Tag Archives: Richard Warman

CAFE Submissions in Federal Court of Appeal: Marc Lemire v Canadian Human Rights Commission & Richard Warman

Posted on by

CAFE Submissions in Federal Court of Appeal: Marc Lemire v Canadian Human Rights Commission & Richard Warman

Court File No.: A-456-12

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

BETWEEN:

MARC LEMIRE

Appellant

 

– and –

 

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

RICHARD WARMAN

Respondents

 

– and –

 

AFRICAN CANADIAN LEGAL CLINIC

CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Interveners

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE INTERVENER,

THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

______________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

Solicitor for the Intervener,

The Canadian Association for Free Expression:

 

Barclay W. Johnson

1027 Pandora Avenue

Victoria, BC V8V 3P6

 

Phone: 250-418-3255

Fax: 250-370-1655

 

PART I: STATEMENT OF FACTS:

 

  1. In Mr. Lemire’s case, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found a single infraction of Section 13(1), in regard to an article on Mr. Lemire’s website that he did not write. The website in question was located on a server in the United States. Similar material is legally available to Canadians from many other servers, located in the United States and other locations. There is no evidence that anybody aside from the complainant downloaded and read the particular article in question.
  2. In these circumstances, no evidence exists which could possibly tie the obscure article in question to any of the negative effects of hate propaganda described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Human rights commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 SCR 892 and Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.
  3. In considering the case of Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada did not have the benefit of expert testimony to review the Kaufman Report, which was a substantial portion of the Cohen Report relied upon by Parliament when passing Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The testimony of Dr. Michael Persinger, a professor of psychology and biology who testified before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on February 22, 2007, demonstrates that the Kaufman Report used an outdated psychological methodology in dealing with the issue of “hate”:

“MR. CHRISTIE: Now, in neuropsychological, do you use the term hate?

 

DR. PERSINGER: We don’t use the term hate. We use the term aversive stimuli. Hate is a subjective experience and is just simply one of the many labels that people apply to aversive experiences. So we study aversive experiences very, very significantly and frequently including looking at the correlates of brain function. But the term hate is simply one of the many labels that can be applied to an aversive experience.

 

MR. CHRISTIE: Why wouldn’t you use the term hate in any of your research?

 

DR. PERSINGER: Primarily because it’s arbitrary. Secondly, because it’s highly subjective, and third very difficult to quantify because it’s a term that’s used so indiscriminately that you really can’t use it effectively. The term aversive stimulus also is not as pejorative. In other words, it doesn’t have connotations.” [See Examination of Dr. Michael Persinger, pg. 2884(3 – 22)]

 

  1. Dr. Persinger goes on to explain why the context of the internet is far less likely to generate adverse stimulus than that of a telephone answering machine (as in Taylor) or unsolicited pamphlets delivered door-to-door (as in Whatcott). On the internet, messages are only delivered to willing recipients who specifically request them. In addition, internet message boards (such as Lemire’s website) are interactive and allow readers to respond:

    “MR. CHRISTIE: If I were to give you a hypothetical where there are messages in one location which you must go and find, but you also have the option of placing messages equally accessible to the whole world about your own point of view, could you explain how that would affect the ability of an individual to adapt to aversive stimuli?

     

    DR. PERSINGER: I think I understand the context. If, for example, there is an aversive message posted?

     

    MR. CHRISTIE: That’s correct. If I could use a specific example, hoping not to offend anyone if I were to say, I saw a message somewhere that said, all scots are mean, bitter, vicious, dower, penny-pinching, overly aggressive individuals. But I had the option of putting up a message that said that that’s only me and a few other scots and there are some good ones, would that affect the capacity to adapt to what was an aversive stimuli?

     

    DR. PERSINGER: Certainly. There are two options here. One, if it’s a free operant society in the sense that you have choice to read it or not, okay –

     

    MR. CHRISTIE: That’s one premise?

     

    DR. PERSINGER: That’s the important feature. I mean, if you read it and become offended, you also have an opportunity in a free operant setting not to read it and to avoid it. That’s also your choice, if you had that opportunity. On the other hand, you also have a chance to respond to overcome what I guess would be the most appropriate explanation, the categorical error. And a categorical error is over-inclusiveness, to say all scots are this way, all scots are that way. That’s the limit of human language.” [See Examination of Dr. Michael Persinger, pg. 2891(16) – 2892(25)]

     

    PART II: STATEMENT OF ISSUES

     

  2. The internet is a new and unique medium, not contemplated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor, and not considered in Whatcott. Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it applies to the internet, does not meet the rational connection portion of the Oakes Test, and is therefore not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    PART III: SUBMISSIONS

  3. It will be respectfully submitted that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it relates to the totally new medium of the internet, does not pass the Oakes Test and is therefore an unconstitutional infringement on the right to freedom of expression. In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 SCR 892, when Section 13(1) was upheld by the narrowest of margins by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Respondent was accused of disseminating hateful views using the telephone, a medium which the court found was “particularly suited” to the distribution of hate propaganda, and linked to its negative effects:

    Simply to label telephone communications as “private”, however, does not justify the conclusion that s. 13(1) is overbroad.  As was noted by the CCLA, the telephone is a medium which allows numerous organizations to present information and views to a sizable proportion of the public, whether through active calling or the use of recorded messages.  While conversations almost always take place on a one-to-one basis, the overall effect of phone campaigns is undeniably public, and the reasonable assumption to make is that these campaigns can have an effect upon the public’s beliefs and attitudes.  Indeed, in the recent case of Nealy, supra, expert evidence presented to the Human Rights Tribunal by Dr. René-Jean Ravault, who also appeared before the Tribunal in Taylor, suggests that the telephone is ideally suited to the effective transmission of prejudicial beliefs, and in this respect the Tribunal stated (at pp. D/6485-86):

     

    This brings us to the second and more specific contextual reason which justifies the compass of the provision and that is the medium through which the hate messages are communicated.  We have earlier pointed to the important testimony of Dr. Ravault as to the attractions and advantages of telephone communication to racists and white supremacists in terms of connecting with and attempting to influence those in the community who are for one reason or another bewildered or disaffected by events and forces over which they feel they have no control.  Dr. Ravault was also able to demonstrate how the authors of hate messages are able through subtle manipulation and juxtaposition of material to give a veneer of credibility to the content of the messages.  The combination of the telephonic medium and the material is, we believe, particularly insidious, because, while a public means of communication is used, it is one which gives the listener the impression of direct, personal, almost private, contact by the speaker, provides no realistic means of questioning the information or views presented and is subject to no counter-argument within that particular communications context.

     

    I agree with the Tribunal’s comments regarding telephone communications and hate propaganda, and find its observations to be helpful in rebutting the contention that the private nature of telephone conversations makes especially difficult the imposition of constitutionally valid limitations upon expressive telephonic activity.  Those who repeatedly communicate messages likely to expose others to racial or religious hatred or contempt are seeking to gain converts to their position.  The evidence of the Cohen Committee, referred to extensively in Keegstra, and expert testimony given before the Tribunals in both Taylor and Nealy, suggest that hate propaganda often works insidiously to spread a message of intolerance and inequality, and that the telephone is particularly suited to this mode of communication.” [Emphasis added]

     

  1. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable in principle as a totally different method of communication. To search out and access a website requires a conscious choice of an internet user to read the content within. Furthermore, the internet is interactive in nature, allowing for response, dialogue, and debate. Finally, the type of content being prohibited is legally available from any number of private internet sources outside of Canada. Without a corresponding prohibition on downloading and reading hate propaganda, the prohibition against Canadians uploading hate propaganda does nothing to make hate propaganda less accessible to Canadians.
  1. In Taylor, all members of the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that Section 13(1) infringed upon the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority (by a 4-to-3 margin), however, found that this infringement was justified as a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter, in accordance with the Oakes test, described by the court as follows:

The tests for determining whether an infringement on a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society were established in R. v. Oakes, supra, and have been adhered to ever since.   Two requirements must be satisfied.   First, the objective which the limit is designed to serve must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right.   Second, if such an objective is established, the party invoking s. 1 must show that the means chosen to attain the objective are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.   To conclude that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified, the Court must be satisfied of three things:

 

1.  The measures designed to meet the legislative objective (in this case s. 13(1) of theCanadian Human Rights Act) must be rationally connected to the objective;

 

2.  The means used should impair as little as possible the right or freedom in question; and

 

3.  There must be proportionality between the effect of the measures which limit theCharter right or freedom and the legislative objective of the limit on those rights.   This involves balancing the invasion of rights guaranteed by theCharter against the objective to which the limitation of those rights is directed.

 

  1. The majority decision, penned by Chief Justice Dickson, found that Section 13(1) could be justified under the Oakes Test because it had the valid objective of preventing harm:

“It can thus be concluded that messages of hate propaganda undermine the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contribute to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality.”

 

Section 13(1) can only pass the Oakes Test insofar as it is rationally connected to preventing the aforementioned individual and social harms of hate propaganda.

  1. In 2001, Parliament passed subsection 13(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend subsection 13(1) to apply to the internet:

“(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.”

 

Therefore, Lemire is a case of first instance, the first constitutional challenge of Section 13 in the context of the internet. In this context, it will be respectfully submitted that Section 13(1) has no rational connection to the protection of dignity and self-worth of target group members, nor to the prevention of social harms associated with hate propaganda.

Dignity and Self-Worth of Target Group Members:

  1. In regard to the harm caused to members of the target group, the same reasoning cannot and does not apply to the internet as would apply to a publicly-advertised telephone hotline. In the context of the internet, material is transmitted at the request of the recipient. Internet users are free to choose from a wide variety of sources, originating around the world and certainly not limited to Canada. In Lemire’s case, the material was never in fact located “in Canada.” A Canadian such as Richard Warman had to seek the material in the United States to be offended. If and when applied to the internet, Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act empowers the Tribunal to award “compensation” to the complainant for communication solicited by and deliberately downloaded by the complainant himself. The content is not even “in Canada” until requested. The act of making data available to those who seek it out is tantamount to a private conversation, not to the public dissemination of hate propaganda to those sincerely wishing to avoid it. The communication only occurs when requested by the recipient and is not normally available to anyone else. It is certainly distinct from the active communication of ideas through public speech to people who might or might not want to hear them. It is also distinguishable from a communication broadcast to all who have not requested it.
  2. In the recent case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the hate speech provision in Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Act on the grounds that it prohibits only public and not private communications:

“[83]   … The prohibition only limits the display or publication of representations, such as through newspapers or other printed matter, or through television or radio broadcasting. In other words, it only prohibits public communications of hate speech.  The Saskatchewan legislature does not restrict hateful expression in private communications between individuals. While one would expect private expressions of hateful messages might inflict significant emotional harm, they do not impact the societal status of the protected group.”

