I feel sorry for you for having been brainwashed.

 

Chris Klein, President,

Coalition of Victims and Survivors of World War II

_______________________________________________________________________________

Anti-Free Speech Bigotry in Jasper: Shop Refuses Photocopy Service to Monika Schaefer

Anti-Free Speech Bigotry in Jasper: Shop Refuses Photocopy Service to Monika Schaefer

The owner of a small-town local business in Jasper Alberta refused to provide a simple service today the 31st of January 2019, based on the idea that she did not want to serve a person who “hates”.

download3 Sheets Jasper Inc. triples as a Stationery, Print shop and Laundromat. Upon my entry, Sonja L. Dickey asked me what she could do for me. I said I needed something photocopied. She replied that she needed to see what it was first. I asked if she was controlling and censoring everything first, before providing service. Is that how she runs her business, I queried.

There is a back story. About two years ago when I had brought in a two-sided color book review of Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil by Gerard Menuhin, to have copies made, she stared trance-like at it for a long time until I wondered whether she had had a stroke. She then informed me she did not want to “participate” in this. She refused to make copies. Since that time however, I have been in the shop on several occasions to make purchases or have other things copied. I was always friendly and even cracked jokes with her. I thought that dispute we had over the copy refusal had been somewhat amicably resolved. She was certainly willing to take my money for subsequent services and purchases.

Upon my protests today regarding her refusal to provide service in exchange for a fee in a shop which advertises this service, she stammered some incoherent things which made no sense to me. She said she did not want anything to do with something that might involve the police. I explained to her that she should never think we actually live in a free country with freedom of speech if this is the kind of fear she feels. She retorted:

I am NOT afraid.

I explained that if you have a shop, there is a simple exchange of goods or services for money, and that is what I was there to do. I dropped the document on the table and invited her to look at it. It could have been my mother’s kitchen recipes for all she cared at this point, because she did not even look at it. She simply declared that she did not want me there, she would not serve me and that I must leave. I remained standing. She declared, with glowering eyes, she did not want to serve someone…

who hates!

Oh gosh! What does that mean, I asked. She could not answer. They can never answer. She showed me the door. When I did not move quickly enough for her little tantrum, she threatened to call the police. I said go ahead. I laughed and went on my way.

Here is Sonja Dickey’s contact information.
Phone: 780-852-3151
email: 3sheets@telus.net
snail-mail: P.O. Box 2098, Jasper, AB, Canada T0E 1E0
facebook: 3 Sheets Jasper Inc

If you write or call, please remain polite and informative, and do not resort to smear or insults, as that is what hasbara trolls do and we are not them.

Despite A Meeting Venue Being Cancelled, Monika Schaefer Addresses A Packed Meeting in a New Vancouver Location. Here is Monika’s talk.

MONIKA AND ALFRED.jpg

Despite A Meeting Venue Being Cancelled, Monika Schaefer Addresses A Packed Meeting in a New Vancouver Location. Here is Monika’s talk.

On Friday, January 25, the cowardly management at the Best Western Capilano [here’s their number —  (604) 987-8185 ]  got a few critical phone calls and cancelled our meeting without notice.  We secured a new venue and had a standing room only meeting Sunday afternoon.

Hear Recently Released Political Prisoner, Monika Schaefer — MY STORY: MY TRIAL, MY  “CRIME” & 10 MONTHS IN A GERMAN JAIL — Vancouver, Sunday, January 27, 2019

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents  

Monika Schaefer  “Unbowed & Proud

* Violinist, environmentalist, former Green Party candidate

* Free Speech activist; holocaust & 9/11 skeptic

* Videographer; former political prisoner in Germany (10 months for her video, Sorry, Mom, I Was Wrong About the holocaust)

 

My Story: My Trial, My “Crime” & 10 Months in a German Jail

VIDEOGRAPHER BRIAN RUHE ASSAULTED BY MASKED THUG WHO STOLE HIS CAMERA

On Jan. 23, 2019 Diane Chase and I were in downtown Vancouver, Canada interviewing people about how the Internet has changed people’s views on Adolf Hitler when I got attacked. A masked man on a bike stole my sign, then stole my camera. I grabbed his bike to get my camera back and he punch me in the head and took off. We then made a police report. We filmed this video with my cell phone right after this happened.
Donate for another camera: https://gogetfunding.com/brian-ruhe-is-creating-videos-on-the-brian-ruhe-show-on-youtube-2/
http://www.brianruhe.ca/please-donate/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/sVbG5kfsJviU/
CAFE is raising money to buy him a new camera. Send credit card or cheque to CAFE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON.,M9W 5L3 or phone 416-428-5308

University lecturer has ‘no legal right to be anti-Political Correctness’ after claims he was ‘hounded out’ by left-wing colleague

Telegraph

University lecturer has ‘no legal right to be anti-PC’ after claims he was ‘hounded out’ by left-wing colleagues

