Democracy is dead in Canada as proven by the Canadian Nationalist Party (CNP). When I first learned of CNP with its “Canada First” and “Traditional version of Canada” policies and directions, I immediately wanted to support it and joined as a member.
In 2019 the members were seeking Party registration with Elections Canada and once eligible, a group known as antihate.ca which is government funded and seeks to profit by squelching political opposition to the current government, threatened to release publicly the names and addresses of CNP registrars as is their right to do so for those names and addresses were public record and made available to anyone who asked for them.
As reported by CBC news, even former Winnipeg Police Chief warned that trying to publicly shame CNP members could incite violence not only for CNP members but for their families and children by those who don’t agree with CNPs political opinions. Despite the consequences of Elections Canada and antihate.ca actions, they did not heed the Police Chiefs warning.
Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13
Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was inserted at the last minute, in 1977, on the request of Jewish lobby groups and the then-Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, to “get” one man, John Ross Taylor who was using a telephone answering machine with a recorded message to spread his views. This was in the late 1970s, before today’s Internet technology. Sec. 13 stated: “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” These privileged groups included race, religion, sexual orientation or identity. Mr. Taylor and a number of others using telephone answering machines to spread their views were slapped with “cease and desist orders.” These had the force of a court order.
To broadcast the same or “similar” (whatever that is) messages was considered contempt and cold land you in jail. Happy Warrior John Ross Taylor, an honest and guileless man, was twice sentenced to a year in jail, the last time when he was 77 years of age.
By the late 1990s, the Internet had replaced telephone answer machines. Sabina Citron, a bitter enemy of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel, made a complaint against him about the Zundelsite, which was located in the U.S. and run by an American citizen, educator and novelist Ingrid Rimland (who would eventually become Mrs. Zundel). This was a hard fought case, which lasted from 1997 to 2002. CAFE was an intervenor. On the censorship side were a number of Jewish groups. The defence argued, inter alia, that the Internet was not “telephonic communication”, as the section was then worded. Bill C-36, an omnibus anti-terrorism law covering many things was brought in as a response to 9/11. It gave control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and clarified that it did cover the Internet.
Along came Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and bitter enemy of free speech — he had earlier tried to get various venues for British author David Icke cancelled. Warman started filing a flurry of human rights complaints against various nationalist bloggers, historical revisionists and others. For a while he was even working for the Canadian Human Rights Commission , in a way, drumming up business for them.
Most of his victims were poor and few could afford a lawyer. CAFE assisted a number of these victims (Terry Tremaine, Glen Bahr, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, and others, and intervened in the Marc Lemire/Freedomsite case.
We witnessed a massacre. Along the way, it was ruled that truth was no defence, intent was no defence. No harm had to be proved. In one case, we proved that, prior to Warman’s complaint, only one person, anti-free speech offence hunter Richard Warman, had ever clicked on the offending comment. The wording of the Section “likely to expose” is very loose. What is “likely”? No evidence had to be presented that anyone actually saw the comments, believed them and started to hate a privileged minority. Hatred may be hard to define, but what about “contempt”? Contempt is a negative feeling toward a person.
As it turned out, ANY strong criticism of a privileged group, even if true or fair comment, could lower a person’s opinion of that group and, therefore, might “expose them to contempt.” We learned that there was no defence to a charge under Sec. 13. The anti-free speech complainants, the vast majority Warman’s, won in every case but one — a record only surpassed in North Korea. The press paid no attention to this bullzosing of freedom. Often, echoing the complainant they had demonized the victims as “neo-nazis” or “racists” or “White supremacists”.
Eventually, others decided to mimic the success of Jewish groups and Warman, who worked closely with them, to silence their critics. A group of Moslems, angry at Mark Steyn for his book on the Islamicization of Europe, which had been exerpted in Maclean’s made a Sec. 13 complaint against Maclean’s. Finally, the press paid attention and they learned that there basically was no defence to a charge and that the vast majority had been brought by one man.
Soon, religious groups began to pay attention. We had warned Real Women back in 1998 that having we their teeth on historical revisionists and immigration critics, the thought control freaks would move on to others — Christians who opposed abortion or the LGBTQ agenda. A groundswell of opposition arose to Sec. 13. A Conservative Party conference called for its repeal. A Conservative backbencher, Brian Storseth, introduced a private member’s bill repealing Sec. 13, which passed in 2014.
Warman no longer has his favourite toy. The enemies of free speech have smarted ever since. Now, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, on whose board sits Richard Warman and Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a decades-long advocate of censorship. Sadly this frenetically pro-censorship gropup has lucked into government money. Even worse, this summer they were the beneficiary of a $500,000 grant from the Bank of Montreal. [No, corporate Canada is no friend of free speech.]
Thus free speech supporters should be concerned by the following news from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.: “Earlier this month [December] we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.” The problem was views on the Internet dissenting from political correctness.
Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) Exposed: The Wrath of CAHN by John Klein
The Wrath of CAHN
January 22, 2020
Canada is among the world’s most tolerant and peaceable countries.
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network wants you to believe otherwise, however,
working tirelessly to convince Canadians their country is a seething
hotbed of (mostly white, right-wing) hate groups. John Klein lays bare
the hypocrisy, intolerance and damage done to individuals and free
speech rights when a small group of political activists model themselves
on a much larger American group and appoint themselves as our country’s
figurative judge, jury and executioner.
You can’t tell the haters without a program.
decades the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has styled itself as the
indispensable guide to what constitutes hatred in the United States.
Its signature “Hate Map”
has long been cited in the media and by commentators as an objective
and reliable reference point for measuring the worrisome growth of hate
groups across America. And according to the SPLC, hate is always
growing. The latest Hate Map puts the number of active hate groups in the U.S. at 1,020,
up by 70 percent since 2000. Another thing that’s seemingly always
growing at the SPLC: its bank account. Thanks to its self-declared
status as arbiter of American hate, and in conjunction with highly
sophisticated fundraising techniques, the group holds an astounding half-billion dollars in assets, making it one of America’s richest non-profit advocacy groups.
such obvious trappings of success, the Alabama-based SPLC has lately
found itself on the receiving end of the sort of nasty accusations it
typically makes of others. Last year the organization was rocked by
several internal accusations of sexual impropriety and racism against
co-founder and former chief litigator Morris Dees, who was fired that
March. Dees − long the public face of the organization, as well as a
member of the Direct Marketing Association’s Hall of Fame for his
masterful use of direct mail solicitations − was apparently fond of
reminding his black female staffers how much he liked “chocolate”, among
other lewd remarks, as well as inappropriate touching; it was recently revealed that decades ago he faced an accusation of molesting his stepdaughter with a sex toy.
Beyond the damaging hypocrisy of an anti-hate group being accused of sexist and racist behaviour, the SPLC has also been sued
by several organizations and individuals claiming they were maliciously
and erroneously targeted as “haters” and, in the case of Muslim
reformer and counter-extremist Maajid Nawaz (whom it had labelled an
anti-Muslim “extremist”), has had to pay out millions of dollars. This
is a remarkable fact, considering the legal hurdle for defamation in the
U.S. is nearly insurmountable.