 

  1. The application of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to private conversations would not be a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Oakes Test for the simple reason that policing private conversations between consenting adults is not rationally connected to the objective of shielding target groups from hate propaganda. Even more so, it is not proportional to the objective. Like most private conversations, the groups know nothing about it to be insulted, defamed, or injured. Those individuals who were not party to the conversation would not be aware of any effects of hate propaganda in the first place; therefore, banning the conversation would not protect them from any harmful effects. The application of Section 13(1) to the internet is likewise not rationally connected to the protection of target groups because the internet, by its very nature, involves choice on the part of the recipient. Just as criticized groups can choose not to engage in private conversation with individuals who disseminate hate propaganda, they can choose not to visit websites which disseminate hate propaganda.
  2. In the defamation case of Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that merely making something available does not amount to “communication”:

    “Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content.” [See Crookes v. Newton para. 30, emphasis added]

The Supreme Court of Canada relied upon an extensive body of law in coming to this conclusion, including constitutional principles stemming from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Abella, writing for the majority, found that the implementation of the Charter, together with technological advancement, had increased the prevalence of freedom of expression considerations in defamation cases:

“Pre-Charter approaches to defamation law in Canada largely leaned towards protecting reputation. That began to change when the Court modified the “honest belief” element to the fair comment defence in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, and when, in Grant, the Court developed a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest. These cases recognize the importance of achieving a proper balance between protecting an individual’s reputation and the foundational role of freedom of expression in the development of democratic institutions and values (Grant, at para. 1; Hill, at para. 101) … Interpreting the publication rule to exclude mere references not only accords with a more sophisticated appreciation of Charter values, but also with the dramatic transformation in the technology of communications.” [See Crookes v. Newton para. 32, emphasis added]

 

  1. Like the defendant in Crookes v. Newton, Mr. Lemire did not write the content in question, nor did he promote or advertise it. He merely made it available for those who wished to engage in a private conversation or debate.
  2. In Crookes v. Yahoo, 2007 BCSC 1325, the BC Supreme Court found at paragraph 26 of its decision that “communication” of defamatory content takes place at the time such content is downloaded, not when it is uploaded to a web server:

“[26]   With respect to internet communications, the site of the alleged defamation is where the damage to reputation occurs: Dow Jones Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, (2002), 194 Aust. L.lR. 433 (H.C.); Barrick Gold Corp. v. Blanchard and Co., [2003] O.J. No. 5817 (S.C.). It is when a person downloads the impugned material from the internet that the damage to the reputation may be done, and it is at that time and place that the tort of defamation is committed.” [Emphasis added]

 

  1. Thus, it is clear that if the message causes group defamation (as set out in Section 13(1)), it is Warman’s download that committed it. The presence of hate propaganda on the internet does not necessarily affect the dignity and self-worth of target group members. Such material will only be seen by those who seek it out.

    Social Harms Associated with Hate Propaganda:

  2. Likewise, imposing punitive sanctions against the content of the internet is not rationally connected to the legislative objective of preventing the social harms associated with hate propaganda. There is no rational justification for prohibiting a person from making available an expression which is readily available to someone who seeks it elsewhere by the same means. If it is hate speech and readily available, imposing sanctions on a Canadian does not connect to or advance the prohibition of availability because an American source which is quite legal is just as available and beyond the reach of our law. This would be and is a ridiculous law against availability from a Canadian. It is equivalent to a codex of books prohibited to Catholics which are freely available to Protestants, with one serious exception – the Protestants can go to jail for making it available.
  3. The internet is huge, complex, repetitive, and passive unless sought out by the requesting recipient. Any and all of the content alleged against Marc Lemire is available from a wide range of other sources made available by Americans in America, where it is perfectly legal, protected by the First Amendment. (See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) in the U.S. Supreme Court where, by a 9-to-0 margin, the Court struck down the Minnesota hate law, a content-based restriction on freedom of expression. This case occurred after Taylor was decided.)
  4. It can never be a rational objective to punish the expression by Canadians of words, phrases, content, analysis, or opinions which are readily available from others who are not Canadians in the same place (the internet), at the same time, by the same means, and legally available to all other Canadians. This makes it illegal for a Canadian to make available to Canadians what is just as available to other Canadians from a foreign source, just as easily. Such cannot be a pressing and substantial concern, and is not rationally connected to the legislative objective of shielding vulnerable groups from the effects of hate propaganda. It would only be rationally connected if the prohibition had the effect of making the messages unavailable from any source.
  5. Likewise, the application of Section 13(1) to the internet is not proportional, but impractical, unfair, and based upon irrational considerations. This is because the same effect is as readily available from other sources on the internet. Further, the effects are not delivered by anyone to another against their will. It is totally irrational to punish expression because of the national origin of the speaker. It is more so to punish expression which is not communicated to anyone in Canada unless requested specifically by the pretended victim.
  6. In the recent case of Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada applied its previous reasoning in Taylor to a situation involving pamphlets distributed door-to-door. The court unanimously clarified that a legal inquiry into the issue of hate speech must focus on the likely effects of the hate speech in question:

“[52]                          An assessment of whether expression exposes a protected group to hatred must therefore include an evaluation of the likely effects of the expression on its audience. Would a reasonable person consider that the expression vilifying a protected group has the potential to lead to discrimination and other harmful effects? This assessment will depend largely on the context and circumstances of each case.

[53]                          For example, in the normal course of events, expression that targets a protected group in the context of satire, or news reports about hate speech perpetrated by someone else, would not likely constitute hate speech. Representations made in private settings would also not be captured by provisions prohibiting publication, display or broadcast of the expression, such as in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code.  It may also make a difference whether the expression contains a singular remark that comes close to violating the prohibition, or contains a multitude of or repeated, delegitimizing attacks.

[54]                          Dickson C.J. emphasized this need to focus on the effects of the expression in his reasons in Taylor.  He noted that “the purpose and impact of human rights codes is to prevent discriminatory effects rather than to stigmatize and punish those who discriminate” (p. 933 (emphasis added)). The focus of the prohibition against hate propaganda in s. 13(1) of the CHRA is “solely upon [its] likely effects” (p. 931). Dickson C.J. reasoned that the preoccupation with the discriminatory effects was understandable, given that systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination. Tribunals must focus on the likely effects of impugned expression in order to achieve the preventive goals of anti-discrimination statutes.”

  1. In light of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Whatcott, it will be respectfully submitted that the application of Section 13(1) to the internet is not rationally connected to the prevention of the social harms of hate propaganda. It is indisputable that alleged hate propaganda of all kinds is available on the internet. Much of this material originates outside of Canada. Section 13(1) does nothing to prevent Canadians from making the choice to download hateful material, which many Canadians (including the complainant in this case) have done.
  2. The dissemination of hate propaganda on the internet is less likely to attract Canadians to its cause than it is to provoke critical assessment and response. Punitive sanctions against Canadians who make such content available do not make the propaganda less available or less attractive. Internet users have free reign to disagree and object to material they read on a website, and Mr. Lemire’s website (a discussion forum) was specifically designed with this purpose in mind. In any event, the prosecution of Canadians who merely make material available on the internet has no impact on the ability of other Canadians to download hateful material, and therefore no rational connection to preventing social harms caused by such material merely being posted.
  3. For the aforementioned reasons, it will be respectfully submitted that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it applies to the internet, is not rationally connected to the objectives set out in Taylor, and is therefore not a “reasonable limit” to freedom of expression in accordance with Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  4. In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court in Taylor did not pronounce on the constitutionality of Section 13(1) in all contexts, but upheld it by the narrowest of margins using Section 1 of the Charter analysis in telephone answering machine context, where no response or debate is possible. Such analysis does not have any relevant applicability to the totally different context of the then-unforeseeable internet and is no longer valid in this context. Using the same Section 1 analysis and principles, Section 13(1) does not pass constitutional muster.

PART IV: STATEMENT OF ORDER SOUGHT

 

  1. The Canadian Association for Free Expression requests an order as follows:

    “A declaration that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, insofar as it relates to the internet, is an unreasonable violation of Section 2(b) of the Charter not saved by Section 1 thereof, and therefore inoperative pursuant to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

 

 

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ___ day of May, 2013.

 

   

 

_______________________________

BARCLAY W. JOHNSON

Barrister & Solicitor

1027 Pandora Avenue

Victoria, BC V8V 3P6

 

Telephone:          (250) 418-3255

Fax:                      (250) 370-1655

Counsel for the Intervener

Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.

 

 

Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown’s Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com

Posted on by
Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown’s Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com
 
It is a sign of how degraded a country we have become  that we must hail the fact that a British Columbia Criminal Court judge refused demands by the Crown to impose as a bail condition in new “hate law” charges against publisher and blogger Arthur Topham that he remove ALL content from his website Radicalpress.com and that he not post on ANY website.
 
In other words, before any trial as to whether the contents of a small portion of Radicalpress.com constituted “wilful promotion of hate” under Canada’s notorious “hate law”, Mr. Topham was to be gagged.
 
The case for new bail conditions was argued in Quesnel, British Columbia on April 9.
 
  • Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston acted as if it had already been established that some of the contents on Radicalpress.com, including a satire of the book Germany Must Perish, was “hate” and that some of Mr. Topham’s recent writings are also “hate”. Her say so was enough to make it so, in her submissions. She said: “There is strong evidence that Mr. Topham continues to promote hatred of people of Jewish origin, in such articles as Salute to Zionism, on his website. The Crown is asking for bail to prevent Mr. Topham from continuing to publish ‘hate’ and compound the same offence while on bail. ” Then, with totally muddled reasoning, she continued: “The mere possibility that Mr. Topham might be successful with one of the defences is not enough to continue to publish ‘hate.'” But, clearly, if the defence were successful, the publications would not be hate. Even she admitted that only a small portion of Radicalpress.com dealt with Jews or Zionism. “There’s other stuff going on there, yes.”
 
As a precedent, she cited the judgment in the “hate law” case against Bill Noble, who was self represented. He was sentenced to six months in jail for Internet postings and a three year gag preventing him from posting on the Internet or owning a computer or any device like a smart phone capable to accessing the Internet. This pretty piece of Stalinism was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba, but in Canada.
 
Mr. Topham, although self represented, marched into court with a masterful submission  which had been prepared for him and a three-inch thick Book of Authorities.  