Dr Andrew Dunn was, until recently, a senior lecturer in social policy at Lincoln UniversityDr Andrew Dunn was, until recently, a senior lecturer in social policy at Lincoln University

12 JANUARY 2019 • 9:00PM

Auniversity lecturer does not have the right to be anti-PC, an employment judge has ruled, after he claimed that left-wing colleagues “hounded” him out.
Dr Andrew Dunn was, until recently, a senior lecturer in social policy at Lincoln University. But after a series of spats with fellow academics he was repeatedly disciplined and eventually dismissed from his post.
As part of a claim for unfair dismissal, he told an employment tribunal how the university’s “discrimination” against him started in early 2015 when his career was “really taking off”.
Dr Dunn, who is the branch chairman for Ukip in Lincoln and stood as a candidate for the party in last year’s council elections, published a book titled Rethinking Unemployment and the Work Ethic.
In his book he explains that while benefit claimants generally want jobs, many remain on benefits because they are “too choosy” in the jobs they are willing to do.
He says that these arguments are unfashionable and so are rarely acknowledged by left-leaning social policy academics, which leads to government policies based on a flawed understanding of the issue.
Dr Dunn, 45, set up a Twitter account in January 2015 to promote his new book but was attacked when he posted an article summarising his academic research, with some labelling him a “Tory bigot”.
Andrew Dunn meets former Ukip leader Nigel Farage at the Ukip spring conference in Bolton 2017

Andrew Dunn meets former Ukip leader Nigel Farage at the Ukip spring conference in Bolton 2017

But rather than jump to his defence, or even just ignore the online abuse he faced, he was astonished to see his “left-wing” colleaguesjoin in.
Sue Bond-Taylor, another Lincoln University lecturer in social policy, contacted the abuser on Twitter and urged him not to “discount the whole team off the back of the work of one member of staff”.
Meanwhile Dr Dunn felt that Liam McCann, now the acting deputy head of Lincoln’s school of social and political sciences, appeared to “sneer” at him and question why his work was worthy of funding.
“Insults, swearing and rudeness are commonplace on Twitter, but what happened involving [my colleagues] shocked me as I have never seen anyone behave in such a rude and disrespectful way towards a word colleague in view of the public on a social media site,” Dr Dunn told the tribunal.
He complained about the incident to his line manager and the university launched an inquiry which found that Dr Dunn, along with his colleagues, had all breached the institution’s “respect” policies.
He said that by finding him equally at fault with his colleagues “the inescapable conclusion” is that he had been discriminated against due to his “political philosophical beliefs”.
Over the next two years he had several other disputes over social policy with academic colleagues and students, he was eventually dismissed in August 2017.
Dr Dunn’s claim that he was discriminated against for his anti-PC beliefs was thrown out by the Judge Blackwell last month, who ruled that: “The belief that the tendency to favour what is palatable in social policy discussions over the truth (in colloquial terms this tendency is known as political correctness) is not a philosophical belief that has the protection of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.”
A Lincoln University spokesman said: “The claims by a former employee made in this case were dismissed by a tribunal panel. We welcome diversity of opinion and debate on our campus while treating staff, students and visitors with dignity and respect.”

Telegraph 

 Teaching children boys have periods too is not education, it’s ‘mythinformation’  

17 DECEMBER 2018 • 6:30PM

Children and their identity has become a hot topic in the classroom Children and their identity has become a hot topic in the classroom  CREDIT: NA/GETTY

That’s it: my daughter’s getting home-schooled. It’s either that or risk having a 7 year-old earnestly assure me at pick-up time that “boys have periods too, you know.” And now that Brighton & Hove City Council have officially approved plans to teach children that “all genders” can menstruate, it won’t be long until British kids are being taught that girls have testes, Paris is the capital of Romania – and 2 + 2 = 5.
It’s a victory for transgender rights campaigners, but also for Dr Seuss, who may as well be running the show for all the sense our green-eggs-and-ham world now makes. And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for menstruation being inclusive (you can have it chaps, be my guest) but there’s a teensy-weensy problem here called ‘biology’. And I know all that’s semantics and we’re living in an emotion-governed universe where even the leader of the free world shows a total disdain for facts, but they sort of do matter. And schools are the one place you’d hope would understand that.
When I wrote about the hijacking of childhood by the trans lobby last month – and lamented the knee-jerk reactions of an education system too scared to question its agenda – the reader response was the greatest and most impassioned I’ve had in thirteen years at this paper. The letters and emails came from men and women young and old, gay, straight and trans – and almost all zoomed in on the following quote from Dr Godfrey-Faussett.
Are we encouraging our children to question biological truths?