The reputation of the SPLC’s much-cited Hate Map has also been seriously damaged in other ways. A recent insider’s account in the New Yorker alleges the SPLC’s hate data has been deliberately exaggerated in order to coax donations from “gullible Northern liberals”. And the far-left magazine Current Affairs devastatingly declared that the SPLC “is a scam: It finds as much ‘hate’ as possible in order to make as much money as possible.”
the reek of hypocrisy was highly inconvenient, the allegations of “hate
inflation” undermine the group’s very legitimacy. The confluence of internal crises and external criticisms has prompted nearly every top SPLC official abruptly to leave the group, Twitter to drop the SPLC as one of its hate-monitoring “safety partners” and a U.S. Senator to request the IRS investigate its non-profit status.
short, the SPLC’s carefully crafted public image as a virtuous
hate-fighter has been shredded. It hardly seems a model to emulate. Yet
that’s exactly what the fledgling Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is
CAHN began operations in early 2018, billing itself
as an “independent, nonprofit organization made up of Canada’s leading
experts and researchers on hate groups and hate crimes.” Its mandate,
according to CAHN’s website, “is to monitor, research, and counter hate
groups by providing education and information on hate groups to the
public, media, researchers, courts, law enforcement, and community
groups.” And it makes no bones about the inspiration for its domestic
anti-hate crusade. In a letter
to a House of Commons committee introducing itself to Canadian
parliamentarians last April, CAHN claimed to be “modelled after, and
supported by, the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the
United States.” The letter was delivered several weeks after the no-longer-esteemed Dees was fired for allegations of sexual and racial misconduct.
CAHN claimed to be “modelled after, and supported by, the esteemed
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the United States.” The letter was
delivered to Parliament several weeks after the SPLC’s
no-longer-esteemed co-founder Dees was fired for allegations of sexual
and racial misconduct.
is chaired by Bernie Farber, well-known in Canadian media circles for
an earlier career as CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Other
key members of the organization include executive director Evan Balgord,
a former special assistant to Toronto mayor John Tory, controversial
“anti-hate” lawyer Richard Warman and Ontario Institute of Technology
professor Barbara Perry.
first necessary step in following the SPLC’s path is to establish CAHN
as a useful source of hate information in Canada. CAHN’s principals make
themselves readily available to media outlets eager to tell terrifying
stories about the proliferation of hate groups in our midst. The CBC and Global News appear to be the most ardent devotees of this service, although a wide range of publications at home and abroad
avail themselves of CAHN’s self-proclaimed expertise. In a particularly
successful twist on its formula, CAHN board member Amira Elghawaby
recently announced on Twitter that the Toronto Star will have her write a “bimonthly” column focused on “exploring human rights”.
group also makes savvy use of social media for publicity and
fundraising, and as a weapon in its anti-hate activities. Ricochet
Media, an online portal that bills itself as a crowd-funded public
interest journal (but is at least partly Government-of-Canada funded and
seems to publish only left-wing content), is another outlet where
CAHN’s messages are quoted approvingly and amplified. This breathless article,
for example, alleged “levels of extremist activity not seen in
generations” and called upon governments to do more than merely monitor
and research right-wing extremists.
Perry makes the stunning claim that approximately 300 hate groups
are extant in Canada. If true, this would give Canada a three times
higher per capita incidence of hate groups than even the SPLC claims
exists in the U.S.
inserted itself into public discussions on hate, the next requirement
in SPLC mimicry is to build a case that Canada is a seething hotbed of
hatred. CAHN’s website offers a veritable avalanche of revealed hate: neo-Nazi groups are lurking in central Canadian suburbs, hate groups you’ve never heard of are organizing across Atlantic Canada, gender-identity hatred is simmering on the West Coast, anti-Semitism is surging everywhere.
recent federal election produced an apparent bumper crop of hate in
Canada, with CAHN training its steely eyes on everything from Maxime
Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada to the Yellow Vest movement to an entirely insignificant collection of political no-hopers
scattered across the country. As for the total amount of hate in this
country, Perry makes the stunning claim that approximately 300 hate groups are extant in Canada. If true, this would give Canada a three timeshigher
per capita incidence of hate groups than even the SPLC claims exists in
the U.S. Despite the shock value of her allegations, Perry has not
produced the actual list, or any verifiable evidence that such a claim
is accurate. In 2015, Perry claimed there were only 100 hate groups in Canada.
Arguing hate is in such great supply in this country is quite a feat given that Canada generally tops global surveys on
racial tolerance and acceptance of immigration. And despite CAHN’s
breathless claims, open expressions of racism in Canada are actually quite rare. Interestingly, visible minorities and non-visible minorities often report experiencing similar rates of discriminatory acts.
The most recent Statistics Canada survey
of police-reported hate crimes happily reveals a substantial
year-over-year decline. Some places in Canada reported precisely zero
hate crimes in 2018. Belleville, Ontario and Trois Rivières, Quebec were
two such cities. Many other places recorded a mere handful. Examples
are St. John’s, Newfoundland with one; Lethbridge, Alberta with three;
and Abbotsford, B.C. with six. Out of 2.3 million Criminal Code
violations that year, there were just 1,798 hate crimes – substantially
less than one-tenth of one percent of the total. And the vast majority
of these offences were for mischief or graffiti. Actual violence is
very, very hard to find. Fewer than 100 instances of hate-motivated
assaults were recorded across the entire country in 2018, of which just
two were homicides.
In truth, Canada appears to be a country remarkable for its lack
of hate. But you wouldn’t know this from listening to CAHN. In response
to the recent happy news that hate crimes fell sharply in 2018, CAHN
complained that these new figures “aren’t showing the whole picture.” It then launched a campaign for “better hate crime statistics.” What CAHN really wants, presumably, is bigger hate crime statistics. As American journalist Wilfred Reilly memorably said of the Jussie Smollett hate-crime hoax in Chicago, “the demand for bigots exceeds the supply.” Reilly is African-American.
Judge, jury and executioner
addition to claiming hate is always on the rise, CAHN closely follows
several other discreditable SPLC tactics. Among these is the practice of
“doxing” its enemies. Doxing
involves publishing the details and contact information of
organizations, businesses and even private individuals deemed to be
purveyors of hate. The objective is to expose those it declares to be
haters to public opprobrium, or worse. It can get out of hand.
CAHN has doxed the founder of a far-right podcast who owns a small business in Thunder Bay. It also threatened to publish
the names and addresses of members of the Canadian Nationalist Party in
an unsuccessful attempt to derail their application for official party
status with Elections Canada. And it published the names of hundreds of
donors to the quixotic Toronto mayoral campaign of Faith Goldy. “Naming
and shaming is part of our mandate,” the group explains on its Twitter
In many cases, the only evidence of hate to be found amongst CAHN’s
targets is that they question Ottawa’s sacred twin ideologies of
diversity and multiculturalism. But simply calling for illegal
immigrants – who have, after all, broken Canada’s laws – to be deported
is not itself evidence of hate.
one horrifying example of naming-and-shaming’s potential consequences
in the United States, Jessica Prol Smith, an editor at the
Washington-based Family Research Council, a pro-marriage group opposed
to homosexuality, found her life threatened by a gunman. In 2012, Floyd
Lee Corkins II shot and wounded a security guard at Smith’s building
before being subdued; he later admitted his actions were largely
motivated by the SPLC’s designation of Smith’s employer as a hate group.
Corkins was charged with domestic terrorism and is serving a 25-year
prison sentence. Smith recounted these events last summer in the
memorably headlined USA Today article “The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered.”
SPLC and CAHN thus grandly claim for themselves the overlapping roles
of investigator, adjudicator and punisher of actions, opinions and ideas
they determine to be wrong. Of course, all of these properly belong to
government, and all are wisely separated in democratic states. No single
organization should ever have such sweeping powers combined, let alone a
private group of activists. CAHN’s arrogance in assuming all three
brings to mind the ancient Roman poet Juvenal’s famous aphorism: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?