Photo: Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown's Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com It is a sign of how degraded a country we have become that we must hail the fact that a British Columbia Criminal Court judge refused demands by the Crown to impose as a bail condition in new "hate law" charges against publisher and blogger Arthur Topham that he remove ALL content from his website Radicalpress.com and that he not post on ANY website. In other words, before any trial as to whether the contents of a small portion of Radicalpress.com constituted "wilful promotion of hate" under Canada's notorious "hate law", Mr. Topham was to be gagged. The case for new bail conditions was argued in Quesnel, British Columbia on April 9. •Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston acted as if it had already been established that some of the contents on Radicalpress.com, including a satire of the book Germany Must Perish, was "hate" and that some of Mr. Topham's recent writings are also "hate". Her say so was enough to make it so, in her submissions. She said: "There is strong evidence that Mr. Topham continues to promote hatred of people of Jewish origin, in such articles as Salute to Zionism, on his website. The Crown is asking for bail to prevent Mr. Topham from continuing to publish 'hate' and compound the same offence while on bail. " Then, with totally muddled reasoning, she continued: "The mere possibility that Mr. Topham might be successful with one of the defences is not enough to continue to publish 'hate.'" But, clearly, if the defence were successful, the publications would not be hate. Even she admitted that only a small portion of Radicalpress.com dealt with Jews or Zionism. "There's other stuff going on there, yes." As a precedent, she cited the judgment in the "hate law" case against Bill Noble, who was self represented. He was sentenced to six months in jail for Internet postings and a three year gag preventing him from posting on the Internet or owning a computer or any device like a smart phone capable to accessing the Internet. This pretty piece of Stalinism was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba, but in Canada. Mr. Topham, although self represented, marched into court with a masterful submission which had been prepared for him and a three-inch thick Book of Authorities. Mr. Topham's Memorandum argued that penalties were being imposed before an finding of fault. "Even if the order sought was capable of suppressing hate propaganda, it would not be justifiable in this case as it would not minimally impair the Respondent's Charter rights. The conditions sought by the Crown would not merely prohibit the Respondent from publishing hateful material, but would, in fact, prevent him from publishing any material." A comment Judge Morgan made offered a clue to his decision: "Where the dividing line is between free speech and the limits on speech in society is the crux of this case." Here are the key paragraphs of the decision refusing to impose a gag order bail condition on the beleaguered Quesnel publisher. Decision: [32] Considerations of bail in section 319(2) prosecutions (willfully promoting hatred) are somewhat different from the usual criminal prosecutions. This is because the central issue at trial will not be what occurred , but will be what effect resulted. The publicly communicated statements will have to be established by the Crown to promote ‘hatred’ as the word is defined in Canadian jurisprudence. [33] The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. The Crown is, in effect, seeking the same remedy pre-trial through a cease and desist bail order. To be successful the court would have to be satisfied that on the test of a balance of probabilities all aspects of Crown’s case will be made out, including that the effect of the communications of concern will meet the threshold of promoting hatred. In effect, the court is being asked to decide the case on the balance of probability standard. [34] On the other hand, it is an initially forceful consideration when dealing with material that is clearly repugnant and offensive, to ask what harm would result by simply shutting it down until the matter can be decided at trial. One can easily imagine situations where the material is so repugnant and offensive that even solely from the judge’s perspective and without direct evidence of harm, the likely risk of harm will be evident and outweigh a temporary curtailment of Charter rights. [35] However, court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases. [36] In the case before me, the material of concern is primarily material written by others and allegedly posted by Mr. Topham on his website. The one document I was referred to that involved a minor amount of originality is entitled ‘Israel Must Perish’ and is based on a document written many years ago by someone else entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. In ‘Israel Must Perish’ the accused is alleged to have replaced all references to ‘Germany’ with ‘Israel’ and all references to ‘Germans’ with ‘Jews’. Mr. Topham has published both versions on his website. Mr. Topham says – and is not contradicted by the Crown – that all of the material of concern is available on other internet sites not controlled by him, including notable sites such as Amazon.com and Archive.org. [37] There is some evidence that Mr. Topham uses his website to publish other materials that are not alleged to foster hate, and to use it for other reasons, such as providing a voice to other fringe persons or groups. As of late, he has been using his website in an attempt to raise money to pay for a lawyer to defend him against the present charges. [38] Although I give Crown credit for being open to finding ways to minimally impair Mr. Topham’s rights while at the same time addressing the concern of the publication of the offensive material, I find that in this case, ordering Mr. Topham to shut down his website may well be an over broad prior restraint and that, based on the evidence before me, the effect on reducing any harm caused may well be minimal given the material is primarily not original and is available from other internet sources. [39] I agree with Ms. Johnston that ordering Mr. Topham to remove from his website any reference to people of Jewish religion or ethnic origin would be like having him pick out pepper. What I foresee from this is any effort to carve a fine balance would very possibly lead to breach related charges arising from confusion and misinterpretation. [40] The Crown’s goal of stopping Mr. Topham from putting on his website offensive material will of course depend on whether Crown is successful at trial in establishing the offensive material has the effect of promoting hate. If the Crown proves its case, the sentencing judge will be in a much informed position in determining the appropriate breadth of restraint orders and other sanctions. [41] Although I decline to order as a condition of bail that Mr. Topham stop operating his entire website or to order that he cease and desist from posting any materials referencing people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, I am satisfied that his Undertaking should be amended to include a condition that he not post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants already referred to in condition 2. of his present Undertaking, and that he immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants. R.D. Morgan Provincial Court Judge This final condition is odd and one which Mr. Topham may appeal. Under his original bail conditions, he is already not allowed to contact or communicate (except through his lawyer) with the two chronic complainants. Thus, he is not to publish the names of Richard Warman or Harry Abrams on Radicalpress.com or "any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants." Both these men are long-time antagonists of Mr. Topham. They are players and have repeatedly sought to silence people with whom they disagree or who, in their view, have hateful ideas. Why shouldn't they be named? Allowing for semi secret complaints would seem to undermine the openness of our legal system. Abrams was the original complainant in the case against Radicalpress.com in 2007 under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When the case was adjourned sine die in 2009 and it appeared that the section was about to be repealed by Parliament, Abrams was joined by Warman in 2011 in making complaints to the B.C. "Hate" Squad under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. No evidence was submitted to the Court of any "harm or intimidation" that had been done to the complainants as a result of their names being mentioned on Radicalpress.com over the seven year life of the efforts to gag the anti-Zionist dissident. Mr. Topham notes: " I've had to file another application to question the new condition that says I can't have either Warman's or Abrams' name on my website. That would eliminate all the legal documents with their names on them. Rather weird. I can see removing the names from my own articles, commentary, etc. but not court documents." Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

 
 
Mr. Topham’s Memorandum argued that penalties were being imposed before an finding of fault. “Even if the order sought was capable of suppressing hate propaganda, it would not be justifiable in this case as it would not minimally impair the Respondent’s Charter rights. The conditions sought by the Crown would not merely prohibit the Respondent from publishing hateful material, but would, in fact, prevent him from publishing any material.”
A comment Judge Morgan made offered a clue to his decision: “Where the dividing line is between free speech and the limits on speech in society is the crux of this case.”
Here are the key paragraphs of the decision refusing to impose a gag order bail condition on the beleaguered Quesnel publisher.
Decision:
[32] Considerations of bail in section 319(2) prosecutions (willfully promoting hatred) are somewhat different from the usual criminal prosecutions. This is because the central issue at trial will not be what occurred , but will be what effect resulted. The publicly communicated statements will have to be established by the Crown to promote ‘hatred’ as the word is defined in Canadian jurisprudence.
[33] The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. The Crown is, in effect, seeking the same remedy pre-trial through a cease and desist bail order. To be successful the court would have to be satisfied that on the test of a balance of probabilities all aspects of Crown’s case will be made out, including that the effect of the communications of concern will meet the threshold of promoting hatred. In effect, the court is being asked to decide the case on the balance of probability standard.
[34] On the other hand, it is an initially forceful consideration when dealing with material that is clearly repugnant and offensive, to ask what harm would result by simply shutting it down until the matter can be decided at trial. One can easily imagine situations where the material is so repugnant and offensive that even solely from the judge’s perspective and without direct evidence of harm, the likely risk of harm will be evident and outweigh a temporary curtailment of Charter rights.
[35] However, court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases.
[36] In the case before me, the material of concern is primarily material written by others and allegedly posted by Mr. Topham on his website. The one document I was referred to that involved a minor amount of originality is entitled ‘Israel Must Perish’ and is based on a document written many years ago by someone else entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. In ‘Israel Must Perish’ the accused is alleged to have replaced all references to ‘Germany’ with ‘Israel’ and all references to ‘Germans’ with ‘Jews’. Mr. Topham has published both versions on his website. Mr. Topham says – and is not contradicted by the Crown – that all of the material of concern is available on other internet sites not controlled by him, including notable sites such as Amazon.com and Archive.org.
[37] There is some evidence that Mr. Topham uses his website to publish other materials that are not alleged to foster hate, and to use it for other reasons, such as providing a voice to other fringe persons or groups. As of late, he has been using his website in an attempt to raise money to pay for a lawyer to defend him against the present charges.
[38] Although I give Crown credit for being open to finding ways to minimally impair Mr. Topham’s rights while at the same time addressing the concern of the publication of the offensive material, I find that in this case, ordering Mr. Topham to shut down his website may well be an over broad prior restraint and that, based on the evidence before me, the effect on reducing any harm caused may well be minimal given the material is primarily not original and is available from other internet sources.
[39] I agree with Ms. Johnston that ordering Mr. Topham to remove from his website any reference to people of Jewish religion or ethnic origin would be like having him pick out pepper. What I foresee from this is any effort to carve a fine balance would very possibly lead to breach related charges arising from confusion and misinterpretation.
[40] The Crown’s goal of stopping Mr. Topham from putting on his website offensive material will of course depend on whether Crown is successful at trial in establishing the offensive material has the effect of promoting hate. If the Crown proves its case, the sentencing judge will be in a much informed position in determining the appropriate breadth of restraint orders and other sanctions.
[41] Although I decline to order as a condition of bail that Mr. Topham stop operating his entire website or to order that he cease and desist from posting any materials referencing people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, I am satisfied that his Undertaking should be amended to include a condition that he not post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants already referred to in condition 2. of his present Undertaking, and that he immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.
R.D. Morgan
Provincial Court Judge
 
This final condition is odd and one which Mr. Topham may appeal. Under his original bail conditions, he is already not allowed to contact or communicate (except through his lawyer) with the two chronic complainants. Thus, he is not to publish the names of Richard Warman or Harry Abrams on Radicalpress.com or “any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.”
Both these men are long-time antagonists of Mr. Topham. They are players and have repeatedly sought to silence people with whom they disagree or who, in their view, have hateful ideas. Why shouldn’t they be named? Allowing for semi secret complaints would seem to undermine the openness of our legal system. Abrams was the original complainant in the case against Radicalpress.com in 2007 under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When the case was adjourned sine die  in 2009 and it appeared that the section was about to be repealed by Parliament, Abrams was joined by Warman in 2011 in making complaints to the B.C. “Hate” Squad under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.
No evidence was submitted to the Court of any “harm or intimidation” that had been done to the complainants as a result of their names being mentioned on Radicalpress.com over the seven year life of the efforts to gag the anti-Zionist dissident.
Mr. Topham notes: ” I’ve had to file another application to question the new condition that says I can’t have either Warman’s or Abrams’ name on my website. That would eliminate all the legal documents with their names on them. Rather weird. I can see removing the names from my own articles, commentary, etc. but not court documents.”
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

The Fourniers & Free Dominion Appeal Life Sentence and Gag Order

Posted on by
The Fourniers & Free Dominion Appeal Life Sentence and Gag Order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkCYUMhzNRo&feature=player_embedded

Defamation Law is strangling the Internet
As long time bloggers and forum hosts (13 years so far), we recently finished a long battle against Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) that resulted in the Canadian Parliament repealing the section.
During that time we have also been fighting several defamation and copyright lawsuits that were launched against us by supporters of Section 13. (see Footnote) [i]
Yesterday we received news that is devastating, not only to us, but to anyone who loves freedom of speech on the internet and that includes forum hosts, bloggers and media outlets that allow listeners, readers or viewers to make uncensored comments on their web site.
The two of us and two Free Dominion posters, Peter O’Donnell and Faramir, have been ordered to pay $127,000 to litigant Richard Warman. This is bad enough, but the judge also gave Warman an injunction that states that we are prohibited from publishing anything about the plaintiff that has been found to be defamatory. (In this context, “publishing” includes anything posted on the Free Dominion web site, with or without our knowledge or consent.)
This injunction lasts for life, and can result in prison time for contempt of court if the terms are violated!
We had no choice but to close the forum!
Given the propensity of our political opponents to use agent provocateurs to post inflammatory material on the internet, including on our web site, we knew that given enough time, an anonymous agent would post material on our site that would violate the injunction, so we had to close the forum to protect ourselves.


Paul Fromm, Witness for the Fourniers (right), Ottawa, September, 2013

The Impact
Defamation law is becoming every bit as dangerous for Canadian internet users as Section 13 was!

Defamation law says that a statement is defamatory if it “tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of the ordinary members of the public“.
As you can see, that could apply to any remark viewed by the subject as negative.

Once an action is filed, you have to incur the legal costs of making a defence or accept whatever verdict and penalty the court may decide to impose.

If you are a forum or blog owner and the comment was made by an anonymous poster, you have no defence of “fair comment” because you are not allowed to give “opinion” evidence of the state of mind of the poster or to state what facts the poster relied on. You are effectively taken to task for not censoring the commentary of a third person and not allowed to defend yourself.
You are 100% responsible.