Are we encouraging our children to question biological truths? CREDIT: NA/GETTY

Reacting to the revelation that in one British school where a whopping 17 pupils were changing gender almost all had turned out to be autistic, the British Chartered Psychologist described what was going on as “state-sanctioned child abuse.”
It’s worth noting that not one of the Telegraph readers who wrote to me dismissed this as hyperbole. Not even those who admitted to having spent “a lifetime trapped in the wrong body” and were “grateful” for the medical advances that meant people no longer had to. Because much as the trans lobby likes to muddy the argument by declaring us all ‘transphobic’, that simply isn’t true.
Let people decide what’s right for them when they’re adults, was the general consensus. And I’d hope most fair-minded people would understand that the whole different strokes conversation does need to be had with kids. Certainly we’d all agree with the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health’s statement that “it’s helpful to children to learn the meaning of terms such as lesbian, gay and bisexual.” But at the right time.
Every parent knows how crucial timing is. And if anyone tries to tell me that primary school children are of sound and rational mind I shall point them in the direction of my daughter, who currently identifies so vehemently with a superheroine ladybird named Ladybug that she’d have the vile synthentic, highly flammable red and black-spotted onesie she refuses to take off surgically adhered to her body given half a chance.
Will she still be wearing that onesie next month though? Next week would be pushing it. But we’re not allowed to talk about fads. Fads are belittling to these fiercely progressive little humans whose innate, superior knowledge can’t be questioned.
Anna Friel playing the mother of a transgender child in Butterfly which was on earlier this year

Anna Friel playing the mother of a transgender child in Butterfly which was on earlier this yearCREDIT: ITV/ITV 

For Dr Godfrey-Faussett, who has worked extensively with children in schools and knows how forcibly the trans narrative is being pushed (from the reading of books like Michael Hall’s ‘Red: A Crayon’s Story’, about a blue crayon mistakenly labelled red who is suffering an identity crisis, and Sara Savage’s Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl to primary school children to the instant dismissal of teachers accidentally using the ‘wrong’ pronoun with a child suffering from gender dysphoria) it’s that lack of any questioning that’s most dangerous.
Teachers certainly aren’t allowed to question, since that’s seen as making a judgment, and in her psychological and counselling field, this stance has been taken still further: “A lot of the accredited bodies are recommendations to us as mental health practitioners. So if an individual comes to us with questions about their sexuality or gender, we are strongly advised to affirm it as opposed to help them question or explore what may be underlying it. This in my opinion challenges what I see as at the heart of therapy.”
Children, on the other hand, are being encouraged to question everything, from their very essence to their physical shape and, now, even the workings of their bodies. But telling children that boys can menstruate is not education, it’s mythinformation, pure and simple.
  

Telegraph 

Banning ‘harmful’ adverts? Rage, rage against the dying of common sense

15 DECEMBER 2018 • 5:58PM

Save
A happy housewife cooks on her new pink range, with a pot on the cooktop and a pumpkin pie in the oven, 1957.The Advertising Standards Agency has announced it will ban adverts that contain gender stereotypes. CREDIT: GRAPHICA ARTIS/HULTON ARCHIVE

It hardly matters how the country votes, it always seems to be governed by the Left. Diversity audits, the regulatory state, endless restrictions on choice and speech, yes some of this is the result of political decisions, made by Tory MPs desperate not to be thought Right-wing by their smart London friends. But more often it emerges out of that tangled web of quangos, agencies, authorities, committees, and “co-regulators”, run by an unaccountable Blairite technocracy that is as addicted to social engineering as it is divorced from the mainstream of opinion and impossible to replace.
Thus last week we discover that the advertising regulator will ban adverts containing “gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence”. I have some sympathy with those who dislike advertising that portrays men or women in outdated roles – mothers doing all the housework, or fathers being poor parents. But harmful? It assumes that viewers – gullible, malleable and weak – make life choices based on the partial narrative of a 30 second advert. And there is already a mechanism for expressing “widespread offence”: not buying the products being marketed, or complaining to the company itself.
But the regulators, the Committee of Advertising Practice which writes the rules and the Advertising Standards Authority which polices them, conform to O’Sullivan’s law: any organisation that is not explicitly Right-wing will become Left-wing over time. Most people accept that these bodies have a role in stopping advertising which wilfully misleads or hoodwinks the public, or in ensuring that inappropriate content is not broadcast to children. But should they be acting like philosopher-kings, determining what is good or bad for adults?
The regulation of corporate speech has become a veiled attack on free speech itself. Ludicrously, an advert for Costa Coffee was banned for urging customers to buy a bacon roll rather than an avocado because it “discouraged the selection of avocados”, and the coffee chain was told not to in future “condone or encourage poor nutritional habits”, a recipe for misery if there ever was one. An advert for Ford was banned, meanwhile, for apparently encouraging dangerous motoring when it contrasted the aspiration and freedom of driving a Mustang with life’s quotidian frustrations, set against a reading of Dylan Thomas’s poem Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night.
There is a unifying worldview behind these disparate examples: that people do not have the wit or the ability to make up their own minds. We are feeble victims who need to be prevented from making bad decisions and protected from irresponsible corporate power. We are, in effect, children. And if we look back in a decade or so and wonder how a nation of sophisticated consumers ended up with a far-Left Corbyn government, part of the blame should be shouldered by the irresponsible bodies that implicitly endorsed his own infantilising agenda. Rage, rage against the dying of the light, and the technocrats who extinguished freedom.     
  Note: While there will be difference sin the learning  ability involved in learning to read ,  the idea that there is a specific mental disorder which makes reading abnormally difficult to going on impossible to read has always been suspect because of the ability of some schools, including those in poor areas ,  to achieve nigh on 100% of their pupils reading fluently. RH 
Telegraph 

