Tag Archives: Marc Lemire

Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13

Posted on by
Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13

TORONTO, November 14, 2013. The now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be found to be unconstitutional, as well, Marc Lemire, victim of a 10-year long battle with Richard Warman, argued this morning. Supported by interveners, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Barbara Kulaszka, Mr. Lemire’s erstwhile lawyer insisted: The Canadian Human Rights Act “was a statute designed to help little people against big government or corporations, but the Act’s Sec. 13 has hit little people having a beer and posting on the Internet.” Three Federal Court of Appeals judges reserved and retired to mull over their opinion

“The fact Parliament has repealed Sec. 13 should be taken into account,” Miss Kulaszka argued. Before penalties, now ruled unconstitutional were added in 1998, and, until Parliament, in 2001, legislated that Sec. 13 applied to the Internet, this section was largely unused. Interestingly, she added, “it has been used primarily by one man (Richard Warman), a White male, not the minorities” it was said to protect.”

In almost every case, “Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission had joint submissions and always wanted penalties” assessed against the victims. In Mr. Lemire’s case, they originally sought a $7,500 penalty.”

Sec. 13, she argued, “is an anomaly within the Canadian Human Rights Act.” Most complaints under other sections of the Act result in settlements. “Until the Lemire case, there was a 100 per cent conviction under Sec. 13.” The Act, she added, “was designed to help little people against government or Crown corporations. However, Sec. 13 hits little people having a beer and posting their ideas on the Internet.”

Mr. Warman, she reminded the three judges hearing the appeal, never contacted Mr. Lemire about the Freedomsite message board that he complained about. By the time Mr. Lemire was served with the complaint, the message board had already been taken down. “The message board was taken down in early 2004. The complaint came in March 2004,” but proceeded nonetheless.

Mr. Lemire took down all six specific articles in the Warman complaint. “I wrote to the Commission and said all the impugned articles had been removed, but I received no reply,” Miss Kulaszka recalled. “Instead they started hunting for more material.”

The Internet, she explained, “is very different from a telephone answering machine.” Telephone messages were the original target of Sec. 13. “Accusations of ‘hate’ carry incredible stigma. It is not the equivalent in the public eye of the accusation your business failed to provide a ramp for the handicapped,” she added.

“The Internet is loved by the people but feared by the courts. Maybe, it’s generational. The Internet is empowering and people can talk back. Perhaps, Karen Mock testifying for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith in this matter put it best when she said education was the best way to fight ‘hate.'”

Sec. 13 should be ruled unconstitutional so that “ordinary people can self publish on the Internet, argue back and forth, and not have to have a lawyer present,” she concluded.

Barclay Johnson, a Victoria lawyer, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, reminded the appeals judges that, in their ruling on Keegstra and Taylor (which upheld the old version of Sec. 13), “the Supreme Court of Canada did not have the benefit of expert scientific evidence” that was led in the Lemire case “which discredited the scientific justification for ‘hate laws’; namely, the supposed dire effects on minorities of so-called “hate propaganda.”

CAFE’s lawyer Barclay Johnson of Victoria

The Court relied on Frederick Kaufman’s “basically Freudian analysis. His report had formed part of the Cohen Report on Hate Propaganda.” In this case, the defence led the expert evidence of Dr. Michael Persinger who exposed “the inaccurate methodology of Kaufmann. Persinger said:’I don’t use terms like ‘hate’. I use the tem ‘aversive stimuli. ‘Hate’ is a subjective term or label. The term ‘hate’ is arbitrary and highly subjective. Persinger’s evidence was not available to the Supreme Court in reaching their recent decision in Whatcott. The psychological field has changed,” Mr. Johnson added. The Court had relied on what we now know to be junk science.

Mr. Lemire’s Freedomsite “was not a public communication. Someone had to go looking for it. Mr. Warman wasn’t just walking down the street and saw the Freedomsite. In Crooks and Newton, the Supreme Court found that people using a hyperlink are involved in a private conversation. Hyperlinks are like a reference to material. They indicate that something exists,” he explained, “but you have to make the choice to go and call it up. Mr. Warman went looking for evidence of ‘hate’. That method of getting information is private. In this case, Mr. Warman was going to websites in order to be offended,” he added. “Mr. Warman did not go to a Canadian website but to one {the Freedomsite] hosted in the U.S.”