If an anonymous poster makes comment on your blog and someone sues you for it, you can lose everything you have…even if you remove the allegedly offending words or post from your site.
What can we do?
We must appeal this decision because an injunction that could impose jail time for the actions of someone else is grossly unfair and, undoubtedly unconstitutional. We cannot let this precedent stand.
Operating a blog or forum and allowing readers to post their opinions should not lead to financial ruin or put a person’s entire future at risk. As the Ontario Civil Liberties Association recently stated, the Tort of Defamation needs to be abolished. We will fight on both of these fronts.
We must appeal this decision, and we have two other hearings coming up before the end of March. We desperately need help with our legal expenses so we can keep up our fight for freedom of speech on the internet!
Any contribution would be greatly appreciated and we promise to put it to good use!

If you prefer to donate by mail, please send your cheque here:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd.,
Elginburg, ON K0H 1M0

Thank you!
Connie and Mark Fournier 

Federal Court of Appeals Rules Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) is Constitutional & Penalties Are Back

Posted on by

Federal Court of Appeals Rules Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) is Constitutional & Penalties Are Back

The Federal Court of Appeals has confirmed again that the highest courts of this land are dominated by Cultural Marxists. Free speech took another battering. The issue was whether Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional. After years of protest. Parliament repealed this odious piece of censorship in June, 2013.

Marc Lemire and his Freedomsite had been the victims of a Sec. 13 complaint filed by serial complainant Richard Warman. The case was fought for six years, resulting in the only victory under Sec. 13 (truth is no defence, intent is no defence ( in September, 2009, when member Athanasios Hadjis essentially found Sec. 13 unconstitutional as it imposed financial penalties and when the Supreme Court upheld a milder version of the law in Taylor, in 1990, they did so, in part, because it was remedial. The Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review (in Federal Court). The hearing was in December, 2011. The Federal Court ruled the law constitutional but agreed that the penalties were out. Marc Lemire then appealed to the Federal Court, which heard the case on November 14.

 

The three judges ruled Sec. 13 is constitutional and the financial penalties are back in.

 

In his judgement, Mr. Justice Evans, closely followed the Supreme Court in its decision in Whatcott, the case of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fining William Whatcott for distributing leaflets critical of homosexuals some 13 years ago. The Whatcott decision was a viciously anti-Christian ruling that was classic Cultural Communism. The Frankfurt School of communists, which is the evil genius behind political correctness (radical feminism, the homosexual agenda, the mis-named “civil rights movement”) is based on a radical view of “equality.” All people are equal, say the true believers. Of course, when that’s not the way things

work out, then laws must be used to impose equality. It is from this view, for instance, that Canada’s nutty Supreme Court decided that the traditional definition of marriage is out: if a man can marry a woman, then a man should be able to marry a man.

 

Let’s look at some of this decision’s reasoning, as ideology trumps freedom of speech and even logic.

 

In Mr. Lemire’s submissions and in Mr. Hadjis’s decision, the conduct of the Commission was very much in question. Contrary to the approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Taylor, the Commission and Mr. Warman refused repeated requests for mediation.

 

“In particular, the Tribunal noted, unlike complaints of other kinds of discriminatory

practices, the Commission had rarely attempted to mediate section 13 complaints. Instead, it

referred the vast majority of them to the Tribunal for adjudication, and regularly sought

compensatory awards and penalties. Moreover, the Commission often continued to process

complaints after impugned material had been removed from the website on which it was posted.

Indeed, in the present case, Mr Lemire had removed most of the material before he was notified of

Mr Warman’s complaints, and promptly removed “AIDS Secrets” from Freedomsite after learning

that it was the subject of a complaint to the Commission. Further, the Tribunal found, the

Commission had not attempted to resolve the complaint by conciliation.”

 

But, none of that mattered to the Federal Appeals Court. Perhaps, the overworked thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission just didn’t have time for mediation or to notice that Mr. Lemire had swiftly removed all the impugned posts. If mediation were the approach of the Human Rights Commission, as the SCC found in Taylor, surely this should have mattered, but no!

 

” After finding that the Tribunal had no authority to examine the conduct of the Commission for the purpose of determining Mr Lemire’s constitutional challenge to section 13, the Judge considered whether the Court could examine the manner in which the Commission administered section 13 when determining whether it is a reasonable limit on section 2(b) rights and thus saved by section 1. He held that the way in which Commission exercised its statutory administrative powers was not relevant to the validity of section 13.
 Nor do I accept that the effects of the Commission’s conduct have displaced the valid

objectives of section 13, namely the prevention of discrimination against vulnerable groups on prohibited grounds. Conciliation is not the only constitutionally permissible manner in which the Commission may approach the enforcement of the CHRA in general and of section 13 in particular.

 

 Because of the nature and relatively small number of section 13 complaints, as well as the

extreme kinds of speech proscribed, I agree with the Judge (at paras. 63-64) that the Commission cannot reasonably be criticized for being reluctant, in this and other section 13 complaints, to devote  scarce resources to mediation and conciliation, or to accept offers to take down offending material

voluntarily. “

 

Too bad for Lemire if his rights to due process were trampled on.

 

The Federal Court of Appeals leaned heavily on Mr. Justice Rothstein’s decision in Whatcott. The wording reflects the Frankfurt School’s conspiracy theory of reality: there are dominant majorities — White and usually Christian and male — oppressing “vulnerable” minorities, who must be given special protection by “human” (actually, special) rights legislation.

Here’s the argument:

“Writing for the Court in Whatcott, Justice Rothstein summarized (at para. 59) the

 

principal elements of hate speech provisions in human rights legislation that provide the degree of objectivity required by the Charter.

 

… [W]here the term ‘hatred’ is used in the context of a prohibition of expression in

human rights legislation, it should be applied objectively to determine whether a

reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the

expression as likely to expose a person or group to detestation and vilification on the

basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

 

In other words, “[t]ribunals must focus on the likely effects of impugned expression in

order to achieve the preventive goals of anti-discrimination statutes” (at para. 54).  … Addressing the objectives of hate speech provisions in human rights legislation, Justice  Rothstein said (at para. 71):

 

When people are vilified as blameworthy or undeserving, it is easier to justify

 discriminatory treatment. The objective of … [hate speech provisions] may be understood as reducing the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination by tackling certain causes of discriminatory activity.

 

[Justice Rothstein noted (at para. 75) that a “particularly insidious aspect of hate speech” is that it effectively blocks the target group from responding. It does this not only by attempting to marginalize the group so that their reply will be ignored: it also forces the group to argue for their basic humanity or social standing,  as a precondition to participating in the deliberative aspects of democracy.

 

 

 Finally, Justice Rothstein observed (at para. 120) that because of its narrow definition, hate speech constitutes ‘an extreme and marginal type of expression’. It ‘contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and … its restriction is therefore easier to justify’ under section 1. “

 

So, “hate speech”, because the Court doesn’t like its message, is not a legitimate form of “freedom of expression.” And, of course, as even a high school student can see, then there really isn’t FREEDOM of expression. Note the utterly unproven conspiracy theory that a [posting on Marc Lemire’s website critical of homosexuals intimidated or silenced homosexuals. In fact, it was busybody Richard Warman, not homosexuals, who complained against Marc Lemire. During the years this case has inched through a tribunal and on to the Federal Court, homosexuals have gained the right of same sex marriage, many Canadian cities are flying rainbow flags in support of supposedly aggrieved homosexuals in Russia, several provinces have imposed militantly pro-homosexual curricula even on little grade school children and Canada’s present “Conservative” government is among the most “gay” friendly ever. There is NO objective evidence that Kevin Strom’s article on The Freedomsite, long since removed, ever intimidated or silenced anybody.

 

The person who faces silencing is Mr. Lemire!

 

The Court has no trouble with the fact that neither intent nor truth is a defence:

 

“Hate speech constitutes an extreme form of expression of limited scope that fosters a

climate in which unlawful discrimination may be regarded as acceptable and flourish. It does this by demeaning, vilifying, and marginalizing groups of individuals who share characteristics that constitute a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA. Since hate speech contributes  little to the values underlying free speech, its proscription is fairly easily justifiable under section 1. Hate speech constitutes an extreme form of expression of limited scope that fosters a climate in which unlawful discrimination may be regarded as acceptable and flourish. It does this by demeaning, vilifying, and marginalizing groups of individuals who share characteristics that constitute a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA. Since hate speech contributes  little to the values underlying free speech, its proscription is fairly easily justifiable under section 1. “

 

As to penalties, only the African Canadian Legal Clinic, represented by two lawyers who were, well, decidedly un-African or Black, wanted the penalties restored. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled: “I agree with the Judge that it is not constitutionally permissible for human rights legislation, to include a sanction designed to impose a punishment that expresses society’s moral opprobrium of the conduct of the wilful communicator of hate speech. ”

It doesn’t matter: Impose a punishment anyway and call it something else:

 

” The Supreme Court recognized for the first time in Whatcott that the imposition of a

financial sanction was a constitutionally permissible remedy for breach of a hate speech provision in human rights legislation. Thus, Justice Rothstein said (at para. 149): As in tort law, an award of damages made pursuant to the Code is characterized as  compensatory, not punitive, and is directed at compensating the victim. However, the circumstances in which a compensation award will be merited should be rare and will often involve repeat litigants who refuse to participate in a conciliatory approach. ” So a financial award is not “punitive”?

 

The plain meaning of English is being bent like a pretzel.” Since subsection 53(3) does not in terms require proof of loss by the victim, it is not compensatory in precisely the same way as paragraph 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Code which applies when the hate speech caused the injured person to suffer with respect to feeling, dignity or self-respect. Nonetheless, when applied to breaches of section 13, subsection 53(3) can be regarded as compensating victims specifically identified in hate speech for the damage presumptively caused  to their “sense of human dignity and belonging to the community at large” which Whatcott

recognized (at para. 81) that hate speech causes.  In my view, when the penalty provisions are considered in the context of the objectives of the CHRA and its remedial scheme, they are not properly characterized as penal in nature.”

 

To compensate identified people “for the damage presumptively caused to their ‘sense of dignity’”? Note the weasel word “presumptively”. Thus, no real damage or injury has to be proven at all.

So, where does this decision leave freedom of speech? On one level, the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeals will effect only Mr. Lemire who now faces a sentencing hearing, should he not appeal. As Sec. 13 has been repealed, the Federal Court of Appeals decision is largely moot. However, and this is a big however, as Sec. 13 has been ruled constitutional, another government, say Liberal of NDP, could reintroduce it. And there lies the danger.