Dyslexia no longer being diagnosed by councils who called the disorder ‘scientifically questionable’

Save
Roughly 10 to 15 per cent of children are thought to be dyslexicRoughly 10 to 15 per cent of children are thought to be dyslexic CREDIT: IAN HOOTON

11 JANUARY 2019 • 11:00PM

 
Dyslexia is no longer being diagnosed by councils who claimed the disorder was “scientifically questionable”.
Children across Warwickshire and Staffordshire now have little or not access to taxpayer-funded assessments, as officials “embraced a policy of not differentiating” between dyslexics and others who simply struggle to read.
However, experts have criticised the argument as merely a smokescreen for cuts.
It follows criticism directed at both local authorities in the House of Lords last October for a co-authored document arguing that “a diagnosis of dyslexia does not provide any additional information that is useful for addressing the difficulties nor does it predict the rate of progress”.
 
The guidance has since been withdrawn pending the outcome of a consultation.
However, The Daily Telegraph has spoken to experts and support groups in both counties who described the help available to dyslexic children as the “worst in 30 years”.
A major programme of in-school support in Staffordshire was cut last September, while parents in Warwickshire have reported being told by schools that dyslexia is no longer recognised.
It comes as Birmingham City Council, England’s largest local authority, said it was reviewing its special educational needs policy after two of its psychologists attended a conference at Durham University in September organised by scientists who questions the existence of dyslexia.
Meanwhile the British Dyslexia Association last night said it was “deeply concerned” by reports that at least 80 local authorities are planning to send representatives to a major conference at University College London this month staged by the same group.
Senior educational psychologists from both Warwickshire and Staffordshire county councils are billed as keynote speakers at the event.
Helen Boden, the BDA’s chief executive, said: “If you don’t test for dyslexia you’re effectively shutting the door for people applying for support.
“We risk losing a huge amount of talent – people’s lives are being messed about.”
“There is a major issue around costs.”
Both Warwickshire and Staffordshire county council’s last night insisted that they “do recognise dyslexia”.
However, a spokesman for Warwickshire said their approach “encourages teachers to identify and support all literacy difficulties as soon as a potential issue is identified rather than wait for a formal dyslexia diagnosis”, while a cabinet member for Staffordshire said: “The early support for all children with literacy difficulties does not discriminate by underlying cause.”
The comments follow the withdrawal of council-funded in-school special needs support in Staffordshire by services contractor Entrust, which is joint-owned by the council and Capita, leaving schools to use their own budgets to buy in specialist help.
The Daily Telegraph has seen an email from the company which said the decision had been made by local officials “due to financial pressures”.
Julie Cappleman-Morgan, co-founder of the Tamworth dyslexia support group Dig-iT, said: “Basically services have been decommissioned at a local level and people’s life chances have being massively hurt.”
Show more
Lesley Hill, who helps run the North Warwickshire and Coventry Dyslexia Association, said: “Availability is the worst it’s been here for 30 years.”
A diagnosis of dyslexia should allow council-funded support which could include extra literacy lessons, a laptop and specialist voice-recognition or text-reading software.
Last year Matt Hancock, the Health and Social Care Secretary, revealed he was dyslexic and that his career could have been “very different” had he not been given a spell-checker in school.
The 40-year-old later graduated with a first in Politics Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University.
However, Professor Julian Elliott, who is organising this month’s London conference, said: “If you’re testing for dyslexia, small numbers of kids get identified and prioritised but massive numbers with similar sorts of problems do not get helped.
“What a lot of services are trying to do are to find ways that would identify – rather than having a small number of children identified as dyslexic under very spurious criteria, they’re trying to find ways to identify all children who are struggling to read in local authorities.
“This could become a major move.”
Councillor Philip White, Cabinet Member, said: ” Staffordshire advocates early identification and evidence based intervention for all children experiencing literacy difficulties to ensure fair access to available resources and effective support.
“Children who do not make expected progress over time meet the BPS  1999 definition of dyslexia. This descriptor is accepted in Staffordshire.”
Meanwhile a Warwickshire County Council spokesman said: “We wish to state categorically that the council does recognise dyslexia along with many other special educational needs.
“The approach in Warwickshire encourages teachers to identify and support all literacy difficulties as soon as a potential issue is identified rather than wait for a formal dyslexia diagnosis.

“In this way pupils are supported at the earliest opportunity with appropriate support.”