Concluding, Mr. Johnson said, “for Mr. Lemire to be responsible for everything uploaded to a website outside the country is unfair.”

Predicting the outcome of the appeal is perilous but the three presiding justices seemed to perk up when the two very pale lawyers — are there no Negro attrorneys? — speaking on behalf of the African Canadian Legal Clinic extolled the importance of penalties (which Judge Mosley had ruled unconstitutional).

We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!

Posted on by
We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then,  Royal Assent.
Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially,  unconstitutional.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels.
We usually don’t quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? [“Call Susie for a good time — 403 -777-7777” “No, Susie is no fun.”]
However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:
“And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there’s nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.
Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we’ll see how things play out.”
The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality — minus the financial penalties — of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government — NDP, Liberal? — might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don’t kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Photo: We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed! Dear Free Speech Supporter: Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then, Royal Assent. Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially, unconstitutional. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We usually don't quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? ["Call Susie for a good time -- 403 -777-7777" "No, Susie is no fun."] However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes: "And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there's nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case. Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we'll see how things play out." The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality -- minus the financial penalties -- of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government -- NDP, Liberal? -- might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don't kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION To: mailto:h******* Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304 Dear Sir, I did. The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given Royal Assent. Thanks for your concern for free speech. Yours, Dennis Patterson Senator for Nunavut

Here’s to free speech! I deeply regret my old comrade
Doug Christie did not live to see this important victory.
To: mailto:h*******
Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304
 
Dear  Sir,
I did.
The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given  Royal Assent.
Thanks for your concern for free  speech.
Yours,
Dennis Patterson Senator for  Nunavut

Arthur Topham Explains the Origins of Sec. 13 (Now Internet Censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Posted on by
Arthur Topham Explains the Origins of Sec. 13 (Now Internet Censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Political dissident and free speech warrior Arthur Topham, relying on research done by lawyer Barbara Kulazska and Marc Lemire provides a tidy summary of the repressive Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Marc Lemire is fighting to have ruled unconstitutional before the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE has backed Mr. Lemire’s decade-long battle against a complaint by Richard Warman and is intervening on his behalf in the Federal Court fo Appeal.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Here   in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their   surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then   Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by   Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor,   began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of   speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair   comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full   history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )

Photo: Arthur Topham Explains the Origins of Sec. 13 (Now Internet Censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act Political dissident and free speech warrior Arthur Topham, relying on research done by lawyer Barbara Kulazska and Marc Lemire provides a tidy summary of the repressive Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Marc Lemire is fighting to have ruled unconstitutional before the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE has backed Mr. Lemire's decade-long battle against a complaint by Richard Warman and is intervening on his behalf in the Federal Court fo Appeal. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html ) According to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.” This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.” In 1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate messages” was Section 13 which read: 13. (1) 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. As Lemire goes on to state: “Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as the complainants. Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13. These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views. The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000. On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’ According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.” The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.] This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat terrorism.’”

According   to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was   looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally   regulated services.”  This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous   sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other   section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the   Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in   an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John   Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.”

In   1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of   Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate   messages” was Section 13 which read:

13.   (1) 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.

As   Lemire goes on to state:

“Only   a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and   John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights   Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian   Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as   the complainants.

Since   the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13.    These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation,   and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish   those with politically incorrect views.

The   first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent   was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to   the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to   the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights   Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000.  On top of the   fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose   penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’

According   to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a   response to the rising incidence of hate   crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger   measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from   establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this   by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting   offenders to financial penalty.”

The   second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September   11th 2001.  Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically   incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and   concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 –    Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover    “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the   Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights   Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the   Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.]

This   change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat   terrorism.’”

Mississauga Realtor Fired for Circulating Pro-family Views

Posted on by

Mississauga Realtor Fired for Circulating Pro-family Views

Mix in a real estate agent who cites a U.S. study about some ill effects of children being raised by a same sex couple, add a snarly former school teacher who is shocked and appalled and complaints to the local newspaper, the police, the human rights commission and, perhaps, even dear Abby and what do you get? A little community controversy?