CAFÉ has been an intervener and has supported Marc Lemire throughout his 11-year ordeal. CAFÉ’s submissions were studiously ignored by the federal Court of Appeal. For good reason. CAFÉ reminded the Court of the testimony before the Tribunal of Professor Michael Persinger. The eminent neuropsychologist sank the leaky scientific ship on which all this Frankfurt School “vulnerable minority” theory is based. His expert testimony testified that people subjective to “aversive speech” (not the emotional “hate speech”  label, but views contrary to or critical of their own group) do not fall apart in fear, withdrawal or alienation: they either reject the criticism as crazy or laughable, or fight back and argue – both healthy reactions. The Court ignored the submissions that their ideology that forms the justification for the erasing of free speech through Canada’s various “anti-hate” laws is as utterly without scientific basis as the views of the flat earth society.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Photo: Federal Court of Appeals Rules Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) is Constitutional & Penalties Are Back The Federal Court of Appeals has confirmed again that the highest courts of this land are dominated by Cultural Marxists. Free speech took another battering. The issue was whether Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional. After years of protest. Parliament repealed this odious piece of censorship in June, 2013. Marc Lemire and his Freedomsite had been the victims of a Sec. 13 complaint filed by serial complainant Richard Warman. The case was fought for six years, resulting in the only victory under Sec. 13 (truth is no defence, intent is no defence ( in September, 2009, when member Athanasios Hadjis essentially found Sec. 13 unconstitutional as it imposed financial penalties and when the Supreme Court upheld a milder version of the law in Taylor, in 1990, they did so, in part, because it was remedial. The Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review (in Federal Court). The hearing was in December, 2011. The Federal Court ruled the law constitutional but agreed that the penalties were out. Marc Lemire then appealed to the Federal Court, which heard the case on November 14. The three judges ruled Sec. 13 is constitutional and the financial penalties are back in. In his judgement, Mr. Justice Evans, closely followed the Supreme Court in its decision in Whatcott, the case of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fining William Whatcott for distributing leaflets critical of homosexuals some 13 years ago. The Whatcott decision was a viciously anti-Christian ruling that was classic Cultural Communism. The Frankfurt School of communists, which is the evil genius behind political correctness (radical feminism, the homosexual agenda, the mis-named "civil rights movement") is based on a radical view of "equality." All people are equal, say the true believers. Of course, when that's not the way things work out, then laws must be used to impose equality. It is from this view, for instance, that Canada's nutty Supreme Court decided that the traditional definition of marriage is out: if a man can marry a woman, then a man should be able to marry a man. Let's look at some of this decision's reasoning, as ideology trumps freedom of speech and even logic. In Mr. Lemire's submissions and in Mr. Hadjis's decision, the conduct of the Commission was very much in question. Contrary to the approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Taylor, the Commission and Mr. Warman refused repeated requests for mediation. “In particular, the Tribunal noted, unlike complaints of other kinds of discriminatory practices, the Commission had rarely attempted to mediate section 13 complaints. Instead, it referred the vast majority of them to the Tribunal for adjudication, and regularly sought compensatory awards and penalties. Moreover, the Commission often continued to process complaints after impugned material had been removed from the website on which it was posted. Indeed, in the present case, Mr Lemire had removed most of the material before he was notified of Mr Warman’s complaints, and promptly removed “AIDS Secrets” from Freedomsite after learning that it was the subject of a complaint to the Commission. Further, the Tribunal found, the Commission had not attempted to resolve the complaint by conciliation." But, none of that mattered to the Federal Appeals Court. Perhaps, the overworked thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission just didn't have time for mediation or to notice that Mr. Lemire had swiftly removed all the impugned posts. If mediation were the approach of the Human Rights Commission, as the SCC found in Taylor, surely this should have mattered, but no! " After finding that the Tribunal had no authority to examine the conduct of the Commission for the purpose of determining Mr Lemire’s constitutional challenge to section 13, the Judge considered whether the Court could examine the manner in which the Commission administered section 13 when determining whether it is a reasonable limit on section 2(b) rights and thus saved by section 1. He held that the way in which Commission exercised its statutory administrative powers was not relevant to the validity of section 13. Nor do I accept that the effects of the Commission’s conduct have displaced the valid objectives of section 13, namely the prevention of discrimination against vulnerable groups on prohibited grounds. Conciliation is not the only constitutionally permissible manner in which the Commission may approach the enforcement of the CHRA in general and of section 13 in particular. Because of the nature and relatively small number of section 13 complaints, as well as the extreme kinds of speech proscribed, I agree with the Judge (at paras. 63-64) that the Commission cannot reasonably be criticized for being reluctant, in this and other section 13 complaints, to devote scarce resources to mediation and conciliation, or to accept offers to take down offending material voluntarily. " Too bad for Lemire if his rights to due process were trampled on. The Federal Court of Appeals leaned heavily on Mr. Justice Rothstein's decision in Whatcott. The wording reflects the Frankfurt School's conspiracy theory of reality: there are dominant majorities -- White and usually Christian and male -- oppressing "vulnerable" minorities, who must be given special protection by "human" (actually, special) rights legislation. Here's the argument: "Writing for the Court in Whatcott, Justice Rothstein summarized (at para. 59) the principal elements of hate speech provisions in human rights legislation that provide the degree of objectivity required by the Charter. … [W]here the term ‘hatred’ is used in the context of a prohibition of expression in human rights legislation, it should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or group to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. In other words, “[t]ribunals must focus on the likely effects of impugned expression in order to achieve the preventive goals of anti-discrimination statutes” (at para. 54). ... Addressing the objectives of hate speech provisions in human rights legislation, Justice Rothstein said (at para. 71): When people are vilified as blameworthy or undeserving, it is easier to justify discriminatory treatment. The objective of … [hate speech provisions] may be understood as reducing the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination by tackling certain causes of discriminatory activity. [Justice Rothstein noted (at para. 75) that a “particularly insidious aspect of hate speech” is that it effectively blocks the target group from responding. It does this not only by attempting to marginalize the group so that their reply will be ignored: it also forces the group to argue for their basic humanity or social standing, as a precondition to participating in the deliberative aspects of democracy. Finally, Justice Rothstein observed (at para. 120) that because of its narrow definition, hate speech constitutes ‘an extreme and marginal type of expression’. It ‘contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and … its restriction is therefore easier to justify’ under section 1. " So, “hate speech”, because the Court doesn’t like its message, is not a legitimate form of “freedom of expression.” And, of course, as even a high school student can see, then there really isn’t FREEDOM of expression. Note the utterly unproven conspiracy theory that a [posting on Marc Lemire's website critical of homosexuals intimidated or silenced homosexuals. In fact, it was busybody Richard Warman, not homosexuals, who complained against Marc Lemire. During the years this case has inched through a tribunal and on to the Federal Court, homosexuals have gained the right of same sex marriage, many Canadian cities are flying rainbow flags in support of supposedly aggrieved homosexuals in Russia, several provinces have imposed militantly pro-homosexual curricula even on little grade school children and Canada's present "Conservative" government is among the most "gay" friendly ever. There is NO objective evidence that Kevin Strom's article on The Freedomsite, long since removed, ever intimidated or silenced anybody. The person who faces silencing is Mr. Lemire! The Court has no trouble with the fact that neither intent nor truth is a defence: "Hate speech constitutes an extreme form of expression of limited scope that fosters a climate in which unlawful discrimination may be regarded as acceptable and flourish. It does this by demeaning, vilifying, and marginalizing groups of individuals who share characteristics that constitute a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA. Since hate speech contributes little to the values underlying free speech, its proscription is fairly easily justifiable under section 1. Hate speech constitutes an extreme form of expression of limited scope that fosters a climate in which unlawful discrimination may be regarded as acceptable and flourish. It does this by demeaning, vilifying, and marginalizing groups of individuals who share characteristics that constitute a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA. Since hate speech contributes little to the values underlying free speech, its proscription is fairly easily justifiable under section 1. " As to penalties, only the African Canadian Legal Clinic, represented by two lawyers who were, well, decidedly un-African or Black, wanted the penalties restored. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled: "I agree with the Judge that it is not constitutionally permissible for human rights legislation, to include a sanction designed to impose a punishment that expresses society’s moral opprobrium of the conduct of the wilful communicator of hate speech. " It doesn't matter: Impose a punishment anyway and call it something else: " The Supreme Court recognized for the first time in Whatcott that the imposition of a financial sanction was a constitutionally permissible remedy for breach of a hate speech provision in human rights legislation. Thus, Justice Rothstein said (at para. 149): As in tort law, an award of damages made pursuant to the Code is characterized as compensatory, not punitive, and is directed at compensating the victim. However, the circumstances in which a compensation award will be merited should be rare and will often involve repeat litigants who refuse to participate in a conciliatory approach. " So a financial award is not "punitive"? The plain meaning of English is being bent like a pretzel.” Since subsection 53(3) does not in terms require proof of loss by the victim, it is not compensatory in precisely the same way as paragraph 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Code which applies when the hate speech caused the injured person to suffer with respect to feeling, dignity or self-respect. Nonetheless, when applied to breaches of section 13, subsection 53(3) can be regarded as compensating victims specifically identified in hate speech for the damage presumptively caused to their “sense of human dignity and belonging to the community at large” which Whatcott recognized (at para. 81) that hate speech causes. In my view, when the penalty provisions are considered in the context of the objectives of the CHRA and its remedial scheme, they are not properly characterized as penal in nature." To compensate identified people “for the damage presumptively caused to their ‘sense of dignity’”? Note the weasel word “presumptively”. Thus, no real damage or injury has to be proven at all. So, where does this decision leave freedom of speech? On one level, the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeals will effect only Mr. Lemire who now faces a sentencing hearing, should he not appeal. As Sec. 13 has been repealed, the Federal Court of Appeals decision is largely moot. However, and this is a big however, as Sec. 13 has been ruled constitutional, another government, say Liberal of NDP, could reintroduce it. And there lies the danger. CAFÉ has been an intervener and has supported Marc Lemire throughout his 11-year ordeal. CAFÉ’s submissions were studiously ignored by the federal Court of Appeal. For good reason. CAFÉ reminded the Court of the testimony before the Tribunal of Professor Michael Persinger. The eminent neuropsychologist sank the leaky scientific ship on which all this Frankfurt School “vulnerable minority” theory is based. His expert testimony testified that people subjective to “aversive speech” (not the emotional “hate speech” label, but views contrary to or critical of their own group) do not fall apart in fear, withdrawal or alienation: they either reject the criticism as crazy or laughable, or fight back and argue – both healthy reactions. The Court ignored the submissions that their ideology that forms the justification for the erasing of free speech through Canada’s various “anti-hate” laws is as utterly without scientific basis as the views of the flat earth society. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION Censorship Victim Marc Lemire Comments The court is an insane asylum! Stay as far away from it as you can, if you want any “justice”! The three Appeals court fossils upheld Section 13, and REINSTATED the penalty provisions, although all the main parties agreed it was unconstitutional! The only party who wanted it was the “African-Canadian” legal clinic, whose two religio-ethnic lawyers were distinctly non-“African Canadian”. Those judges were rubbing their hands together when the “African-Canadian” legal clinic made submissions about how the penalty provision is not actually a penalty. And the Judges were their argument, almost verbatim, in this decision. I guess this means… back to the Tribunal for me. For my penalty/non-“penalty” phase, where they slap me with a lifetime speech ban and possibly thousands in penalties/non-”penalties”. Disgusting! -Marc

 

Censorship Victim Marc Lemire Comments

 

The court is an insane asylum!  Stay as far away from it as you can, if you want any “justice”!

 The three Appeals court fossils upheld Section 13, and REINSTATED the penalty provisions, although all the main parties agreed it was unconstitutional!  The only party who wanted it was the “African-Canadian” legal clinic, whose two religio-ethnic lawyers were distinctly non-“African Canadian”.

 

Those judges were rubbing their hands together when the “African-Canadian” legal clinic made submissions about how the penalty provision is not actually a penalty.  And the Judges were their argument, almost verbatim, in this decision.

 

I guess this means… back to the Tribunal for me. For my penalty/non-“penalty” phase, where they slap me with a lifetime speech ban and possibly thousands in penalties/non-”penalties”.

 

 

Disgusting!