Telegraph

Who’s the daddy? The truth about Britain’s paternity test problem

Richard Mason, the co-founder of Moneysupermarket, who discovered three sons from his marriage were not his Richard Mason, the co-founder of Moneysupermarket, who discovered three sons from his marriage were not his  CREDIT: HUW EVANS

10 JANUARY 2019 • 7:00AM

When millionaire Richard Mason made the shock discovery he was not, in fact, the father of his three sons, he was quick to call lawyer Roger Terrell.
The farmer’s son has become a sought-after expert in the murky world of paternity fraud – and business is booming.
“Richard wasn’t in a very good place,” Terrell says of his client, who is the co-founder of the price comparison website Moneysupermarket.com. “Psychologically the impact of this is severe.”
Earlier this week Mason, 55, revealed his personal torment in a newspaper interview. He said that following a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in 2016, he had been told most sufferers of the condition are infertile – and thus that it was extremely unlikely he would have been able to father his three sons, aged 23 and 19-year-old twins.
He confronted his ex-wife Kate, who eventually admitted she had engaged in an on-off affair with a colleague during their 20-year marriage, which ended in 2006.
Terrell represented Mason as he attempted to claw back a £4 million cash sum paid as part of his divorce settlement in 2008, while also pursuing his ex-wife for paternity fraud.
Richard Mason with his ex wife and the three sons he has discovered are not his

Richard Mason with his ex wife and the three sons he has discovered are not his CREDIT: KEVIN HOLT

Mrs Mason agreed at the end of November to settle matters with a payment of £250,000 – on the condition the biological father remained anonymous. Terrell believes the move may have been prompted by a desire to stop the identity being disclosed in court. In recent days Mason has suggested he will write a book about his ordeal and offer up a £5,000 reward to reveal the identity of the biological father of his sons.
Sensational it may seem but for Terrell, who established his solicitor’s firm in Peterborough in 1988, such stories are becoming routine work – albeit usually without such eye-watering sums at stake. He regularly receives enquiries from fathers as far and wide as Canada to New Zealand, as well as Britain: in total, the 64-year-old estimates he has handled more than 50 paternity fraud cases, 20 of which have gone to court.
“I’ve done these cases for senior partners in London legal firms, for doctors, for archaeologists, all sorts of sophisticated people,” he says. “Paternity fraud doesn’t discriminate.”
Certainly those in the business say such cases are far from refined to the sofas of trashy daytime television; this is a deceit that spans the class divide. Indeed until 1948 the Home Secretary was required to be present at the birth of a member of the Royal family, which Terrell says was to ensure the child was a genuine descendant of the monarch, and not an imposter being sneaked in.
Roger Terrell

Roger Terrell

Attempts to quantify the scale of Britain’s illicit fecundity are, as you might expect, vague. In 2016 a research project undertaken by scientists from KU Leuven University in Belgium suggested up to two per cent of British fathers may be victims of paternity fraud, adding that given a lack of hard evidence, prior scientific studies – some of which put that figure as high as 10 per cent –  may have been overestimates.
Anecdotally, though, the numbers are on the rise. British testing firm DNA Clinics analysed 5,000 results selected randomly from between January 2014 and June 2016, and discovered 51 per cent of English men had been ruled out as being the paternal father of children they had been tested for a genetic link to.
This increase in cuckolded men discovering they have been deceived is, according to Terrell and other legal experts in the field, due to home DNA testing kits being “much more prevalent,” he explains. Now widely available online for under £100, it means we have more conclusive genetic evidence about where we came from than ever before.
“DNA testing is much more prevalent, much cheaper and that is why these cases will increase,” he says.
Prior to Richard Mason, Terrell’s most high profile case was a client called Richard Rodwell. In 2013, the then 46-year-old factory manager made headlines after being awarded £25,000 in damages against his former wife after DNA tests revealed their 20-year-old daughter and her 18-year-old brother were not his biological children. Following his 2005 divorce, Rodwell paid out £15,600 in maintenance for the children before finding out they were not his.
When they discovered the truth, they cut all ties with him. He spoke of suffering from depression in the fallout and feeling as if he had endured a bereavement; whatever money he had secured following the legal battle, he said, could never expunge the grief.
Another client, Andy Phillips from Telford, Shropshire, received a £19,000 out of court legal settlement after discovering he had for years been paying child maintenance to a son that was not his. He said at the time he would never be able to forgive his former partner for the hurt.
Having seen the impact of such cases at first-hand Terrell believes paternity fraud should be made a criminal offence, but admits “the police will not pursue criminal prosecutions”.
To add insult to injury, there is little legal assistance available to those who have been deceived attempting to claw back child maintenance. In 2015 an unidentified university lecturer known only as Mr X in court was awarded compensation after it was ruled he had been a victim of “clear deceit and fraud” at the hands of his ex-wife, a successful businesswoman, who tricked him into believing the baby she conceived through IVF at a clinic in Spain was his child.
Richard Rodwell who discovered his two children were fathered by another man

Richard Rodwell who discovered his two children were fathered by another man CREDIT: DAVID CRUMP