 No, not in these mean, politically correct times. The real estate agent is fired. The RE/MAX giant his former employer is running scared and  takes out a huge, grovelling ad “to apologize for the inappropriate communication.” [There’s that vague  catch-all, politically correct term.] “RE/MAX does not tolerate any form of discriminatory behaviour.” (Mississauga News, May 8, 2013)The agent in question expressed an opinion in a flyer distributed to  advertise his services. The only “discriminatory behaviour” was RE/MAX’s firing of this man.

The Mississauga News (May 8, 2013) reported: ” A City Centre real estate agent has been fired for distributing a controversial flyer to residents in Lorne Park and Port Credit earlier this week. RE/MAX Realty One sales agent Andrew Ciastek was let go this afternoon in the wake of publishing what many residents view as homophobic material in a recent newsletter.  
On Wednesday, the Sussex Centre realtor said he will issue a formal apology and make a donation to a local charity of RE/MAX’s choosing. ‘We cannot and will not tolerate any form of discriminatory behaviour,’ said Christine Martysiewicz, director of internal and public relations for RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada. …   The piece in question was a research study saying that unemployment is three times higher among offspring of homosexual couples than those of heterosexual couples.  The study was conducted by Mark Regnerus, a Texas University sociology professor. The flyer cites the report as having been originally published in Social Research Science, although Ciastek says he found it in a copy of Polish .Jon McDonald who lives in the Lorne Park area is just one of the residents up in arms over a "traditional family" article in the home-delivered flyer of a local ReMax agent.
Busybody Complainer and Former Schoolteacher Jon McDonald cost a man his job.
 RE/MAX has been working with Peel Regional Police’s Hate Crime Division and has been informed that no charges will be laid against Ciastek. Lorne Park resident Jon McDonald contacted The News when he saw the flyer Tuesday and filed complaints with RE/MAX, Peel   ‘It’s just not right,’ said McDonald, a retired elementary school teacher  said.”
The Toronto Star (May 2, 2013) reported: “Andrew Ciastek, a sales representative for RE/MAX, distributed the flyers — which said ‘traditional family is the best for the future of the kids’ — to hundreds of homes in the Port Credit and Lorne Park neighbourhoods. ‘I didn’t want to offend anybody . . . I didn’t have bad intentions,’ Ciastek said. Ciastek also told the Star he will apologize ‘because I understand some people were very hurt. It is the right thing to apologize.’”
Of course, intent means nothing to the politically correct. Only the words matter. A privileged minority “might” be offended. Mr. Ciastek should not have offered to apologize, unless he really didn’t believe what he’d written. Why should he apologize for his views.
Notice, as well, that it’s not the science cited by Mr. Ciastek that RE/MAX criticizes, only that he said anything critical of a privileged minority. Truth does not matter.
We have warned that the promoters of the homosexual agenda are one of the biggest threats to free speech in Canada. Christians and people of all faiths who uphold the traditional view of the family beware. The homosexual agenda of silencing critics has claimed another victim: Marc Lemire, Bill Whatcott and now Andrew Ciastek.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Posted on by

 

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts

 

 

Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals

and against a lifetime gag order at the “Human Rights” Tribunal

 

 

In what has become more and more typical in Canada’s repressive thought control regime, the Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed the stay motion filed by Marc Lemire.  The stay motion was seeking a short reprieve to allow the court to actually rule on Canada’s draconian shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. 

 

To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you’re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you … but hey this is CanaDUUH.  Sentence first, then we’ll see if the laws ok later.

 

The Ruling:

 

 In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression.  While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom’s enshrines freedom of expression as a “fundamental right”, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as “freedom of speech is an American concept”.  As crazy as that is, that’s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.

 

The Justice found that “the appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal”  Gee,  even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS* a violation of our freedom of expression.  How hard is it to really believe that if the “Human Rights” Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won’t cause “irreparable harm”. And this is not just a hypothetical … the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders / speech bans.