 

-Marc

Regina v RadicalPre​ss.com LEGAL UPDATE #17 January 27th, 2014

Posted on by
Regina v RadicalPre​ss.com LEGAL UPDATE #17 January 27th, 2014
Dear Radical Reader,
The following Legal Update is the longest one in the series thus far. It basically covers much of the story leading up to the Preliminary Inquiry that took place on January 22nd and 23rd, 2014.
I would ask that you try and move this article around as much as possible. It contains a fairly substantial amount of information pertaining to what is currently going on here in Canada with respect to the ever-increasing efforts on the part of the Jewish lobby to impose greater and greater controls over our basic rights and freedoms. Going through this article will give you some additional insights into just how the process is unfolding.
For freedom of speech and Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17 

January 27th, 2014

Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 6.37.00 AM copy

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17

January 27th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

Due to the nature of this particular Legal Update, i.e., it being recent events connected to my Preliminary Inquiry, the necessity arose for editorial commentary throughout the report wherever I felt it was warranted. It also meant that it would be a rather long article as well. The need to present a general overview of my case now that it’s finally reached this stage is the reason for its inordinate length.

January 22nd, 2014 marked the 616th day since my arrest on May 16th, 2012 for the alleged crime of “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, [that] willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” The actual section of the Criminal Code of Canada reads:

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters”, 11(b) it states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

According to the stated legal rights of all Canadian citizens (as denoted in the above Section 11(b) of the Charter), one must assume that a wait of 616 days or 20 months plus should be construed as being a “reasonable time” in which to expect one’s case to be heard in a Canadian court of law. But of course 616 days is only the  beginning of the arduous process of seeking justice within the Canadian court system. January 22nd, 2014 was not the day when my trial on these specious charges was set to commence; it was but the date set for the Preliminary Inquiry which is basically an opportunity afforded the accused wherein they are given an opportunity to dispute the actual evidence which precipitated the laying of charges based on the Crown’s allegations.

I will get to the actual proceedings but first I’d like to say a few words about this section of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) which is placed under the heading “Hate Propaganda” and exists as Sections 318(1) through to Section 320.1(1) of the Code itself. This vile, undemocratic section of the Criminal Code was inserted into law by Zionist forces operating within the Cohen Commission back in 1970 and remains the one critical section of Canada’s criminal code where the pro-Zionist elements within Canada  are now focusing their combined effort in a last ditch, desperate legal campaign designed to censor and silence Canada’s Internet and prevent Freedom of Speech from occurring without fear of legal reprisals.

 

Until Canada is free of all this Zionist  created “HATE” legislation we will never be able to say that we’re a democratic nation that values the one fundamental God-given right that must remain sacrosanct in order to retain all of our other inherent rights, that being the right to free and unfettered expression. All of it must be eliminated so that a level playing field will exist for every Canadian.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2

The Preliminary Inquiry – Day One

Back in November of 2013 the date, January 22nd, 2014, was set for a full day to hold a preliminary inquiry into my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case involving the two complainants – B’nai Brith Canada (represented by Harry Abrams) and Richard Warman, a lawyer involved in numerous former Sec. 13 cases prior to the law’s repeal in June of 2012. My former lawyer, Doug Christie, had requested that at least one week of time be set aside for the preliminary inquiry in order to challenge all the specious evidence that Crown had used in order to gain its search warrant then used to invade my residence and steal all my computers and electronic files plus other hard copy materials which weren’t covered in the warrant. Crown at that time agreed to four days.

After the passing of Mr. Christie in March of 2013 Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston changed that time period to one day, telling the judge that in her estimation a single day was all the time necessary for Crown to – as Crown and Judge Morgan have been wont to say repeatedly, – “pass the Shepherd test” and move the case on to the trial stage. The “Shephard Test“, for those not versed in court legalese involved an extradition case back in the 1970′s out of which emerged a number of test arguments as to the degree of evidence required in order for a judge to determine whether or not to move the case forward.

Being self-represented and unaware of the machinations of Crown I ended up with one day in order to address all the issues including the sworn information of Cst. Normandie Levas provided to a Justice of the Peace in order to have the search warrant approved; information that contained numerous allegations which appeared to have been written by a Zionist script writer rather than by someone who was at the time relatively new to the controversial BC HATE CRIME TEAM and not versed in the whole array of research necessary to make expert commentary on issues dealing with what may or may not be alleged to be “hate” literature. All these allegations initially sworn in the Information regarding postings on the RadicalPress.com website were basically the same evidence that Crown was now introducing at the preliminary inquiry in order to convince Judge Morgan that there was sufficient evidence to commit my case to trial.

Initially Crown was planning to call a number of witnesses for the preliminary inquiry, the bulk of them being RCMP officers involved in the surveillance and later plunder of my home and theft of my computers and electronic files and firearms. The others were Barry Salt an expert in the field of forensic examination of computers and data and, of course, Det.Cst. Terry Wilson, the Lead Investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. I had made application to the court to have the judge order Crown to subpoena the other crucial witnesses – the two complainants who had filed the vexatious complaints in the first place and Cst. Normandie Levas, the second member of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who, as the Affiant swearing the Information, was responsible for the act that led to the granting of thel search warrant used to enter my home and steal all of my computer equipment and firearms. Judge Morgan did eventually direct Crown to have Cst. Levas appear but as she was on “holidays” at the time of the scheduled inquiry a later date of March 13th, 2014 was set for cross-examination.

NewWilsonPhoto

During an earlier focus hearing on January 3rd, 2014 Judge Morgan mediated some concessions between Crown and myself, which I agreed to, regarding some of the witnesses being called in order to prove where I lived and what firearms I had in my possessions and so on; items that would cut down the time which would otherwise have been wasted giving evidence for incidental aspects of the case that I wasn’t intending to challenge. As a concession to this Crown agreed to reconsider the second firearms count involving unsafe storage.At the time, I informed Judge Morgan that I recently had taken the PAL firearms safety course and received 100% of the written test and 90% on the practical test and was now in the process of sending my application off. I also informed Judge Morgan that I was planning to purchase a certified gun storage locker in which to store my firearms properly. Crown then stated that if these preconditions were achieved that they would consider staying the firearms charge.

What was scheduled to be a one day inquiry, like all great plans of mice and men, turned out to be a horse of another colour. I had made arrangements with my two witnesses, Mr. Frank Frost and Mr. Lonnie Landrud, to be at the courthouse at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, January 22nd. When my wife and I arrived around 9:15 a.m. it was evident that my case was not going to be the only one scheduled for the morning. Now this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Quesnel Courthouse (or in many other smaller communities throughout B.C.) and it all stems from government ineptitude (or design?) that there are never enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms available to handle the volume of cases awaiting address. Nonetheless, I did expect that for a formal preliminary inquiry time would have been arranged so that it could occur without needless interruption.

After approximately twenty minutes of lawyers and Crown attempting to reschedule times, etc. my case began and Crown called their first witness, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, lead investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM. Det. Wilson informed the court as to his name and position within the RCMP and when Crown asked him about his involvement with RadicalPress.com he told the court that he been monitoring the RadicalPress.com website since April 28th, 2011. It was on that date he first received an email from Richard Warman who registered a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against the site. I thought it was rather amusing given that it was right around the time of the last federal election (May 2nd, 2011) and I had just posted a long article on Harper only the day before on April 27th which I had titled “Hating Harper“. It’s possible that Warman didn’t appreciate the graphic header for the piece in question that caused him to lay the charge or it may have been my advice at the time to the Canadian electorate warning them of dire days ahead should Canadians hand Stephen Harper a mandate to govern the nation. Whatever it was, given the current controversy over Harper and his entourage of Zionist sycophant ministers and pro-Israeli band of Chabad Lubavicher controllers traveling at great taxpayer expense to the  state of Israel and soiling Canada’s image as a sovereign nation with their unabashed grovelling and overt support for this criminal state, it was rather apropos that Warman would suddenly file a complaint against RadicalPress.com at that particular point in time.

Det. Wilson then went on to describe to the court how his unit has been investigating the website since that time (a period of approximately 32 months thus far) and in the process confirming to the judge that the articles and online books and links, etc. were available to the general public and that anybody could just go there and click on a link and read whatever they wanted without having to enter any passwords or penetrate any firewalls. I thought to myself as he was going on, “My goodness, an acknowledged alternative news site and all you have to do is click on the url to it and the home page or whatever document hyperlink you may have clicked on in the sidebar or the menu bar above just suddenly appears and you can actually view it and read it! What a genius that Arthur Topham must be!”

Det. Wilson also told the court that the website has been running and posting new materials on a regular basis ever since the original conditions of my bail were changed with the exception of a few days in November of 2012 when the site was transferred to a new host server.

It was at this point that Det. Wilson then set up his laptop and introduced the courtroom to a special computer software program that allowed him to show the judge, myself and Crown what appeared to be interactive video footage of my website that they had copied to the program. We all had our own individual monitor screens and sat there while Det. Wilson took us on a virtual journey around the RadicalPress.com home page explaining to the judge and Crown how the site operates. Given the fact that it operates as any normal WordPress program would it was like sitting through an introductory lesson on basic computer skills that one might offer a Grade 2 or 3 class of children. This went on for some time and we all observed with great interest as Det. Wilson clicked on a hyperlink in the Pages section on the side bar and lo and behold the article or book would suddenly appear right there on the screen! All of this was, ostensibly, being done to show that any person in Canada could easily access all the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” and “racism” toward the Jewish population that the Crown alleges is present on the RadicalPress.com website.

Having endured this little media sideshow the judge then called for a break at 10:15 a.m. after which court resumed and other cases once again intruded into the schedule. My inquiry ceased at that point. The lunch hour eventually came and when court reconvened at 1:30 p.m.for the afternoon session more cases consumed the time. It wasn’t until around 3:45 p.m. that the preliminary inquiry resumed. It was at this stage that Crown finally got down to the meat and potatoes of its argument. Det. Wilson was presented with a massive black binder that eventually was entered as Exhibit A in the proceedings. I had been given the same binder a couple of days prior to the inquiry as well and had time to peruse its contents beforehand so it wasn’t a surprise to me. What it contained was hard copy pages of four online books that are present on RadicalPress.com plus two articles of my own that were also on the site. Each was given a tab number and they appeared in the following order:

Tab 1: Germany Must Perish
Tab 2: Israel Must Perish
Tab 3: Protocols of Zion
Tab 4: The Biological [sic]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion
Tab 6: Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham

Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston then proceeded to ask Det. Wilson questions regarding the 6 items posted on RadicalPress.com.

With respect to Tab 1 which was the online version of Theodore N. Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish!  Wilson went on to describe the book and what it was about. He gave a reasonable outline of its aim and purpose which was to spread anti-German propaganda against the National Socialist government of Germany and the German nation.

When it came to Tab 2 Wilson presented his views in a somewhat modified form than his original statements wherein he was very emphatic about the fact that I had actually written a “real” book bearing the title, Israel Must Perish! Now he was admitting that it was a reproduction of segments of Kaufmann’s book and that I had only changed certain words like “Germany” and “German” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Netanyahu” and the rest of the text was actually Kaufman’s. Crown then asked Wilson if he had read the Preface to this “book” which was written my myself. Wilson responded in the affirmative and said that he had read it. At no time though did he broach the issue of my assertion (contained in the Preface) that it was actually a satirical article based on Kaufman’s original hard copy book.

Tab 3 was, of course, the infamous book that the Jews have been attempting to erase from the screen of world history ever since it first appeared back at the turn of the 20th century. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been attacked as an “anti-Semitic” book from day one and as the writer/journalist Douglas Reed, author of the classic study of Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, wrote, more money has been spent on trying to prove this particular book to be a fraud than any other book in history. And for good reason.