But, because of legal precedent, the woman was not required to hand back the £60,000 in child maintenance she received after the couple split.
The close bonds forged raising a child mean other fathers simply cannot bring themselves to reveal the awful truth to their offspring.
Cheryl Grace, senior solicitor based at Stowe Family law in Leeds, currently has a client who has discovered his teenage daughter does not actually belong to him.
“He believed all the time she was his then his wife just turned round and said ‘she isn’t’,” Grace says.
Initially her client, whose marriage has since broken down, wanted to pursue a DNA test, but has since changed his mind.
“Now he has time to reflect he has realised he doesn’t want to risk ruining the relationship with his daughter,” she says, underlining that this really can happen to anyone.
“Human nature applies to us all,” she says. “It only takes a woman to get a bit tipsy at the Christmas party or be u

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Tense & Nasty: The Transgendered versus The Preacher Before the B.C Human Rights Tribunal

Free speech and the rights to express one’s religious beliefs were very much on trial during a five day hearing (December 11-17) before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.  Ronan Oger, a transgendered advocate and activist and a vice-president of the provincial New Democratic Party, had laid a complaint against Bill Whatcott for distribution of 1,500 copies of a leaflet during the May, 2017 provincial election. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet called into question Oger’s fitness for public office, on the basis of his sexual confusion. Relying on the Bible’s account that God created two sexes, Mr. Whatcott argued that if Oger couldn’t get his sexuality right, should be really be entrusted with making decisions on such matters as the provincial budget.

The original one-person tribunal, just before the proceedings opened expanded to three, consisted of Devyn Cousineau, an outspoken social justice warrior and donor to LGBT causes. The defence tried unsuccessfully to have her recuse herself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” In preliminary proceedings, the Tribunal rejected all the defence character and expert witnesses. The final defence witness-to-be was Dr. Willi Gutowski, a medical doctor and psychiatrist with over 30 years of clinical experience treating patients in Chilliwack and the U.S. He had frequently been called as an expert witness before U.S. courts. He had treated transgendered people in the past. He said, during testimony seeking to qualify him, that he “has a particular interest in dissociative disorders.” No one can make you hate, he said: You will yourself to have the thoughts that lead to the emotions of love or hate. “Love and hate are both a choice of the will.” His expertise would have been crucial as Oger’s lesbian lawyer had contended that Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet was likely to expose the transgendered candidate to hatred or contempt. The panel decided to reject Dr. Gutowski concluding: “The burden has not been met as to his qualification on this topic.” Thus, the defence had but one witness — Bill Whatcott.

The defence was not allowed to challenge the nature of transgenderism. Is it mistaken and immoral, as Bill Whatcott argues on biblical grounds? Is it a state of delusion — in short, mental illness — as many psychiatrists and scientists contend? Humans are born with one of two and only two chromosomal combinations: two “X Chromosomes” — female; and X and a Y Chromosome — male. Apparently, if you’re born a man but identify as a woman, or vice versa, then you are whatever you feel you are or want to be. Thus, a hulking, hairy man with a penis who identifies as a woman should be able to prance into the girls’ washroom and ogle 13-year old girls.

The panel made their prejudice crystal clear. On at least eight separate occasions, Devyn Cousineau  who seemed to be keeping careful count, interrupted Defence lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi for “misgendering” Oger by referring to him as “he”, instead of she.

CAFE has been an active intervenor in this long and costly case. In its oral submissions, December 14, Director Paul Fromm argued that Oger had not been the victim of discrimination. No candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote. A voter may discriminate in his or her choice by voting for or against a candidate for ANY reason — sexual identity, policies, history. Not all “discrimination” or advocacy of discrimination  is banned under human rights laws, only discrimination in the provision of certain goods and services. Mr. Fromm protested the discriminatory rules imposed upon the Defence side.  Oger had complained that Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet intimidated him and prevented him from being his authentic self. Mr. Fromm said forcing the defence to refer to Oger as “she” or more awkwardly as “the complainant said in the complainant’s complaint” violated the Defence’s ability to be their authentic selves. “Mr. Whatcott questions Oger self-identification on religious grounds; I and others question his identity on scientific, psychiatric or common sense grounds. We should not be compelled to say what we don’t believe or end up speaking in stilted 1984 Newspeak. If I wake up and believe I am Napoleon, no one is under any obligation to call me ‘Emperor,'” he said.

CAFE argued Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet was not about “hate”. Oger had testified that he had felt fearful. Mr. Fromm pointed out that his alleged fear had not prevented him from continuing as the NDP candidate in Vancouver-False Creek, from holding rallies and running again, in 2018 for school trustee. Mr. Whatcott’s leaflet did not advocate “hate” much less violence, but urged voters to tell NDP canvassers they would not be voting for that party.

The following are portions of Dr. Lugosi’s masterful summation on behalf of Bill Whatcott:

2              Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.

3              Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.

4              What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.

5              If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.

6              Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.

7              The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.

8              Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christophobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.