 

The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre.  The “Justice” that writes that “…there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in…”  Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate?

 

This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for “Pre-Crimes” before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada… where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?

 

“Under section 13, citizens are subject to lifetime speech bans–not in the Soviet Union, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Canada. Section 13 prosecutes not crimes but pre-crimes, crimes that have not yet taken place. The phrase “pre-crime”, by the way, comes from a dystopian science fiction story written by Philip K. Dick in 1956. Half a century later, in one of the oldest, most stable democratic societies on the planet, we’re living it…”

  Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

Even if we were to follow the Judges “logic”, what exactly would/could Marc Lemire have even put in an affidavit about his future thoughts?  It may take up to six months for a ruling on if the law is even legitimate, how does anyone know exactly what they are going to say, weeks or months in advance? 

 

Unlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future. The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might “expose” someone to “hatred” and/or “contempt”. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future.

 

Two-Front – Maximum Disruption Campaign

 

After nine years of fighting Marc Lemire, the CHRC must have realized that he is not going to give up very easily.  So they took a page out serial Section 13 complainers handbook; Richard Warman’s “Maximum Disruption”.  The basic strategy of “Maximum Disruption” is to hit your enemies on as many fronts as possible, and that’s exactly what the CHRC has done.

 

Marc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional.  And at the same time, in front of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!)

 

The CHRC is hoping that Lemire’s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases.  This is why we desperately need your help.

 

 

Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought

 

All of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved, reformed or tinkered with.  The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it.

 

The end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: to Silence Thought.  That’s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them, they keep spending and spending.  After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial “politically incorrect” opinions on the internet? 

 

It’s just easier to self-censor yourself, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment.  And that’s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced.  The censors undertake ‘impact prosecutions’ and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary.

 

 

“Now what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone’s right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows? All in all it’s much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers.”

John Robson | Ottawa Citizen

“Self-censorship? Me? Absolutely!”

Dec 14, 2007

 

Take a look at the Marc Lemire case.  This is the 9th year of fighting the censors … all because he posted a SINGLE document on his website, that he didn’t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States.  As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again. 

 

That made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the “Human Rights” Commission – in their parting “F*ck You” to freedom – continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire. 

 

As a notable freedom fighter would say: disgusting!

 

 

Here is a copy of the full ruling by the Federal Court:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 13 is at odds with this country’s entire legal inheritance, stretching back to Magna Carta. Back then, if you recall–in 1215–human rights meant that the king could be restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, Canada’s pseudo-human rights apparatchiks of the commission have entirely inverted that proposition, and human rights now means that the subjects get restrained by the crown in the cause of so-called collective rights that can be regulated only by the state.

 Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

 

 

 

Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”

Posted on by
Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”
TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.
Challenging Canada’s Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: “Why can’t there be ‘anti-Semitism?’ Anti-Christianity is rampant. There’s a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam.”
Under Canadian law, he noted, “you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion.” He noted that some years ago he was called “a perverted monster” for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. “A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment,” he explained.
 
“Opinions should be allowed,” Mr., Christie said. “Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself”
Photo: Doug Christie Addresses CAFE'S Christmas Gathering -- "Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime" TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience. Challenging Canada's Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: "Why can't there be 'anti-Semitism?' Anti-Christianity is rampant. There's a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam." Under Canadian law, he noted, "you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion." He noted that some years ago he was called "a perverted monster" for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. "A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment," he explained. "Opinions should be allowed," Mr., Christie said. "Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself" "Truth will offend," the Battling Barrister noted. "Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?" There's low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. "If you disagree, why not debate him. If we're not free to debate, what are our brains for?" he asked. "A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding." In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, "the complaint of 'discrimination' does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals," he explained. "But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: 'You've offended me. So, I'm taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'" Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is "a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced 'diversity' where people don't have a common understanding." But we're not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we'll go to court and academics and 'experts' at great expense will talk about 'human rights,' but what they practise is really tyranny," he said. "We've delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality." "We're seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate 'lifestyle' to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief," he charged. Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says "context" is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to "marry" two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual "marriage" violates his faith. "He belongs to the state," Mr. Christie concluded. The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, "the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it's all too complicated." But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women, Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case -- the constitutional challenge to the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13 but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: "It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13's extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you've expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias." Mr. Justice Mosley "is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36," an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "Now he's adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting" and which he assured the media was constitutional. Indeed, "Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley," he added. In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: "The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don't think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!"