Other CAHN tactics borrowed from the SPLC include filing highly-dubious requests to police for criminal hate speech investigations and restraining orders
against utterly inconsequential people, such as long-time polemicists
Kevin Goudreau and Paul Fromm. Elsewhere, CAHN has successfully pushed Facebook to de-platform its opponents, such as the Soldiers of Odin,
a tiny group of nativist bikers who have done charitable work and who
dispute the news media’s characterization of them as racist. And it is
currently pushing the same for Canada’s chaotic Yellow Vest movement,
which embraces a dizzying array of social and economic concerns (and
whose sister group in France is led by a native of Martinique). It also convinced Toronto City Council to audit Goldy’s mayoral campaign finances.
A field guide to spotting hate in Canada: bring your microscope
those targeted by CAHN or the SPLC are not only insignificant and/or
obscure, but too weak or disorganized to fight back. One SPLC staffer noted
Dees’s favoured approach was to pick opponents who had a “poor
education…limited funds, few if any good lawyers…[it] was like shooting
fish in a barrel.” During Farber’s time as head of the CJC, former Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn described him
as someone who’d spent most of his career fighting “irrelevant
penniless shaven-headed nobodies” as opposed to actual threats to
minority rights and society as a whole.
with the SPLC’s targets, sometimes CAHN’s also push back, however.
Canadian Nationalist Party leader Travis Patron some time ago sent a
cease-and-desist letter to CAHN’s Balgord, demanding he retract “false”
claims that his Canadian Nationalist Party is “Neo-Nazi” and that it is
“under investigation for alleged ‘hate speech.’” If Patron’s bank
account permits, it will be up to the courts to decide the validity of
his case against CAHN.
of the legal outcome, Canadian voters don’t appear to be buying what
Patron is selling. He received just 166 votes – or 0.4 percent of total
ballots – in the Saskatchewan riding of Souris-Moose Mountain in the
recent federal election. Patron has demonstrated such little traction
with the voting public that it seems pointless to bother getting worked
up about anything he says. CAHN’s efforts have likely provided him with
far more publicity than his trivial Canadian Nationalist Party could
ever have hoped to earn on its own.
many cases, the only evidence of hate to be found amongst CAHN’s
targets is that they question Ottawa’s sacred twin ideologies of
diversity and multiculturalism. But simply calling for illegal
immigrants – who have, after all, broken Canada’s laws – to be deported,
as Patron has, is not itself evidence of hate. Neither is engaging in a
debate over Canada’s annual immigration intake. CAHN’s animosity
towards Bernier’s PPC (whose supporters are “terrible people”,
according to executive director Balgord) and his pledge to limit
immigration to 150,000 people per year is rather hard to fathom.
Any party committed to admitting 150,000 immigrants per year – about the same as Australia’s annual intake
and significantly more than Canada itself welcomed for many years under
former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney − cannot
logically be considered anti-immigrant, regardless of who chooses to
join the party as a result of such a commitment. Most of the world’s
countries, in fact, accept almost no immigration at all. Regarding
Bernier’s criticism of “extreme multiculturalism”, in his later years
Pierre Trudeau also came to lament
how official multiculturalism had metastasized into identity politics.
Plus, Bernier’s party was recognized by the federal Leaders’ Debates
Commission as a serious and legitimate entity deserving a place in the
national televised events.
It is certainly not necessary for a reasonable person to agree with the positions taken by Patron, Goldy, the Soldiers of Odin et al − and in many cases their claims are
embarrassingly naïve, delusional, aggressive or simply plain wrong − to
recognize that democracy works best when a full-range of views can be
aired and dismantled as necessary. Censorship is not the answer to bad
ideas. Better ideas are.
of engaging or debating, the preferred tactic of the aggressive
anti-hate movement is to attack. The CAHN website boasts that, “We convinced an Art gallery to Cancel a People’s Party of Canada Event in Winnipeg.” How? Via smear tactics and other ugly de-platforming techniques. But with a large segment
of the Canadian population deeply concerned about current immigration
policy, wildly throwing around claims of “hate” and neo-Nazism at
opponents who merely seek to debate immigration orthodoxies can only
coarsen public discourse.
Naming-and-shaming for thee, but not for me
makes no evident attempt to acknowledge the massive grey area between
hotly debated viewpoints and outright hate. Rather, it actively picks
sides and ignores the consequences. The group flatly bills itself as a “monitor” of “right-wing extremist groups” (and then just white supremacist groups, apparently). Warman has explained his purpose is to create “maximum disruption”
for alt-right organizations. As such, CAHN habitually ignores equally
egregious activity by the far-left. In line with the SPLC, CAHN also
generally avoids attacking the speech or association rights of Muslim or
Sikh extremists, current allies of white liberals.
CAHN’s Perry as well complains about law enforcement agencies’ tendency to distinguish between hate groups and terrorist groups.
To most people, such a distinction might seem clear and reasonable. In
the one category are groups holding strong views that many people might
find distasteful or even awful, but that don’t incite or engage in
violence; in the other are groups planning and/or carrying out attacks.
Perry’s preference, however, is to blur the difference between the two –
thus conflating the holding of views she considers objectionable with
illegal activity aimed at destroying Western society.
presented with evidence of apparent hate-related activity that appears
to meet or exceed the flimsy standards applied against foes such as
Patron, but emanating from the other end of the political or religious
spectrum, CAHN seems unable to rouse itself off the couch, let alone
commit to a full-on anti-hate or doxing campaign. Consider the group’s
surprisingly flaccid response to Islamist activist Jawed Anwar’s plans for an Islamic Party of Ontario.
admitting Anwar espouses the sort of hardline religious views about
gender and homosexuality that CAHN despises when promoted by white
Christian polemicists like Patron or former Ontario Progressive
Conservative leadership candidate Tanya Granic Allen, it brushes off
Anwar as an inconsequential distraction. “There are no indications that
[Islamic Party of Ontario] has any support,” reads CAHN’s Facebook page.
“To make it out to be a significant threat at present time is
fearmongering.” To a principled defender of free speech rights, this
statement could seem reasonable on its face. Coming from CAHN, it is
remarkable for its hypocrisy. If causing a ruckus about idiosyncratic
groups with an insignificant public presence is “fearmongering”, then
CAHN is a banner candidate to be Canada’s fearmonger-in-chief.
CAHN seems equally unconcerned about Canadian branch plant operations of the violent Antifa movement or the overt anti-white prejudice of Black Lives Matter
(BLM). Both organizations are examples of alt-left extremism, no
different in principle from the alt-right groups CAHN seeks to put out
of business, and often far worse in practise. Antifa members are
frequently found assaulting their opponents in messy
counter-demonstrations, while BLM
prefers civil disobedience that often seems to go just slightly too
far, at times resulting in serious physical injuries, including to police officers.
In this area, CAHN’s approach is unlike the SPLC’s, which regularly denounces the violence of these groups (although still keeping them off its extremist list). The CAHN website actively encourages citizens to partner with Antifa in staging counter-demonstrations (which the SPLC specifically advises against). Balgord has also defended its tactics in print despite the movement being accused of domestic terrorism
by the Obama Administration. And with no hint of irony, Balgord
explicitly defends Antifa thugs’ preference for facemasks as a necessary
precaution since it “protects themselves from doxing” − the very tactic
favoured by CAHN against its opponents.
such tendentiousness, Farber and his cohorts’ attempt to position CAHN
as a reliable and objective arbiter of what constitutes hate strains
credulity. When combined with CAHN’s behaviour to date, it is difficult
to envision anyone who stumbles into the organization’s crosshairs
receiving an impartial evaluation.