9              Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.

10           Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.”

11           Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”

12           These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.

13           The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.

22           The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights. [The Tribunal reserved judgement.]

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY DR. CHARLES LUGOSI FOR BILL WHATCOTT IN THE OGER BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CASE

Oger v. Whatcott

Supplementary Submissions of the Respondent Whatcott

December 16, 2018

1        Although Whatcott described himself as a Christian activist, there are no doubt a handful of people who view him as a prophet of God, urging repentance from sexual immorality, and preaching that salvation is within reach of everyone.

2        Canadian history records significant litigation brought by Jehovah Witnesses whose civil rights were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. This pioneering jurisprudence left a legacy that ensures that personal freedom of Witnesses to go door to door to distribute literature today remains a beacon of religious liberty and personal freedom.

3        Christians like Whatcott take seriously the biblical command to go forth and evangelize the world. His flyers preach the gospel of the Christian Holy Bible. His flyer is anchored in biblical verses that provide the foundation of his political message.

4        What Oger seeks is the branding of Christian preaching in a flyer as hate propaganda. Section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code is to be utilized as a tool to silence and punish political enemies, who if powerful enough, would repeal s. 7 and the addition of gender identity and expression as a protected ground.

5        If this Tribunal adopts Oger’s contention that faith is a private matter, and must be kept in the closet and out of the public square, this will set the stage for the creation of a new kind of crime, rooted in human rights legislation. The new crime is publicly manifesting religious belief.

6        Oger contends that even if the flyer does not promote violence or the threat of violence, it ought to be interpreted as hate literature, which inspires violence by others, harming not just Oger but anyone who is transgender or a family member. What Oger describes is a human rights crime that has no victim.

7        The movie Minority Report described a society wherein an individual could be tried and convicted of the crime of murder, when no murder has been committed. I suggest that Oger views Whatcott as a continuously barking dog that is a nuisance, an irritation that spoils Oger’s political and legal agenda by refusing to let go of his bone. The bark is the flyer, the dog is less than human, and the bone is the Bible.

8        Oger, who did not personally receive the flyer, is on a mission to stamp out all opposition in a crusade that amounts to Christphobia. Nothing less that the erasure of Whatcott will satisfy Oger.

9        Oger invites the panel to speculate that the flyer will incite evil. Oger implores the panel to harshly punish Whatcott as a preventative measure, to destroy him financially and to permanently muzzle this troublesome meddling dog that will not let go. No evidence of causation is offered. Subjective belief of Oger that amounts to conclusory statements is urged to be sufficient.

10      Even accepting genuine fear in Oger was generated, the evidence does not disclose any reasonable basis for that fear. See Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town) 2017 ONCA 668, para. 46. “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b).[Charter]” para. 49. “… courts must be vigilant in determining whether the evidence supports the characterization, and in not inadvertently expanding the category of what constitutes violence or threats of violence.” Para. 50. “Courts should not be quick to conclude that a person’s actions are violent without clear evidence. Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Bracken’s protest was violent or a threat of violence, and the finding that it was constitutes a palpable and overriding error.” Para. 52.

11      Was the flyer tantamount to a “dog whistle” directed to transgender people, as alleged by Oger? The Ontario Divisional Court in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O. J. No. 5105 stated at para 60 that, “…the removal of political speech as a result of alleged subtle, hidden messages in visual imagery demands that robust explanations be given and demands that the CHP have an opportunity to participate in that inquiry. Absent such explanations, any individual could stifle otherwise valid political speech by citing subliminal messages without having to justify that position… no two witnesses saw the same hidden message or even agreed as to what the image was showing.”

12      These two illustrations from the evidence of Oger amply demonstrate that Oger’s evidence amounts to conclusions derived from Oger’s personal biased intolerant perspective. Stating conclusions about a subtle “dog whistle” message and an incitement to hate and violence and without any rational evidentiary basis, and are of no value to the Tribunal. Accepting this evidence would amount to an error in law. See: Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. South Coast BC Transportation Authority, 2018 BCCA 440 at para. 50, 54, 60.

13      The “likely to expose” may be patently unworkable. There is no definition of the “reasonable person.” A hypothetical panel of three qualified lawyers, all with Asian origins from countries where Christianity is respected and gender identity is not legally protected or recognized, might find that Whatcott’s flyer to be eminently reasonable, easily finding that the test of “likely to expose” is not even remotely met.

14      Unfortunately, the legislation does not provide for a representative jury of Canada’s diverse population to decide the issue of “likely to expose.” As well the legislation does not provide a threshold subjective test added to the objective test, to filter out weak claims where there is no actual proof of causation or harm. Instead the panel is left to make a finding derived from three different versions of an objective test known only in the minds of the individual panel members.