Again, Det. Wilson’s assessment of the book was that it was a fraudulent attempt to promote anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish population and added that those who promote it see the book as a “roadmap” of the Zionist Jews’ attempt to “take over the world” and create a Jewish one world government. Crown asked Det. Wilson whether the book existed on other websites as well and he confirmed that it could be found on many websites besides RadicalPress.com.

Tab 4 was the online version of a book written by Eustice Mullins called The Biological Jew. Wilson then went on to describe the book as an anti-Semitic book that describes the Jews as “societal parasites”. It was also admitted that this book could also be found on other websites as well as on RadicalPress.com.

Tab 5 referred to the book titled, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. Crown asked Det. Wilson to describe the book and he testified that it was in his estimation “anti-Semitic” and then went on to describe how bad it was and how the author accuses the Jewish rabbis of terrible things like having sex with very young children and so on. Crown then asked Wilson whether or not the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person”. Wilson’s response was, “I have no idea if the author is a real person”.

Tab 6 was a reference to an article that I had published on RadicalPress.com back on August 13, 2013 entitled, Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew . Finally, I thought to myself, we’re getting to something that I, personally, had penned and I was waiting for Det. Wilson’s assessment of how he felt my writing was such an example of “hate” that it warranted inclusion in the Crown’s arsenal of classic cases of such literature. Det. Wilson then went on to explain to the court that it was a graphic image which I had included in my article that he perceived to be proof that it was yet another anti-Semitic, “hate” piece. I enclose that example directly below for the reader’s consideration.

Screen Shot 2014-01-25 at 9.43.15 AM 2

Following Wilson’s comments regarding Tab 6 Crown then asked him if all of these online books were still up on the website and Wilson replied that all of the books that he found on the website were still there and to his knowledge none had been removed since I was arrested back on May 16th, 2012. It was at this point that Det. Wilson stated, “This is a massive website.”

Crown asked a few other related questions about Det. Wilson’s role in the arrest and he explained that he wasn’t present at my home during the search and seizure of my computers and firearms but that Cst. Gill, the “Exhibit officer” has provided him with my property afterwards. It was then that Det. Wilson sent the computers and firearms for “forensic” analysis so that the RCMP could show the court that I was the actual owner of these stolen devices.

It was at this point that the day’s testimony concluded and we left the courthouse.

The Preliminary Inquiry – Day Two

Day two proved to be much more productive in terms of time and purpose although it got off to a bit of a rough start. One of my witnesses that I had subpoenaed to appear on my behalf, Mr. Frank Frost, had traveled down to Quesnel at his own expense to attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Given that I had been told I would get my full day in court I was not that impressed when I only had approximately an hour and a half thus far allotted for the process.

When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, January 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. the court list showed a number of other case listed for the morning. At that point I decided to challenge the court on the matter and when the judge entered the court room and began discussing the scheduling with Crown and other lawyers present I stood up indicating that I had something to say and the judge told me to take a seat momentarily and he would get right to me. I sat down and within a few minutes he called my name and I stood up and said to him, “Your honour, I notice again today the list is getting longer than even yesterday and I’m not getting my day in court. I see this as an attempt by the Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. My wife, who is Jewish, is greatly offended by these charges brought against me therefore, in the interest of fundamental justice I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice.”

Judge Morgan responded by saying that he was not about to dismiss the case and also stated that there was no design on the part of Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. He followed those comments with a short dissertation on the problems and challenges that small communities face where they don’t have enough time and resources to deal with the ongoing case loads and therefore have to juggle and schedule them in order to do the best they can. He assured me that my situation was no different than any of the others. I had made my point and didn’t pursue the issue any further. From then on matters began to unfold as they should and within a very short period of time I was able to begin my cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson.

Being self-represented since the passing of my former counsel Mr. Doug Christie I was now faced with the task of cross-examining the testimony the arresting officer, Det. Wilson, had given to the court yesterday. I had prepared a series of questions that I planned to ask Wilson plus also a number of other court cases which related to the inquiry process which I intended to use if Crown began to object to any of the questions I had for Det. Wilson. Due to the length of all the questions, many of them not relevant at this point to the update itself, I will focus on only those that I feel are important to a general understanding of the case as a whole. As well, readers should bear in mind that Det. Wilson (and most likely B’nai Brith Canada’s agent Harry Abrams) monitor the RadicalPress.com website on a daily basis and I don’t wish to divulge certain matters which I intend to use later should the case go to trial.

Cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson

[Editor’s Note: Please bear in mind that all of the exchanges between myself and Det. Wilson during my cross-examination are taken from my notes which I made at the time I was questioning him and they may not be 100% accurate. Once I obtain a written transcript of the inquiry I’ll know if I erred on any of the minor details but for the most part I’m only quoting the things that I wrote down immediately upon Wilson’s stating them. Readers should also bear in mind that during the questioning I asked Det. Terry Wilson to inform the court as to his level of education and he answered by stating that he had received an Honours Degree in History from the University of Guelph, Ontario.]

I began cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson by first reading out the following:

“Det. Wilson, I’m going to begin by taking you to the Criminal Code section under which I am charged. Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

‘(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offence … or an offence punishable by summary conviction.’”

I then asked Wilson the following question: “I believe you stated yesterday in your testimony that the BC HATE CRIME TEAM was formed in 2009 and that it consists of two people, yourself and your partner/assistant Cst. Normandie Levas. Is this correct? Could you please tell the court how many actual convictions your unit has successfully prosecuted under Sec. 319(2) of the CCC since the formation of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.” Wilson’s reply was that to date his “Hate Crime Team” had not convicted a single solitary soul! He did say though that there were two cases pending, my own plus another investigation that’s still underway.

Given all the media hype about there being so much “hate” on the Internet it begs the question as to just how much this propaganda about hatred that’s being emphasize by Jewish lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs is merely Zionist PR designed to justify the spending of vast amounts of taxpayer money in order to create these provincial “HATE CRIME UNITS” across Canada that ultimately only serve the interests of the foreign lobbyists who exploit them in order to monitor, harass, intimidate and punish critics of the Zionist ideology, their global mechanisms and the criminal state of Israel.

Considering Det. Wilson’s concerted effort to show the court that RadicalPress.com was wide open to the general public and that anyone in Canada could easily access the website plus all its accompanying links to a vast assortment of online books and articles, I asked Det. Wilson if he had any evidence that the material on the website was actually viewed and read by anyone. His reply was “Yes”. Then he stated that both of the two complainants, Harry Abrams and Richard Warman plus himself had accessed the site. That was the sum total of his evidence. No shit! That was it!

So it was manifestly obvious that no one else in all of Canada had gone on to the RadicalPress.com website, found it to be “anti-”Semitic” and then registered a complaint against it with the BC HATE CRIME TEAM claiming the site was promoting “hatred” contrary to  Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Yet, because these two  had filed complaints, that, in the Crown’s view, were reason enough to monitor my website; the RCMP did helicopter and ground surveillance of my home and property; stalked both my wife and myself in the days prior to my arrest; flew the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” up from Surrey, B.C. (a distance of approximately 600 km) at great expense to the taxpayers of the province; conscripted a number of local police officers as well; stopped me on my way to Prince George on business; arrested me; handcuffed me; terrorized my wife; hauled me off to jail, leaving my wife on the highway in the middle of nowhere; then waited for some justice of the peace on the lower mainland to sign a phoney, illegal search warrant so the police could eventually enter my home, scavenge and steal what they could of my computers and electronic files, and make off with all of my firearms.

Does this sound like the “free and democratic society” called Canada that we see enshrined in the Charter of Rights or Freedoms or is it more in keeping with the Marxist Communist Bolshevik dictatorship under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin where all it took was a single accusation from an enemy and you suddenly found yourself dragged before a tribunal of crooked, conspiring commissars where all your legal rights suddenly vanished, truth was no defence and you’re then subjected to humiliation and the abject opprobrium of the state and either sent off to spend your remaining years in some northern gulag wasteland or else escorted down into a dark dungeon to receive a bullet in the back of the head?

Two Gulags

For those readers who’ve yet to experience such tactics by the state this may all sound a bit fantastic but let me assure you that if it’s happening to me and my family and has happened to other Canadians in the recent past it doesn’t bode well for any of you either as this form of systemic covert repression on the part of the state continues to grow more bold and audacious by the day, aided and abetted by the Jewish lobbyists who now so blatantly advertise their power and influence over Canada’s elected Harper government.

As I thought about the two individuals who’s actions had precipitated all the endless angst of the police and the court against myself and my family I pondered what percentage of the Canadian population this would be when we consider that 2 out of 34.88 million people accessed RadicalPress.com and alleged that the site contained “anti-Semitic” articles and books that wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin. A quick calculation indicated that it amounted to 0.00000573394495 % of the total population of Canada.

103,000 Missing Emails

Another area of contention was the matter of all of my private email communications contained in the two computers that the police had taken from my residence. I had only recently received a thumb drive from the BC HATE CRIME TEAM containing what is purported to be all of my stolen emails just days before the Preliminary Hearing and to date I’ve not had the time to check to determine how many are stored on the 32 Gigabit memory stick. Crown was supposed to have returned these emails back in 2012 and it was only recently that Judge Morgan finally requested that CC Johnston contact Det. Wilson and ask him to return them. I had indicated to the judge that there was a large volume of relevant data contained in the emails which I needed for my defence and given that email communications are considered to be “private communications” and not admissible as evidence in Section 319(2) offences they should be returned to me.

It has always been my contention that Det. Wilson took my computers in order to access the information contained in the private communications between myself and my many associates and friends. When questioned on this matter Wilson stated that the police have the right to take an accused’s computer in order to search for evidence that would prove in a court of law that the accused was in fact the person posting to the website. When asked whether or not he or anyone else accessed and read the emails or shared them with anyone else Wilson did his best to deny having done so although he did concede that he saw some of them in the course of investigating the various articles and online books that were now being used to convince Judge Morgan there was sufficient evidence to warrant trying the case but that his main object was to verify the material now being presented to the court as Exhibit “A”. I should add that when I later cross-examined Cpl. Barry Salt he confirmed that when he did his initial analysis of my computers that he found 103,000 emails and 5,500 documents. As well, he stated that the number was closer to 107,500 by now. Unfortunately it didn’t cross my mind at the moment to ask him how he would be aware of any increase in numbers but that’s an issue to be investigated later.

There are very good reasons for me to suspect that Det. Wilson did in fact go through the private emails contained on my iMac computer. This came out when I questioned Wilson on the following:

Det. Wilson, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your own history with regard to these kinds of investigations.

Q:    I understand that you once worked with the London Police Service. Am I correct in that regard?

[Wilson replied by stating that he had joined the police force in Ontario back in 1989 and the hate crime unit in 1995 and that he had moved out to B.C. in 2003 and eventually joined the BC Hate Crime Team in 2009. A.T.]

I also understand from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Warman v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11, that while employed by the London Police Service, you executed a search warrant at the residence of James Scott Richardson, an individual suspected of uttering threats.