 
“Truth will offend,” the Battling Barrister noted. “Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?” There’s low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. “If you disagree, why not debate him. If we’re not free to debate, what are our brains for?”  he asked. “A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding.”
 
In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, “the complaint of ‘discrimination’ does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals,” he explained. “But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: ‘You’ve offended me. So, I’m taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'”
Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is “a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced ‘diversity’ where people don’t have a common understanding.” But we’re not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we’ll go to court and academics and ‘experts’ at great expense will talk about ‘human rights,’ but what they practise is really tyranny,” he said. “We’ve delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality.”
“We’re seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In  Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate ‘lifestyle’ to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief,” he charged.
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says “context” is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to “marry” two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual “marriage” violates his faith. “He belongs to the state,” Mr. Christie concluded.
The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, “the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it’s all too complicated.” But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women,
Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case — the constitutional challenge to  the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13  but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: “It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13’s extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you’ve expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias.” Mr. Justice Mosley “is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36,” an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. “Now he’s adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting” and which he assured the media was constitutional.
Indeed, “Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley,” he added.
In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: “The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don’t think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!”

 

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

Posted on by

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

A Bitter Grudging Partial Victory in Lemire Case

 In a long awaited decision in the Marc Lemire Internet case, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley delivered his long awaited judgement, October 2, 2012. Judge Mosley should never have been seized with this case. He should have recused himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. As a lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was the point man shepherding through amendments to various pieces of legislation, including Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was now worded to specifically hand over control of the Internet to the Human Rights Commission thought police. He strongly assured MPs that this legislation was constitutional. Now, wearing his since acquired judge’s robes, he’s being asked to rule that his baby is unconstitutional. Potential bias? Potential conflict? You bet.

Hamilton webmaster (The Freedomsite) Marc Lemire was one of Richard Warman’s most prominent victims. He was hit with a complaint by Richard Warman in 2003 for postings on the

 

Freedomsite


Then, began a six year legal battle. Mr. Lemire not only fought the complaint on the merits but also challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13. He was joined by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and Doug Christie’s Canadian Free Speech League.

Impressive evidence was introduced and witnesses led. The dirty tricks, or at least some of them, of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission were exposed. We learned that the chief investigator or Internet “hate” a blind man named Dean Steacy put no weight on freedom of speech investigations as “free speech is an American concept.” The very science on which Sec. 13 was based was challenged. The sorry history of Sec. 13 — a 100% conviction rate — was exposed.

On September 2, 2009, in a landmark decision Athanasios Hadjis essentially ruled Sec. 13 unconstitutional, albeit on annoyingly narrow grounds. In 1990, by a narrow 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13 on the basis that, while it did restrict free speech, it was essentially remedial, not punitive. However, in 1998, a range of fines and financial penalties was introduced. On this basis, Mr. Hadjis acquitted Mr. Lemire on all but one charge — an article about Negroes and AIDS — refused to apply a penalty and essentially declared Sec. 13 to be unconstitutional as it was no longer “remedial.”

We’d have liked to have  seen it thrown out on more substantial grounds, Still, a victory is a victory. Within a month the Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review (appeal) its humiliating defeat. After two years of legal jockeying and tens of thousands of dollars spent by those promoting free speech, the appeal was heard in Federal Court, December 13, 2011 by Judge Mosley. On June 4, well before he rendered his decision, the House of Commons repealed Sec. 13. One might think the judge would simply deliver the coup de grace and put this totalitarian piece of repression out of its misery.

However, Judge Mosley saved his hobby horse. He maintained in the fact of all evidence that Sec. 13 was constitutional and an acceptable denial of free speech. However, the financial penalties are unconstitutional. Marc Lemire is to be sent back to the Tribunal for sentencing. And to add insult to injury, chronic complainer Richard Warman who chose to make this mischief is to be paid for writing his legal brief and for attending the appeal.