Section 13 redux
Beyond simply making life difficult for its carefully-curated enemies, CAHN’s broader ambition appears to be establishing itself
in the space vacated by the departed but unlamented Section 13 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act. This notoriously stringent law once barred online speech that “may expose” identifiable groups not just to hatred, but mere contempt. It allowed no
defences with regards to truth, intent or fair comment on matters of
public interest. And not only direct targets but any non-targeted third
party could file a complaint, while the federal human rights commission
only rarely tried to mediate the complaints. This proved to be a big
problem for poor defendants, considering free legal representation was
was thrust into the public eye in 2002 with the arrival of Warman’s
novel strategy to proactively use the legislation to shut down voices he
disapproved of. While the law was intended for the protection of
minority groups, Warman – a white male − was responsible for an
impressive 16 complaints, the most of any individual.
Balgord has defended Antifa’s tactics in print despite the movement
being accused of domestic terrorism by the Obama Administration. And
with no hint of irony, he explicitly defends Antifa thugs’ preference
for facemasks since it “protects themselves from doxing” – a tactic
favoured by CAHN against its opponents.
In some instances, Warman obtained his evidence by provoking extremist statements from obscure online message boards. Sometimes he even posed as a neo-Nazi poster himself, which one tribunal adjudicator later said “diminish[ed] his credibility” and “could have precipitated further hate messages.” Partly because his targets were mostly poor and couldn’t afford legal help, Warman was successful in every case but one. He was awarded tens of thousands of dollars in monetary compensation for the damages he purportedly suffered. As one Huffington Post contributor wryly described Warman: “He’s sacked more peewee quarterbacks than any other NFL linebacker.”
it became apparent that Section 13 was being used as a bludgeon against
free speech in Canada – most notably when three human rights tribunal
complaints were launched against Maclean’s columnist Steyn – public opinion finally shifted against it. A 2008 report
by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon identified it as a
clear threat to legitimate political discourse and recommended it be
year later Warman’s final and only failed Section 13 complaint, against
Internet provocateur Marc Lemire, was famously dismissed when a human
rights tribunal declined to enforce its provisions because it found they
were inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees
of freedom of expression. The section was finally repealed in 2013 by
the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
an attorney early in his career, SPLC co-founder Dees once represented
the Ku Klux Klan and had his bill paid by the White Citizens’ Council in
a case involving the beating of a Montgomery, Alabama Freedom Rider (a
group of civil rights activists who fought segregation). In 1958 Dees
had campaigned for arch-segregationist George Wallace in the Georgia
gubernatorial campaign. According to his former law partner, Millard
Fuller, Dees’ “overriding purpose…[was] making a pile of money.” He
transformed himself into an anti-racism crusader – with the Klan
becoming one of his favourite targets – after discovering it offered an
alternative route to riches via the miracle of direct mail
CAHN has yet
to prove itself as adept at fundraising as the SPLC, which in 2018
generated US$103 million in donations alone. We do know, however, that
CAHN boasts of receiving direct funding and support from its big brother south of the border. And in 2018 Toronto-area businessman Mohamad Fakih made a media splash with a donation of $25,000 to CAHN following a successful defamation lawsuit against his online critics.
now CAHN is facing its own troubling allegations of profiteering from
hate. In February 2019 Elisa Hategan, an anti-racism activist and former
member of an early-90s skinhead group called the Heritage Front, teamed
up with professor and human rights lawyer Yavar Hameed to file a
$200,000 civil claim against CAHN. Farber is also named. The lawsuit
alleges CAHN Advisory Committee member Elizabeth Moore (also a former
Heritage Front member) “fraudulently appropriated several significant
elements of Ms. Hategan’s personal life story in order to boost her own
credentials as a former neo-Nazi and did this to monetize a fraudulent
narrative.” These stolen elements include Hategan’s experience as a
former spokesperson for the Heritage Front and later as a defector who
helped prosecutors bring the group down.
had simply been an unmemorable Heritage Front fellow traveller, says
Hategan. But instead, Hategan claims Moore took credit for a film made
about Hategan’s experiences: 1998’s White Lies. Her
suit alleges that appropriating her “narrative would be an important
method of securing greater publicity, speaking engagements and financial
opportunities for Moore, as well as publicity, consulting and speaking
engagements for Farber.” On top
of this, Hategan alleges that Farber and Moore have disparaged her
publicly in order to cut her out from employment and advocacy
opportunities, maximizing their own in the process. If true, this
wouldn’t exactly be behaviour consistent with an organization “committed
to increasing public awareness about the scourge of ‘hate’ across
Canada.” The civil trial is set to begin in March.
Theatrical vs. substantive advocacy
assuming the mantle of hate-fighter sounds like a heroic exercise in
defending minority rights and rescuing the oppressed, the crusade
embarked upon by the SPLC – with which CAHN, as we’ve seen, openly
associates itself – is criticized even by members of the intellectual
left as a fraudulent exercise. The far-left Nation
magazine has called “anti-hate” advocacy a form of “theatrical” rather
than “substantive advocacy.” If advocates were truly concerned about
minority uplift, its columnist wrote, they should be fighting more
tangible problems like employment and housing discrimination –
practising actual poverty law, in other words − instead of simply “fingering militiamen in a potato field in Idaho.”
the SPLC lost the plot by preferring activities that boosted its
fundraising effectiveness over fighting for tangible improvements in its
alleged clientele’s lives is not a new idea. As long ago as 1988, a
former SPLC staffer admitted to The Progressive
that there were “certainly bigger problems facing blacks and the poor”
than continuing to tackle a now-toothless Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, said
another former staffer, “was such an easy target − easy to beat in
court, easy to raise big money on”, and so it dominated the SPLC’s
attention. Last year, Current Affairs
also argued that the SPLC’s habit of elevating minority rights by
targeting inconsequential right-wing groups continues a “politics of
Even some liberal voices in Canada have expressed concerns about “anti-hate” advocacy and hate speech generally. Former
Liberal Party MP Keith Martin, a doctor of mixed-race background,
fought hard against hate speech restrictions during his nearly 20 years
in Parliament, saying they represented what Canada fought against in the Second World War. Martin noted that
while Canadians have a right to be free from slander, they “do not have
the right to not be offended.” Laws like Section 13 created a “slippery
slope” in that they could be easily politicized and used to simply shut
historian Deborah Lipstadt is against such laws for the same reason.
The criticism seems particularly apt when applied to organized and
powerful groups like the SPLC and CAHN. Refusing to debate or engage
with groups or people they don’t like, and choosing instead to malign
them in the most alarmist terms possible, is to engage in the politics
of spectacle. The same goes for the active use or tacit approval of such
ignominious tactics as de-platforming, doxing, Antifa mobbing and
piling on spurious legal complaints.
Because hate speech charges are so nebulous and problematic, free speech advocate and author Stefan Braun refers
to them as a “packaged idea.” When unpacked, Braun writes, hate speech
allegations are often revealed to be based on “many different reasons
besides the public good, including fear, political expedience, moral
comfort, public approval, or even the ‘bottom line.’” And because it is
so far from a clear concept, the Supreme Court has ruled that “hate
speech” requires intense and highly fact-dependent inquiry. For this
reason, hate-incitement is unique in the Criminal Code in requiring a
province’s attorney-general to personally sign off on any charges.
hate, in other words, is properly regarded as the most complex and
delicate aspect of the entire criminal justice system, balancing as it
does the Charter’s guarantees of “freedom of thought, belief, opinion
and expression” with the Criminal Code’s protection from incitement of
“hatred against any identifiable group.” Given its intricate nature, why
would anyone willingly hand over responsibility for policing hate to a
private group of activists that shows so little interest in the legal,
democratic and social ramifications of the task and openly styles itself
after a badly-tarnished American outfit? And why would so many media
outlets give such an outfit the credibility it craves by treating it as a
reliable and unbiased source of information?