15      Oger relies upon an analogy to bolster the argument that it is unlawful to campaign against the election of a black candidate on the basis that no black individual merits election on racial grounds. With respect, that is not the proper analogy. Recently in Spokane Washington a black activist woman and professor was outed by her own mother, who disclosed that her daughter was 100% white and lying about her racial identity. Black people were universally outraged, as this “poser” misappropriated racial identity to benefit from affirmative action, and deceived many supporters. Her lies left a bitter trail of hurt, degrading the progress the black community strived mightily to achieve.

16      The correct analogy in the case at bar is that same person who runs for office as a “black” candidate, but is genetically 100% white. If her own mother handed out a flyer claiming that her daughter was morally unfit for public office, this would not be received as hateful, but welcomed as the truth. People hunger for honest politicians, for deceit in one subject area may lead to deceit in other, much more important matters.

17      Oger admitted that some women feminists oppose transgender women. Oger identified Megan Murphy, who operates the publication, the Feminist Current, as one such individual. These women resent the sexual misappropriation claimed by transgender women. This is an ongoing hot political issue.

18      Oger’s ambition is to become the first transgender woman to be elected to the BC legislature. It is no different than the calling card of Hilary Clinton, who urged voters to elect her as the first female President of the United States. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed a cabinet that implemented affirmative action for women and diverse representatives of different races and cultures.

19      Canadian politics is rife with playing whatever “card” a politician possesses to gain political success. Oger follows this tradition by putting transgender identity into the NDP toolbox to promote the legal, social, and political agenda of Oger’s passion, namely the legislative reform and enforcement of transgender rights. What Oger did not anticipate, was that transgenderism, like abortion is a moral issue that just will not disappear. Making transgenderism legal, does not make it moral.

20      A political debate about morality, rooted in Christian morality that adheres to scripture, is not within the scope of hate. Genocide occurred in Rwanda when the dominant majority urged for the killing of the minority, by labeling them cockroaches that needed to be exterminated. That is hate speech. Today in South Africa, a political party seeking the seizure of land from white farmers, openly promotes the killing the white farmers. That is hate speech too. Whatcott’s flyer does not meet the legal test for hate speech.

21      Whatcott’s political and moral attack could have been easily handled by revealing the truth. Oger could have said he was born a male, raised as a boy, and made the life changing decision to identify as a transgender woman. Oger then could take the advantage by noting that the law registers Oger’s identity as a woman. Oger could then say it is unfair to be put into such a position to reveal personal and private information. The sympathy generated by Oger would have resulted in Oger’s election, for Oger could then claim to be completely truthful and a morally fit candidate for public office. Whatott’s flyer might then have resulted in fruitful search for the truth, a cherished value.

22      The core value of freedom of expression is a search for the truth, and is at its highest protection in the context of public participation in an election campaign in a free and democratic society. While Whatcott may represent only a tiny minority viewpoint in contemporary Canadian society, the constitutional Charter values of liberty (s. 7); conscience and religion (s. 2a); thought, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press (s. 2b); right to vote (s. 3); not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12); equality and equal protection (s.15); and multicultural heritage (s. 27) all apply to protect Whatcott’s rights.

23      The Tribunal is urged to apply Justice Harlan Stone’s footnote 4 from Carolene Products, 304 US 144 (1938), because s. 7 of the Human Rights Code does not protect a discrete and insular minority, namely Whatcott, nor flyers distributed in the course of political and moral debate in the political process. Human rights legislation that ordinarily is accorded the presumption of constitutionality, in the context of this case, must be subject to the equivalent of strict scrutiny.

24      Footnote 4 states:

          There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth….

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation….

Nor need we inquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious… or nations… or racial minorities…: whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry…. [Italics added]

25      Finally, Whatcott contends that the abandonment of truth-seeking in the context of this hearing is an affront to the fundamental principles of justice found within s. 7 of the Charter. Whatcott’s security of the person and liberty is infringed, when truth is held to be irrelevant. No one may be deprived of liberty or security of the person in contravention of the fundamental principles of justice, which includes the search for truth as an integral part of any judicial or quasi-judicial administrative law proceeding.

26 Truth is absent in this case. Even if the entire content of the flyer is the truth, this Tribunal has already ruled those facts are completely irrelevant. Credibility is not allowed to be tested on cross-examination. All this makes the oath to tell the truth administered to witnesses irrelevant, since all that ultimately matters is the document and the Tribunal’s application of the “objective” test directed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

27      In Bracken, the Town Council was deeply offended to be called liars and communists in an impolite and unrestrained manner. However the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conduct of Bracken to be lawful, citing the following passage from Cusson v. Quan, 2009 SCC 62, at para. 125 as the final word on this topic:

“(d)emocracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those … who exercise power and authority in our society … Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy.”

Dated at Victoria, BC, this 16th day of December, 2018

Charles I. M. Lugosi, Counsel for William Whatcott

Persecution of British Yellow Vests

Persecution of British Yellow Vests
/19
In the past few hours the have: – Had their social media accounts banned – Had their PayPal account removed – Had ‘journalists’ show up at their elderly parents houses – Had lies spread about them on national TV and in the media Tell me there’s no establishment.