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to;

a.issue a declaration that the publication of the article “AIDS Secrets” by the respondent Marc Lemire constituted a breach of s 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act ; and

b. for determination of whether a remedy for the breach is to be imposed under ss 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Act;

2. It is declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;

3. The respondent Richard Warman is awarded costs for the preparation of his record and his out of pocket disbursements for attendance at the hearing against the respondent Marc Lemire.

The decision is rife with errors. Here are just a few.

One of the key arguments advanced by Mr. Lemire and especially promoted by CAFE was that the justification for Sec. 13 (and, indeed, for upholding the “hate law”, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) that the Supreme Court bought in 1990 was based on bad science.  Frankly, it was “theoretical” nonsense back then, but neuropsychology has made huge inroads and shown us how the human brain reacts. the science they accepted in 1990 is now junk. This is how it goes: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a smoke and mirror job of Indian giving. We are promised all these rights — free speech, freedom of belief, etc. Then,  comes the weasel clause, “subject only to such restrictions as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Thus, if Parliament or a provincial legislature has a good goal in mind and, to achieve the goal restricts your rights, that’s alright as long as the restrictions accomplish the goal and are not excessive. In the case of Sec. 13, the Supreme Court accepted that “hate speech” had a bad effect on society. This was all based on a 1965 report by an obscure University of Toronto psychology professor Harry Kaufmann. He argued that minorities were made fearful by “hate speech”, that they tended not to want to be themselves and that they withdrew from society and, at the extreme end, abused drugs or alcohol. This being so, Parliament, the Court held, was right to suppress “hate speech.” Common sense and every day observation tell us that that’s not the way groups respond when they are criticized, even extravagantly. Professor Michael Persinger, led as an expert witness at the Lemire tribunal, sank the scientific ship holding afloat the Supreme Court’s justification of repression. Persinger testified that Kaufmann was wrong. On being confronted with “aversive language” (“hate speech” is a loaded term, Persinger testified), minorities either  scoff at the comments and reject them or become angry and want to argue or refute them. Neither reaction is a harm to society. In fact, both are positive.  So, in fact, beyond a few wounded feelings “hate speech” causes no harm to society. There goes any justification for Sec. 13 This was a key argument.

At paragraph 78, Judge Mosley states:  “Most of the interested parties agree that the objectives of s 13, the suppression of hate speech and the promotion of equality, are pressing and substantial. Only Mr. Lemire and the CFSL appear to take issue with that proposition. Neither, in my view, have  [sic] submitted any valid argument as to why the objective of s 13 is not pressing and substantial and why this Court should depart from Taylor on that point.” Well, actually the Canadian Association for Free Expression forcefully challenged the objectives of Sec. 13 in suppressing “hate speech.” One wonders in despair whether Judge Mosley even read our submissions or heard our lawyer’s summation.

The learned judge continued:  “Lemire further questions the legitimacy of the finding in Taylor,  that hate speech can cause substantial psychological stress, arguing that the Supreme Court relied not on expert evidence, such as he presented to the Tribunal, but on extrinsic research, to reach that conclusion. (para 80)  The judge will not let his legal baby go: “Notwithstanding the recent legislative effort to repeal s 13, I have no difficulty concluding that the objective of the enactment continues to be substantial and pressing.” (para 87) Nonsense. So, as he sees it, Parliament was wrong.

Finally, Judge Mosley all but admits that the purpose of Sec. 13 is not to suppress “hate speech” but to silence a particular political ideology: “Apart from the technology, there is little to choose between Taylor’s callers and like-minded individuals looking for confirmation of their views on a white supremacist web site. And the suggestion that they are open to countervailing views cannot be taken seriously. “(para 94) The judge rejects evidence from several witnesses that the Internet is far more interactive and functions very differently from a telephone answering machine.