A better and more civil way
looking to reconcile concerns over hate speech in Canadian discourse
with the demands of free expression is advised to reread Moon’s 2008
report on Section 13. Therein, he suggested dealing with problematic
public opinions and statements through engagement rather than
prohibition and punishment. “We must develop ways other than censorship
to respond to expression that stereotypes and defames the members of an
identifiable group,” Moon wrote.
the very least, before attacking someone in public, branding them
“neo-Nazis” or doxing them to reveal their intimate personal details in
hopes someone else will make their life miserable, CAHN should first
define what it means by the labels it employs. And these labels –
hate-mongering, for example – should be applied equally to everyone who
expresses such animus, regardless of race, religion or politics.
Policing hate is properly regarded as the most complex and delicate
aspect of the entire criminal justice system. So why would anyone
willingly hand such responsibility to a private group of activists that
shows so little interest in the legal, democratic and social
ramifications of the task and openly styles itself after a
badly-tarnished American outfit?
a group is identified that meets these equally applied criteria, it
should first be asked to clarify or disavow its impugned statements. If a
disavowal is forthcoming, this could be put on record to, first, credit
the target for its goodwill and, if needed, embarrass the target should
it later recant. If not, those opinions could be met by way of a debate
(in public, online, etc.) and refuted with more and better-quality
speech. As 18th-Century French essayist Joseph Joubert put it, “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”
In addition to lubricating mutual communication and clearing up
potential misunderstandings, both sides might even learn something from
“anti-hate” groups such as CAHN to take such an approach, the public
might be better assured the group was properly concerned with the best
interests of civil society and free speech. Improved transparency with
respect to donors, salaries, and its watch-list of hate groups wouldn’t
John Klein is a business owner in the United States and an advocate for freedom of thought, belief and opinion.
ELISE HATEGAN’S AFFIDAVIT EXPOSES SMEAR ARTIST BEHIND ANTI-RACIST CANADA BLOGSPOT
Elise Hategan was a one-time, short-time member of the White Nationalist Heritage front. She flipped sides, ratted out some of her former associates and became an anti-racist writer, lesbian and now a Jew, in no particular order. She has launched a lawsuit against fellow Heritage Front recruit turned anti-racist Elizabeth Moore, her one-time friend, and Bernie Farber. Hategan and Moore have shopped around their Heritage Front experiences and conversions for a quarter of a century to receptive media and Jewish audiences. Hategan now believes Moore, with the assistance of former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber, has wrongfully appropriated some of her experiences for Moore’s benefit. Along the way, there are some important secrets revealed. Most important is the identity of “Nosferatu 200” the persona behind the online smear sheet Anti-Racist Canada Blogspot. It turns out the smear meister, who has “outed” many people and damaged many people’s lives and reputations in an Alberta grade school teacher, Kurt Phillips. .
An affidavit is a sworn statement. It has not been tested in court. Here’s a quick guide to the Hategan affidavit. 1. Who is Nosferatu 200 who runs Anti-Racist Canada Blogspot? — Kurt Phillips. At Paragraph 320, Hategan explains: “. In my 4 years of friendship with Kurt Phillips and as part of the ARC Collective, I supplied
information (such as names and photos of Heritage Front members), took photos and wrote several
blog pieces that were posted on the ARC blog. I supported the website and Kurt’s sleuthing
activities by providing opinions and verbal/written support whenever necessary. We advised and
confided in each other on numerous occasions, both via email, telephone and in person, and had
conversations that reached far beyond the topic of racism and white supremacy. Kurt also sent me
gifts and care packages on multiple occasions, I sent him one package in return, and he contributed
financially to my book fundraising efforts.”2. Close ties between Bernie Farber and CSIS agent provocateur Grant Bristow , at para 300-305 3. Warren Kinsella’s machination & Elise Hategan, Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Moore, at para. 306-318. 4. ARC’s Kurt Phillips joins Canadian Anti-Hate Network. CAHN helps fund ARC. Richard Warman of CAHN pressures Elise Hategan to remove Twitter references to Phillips’ identity. at para. 326-332. Journalist Keane Bexte who works for Rebel Media identified Phillips as a social studies at St. Anthony Middle School in Drumheller, Alberta.
file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/440516074-Affidavit-of-Elisa-Hategan-Aug21-2019%20(1).pdf Now, that we finally have this sleazy coward’s identity, his dozens of victims — people who, over the years, he’s smeared, mocked, doxed and exposed, people whose lives he’s damaged — should carefully consider their legal options. Phillips likes to say he opposes violence, but the Antifa who gain much of their information from ARC actively practise violence. And, until very recently, both were masked, that is, their identity was disguised and, for very good reason, because, as mother used to say, “they were up to no good.”Oddly enough, I am not demanding that Phillips be fired from his job as a school teacher. I’ve been down that route. In the early 1990s, I was the target of a persistent campaign to have me fired from my position as an English instructor with the Peel Board of Education. There was never any question that I was a competent and effective teacher. Indeed, my Director of Education at the start of the six year ordeal called me “an exemplary teacher.” I did not bring my political views into the classroom. Even an NDP Minister of Education refused to lift my teaching certificate because he KNEW I kept my political and teaching lives separate. In the end, the lobbying pressure became too strong and, in February 1997, I was fired for the non-violent expression on my own time of my support for free speech and my opposition to this country’s catastrophic immigration policies. I was fired because, in the words of my district union leader, “the day after you are fired, the phone calls will stop.” This put a man with a wife and young family in a very difficult financial position. My firing followed closely on the firing of a fellow teacher, a devout Christian gentleman and writer, Malcolm Ross of New Brunswick. After a similar campaign of media demonization and intense lobbying by Jewish groups, he was dismissed for writings critical of Zionism. Needless to say, to, too, never brought his views into the classroom. He’d been hailed as an effective and compassionate teacher of difficult students and Native kids. Thus, I believe a teacher is entitled to a private life and to the expression on his own time of his political views, however reprehensible. Phillips activities on ARC are evil and a disgrace. He was part of the mob that eventually took down (at least temporarily) a satirical and vibrant Christian newspaper YOUR WARD NEWS.So, does he deserve to keep his job. Reluctantly, I say “yes”, if, and this is a big IF, after a through investigation the Catholic school board determines:1. He did not bring his views into the classroom and indoctrinate his young charges;2. He did not use school equipment or his work hours for his work on the ARC website;3. His presence did not create a “poisoned environment” for children from families with less leftist views than his. Drumheller is an intensely conservative area — a stronghold of the old Social Credit Party, years ago, and more recently of the Reform Party and the socially conservative wing of the Conservative Party. Did the children of such parents feel safe and welcome in his classroom. Only a thorough investigation will tell.
It would almost seem as if Bernie Farber is trying to set a world record. That would be the world record for the number of unrelated news stories in which someone who is neither a celebrity nor a world leader appears within a short period of time. In the last half of August he appeared in connection with three stories of which I am aware. Perhaps there are others that I have not seen. He appeared on television and was quoted in the newspapers in connection with the story about a member of the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves who was accused of recruiting for a supposed neo-Nazi organization. He was also quoted in reference to the sentencing of Dr. James Sears who had been found guilty of the promotion of hatred in his satirical Your Ward News. I am sure that few of you will be surprised to learn that rather than lamenting and decrying this latest blow to freedom of thought and expression, as any decent Canadian would, Farber expressed an attitude that struck me as being smug, self-satisfied, cocky, hubristic, and downright arrogant.
The third story is the one that really takes the cake. Grant Hunter is a member of Alberta’s provincial Legislative Assembly and a minister in the province’s government. He holds the portfolio for red tape reduction. I have not checked, but I suspect that Alberta is the only province in the Dominion with such a ministry. Since red tape is generated by bureaucracy, expanding the bureaucracy for the purpose of reducing it seems slightly counterproductive to me, but apparently Mr. Hunter is of another opinion. He has come under criticism for a tweet that said the following:
Wernher von Braun said, “To conquer the universe you’d have to solve two problems: gravity and red tape.” We’ve made it clear that we are committed to reducing red tape in Alberta. Lots more to come.
