Instigated Suspension of Freethinking Prof.
In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.
The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.
The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.
Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.
These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.
Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.
The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.
This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:
Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:
“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),  3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.” [Emphasis added.]
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of theCovenant protects freedom of expression:
“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:
“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”) is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
 Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
 Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
 General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
 Ibid., at para. 35.
 Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
 For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada,  1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
September 1, 2016
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
This has been a hectic few months for freedom of speech and this Fall promises to be no different.
OK, the headline may be a little harsh, but some of our fellow Canadians are narrow-minded vindictive bullies who care not a wit for freedom of speech. Frankly, you and I have a lot to do to turn people on to freedom of speech, to remind them of our proud heritage of individual freedoms now so battered by the Maoist Red Guards of political correctness, and to stand up for the victims of persecution.
Consider Monika Schaefer. She is a violin teacher and four time Green Party candidate from Jasper, Alberta. She has lived in that community for 35 years. She raised her daughter there. She was a community activist and volunteer, devoting hours of her time and fiddling to support worthy causes and entertain at benefits. An open, honest friendly woman, Miss Schaefer had many friends in this small Alberta mountain town. She doesn’t have as many today. In mid-June she posted a short video on You Tube — Sorry, Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_BZphQ7Qo&feature=youtu.be 4m48s. Monika was the daughter of post war German immigrants. As a girl, she was mocked and occasionally called “Nazi” by school children. She bought into the indoctrination and the Hollywood version of World War II. She even scolded her mother and wondered why she hadn’t “done something” about what was happening to Jews in WW II. Over the years, Monika grew skeptical about many things. She became a major doubter of the official line about 9/11. Beginning in 2014, she began reading and came to reject the standard doctrine about the “holocaust.” Her video on You Tube went viral — over 120,000 hits in two months.
“Free speech. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.” Those were the values of the Real Canada — OUR Canada, yours and mine. These are not the values of the pinched, censorious fanatics of political correctness. Punishment came quickly:
* Monika was a big hit at last year’s Dominion (Canada) Day festivities in Jasper. This year, she was uninvited. There had been some anonymous threats of a protest. [In healthier time, the RCMP would have been informed and these exceedingly well paid officers would have been on hand to keep any protest peaceful.]
* The President of the local Legion banned Monika from being on the premises. The Legion is a favourite local gathering place for musicians. So, this ban in quite serious. When Monika tested the ban, an officious bartenders called the cops.
* The Legion president made complaints to the Canadian and Alberta Human Rights Commissions, to the RCMP and the German Embassy (what? Monika was born in Canada!). “It is a hate crime,” proclaimed Ken Kuzminski, the Legion president and former NDP candidate, about Monika’s soft spoken video. Kuzminski had been a longtime acquaintance of Monika’s.
* Several longtime musician friends cut Monika off cold, There have been threats against her livelihood as a violin teacher.
* The Green Party was in a panic. The office of Leader Elizabeth May, a friend of Monika’s, was in a tizzy and promised that she would be expelled. [Ironically, Monika had quit the party more than a year before over Zionist influence within a group that prides itself on “telling truth to the powers that be”.]
* Monika, ever the community activist, had lobbied for several years for the town to permit busking; that is, musicians can perform in parks or on sidewalks and receive donations from passersby. This Spring the town council approved busking. Monika applied for a permit and was turned down. Dave Baker, Director of Habitat for the Arts, told her:“We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time” “Non-inclusive beliefs”? Any belief is “non-inclusive” as it rejects other beliefs. If you’re a Buddhist, you reject Islam, and are, therefore, “non-inclusive.” The charge is Orwellian and nonsensical.
CAFE’S RESPONSE: Throughout her ordeal CAFE and our supporters have rallied to Monika’s defence on the Internet, with letters to the offending parties, with videos — thanks Brian and Lawrence. We are getting the story of her case out there on You Tube. CAFE organized a quick tour of Ontario (London and Toronto) in August; we have more meetings planned for Vancouver and Edmonton over the next few weeks. Needless to say, this costs money.