So, should this judgement stand, Marc Lemire would be assessed a penalty, likely a “cease and desist order”, a lifetime gag, despite the fact that the law has been repealed by the House of Commons! To add insult to injury, he’d have to pay tormentor Richard Warman for Warman’s costs in preparing his submission and his costs in travelling to the hearing from Ottawa. Warman has an uncanny way of persecuting people and still getting paid to do so. Finally, Sec. 13, until its repeal is passed by the Senate, could, theoretically be used to persecute others with the temerity to criticize privileged minorities on the Internet. Yes, on the good side, the financial penalties are gone. The Mosley decision MUST be appealed.

On October 30, Marc Lemire filed “Notice of Appeal.” On November 12, the Canadian Association for Free Expression filed notice that it wished to support Marc as an intervener in the appeal.

Canadian Dissident Jailed for One Month Definite, 6 More Months If He Doesn’t Remove Postings

Don’t let them tell you Canada is a free country. Next time some earnest do gooder reminds you of the fate of dissidents in Red China or Burma or Cuba, be sympathetic but remind him or her that Canada has no reason to be self-righteous. Our courts are quite happy to jail dissidents and gag opinion on the Internet, especially where the dissident has criticized powerful privileged groups. In China, if you criticize the powerful Communist Party, they send your impertinent butt to jail. In Canada, if you criticize privileged minorities, as has scholar and dissident Terry Tremaine, they fling your dissident self in prison.

What’s the difference?

Terry Tremaine, a scholar and blogger, is headed to prison for a month. Should he not remove dozens of postings or his website and request STORMFRONT.ORG to remove dozens more, he’ll spend a further six months in jail. To add insult to injury, just as in Red China at the height of the madness of the cultural Revolution, where “counter-revolutionaries” were send a bill for the bullet to execute them, Terry Tremaine, who is penniless, must pay the Commission’s costs for this sentencing hearing and the disbursements of chronic complainant Richard Warman who chose to participate.  Terry Tremaine instructed his lawyer to appeal this sentence. To all the naive folks listening to those TV ads about the 30th Anniversary of the Charter: Do you still think your rights are protected? Not if you cross politically powerful and privileged minorities.

 

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

 

Now, the Thought Police Are After Ezra Levant for Criticisms of Gypsies

“Hate laws” exist to shield privileged groups from criticism and to shut down or stifle debate on key topics, like immigration. Back in the 1930s, the Canadian Jewish Congress began lobbying mightily for “hate” laws. Finally, in 1970, thanks to socialist Pierre Trudeau, they succeeded and we got Canada’s notorious “hate law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. The latest potential victim is Ezra Levant, himself Jewish but no admirer of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Levant is a lawyer, writer and news commentator on Sun News television.
The delightful thing about “hate laws” is that a privileged minority can holler “hate” and now their critic becomes the object of attack. It’s an old sleazy lawyer’s trick: accuse the accuser. The neat thing is, by whooping up this noise about “hate”. the privilege group avoids having to answer or refute the criticism or deal with unflattering facts because the mere mention of these facts is “hate.” The Toronto Star (October 24, 2012) reported:” A complaint about broadcaster Ezra Levant’s rant that likened Gypsies to ‘swindlers’ has prompted a Toronto police investigation. Toronto’s Roma Community Centre, which has called the rant overtly racist, prejudicial, and demeaning,’ lodged the complaint with police on Oct. 11. Const. Wendy Drummond confirmed Toronto police had received the complaint and were investigating the comments aired on Levant’s Sun News show, The Source, on Sept. 5.

An Oct. 15 statement from Roma Community Centre executive director Gina Csányi-Robah described Levant’s comments as “nearly nine minutes of on-air racist hate-speech targeting our community.” Early in Levant’s segment, “The Jew vs. the Gypsies,” he likened Gypsies with ‘swindlers,’ and said ‘too many have come here as false refugees.’ Levant attempted to qualify his comments by saying politically correct terms are being used to obscure the truth. Csányi-Robah said called the comments “one of the longest and most sustained on-air broadcasts of hate-speech against any community in Canada that we’ve witnessed since our organization was established in 1997.”