It is not the part of the tweet in which he toots his own ministry’s horn for which he has been criticized, but for the opening quotation. He removed the tweet after a bunch of triggered snowflakes jumped down his throat. A more appropriate response would have been to tell them to stuff it.
The objection to the quotation is based not upon what it says but upon who said it. Wernher von Braun was a German aerospace engineer – in layman’s terms that means rocket scientist. He turned twenty-one shortly after Adolf Hitler became Germany’s Chancellor in 1933 and in 1937, like any other German in those days who valued his professional career – the philosopher Martin Heidegger and the industrialist Oskar Schindler are other famous examples that come to mind – he joined the Nazi Party. He served the Third Reich in his professional capacity as one of the leading scientists in their rocket development program, and yes, the rockets were designed for military purposes rather than space exploration. Then, following the Reich’s defeat in 1945, he and several others who had worked under him were drafted by the United States government to serve their military in basically the same capacity. It was undoubtedly von Braun who was foremost in legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick’s mind when he made fun of the American government’s recruitment of scientists, engineers, and other technical experts from Nazi Germany in his hilarious 1964 dark comedy Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. However, von Braun served the United States much longer than he served the Third Reich and was essentially the architect of the American space program.
Unlike Bernie Farber, Wernher von Braun was a brilliant scientist who achieved great things, and until very recently the idea that he was tainted with the crimes of the government he worked for at the beginning of his career and that quoting him is some sort of grave moral offense would not have been taken seriously and anyone silly enough to propose it would have found himself laughed to scorn. Sadly, those days are behind us and so we find CBC News reporting on Hunter’s tweet, the silly backlash, and its removal, and sure enough, there is Bernie waiting and ready to toss his two cents in:
“It was an unnecessary quote,” said Bernie Farber, chair of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
“He’s at best a controversial figure. He is for sure a Nazi and … it was silly to quote a man like him. Politicians have to know better,” Farber said. “I just think it shows his [Hunter’s] thoughtlessness.”
Farber, whose organization monitors hate groups, said he doesn’t think people’s concerns about the quote’s use are being overblown. It would have been easy to quote a Canadian economist or another figure on the topic of red tape, he said.
“I just think [Hunter] should acknowledge he should have made a better choice in terms of who to quote and apologize,” Farber said. “That’s always the way forward out of things like this to acknowledge your mistake and move forward.”
Not a single one of these statements is accurate. Von Braun, at his best, was a genius, a pioneer in the field of rocket science, whose work laid the foundation of space exploration and gave subsequent generations a new heroic role model to add to policeman, soldier, and fireman – the astronaut. As for his being a Nazi, it would seem that English verb tenses are not Farber’s strong suit. The present tense is hardly appropriate for someone who has been dead for forty-two years and whose membership in the Nazi Party ended thirty-two years prior to his death. Perhaps Farber holds to a rather twisted version of Calvinism and believes “once a Nazi, always a Nazi.” It was not silly to quote von Braun, what is silly is Farber’s attitude about all of this. There is no indication here of any “thoughtlessness” on Hunter’s part, and there is absolutely no need for him to apologize. Indeed, there is a need for him, Hunter that is, not to apologize, because he is the victim of a form of bullying, and the true way forward in this situation is to refuse to apologize to people who do not deserve an apology and to tell them to take their manufactured offense and blow it out their ears.
If anyone should be apologizing over a quotation it ought to be the news media apologizing to the Canadian public for inflicting so many Bernie Farber quotes on us. By uncritically accepting him as the expert on hate and hate groups that he has appointed himself to be, much as the American media used to do with Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center [sic] before that organization’s reputation finally collapsed under allegations of hypocrisy, shady fundraising, serial defamation, and the like, they have lent him a credibility that in my opinion he does not deserve. Incidentally – or perhaps not, I’ll let readers judge for themselves – when Farber and Evan Balgord founded the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, of which Farber is chairman, last year it was with a start-up grant from the SPLC, and the organization, in a letter to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that was signed by Farber and Balgord, along with two of its board members, said of itself “The organization is modeled after, and supported by, the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the United States.”
I first remember hearing the name Bernie Farber around the turn of the millennium. At the time the Liberal Party, headed by Jean Chretien, had been governing the Dominion since 1993 and their Immigration ministers had been trying to strip several elderly men of their citizenship and deport them. These were men of German and Ukrainian ethnicity, who had fled to Canada as refugees following the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. They had been teenagers during the war and had been forced by the Nazis to serve the German forces in various auxiliary capacities, usually as interpreters but in some cases also as guards. On February 2, 1997, CBS aired an episode of 60 Minutes in which the main segment was entitled “Canada’s Dark Secret.” In this segment Mike Wallace interviewed a private investigator named Steven Rambam who claimed that Canada was a haven for Nazi war criminals. The Liberal government, in response, was trying to project an image of clamping down on Nazi war criminals and since there were no Adolf Eichmanns or Klaus Barbies at hand to prosecute they decided to pick on these men instead. Cheering them on at every turn was the Canadian Jewish Congress, which had hired Rambam and for which Bernie Farber worked as Executive Director for the Ontario Region and National Director of Community Relations. Later Farber was promoted to Chief Executive of the entire organization before it was taken over by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy which soon after renamed itself the Centre for Jewish and Israel Affairs and dissolved the CJC. Farber had also been interviewed by Mike Wallace in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment and in the controversy surrounding the attempted deportations was frequently quoted as supporting the government’s actions.
Peter Worthington, the late, great, founding editor of the Toronto Sun, went to bat for the elderly Ukrainians who were being so unjustly railroaded. He was particularly incensed over the cases of Wasyl Odynsky and Helmut Oberlander. Odynsky had been forced by the SS, during the German occupation of the Ukraine, to serve as a concentration camp guard. The Nazis told him they would kill him if he refused and would kill his family if he ran away. Oberlander, a Ukrainian of German ancestry, was forced by the Nazis to serve as a translator and supply guard for the Einsatzgruppe. Neither man served the Nazis voluntarily, nor was either of them an active participant in the war crimes of the Schutzstaffel. As Worthington put it in his column for April 29, 2001:
Men like Odynsky and Oberlander were victims, too – first of Sovietism which seized their country, then of the Nazis and now of a misguided quest for justice without discretion.
That column, entitled “Ukrainian Teens Were Nazi Victims” was written as a rebuttal of one by Bernie Farber that had appeared the previous day, itself in response to an earlier column by Worthington on the subject. Farber took the position that these men deserved to be deported, because even though they may not have tortured and murdered anyone themselves, their labour as translators and guards – forced labour, remember – enabled those who did commit these crimes. This is a particularly disgusting form of the fallacy of guilt by association and Worthington, quoting from Farber’s column, rightly, in my opinion, said “In my view, that statement by Farber is so wrong, mistaken and out of line, that it inadvertently demeans the Holocaust.”
This would not be the last time Worthington and Farber would lock horns on this subject and while Worthington always got the better of Farber the latter never retreated one iota from his position. In 2012, when Stephen Harper’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney stripped Oberlander of his citizenship – one of many reasons why I have nothing but contempt for the present premier of Alberta – Farber told the Globe and Mail “It matters not if he was a translator or a cook – they were all part of the pirate ship and they helped oil the wheels of genocide.” Earlier this year, when the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the 95 year old Oberlander’s motion to have the fourth (!) revocation of his citizenship overturned, Farber was again all over the news gloating and saying that he hoped the Liberal government would quickly deport him.