One of the most pressing cases is Arthur Topham’s “hate law” — Sec. 319 — case resulting from postings on his website Radicalpress.com. Last November, after a 12 day trial, a jury convicted him on one count of “hate” and acquitted him on another. Now comes the second phase — his challenge to the constitutionality of the “hate law”. In the Keegstra appeal in 1990 argued by the late Doug Christie, the Supreme Court by a narrow margin upheld the constitutionality of the “hate law”, agreeing that it was an infringement on free speech but was justified because of the allegedly deleterious effects of “hate propaganda” on “vulnerable minorities.” Arthur is arguing that the context is different. Mr. Keegstra had a captive audience in an Alberta classroom. As Doug Christie argued, the Internet is a completely different context. People have to seek out the posts on a website and can exit at any time. Also, evidence presented by Dr. Persinger at the Marc Lemire Internet Sec. 13 case established that the science which the Supreme Court relied on in 1990 was junk science. Neuropsychology has established that the alleged effects of “hate speech” on “vulnerable” minorities — fear, depression, withdrawal from society, booze, drugs — do not exist. Indeed, many of the “vulnerable” minorities, especially Jews and the LGBTQ crowd, hold privileged and powerful positions in society. This challenge is crucial.
CAFE’S RESPONSE: From the start, we have backed Arthur’s principled struggle for free speech. We were an intervener in the Sec. 13 Canadian Human Rights case — abandoned after the law was repealed in 2012. When “hate charges” were laid after complaints by Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith and Richard Warman, neither of whom bothered to show up at the trial their mischief-making had set in motion, CAFE has been actively involved in Mr. Topham’s defence. We have helped raise money. Last Fall, I provided daily e-mail and short video reports on the trial. I shall again be attending the proceedings in Quesnel and providing daily reports. If you are not already on my e-mail list and want to receive these reports, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Brian Ruhe, a gentle Buddhist instructor and lecturer on meditation in Vancouver, now turned prolific revisionist videographer has, over the past year, lost a number of part-time lecturing positions at Vancouver area universities, colleges and school boards. He has been the victim of a campaign headed by B’nai Brith’s Harry Abrams who publicly proclaimed his desire effectively to impoverish Mr. Ruhe and deny him an income. Abrams wrote to Georgia Straight (August 28, 2015): “I have written to the Vancouver parks Board and have asked them to replace this unsavory fellow ASAP. According to Ruhe’s own postings, his Capilano teaching gig was discontinued soon after an important local [Jew] o complained to them too. Also worrying are his associations with white supremacist leaders like Paul Fromm, who himself was disqualified from teaching in Ontario for neo-Nazi racial activism.” The price for dissenting from political correctness would seem to be penury. As we go to press, Brian has been fired by the Delta School District. Reasons provided by the Board state: “ The YouTube videos compiled under your name present a very public expression of conduct that runs contrary to the policies and values of Delta School District. … As well, Delta School District’s Values statement, part of its overall Vision statement, is ‘Caring, Respect, Responsibility, Community, and Excellence’, with ‘acceptance’, ‘equality’, and ‘inclusion’ key terms within that statement.” Apparently, acceptance and inclusion do not apply to accepting and continuing to include Brian, despite a successful 15-year track record with the Board.
CAFE’S RESPONSE: CAFE has written numerous letters of support for Brian through his long battle. We have offered advice and have co-produced numerous You Tube videos with this personable and talented videographer.
The McCorkill will case was one of the most important ones in which CAFE’s been involved. The McCorkill will — a bequest to the U.S. White nationalist National Alliance — was nullified by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench in 2014. We appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. In a dismissive, contemptuous one page decision, in 2015, they denied our appeal and slapped us with $9,000 in costs to the various parties. We took a chance and risk and sought leave to appeal this vital freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights case to the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 9, in a decision without reasons, a three-person panel of the Court denied us leave and slapped us with costs — about $6,000. All I can say is that we tried hard and had a very well-prepared and aggressive lawyer, Andy Lodge of St. John, New Brunswick. That leaves us with almost $35,000 in unpaid bills.