Levant argued: “‘These are gypsies,’ he tells us, ‘a culture synonymous with swindlers. The phrase gypsy and cheater have been so interchangeable historically that the word has entered the English language as a verb: he gypped me. Well the gypsies have gypped us. Too many have come here as false refugees. And they come here to gyp us again and rob us blind as they have done in Europe for centuries. . . They’re gypsies. And one of the central characteristics of that culture is that their chief economy is theft and begging.” (Toronto Star, September 15, 2012)

Forget all the fog about “hate”: the only relevant question is whether what Levant said was true. Do Gypsy “refugees” — not all, of course — commit many crimes, especially theft and shoplifting? Even though our press tends to downplay immigrant crimes, or, as in a recent television news story about Gypsy gangs descending on stores to shoplift that identified the bizarrely dressed perpetrators as dressed in Eastern European costumes, there have been many reports of considerable criminality among the Gypsy “refugee” claimants, many who seem to hit the ground thieving not long after they land. Even Bernie Farber former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, in a feverish denunciation of Ezra Levant, reluctantly admitted: “There will always be those who claim the Roma engage in lawlessness and crime. And in Europe, statistics do demonstrate a significant increase in theft by those living in Roma encampments. These numbers have been used by French authorities to justify large scale deportations of Roma.|” (National Post, September 25, 2012)

“The Canadian Border Services Agency is asleep at the wheel allowing more than 400 alleged Roma gypsies – many of whom have extensive criminal records – into the country and specifically the GTA, critics say.This week, the Durham Regional Police Service confirmed they had arrested 34 people and laid 263 charges in the largest investigation of its kind in the region,” CNEWS reported (September 8, 2012) “Former Conservative MPP Toni Skarica, an Ontario Crown Attorney who, speaking at a parliamentary committee, said Roma refugees from Hungary come to Canada because ‘we have the most generous welfare package for refugees in the world. That’s why they’re coming here, because they get the best deal here.’” (Toronto Star, September 15, 2012)


Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has repeatedly denounced the wholesale welfare scamming being perpetrated by many Gypsy “refugee” claimants. And, as to Ezra Levant’s charge that many are phoney refugee claimants, that is the conclusion of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, which rejects the overwhelming number of claims. Think about it. Hungary is a democratic country and part of the European Union. If Gypsies felt persecuted in Hungary, they could move, let’s say to Germany. The rub is that, while they get welfare and many social benefits including housing in Hungary, most other European countries would require them to work. They would not get welfare. So, hey, head to Pollyanna Canada, say the magic “refugee” word, scarf up welfare and other social services and maybe do a little bit of thieving on the side. A healthy nation would not rely on political police to investigate “hate.” We should have a full debate. Let the complaining Gypsy leader Gina Csányi-Robah offer evidence that her people are not disproportionately involved in shoplifting Perhaps, she can bring forth evidence that the shoplifting is really being perpetrated by clever Icelanders in dark face, dressed up in “Eastern European folk costumes.”
A full 98 per cent of Gypsy refugee claims worldwide end up in Canada and the vast majority of these claims are abandoned or rejected. The government is bringing in new legislation to limit Gypsy “refugee” claims. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney ” hopes to create a list of countries that generally don’t produce refugees, to make it easier for the Canada Border Services Agency to separate unfounded refugee claims from those that have merit. Hungary, where a bulk of Roma refugee claims come from – and from where the vast majority are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected – would be on that list. ‘Countries whose nationals have an acceptance rate of 25% or less, or where 60% or more of claimants from a country have abandoned or withdrawn their claims … would be subject to designation,’ he said.” (CNEWS, October 16, 2012).

Canadians seem to approve. They were asked: “Do you think the federal government should attempt to limit Roma refugee claims?” An overwhelming 85.7% said yes; 10% said no; and 4% were not sure.”? (CNEWS, October 16, 2012).

 

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

Posted on by

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

Interview with Marc Lemire

The only Canadian to ever win at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Join Kari Simpson and Ron Gray as they speak to free speech champion Marc Lemire, the leading force in the campaign to remove the oppressive Section 13 from Canada’s Human Rights Code. Is the tide finally turning in favour of free speech in Canada?

Watch the interview:

http://roadkillradio.com/2012/07/10/roadkill-radio-news-canada-attacks-free-speech-with-entrapment-and-intimidation/