My point, if it is not obvious, is that someone who cannot tell the difference between the Nazi thugs who tortured and murdered civilians and kids who were forced by these same thugs to do their bidding, should not be taken seriously when he poses as an expert on Nazis and Nazism. Someone who for over twenty years acts as the head of the cheerleading squad while governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, try repeatedly to denaturalize and deport an elderly man, who has been a law-abiding subject of Her Majesty for his entire adult life, because the unit that he had been forced to serve by the invaders of his country of birth when he was still a teenager were responsible for war crimes, caring neither about the aforementioned difference nor the trauma being inflicted upon this man’s family, has absolutely no business whatsoever lecturing the rest of us about “hate.” When he throws a silly conniption about a government minister quoting the leading American aerospace engineer we should pay him no heed.
Good luck with the Nobel Prize, Bernie, but you can take your silly posturing and blow it out your ear!
The Courage of Leroy St. Germaine & the Arrogance of the Censors
Catch the arrogant free speech enemy Bernie Farber say: “You can’t come here and promote hate.” Leroy St. Germaine is Metis. His family has been here for hundreds of years. In contrast,Farber’s father was among the horde of refugees this compassionate country let in after WW II.
CAFE Calls on Elections Canada to Investigate Bullying & Intimidation Tactics of Canadian Anti-Hate Network Aimed at Registration of a New Populist Party
REXDALE, July 15, 2019. Today the Canadian Association for Free Expression is filing a formal complaint with Elections Canada demanding an investigation into bullying and intimidation of voters by a group of anti-racist extremists calling themselves the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. In July 10 Twitter postings, this group has threatened to publicize the names and addresses of persons who sign up as member of the newly formed populist Canadian Nationalist Party, in order to qualify the party for official recognition as a party in the upcoming October federal election.
In their July 10 statement this group of anti-democratic fanatics stated: “The Canadian Anti-Hate Network will publish the names of 250 members of the neo-Nazi Canadian Nationalist Party if they are successful in becoming a registered political party. We plan to publish these names and their cities of residence as soon as they become public, and will encourage local media to run stories naming neo-Nazi supporters in their communities. … This kind of naming and shaming is part of our mandate of exposing hate groups to make sure communities are well-informed, and to ensure that there are significant, nonviolent social consequences for supporting hate groups.”
“This ugly bullying threat is libellous,” says CAFE Director Paul Fromm. “The Canadian Nationalist Party are traditional Canadians and populists, not National Socialist wannabees. CAHN, who boasts longtime anti-free speech campaigners like Bernie Farber and Richard Warman as board members, seeks to intimidate citizens from their right to vote as they choose.”
CAFE Calls on Elections Canada to Investigate Bullying & Intimidation Tactics of Canadian Anti-Hate Network Aimed at Registration of a New Populist Party
“The list of signators ti register a political party is public ONLY for the purposes of establishing the bona fides of party supporters,” he adds.
In a further tweet, the hitmen of political correctness gleefully anticipate the loss of jobs for people participating in this democratic process. In a July 10 tweet, Canadian Anti-Hate Network Board member Evan Balgord, a former assistant to Toronto’s anti-free speech Mayor John Tory, enthused: “Employer concerns are a natural consequence of supporting a neo-Nazi party. Practically, however, we won’t have the time to research 250 individuals. Local media might. I’d note they can avoid that consequence by emailing Elections Canada and withdrawing their support. – Evan”
Then, as a further to interfere with the secret ballot and the right of citizens to freely choose the party they prefer, the CAHN offers a carrot: “If any of members of the Canadian Nationalist Party want to avoid being named and facing the social consequences of supporting a neo-Nazi party, they can email Elections Canada at firstname.lastname@example.org to withdraw their support.”
The threatening tactics of the CAHN are no different than posting goons armed with clubs outside polling stations reminding voters not to vote the “wrong” way, says Mr. Fromm an activist with 48 years experience battling the forces of censorship and speech constraint in Canada.
Faith Goldy Rejects White Guilt & Explains That Toronto Wasn’t Stolen from the Indians
Faith Goldy sets the record straight. At 24:08, she says: “We are on the tract of land are on the traditional land of the settlers of Upper Canada, formerly known as York, legally purchased from the Mississaugas.” This is a great refutation of the lying guilt mongering intro to this and other public meetings that suggests we stole the land from the Indians.
Taube: Why the ruling against Your Ward News hurts free speech in Canada
Freedom of speech has always been on shaky ground in Canada. While many people claim to support this important right, they often smother it with stringent conditions and restrictions that makes speech anything but free.
In fact, a recent Ontario court ruling produced one of the most damaging blows to free speech ever seen in this country.
On Jan. 24, Judge Richard Blouin ruled that James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine – the editor-in-chief and publisher, respectively, of the controversial free newspaper Your Ward News(YWN) – were guilty of promoting hatred against Jews and women. Although the two men claimed their publication was nothing more than a satirical endeavour, the judge disagreed. “YWN repeatedly and consistently dehumanized Jews and women,” Bouin argued, and the paper’s proprietors “were fully aware of the unrelenting promotion of hate.”
The people who had been pushing for Sears and St. Germaine to be prosecuted, which included Liberal strategists Warren and Lisa Kinsella and Canada Anti-Hate Network chair Bernie Farber, were understandably elated. Farber, in fact, said this was the “kind of verdict that Canadians are going to rejoice in.”
No, they won’t – and they shouldn’t.
To be clear, I agree that Your Ward News is an awful publication. I’ve read it twice and I found the things written about the Kinsellas and others offensive at best.
My main concern, however, is the serious blow to free speech in Canada caused by using the Criminal Code to prosecute real or perceived hate speech.
As I’ve written before, free speech is the defence of ideas that are either objective or objectionable. We must be willing to support views that appear right to us, and tolerate views that seem wrong. This doesn’t mean we’re required to agree with different points of view, but we must always defend a person’s right to make their views heard in a non-violent manner.
Hate speech has always followed the same principle, long before the removal of Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act – which, in my view, was something to cheer about if you truly support free speech.
People living in a liberal democracy are free to hate, whether we like it or not. The laws of our land cannot, should not and must not forbid any individual or group from feeling differently than, or even loathing, another individual or group.
This doesn’t mean we have to agree with other people’s views. We have every right to object to them, but we have to accept that they have the right to speak their minds.
Hence, people are allowed to hold the most vile and repulsive beliefs about any religious, racial or gender group in Canada and beyond. And yes, this includes Jews and women.
The one notable exception is when hate speech evolves from offensive words and personal beliefs, to the act of physical violence. It’s one thing to hate a person or group, but quite another to wish them bodily harm.
This fine line played a role in the first case against Sears and St. Germaine in December. It was based on a passage in the Summer 2017 issue of YWN, which read, in part, “there was the chance that some hothead who cares deeply about me and my family would lose it and do something illegal, like bludgeon the Kinsella’s to death.”
Judge Dan Moore ruled against the Kinsellas because the “plain and ordinary meaning of the words” didn’t constitute a death threat. With respect to the theory of reasonable doubt, Moore correctly said that, “Having considered all of the evidence I am unable to find that the threat to kill interpretation … is even the most likely interpretation, let alone the only reasonable interpretation.”
Hence, the recent court case against Sears and St. Germaine proved a salient point: critiques of hate speech are just as wrong-headed as critiques of free speech. This doesn’t a constitute victory, ladies and gentlemen. Rather, it’s an enormous loss to our personal rights and freedoms.