CAFE is moving with the times and producing several You Tube videos monthly on free speech issues.
None of this work can continue without your help.
Please use the attached coupon to send us your most generous donation to help fund our Fall activities. For a donation of $100 or more we’ll send you the dvd of Monika Schaefer dynamic speech (and fiddle playing) at the CAFE meeting in Toronto, August 23.
As well, if you have not already renewed your subscription ($15) to the Free Speech Monitor, please do so.CAFE’s 34 years of free speech activism have only been possible because of the generosity of a small band of free speech supporters like yourself.
Thanking you in advance,
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
___ Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s ambitious campaign for free speech to support Arthur Topham and other censorship victims this Autumn.
___ We fought the good fight but were stymied by the Supreme Court. Here is my donation to help defray the costs of the McCorkill Appeal.
___Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
$___ Doug Christie booklet or video order from back of this coupon.
Please charge ______myVISA#____________________________________________
Expiry date: __________ Signature:_________________________________________________
Doug Christie Free Speech Booklets
For 30 years, Doug Christie, the Battling Barrister, has been Canada’s outstanding free speech attorney. He passed away of liver cancer, all too young, on March 11, 2013 at age 66. Order his outstanding free speech booklets published in C-FAR’S Canadian Issue Series and speeches he gave over the years.
__ The Zundel Trial & Free Speech by Douglas Christie (1985) $4.00
__ Thought Crimes Trial: The Keegstra Case by Douglas Christie (1987) $4.00
__ Free Speech IS the Issue by Douglas Christie (1990) ($5)
___ Doug Christie –His Last Speech: Free Speech in Canada – Lesbians, Hypocrisies& Contadictions. DVD. Toronto, December 2, 2012. $20.00
___ How I Became A Revisionist Film Maker And Lost A Lot of Jobs by Brian Ruhe. Toronto, June 30, 2016. $6.00
[Tick booklets or tapes or dvds you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon.]
Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression & Brad Love, Canadian political prisoner and citizen journalist interviewed on Patrica Aitken’s Sacred Cows BBQ!
Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE- Canadian Association for Free Expression has fought for victims of Canada’s thought police such as Ernst Zundel, David Irving, Arthur Topham and special guest Brad Love. Brad shares how writing non-threatening letters to government idiots landed him in prison. He also shares about life in post-fire Fort McMurray.
Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25
July 11th, 2016
Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,
It’s been close to a year since I last posted a Legal Update back on August 8th, 2015. That was prior to the actual trial which began on October 26th, 2015 and concluded fourteen days later on November 12th, 2015.
The outcome of the trial, as many will know, resulted in a Guilty charge on Count 1 and a Not Guilty charge on Count 2. What was perplexing for everyone who heard the results (including myself) was that BOTH Counts 1 and 2 were the same charge, that is, both were a Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada offence which reads:
“(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
Immediately following the trial a date was set for December 7th, 2015 in order to fix a date for theCharter application hearing to be heard. The Charter issue had already began back in the spring of 2015 but was postponed pending the outcome of the trial. Had I been victorious and found Not Guilty on both counts there would not have been grounds to file the challenge to the legislation. That date came and went and Crown and Defence were unable to agree upon a date for the hearing. It was put over to January 25th, 2016. On the January date issues came up about Defence calling Expert Witnesses and so it was rescheduled to March 29th, 2016 to fix a date. March 29th came and went and more delays required the setting a new date of April 4th. The 4th of April came and went and another date of May 2nd was chosen. On May 2nd the computers in the courtroom malfunctioned causing further delays and a new date of June 6th was set. On June 6th Defence counsel’s computer went down and a new date of July 11th, 2016 was set. After eight months and seven attempts to fix a date the deed was finally accomplished on the 11th of July!
As it now stands the Charter application will be heard in Quesnel Supreme Court beginningOctober 3rd, 2016 and run (possibly) for the full week to October 7th, 2016.
As stated previously, I, as the Applicant will be raising the following issues; ones that are included in my Memorandum of Argument:
• Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• The Crown bears the onus of justifying the infringement of Charter rights on a case-by-case basis.