Free Speech Booted in the Groin at Toronto Library Board
TORONTO, December 11, 2017. Free speech took a hefty jackboot in the groin tonight, as the Toronto Library Board unanimously approved a new pace Rental Policy that will allow staff to deny meeting space to events “likely to promote, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”
The Board had met in private session before the 6:00 p.m. public meeting. It was clear the fix was in and the decision had already been made. In the short discussion that followed four public delegations, the word “unanimous” was heard several times. Indeed, when Chairman Ron Carinci called the question, not a single member of the 12-person Board stood for free speech.
The new policy will allow staff, especially if one of the anti-free speech groups complains, to decide what will be said at a meeting that hasn’t occurred yet and determine whether hate, contempt or discrimination against any of the long list of privileged people “might” occur and, on the basis, deny the booking. Three opponents of free speech spoke as delegations, including Bernie Farber, formerly CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Madi Murariu of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.
I had driven for an hour and 20 minutes on treacherous roads in the Winter’s first snow storm to arrive late but still on time for my presentation — the outline of which is attached.
The Toronto Star (December 11, 2107) reported: ” Paul Fromm was visibly upset when the board voted in favour of the restrictions.
‘I’m very disappointed the board has signed up for censorship and shut down views,’ said Fromm, who is director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.
Police were alerted ahead of what turned out to be a peaceful meeting as a ‘precaution, as we always do when there’s a potentially controversial situation,’ said Ana-Maria Critchley, a library spokesperson.”
Paul Fromm addressing Toronto Library Board
In the short non-debate, board members did much virtue signalling and several breathlessly proclaimed: “Free speech does not translate into hate speech.” as if they’d dreamed up this non sequitur on their own.
John, a long-time free speech and CAFE supporter noted sadly that libraries used to be in the forefront of the fight against censorship and that the word “hate” has been hijacked and is meaningless. It is used to smear any idea the user does not like.
Bernie Farber, a persistent opponent of free speech for decades, told his “I was a poor little Jewish boy being bullied in Ottawa and found safety in the library” story. He now says he’d feel unsafe in a library that allows people whose views he opposes to meet.
So, apparently to comfort the snowflake, any meetings that “might” promote “hate” or even “contempt” must be silenced. I tried to point out to the Board that “contempt” really is just negative criticism.
It was clear from the short discussion that the rental policies had been reviewed after intense lobbying from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which also, incredibly, was consulted in the drafting of the new gag rules. Needless to say, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was not contacted. But then, this was never about freedom; it was really about limiting speech in buildings we all pay for.
One Board member exulted: “The Toronto Public Library will be an oasis from hate and discrimination” and, it might be added, from the free expression of ideas.
Tonight free speech in Toronto took a hit. Snowflakes and censors, 1; free thinkers, 0! — Paul Fromm
PRESENTATION TO TORONTO LIBRARY BOARD AGAINST PLANS TO IMPOSE POLITICALLY CORRECT RULES TO PREVENT MEETINGS
The enemies of free speech, the usual suspects — the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith, Bernie Farber, Warren Kinsella and the street thugs of the Antifa raised a huge ruckus in July to try to shutdown CAFE’s memorial for free speech lawyer Barbara Kulazska. The Library hung tough. the meeting proceeded without a hitch. However, the Library was clearly spooked and promised to “review” its policies. The review goes to the Library Board tonight. It is a vile document of cloying political correctness which would let staff deny a booking on the mere suspicion that remarks might expose a group or person to “contempt”; that is, criticism. Here is the presentation I shall giver.
Presentation to the Toronto Library Board by Frederick Paul Fromm – December 11, 2017
1. The Toronto Library Board is considering revisions to its Community and Event Space Rental Policy What concerns us are changes to the Denial of Use Section of the Policy.
“The Purpose section has been revised to add language about the Library’s objectives of providing equitable access to services and maintaining a welcoming supportive environment free from discrimination and harassment.
· The Denial of Use sections 4.4 (a) and 5.4(a) both state much more strongly that room bookings will be denied or cancelled when the Library reasonably believes the purpose of the booking is likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.
· Under the same Denial of Use sections 4.4(b) and 5.4(b), violations of the Criminal Code of Canada (including hate propaganda laws) and the Ontario Human Rights Code are specifically referenced as unacceptable.”
2. First, the Toronto Public Library is not a private club. It belongs to all citizens and should be open to use, including rental of rooms for meetings, to all citizens, without discrimination, if for no other reason than all taxpayers pay for it.
3. It is fair to ask persons renting facilities to be aware that they must obey the law, including the Criminal Code and various bylaws. Thus, for instance, a smokers’ rights group should be able to rent a room for a meeting, but, if they announced, they would stage a smoke-in to dramatize their views, it would make sense to deny the booking.
4. People renting Library facilities must be responsible to their own words and actions. Staff should not have to try to guess what their words or actions might be.
5. In renting meeting space, the Library is not condoning or supporting any point of view, any more than having a book on the shelves means the library endorses the book’s conclusions. Clearly, the library contains many books with wildly different views on a given subject.
6. The revised policy is saddling staff with an impossible task — to decide, in advance, of an event, what will be said at that event and whether words that haven’t yet been uttered are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”
* “Promotion of hatred” is a bogeyman. No person or group who has rented Toronto Public Library facilities has, to our knowledge, ever been charged or convicted of “hate”; that is, Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This is a restrictive policy seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.
* But, it’s not just “hatred” but contempt that is being prohibited. “Contempt” is a very broad term, meaning dislike of a negative opinion of. It is hard to see how any criticism based on “race, religion, gender orientation or political affiliation or any of the other mentioned grounds” could pass muster. Suppose someone wrote a book entitled Mike Harris 20 Years Later. If the book repeated some of the common criticisms of the time — that Mike Harris balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and squeezed the education system — and if the author were to speak about his book at a meeting, might is not be likely that the meeting would promote contempt of Mr. Harris because of his political affiliation and, therefore, should be cancelled?
* “Contempt” was included in the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act but was repealed by Parliament in 2013. It is overly broad and basically chills any criticism on a whole range of topics.
* One wonders what “any other similar factor” might be.
7. This policy could lead to the banning of all sorts of meetings dealing with contentious topics. It is an affront to free speech, especially as it involves subjective “prior restraint” which is a violation of Canadians’ basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
7. This policy is a reaction to an organized campaign by censorship minded groups and individuals who protested a memorial to a lawyer who represented controversial clients. these groups took the view that, because they disagreed with Barbara Kulazska’s clients, her friends and admirers should not be allowed to meet to remember her. The Library did the right thing in permitting that memorial to proceed.
8. In October, C-FAR Books sought to book a meeting for a talk by Victor Fletcher, editor and publisher of Toronto Street News. We were turned down on October 3 and informed: “ Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation.” This decision was unreasonable and outrageous. Neither the individual or group involved in the booking or Mr. Fletcher or Toronto Street News has ever been charged, let alone convicted under Sec. 319. We fear that this censorship is a harbinger of what will happen should the Board adopt this new policy.
9. We fear the hecklers’ veto. If an organized lobby makes enough noise in trying to shut down a meeting of people they don’t like, the new policy is so broad that it gives staff the power to shut down any gathering more controversial than the Rosedale Orchid Society.
10. The policy contains no independent appeals process against the denial of a room booking. This is especially important as staff decisions may be made only on the basis of accusations or allegations made by groups or individuals seeking to get a meeting cancelled.
10. May we suggest a truly inclusive, open door policy. Any person or group, who is a taxpayer, should be able to rent a meeting room, if available. They are made aware that they are responsible for their own conduct and for obeying all relevant laws. The community should be informed that the library follows a free speech policy. Meetings will not be cancelled because the speakers or topics are controversial.
11. The proposed policy will not buy peace but will embolden those who have no tolerance for views critical of their own group or ideology to try to shut down groups or speakers to whom they object.