• The present case is distinguishable from Keegstra on its facts.
• The infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter is not reasonably justified by Section 1 in the circumstances of this case, and specifically: The “pressing and substantial objective” of legislation must be defined narrowly for the purpose of a Section 1 analysis.
• The use of Section 319(2) in this case is not rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective of preventing harms associated with hate propaganda.
• Criminal prosecution by indictment is not a minimal impairment of the Applicant’s Charter rights.
• The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case.
• The appropriate remedy is to read into the law a constitutional exemption, to the effect that Section 319(2) is not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.
The bottom line is that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication …”
The Order that I intend to pursue is based upon Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 reads as follows:
“52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”
Citing R. v. Sharpe in support of Section 52(1) I will be respectfully requesting an order that would read as follows:
A declaration that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter, as already established in R. v. Keegstra.
A declaration, pursuant to Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code is not reasonably justified by Section 1 of the Charter in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.
Crown of course will be arguing that the applicant’s (my) argument is entirely without merit.
Now that the date has been set there is still the responsibility on my part to cover a number of financial costs related to the hiring of Expert Witnesses and also travel expenses and accommodations for legal assistants who I will be bringing to Quesnel for the week of the Charterhearing. These and many other miscellaneous costs that are part of this ongoing process must be raised over the next two months in order accomplish our goals. Any help that people can offer will be gratefully accepted and put to good use.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents
Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994
Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression
Most Important Property Rights Case of the Decade: McCorkill Will Heads to Supreme Court?
*New developments in McCorkill free speech case
* More persecution of dissent across the country – Brian Ruhe, Your Ward News, Arthur Topham
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
March 23, 2016
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
It’s nearly five months since last I wrote to you about CAFÉ’s ongoing battle to support free speech in Canada. You must check out our website CAFE | Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity. It is active and diligently maintained, despite frequent attacks to try to penetrate it and corrupt it.
Arthur Topham “Hate Case”: Win One, Lose One & The Important Question is Postponed
When I wrote you last, I was heading to the Arthur Topham and radicalpress.com “hate trial” in Quesnel, B.C. CAFÉ offered support, advice and public relations assistance. Most importantly, I did regular written and video reports on the most important “hate law” trial of this decade. Big thanks to Terry Tremaine for his assistance with the videos. The jury returned on November 12, with a confusing verdict. Arthur was convicted on one count of willfully promoting hate” against a privileged group (in this case, Jews) and acquitted on the other charge. The first referred to a series of books he had linked to or reproduced. Among them was a satire on the horrific genocidal Germany Must Perish by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jew. To highlight this evil work, Arthur copied the original cover and entitled it Israel Must Perish and through the first few chapters replaced Germany and Germans with Israel and Jews. Canadian juries don’t explain themselves, So, it is unclear which of the books they felt promoted hate. Arthur was acquitted on the second count which covered many of his postings and opinions in 2013.
All along, beginning with the late Doug Christie and continuing with Arthur’s present lawyer Barclay Johnson, the defence has sought to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 319 (the notorious “hate law”) of the Criminal Code. The argument is that the context has changed since the Supreme Court upheld the law in Keegstra in 1990. Then, the law was ruled to be a justified restriction on freedom of speech. The context, however, was an Alberta high school teacher with a captive audience of students. The Internet is not a captive audience. Indeed, to see Arthur Topham’s writings or postings, one has to seek him out and make a number of deliberate selections. Will there be witnesses called for this hearing? That remains to be decided. Originally, a date was to be set in late January. That date-to-set-a-date has now been postponed to April 29. In several legal venues in the Terry Tremaine “hate law” case (dismissed for undue delay) and contempt of court cases, Doug Christie tried to argue that the Internet was not communication as defined by the law. Posting to a website is merely the storage of material. He who downloads the material, hence the complainant, initiates the communication. This argumentation was neatly avoided by judges in several venues and has still to be resolved. The case continues.
Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court
Good news and bad news. CAFÉ’s chances of winning “leave” or acceptance of the Supreme Court to appeal the appalling decision of Mr. Justice Grant of the Court of Queen’s Bench in New Brunswick and upheld last July by the Court of Appeals of New Brunswick have vastly improved. That’s the good news. CAFÉ’s chances of being granted leave to appeal have improved. That’s the bad news because an appeal in ferociously expensive. Our appeal costs could soar to $60,000 and we are behind in our bills.
The McCorkill case is vital to freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights. Should a court be able to nullify a will or bequest because the recipient’s views are “contrary to public policy”? The late Robert McCorkill of St. John, New Brunswick was a professor of chemistry and left his sizable estate of old coins and rare artefacts to the U.S. White Nationalist group known as the National Alliance.
Professor McCorkill died in 2004. The estate was finally probated in 2013. Then, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a malicious group of U.S. censors who make a profitable business of spying on, exposing and legally harassing those they claim are “haters”, found out and raised a storm. The usual hysterical stuff: the bequest would revive the “Nazi” movement in the U.S. And, yes, there’d be a gas chamber on every other corner. The only problem was that the SPLC had no legal standing in Canada. However, the next thing we knew, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman got into the act and declared that the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” At first, this seemed absurd. However, miraculously Isabel McCorkell [yes, different spelling], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill – she had not attended his funeral or challenged his will during the probate proceedings – surfaced. Interestingly, she lived in Ottawa. She sought and obtained an order to freeze the proceeds until she could make an application to have the will nullified on the grounds that it was … “contrary to public policy.” She was quickly joined in her endeavours by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. At this point, CAFÉ sought and was granted intervener status. This is clearly a vital case on several levels. It is a case defending freedom of speech and freedom of belief. It is also upholding property rights. Should a judge be able to overturn the clear wishes of a testator? Should a person not be able to dispose of his property as he sees fit and not have the views or morals of his beneficiaries scrutinized by a judge?
Last September, CAFÉ sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Only about one in 10 applications for leave are granted. The SCC seeks cases that have a national interest. Surely, some degree of certainty in estate law would constitute such a national interest. That was our argument. However, this argument was greatly strengthened recently by a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals in the Spence case. Rev. Eric Spence was a Jamaican preacher who left all of his $400,000 estate to one daughter, whom he hadn’t seen in 30 years, and left nothing to Verolin, the daughter he’d raised and financed through university, because she’d had a child with a White man. In January, 2015, as we had predicted in our arguments before the Court of Queen’s Bench, the McCorkill decision would be the beginning of a flood of allegations. Verolin successfully had her father’s will nullified. Judge Cory. A Gilmore inveighed against
Spence’s “clearly stated racist principle” and declared that the will “not only offended human sensibilities but also public policy”. She then nullified the will as being “contrary to public policy.” BMO Trust, on behalf of the Spence Estate, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals. In a March 8 decision , the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned, Judge Gilmore’s decision, and reinstated the will’s provisions. This decision is immensely helpful should our case reach the Supreme Court.
And, there’s more. Now, there seems to be a contradiction between the Courts of Appeal in New Brunswick and Ontario; the former was quick to overturn the testator’s wishes as the recipient’s views were “contrary to public policy”; the Ontario court refused to overturn the will even though it did involve a degree of racial discrimination. Acting on behalf of Verolin Spence, Earl A. Cherniak advised Andy Lodge, CAFÉ’s lawyer: “Given the similarities of the issues to be decided on the application for leave to appeal in McCorkill and the issues we intend to raise in the Spence matter, we ask that the Panel considering the application for leave in McCorkill be advised that we will be seeking leave to appeal and will … be bringing a motion to expedite leave.” CAFÉ has agreed that the Spence appeal can be joined to ours, if the Court so wishes. This strengthens our chances of being granted leave.
This Spring will extremely expensive for CAFÉ. The issues of property rights and freedom of speech and belief are crucial. We need your help urgently! A tiny band of generous, loyal people like you have made this crucial battle possible thus far.
My thanks in advance,
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
__ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_______________________________________ _____________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:________________________________________ ______________________________