“[78] Mr. Wilson obtained a search warrant for the apartment in question, and executed it on September 28, 2001. Mr. Richardson was found in the apartment when the police entered and was arrested. He was charged with uttering threats against property and persons, and counselling the indictable offences of murder and of property damage…

[80] A police crime analyst specializing in electronic evidence was involved in the search operation. He seized a computer found in the apartment, and once back at the police station, made a mirror image of its hard drive and examined its content. Amongst the directories on the drive was one that contained the logs of Internet relay chats in which the user of the computer had participated…”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

According to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, you also executed an arrest warrant for Mr. Alexan Kulbashian, and a search warrant at the residence of Mr. Kulbashian’s parents:

[97] Mr. Wilson’s investigation eventually led him to conclude that “Totenkopf” and “Alex Krause” were pseudonyms for Mr. Kulbashian, and that he had also been involved in the publication of the September 14, 2001, Vinland Voice articles. Mr. Wilson therefore sought and obtained warrants for the arrest of Mr. Kulbashian (on charges similar to those filed against Mr. Richardson) and for the search of his residence at his parents’ home in North York. The warrants were executed on January 30, 2002…”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

And according to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian were later withdrawn:

“[105] In the end, the Crown prosecutor apparently decided to withdraw the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian before going to trial. According to Mr. Wilson, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of conviction on the charges laid against them.”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

But despite the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian, the evidence that you collected in the course of Criminal Code search warrants was later disclosed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson’s reply was that the evidence was disclosed to the CHRC but that it was divulged to them only after the commission had subpoena’d Wilson in order to get it. A.T.]

And that same evidence, collected by you in the course of executing Criminal Code search warrants was also disclosed to Richard Warman, an individual who pursued a complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian.

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson replied that the evidence had been disclosed to the commission itself and not specifically to Warman. A.T.]

Q:    When you disclosed this evidence to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did you know Mr. Warman?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

The Wilson/Warman Connection

Having established that Det. Wilson was involved with alleging and arresting and removing other individual’s computers from their homes over a decade ago I continued questioning Wilson as to his relationship with Richard Warman, the person who had first laid the Sec. 319(2) complaint against me back in 2011.

I asked Det. Wilson the following questions:

Q:    When did you first establish contact with Mr. Warman?

[Wilson replied that he first connected with Richard Warman a year or two after he had joined the Ontario hate crime unit back in 1995 and that it was likely due to Warman having contacted the unit with a complaint. A.T.]

Q:    Did you and Mr. Warman ever discuss the Section 13(1) complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    When did you first establish contact with Mr. Abrams?

[Wilson replied that he first heard from Harry Abrams back in April of 2011. A.T.]

Q:    Did you initially make contact with Mr. Abrams or did he make contact with you?

[Wilson testified that it was Abrams who first contacted him. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware, at the time you executed the search of my residence, that I was subject to a proceeding under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

[Again Wilson affirmed that he was aware of my previous Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint that Abrams had filed against me back in 2007 but he attempted to downplay it by suggesting that his investigation focused on doing a whole new investigation separate from what was done (and still remains current) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware that Harry Abrams was the complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware of any involvement on the part of Richard Warman in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?

[Here Det. Wilson states, “Yes, Warman was also a complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding.” Of course, officially, Richard Warman was not a complainant in the CHRC complaint brought against myself and RadicalPress.com in 2007 although Wilson’s reply now ties in with evidence which I have suggested all along confirms the fact that he was involved but only in a clandestine manner. A.T.]

Q:    Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Warman?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Abrams?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Did Mr. Abrams ever express to you that he was concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me might not be successful?

[Wilson’s reply was that during his investigation he had interviewed Harry Abrams and Abrams had in fact mentioned his Sec. 13(1) complaint against me but that it was only in reference to Abram’s “fear” that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was likely going to be repealed. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Richard Warman?

[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Harry Abrams?

[Again, Wilson says “No” but he then qualified that by adding it has been “just updated”, whatever that means. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with anybody? If so, who?

[Here Wilson stated that only those directly authorized to be involved in the investigation have been privy to the evidence collected. A.T.]

Tabs 1 & 2 – Germany Must Perish! and Israel Must Perish!

At this point in my cross-examination I focussed on the first two tabs mentioned in Crown’s Exhibit “A”, those being the online book, Germany Must Perish! written by Theodore N. Kaufmann and my satirical article Israel Must Perish!.

I began my questioning by asking Det. Wilson if he was familiar with the term “satire” and, if so, could he define for the court its meaning. His response was that it more or less meant “poking fun at something”. I then went on:

Q:    Did Mr. Abrams ever suggest to you that the article Israel Must Perish! was a form of satire?

[Wilson’s response was that Abrams hadn’t told him anything that would lead him (Abrams) to believe it (Israel Must Perish! ) was satire. A.T.]

Q:    Have you read the article Israel Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Were you, at the time you began investigating my website, familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q: Throughout the course of these proceedings you and the Crown have consistently referred to the article Israel Must Perish! as a “book”.  Could you please explain to the court why you have done so?

[Wilson basically dodged the direct question by saying that it was “sections of a book” meaning sections of Germany Must Perish! A.T.]

Q: Are you familiar with the acronym ISBN regarding book publishing? It stands for International Standard Book Number. Every book published has an ISBN that is unique to that particular publication. Do any of your records show an ISBN number for the purported book Israel Must Perish! ?

[Wilson’s response to the first question was “No” he wasn’t familiar with the acronym “ISBN”. As for the second part of the question Wilson looked again at the images of the article that were in the Exhibit “A” binder and then stated, “I don’t recall one.” A.T.]

Q:    Did it ever occur to you that the article Israel Must Perish! might be a satirical reference to the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson’s response to this question was very telling indeed. He simply stated, “No sir.” A.T.]

Q: When you were reading the article Israel Must Perish! on the RadicalPress.com website HYPERLINK http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1313 did you also read the Preface to it which was posted along with the article?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Do you accept that certain satirical material might fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Tab 5: The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 6.49.19 PM

Q: In your testimony yesterday, regarding Tab 5: of the Exhibit Index File 25166 which dealt with the book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Crown Counsel Johnston asked you whether or not the author, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person.” You responded by saying, “I have no idea if the author is a real person.” Given the fact that you claim to be the lead “hate crime” investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM Mr. Wilson did it not occur to you that you might take the time to investigate and find out whether Elizabeth Dilling was or was not a “real person?” I did a simple Google search of Elizabeth Dilling’s name last night after returning home from court and found a total of 211,000 results in less than 30 seconds listing the various works of the author plus biographical documentation from the Jewish-owned Wikipedia site, the free online encyclopedia, which verifies that Elizabeth Dilling was in fact a real person. Given the fact that in your professional opinion you have determined this book to be “anti-Semitic” and worthy of proof, in your estimation, that it constitutes “hate propaganda” or “anti-Semitic hate literature” could you please tell the court why you would not have taken 30 seconds of your time to check into this matter?

Before I was able to read out the whole question to Det. Wilson he interjected by grinning and saying that after yesterday’s court session he had checked and now was cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth Dilling was an actual author of the aforesaid book. He obviously had been caught off guard by CC Johnston’s question regarding the author. His reply to my question about why he didn’t take the time to check the authenticity of the author was that he was “more concerned with the content of the book than with authenticating whether the author was real or not.”

Q:    Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Question Regarding the Search Warrant

Q: On Page 8 of the BC Hate Crime Team pdf it gives an explanation for Sections 320 and 320.1 Warrants of Seizure. These warrant of seizure sections pertain to the removal of hate propaganda written material. This includes hate propaganda that is stored on computer systems and made available to the public, including through the Internet. A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication or electronic material—copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises or on a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court—is hate propaganda, may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of the copies or order the custodian of the computer system to provide an electronic copy of the material to the court.

Now I was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. That section of the criminal code does not allow for warrants of seizure. Could you please tell the court how you were able to gain a search warrant for the removal of all of my computers and electronic files when I wasn’t charged under an offence that permitted such actions?

[Wilson responded by stating “Our search warrant was executed under Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada not under Section 319(2).”A.T.]

Q:    Do you accept that certain political commentary, even commentary which is extremely critical of an identifiable group of people, may fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson replied “Yes”, he did accept that certain political commentary may fall within the protection of Sec. 319(3) of the Criminal Code “but not in the case of RadicalPress.com“.A.T.]

Q:    Could you briefly explain your expertise in identifying speech which is prohibited by Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and not saved by one or more of the defences listed in Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson replied by stating that he had graduated from Guelph University in Ontario with an Honours Degree in History and that he had been working with “hate crime” units both in Ontario and in B.C. for the past 18 years. A.T.]

Q: Could you define for the court the term “hate”?

[Wilson responded by stating that his “HATE CRIME TEAM” uses the definition of hate that was originally used in the R v Keegstra case. A.T.]

Q:    Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code includes an intent requirement. The promoted hatred must be wilful, meaning that the words must be intended to cause hatred. What causes you to believe that this is the case here?

[Without the actual transcripts I can’t state exactly what his reply was other than he started talking about Elizabeth Dillings book, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today and her descriptions of what the Talmud states regarding children, Christians and non-Jews, aka “goyim” or cattle, and how this is intended to cause “hatred” toward those of Jewish ethnicity. A.T.]

Q:    Do you have any expertise in psychology which would qualify you to accurately assess my intent? [Wilson: “No.” A.T.]

Q:    I put it to you that the evidence you have given with regard to the material on my website is not expert evidence. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    I put it to you that all of the evidence you have given is, in fact, unqualified opinion evidence. Would you agree?

[Here Wilson launched into the issue and began telling the court of his many years of investigative experience in the field of “hate propaganda” and “hate crimes” but rather than stating that he was an “expert” he preferred to refer to his work as “investigative knowledge”. A.T.]

Q:    What makes your opinion on the material on my website more valid than that of myself, the author and publisher of the material in
question?

[Wilson’s reply to this question was that his opinion was “no more valid than anyone else’s.” A.T.]

Hatred on SunNewsNetwork by Ezra Levant

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 6.19.54 PM
This is just a screen shot. Please click on the url below to view.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/doug-christie-on-suntv-authur-topham.html

Q:  On November 11, 2012 I sent a private email to you and Cst. Normandie Levas and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston titled, A Personal Appeal. In my letter I spoke about the then recent television interview between my former counsel Douglas Christie and SunTV News Network employee Ezra Levant, host of the show The Source. I explained to you that in the course of the interview, which was approximately six minutes in length, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and a strong supporter of the state of Israel and the political ideology of that state known as Zionism, stated publicly the following about me:

“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic.”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where I, Arthur Topham just happen to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”

Is this not inciting and spreading hatred toward myself in a manner far beyond that which the Crown is alleging RadicalPress.com is doing?

[Wilson’s response to this was that Ezra Levant didn’t break any law in stating what he did on national tv because he wasn’t communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against an “identifiable group”. In other words he was free to malign and smear and tell the whole world that he “hated Arthur Topham” but that didn’t count because I wasn’t a member of an “identifiable group”. I then said to Det. Wilson, “But I am a Christian and so I am a member of an identifiable religious group.” He had no further comment on that. A.T.]

Following this question to Wilson I then read out my letter to the court. Judge Morgan cautioned me that the letter did state that it was written “without prejudice” and that if I entered it into the record it could be used against me. When I told him that I never received a reply from any of the recipients that it was sent to he said okay, go ahead.

A Personal Appeal

Sunday, November 11th, 2012
Cottonwood, B.C.

Dear Jennifer, Normandie and Terry,

Without Prejudice

Yes, this is most likely very unusual for all three of you that someone whom you are determined to convict of a “hate crime” and strip of their constitutional rights would have the audacity to write to you directly but given the circumstances under which I am now placed, I would ask that you open your hearts and your minds, if just for a few brief moments, and take approximate 6 minutes of your time (if you haven’t already done so) to view this video of the television interview that my lawyer Doug Christie did with Ezra Levant on the SunTV News Network’s show, The Source, out of Toronto only a few short hours after our (yours Jennifer and mine) appearance in court on Thursday the 8th of November.

Whether or not you are aware of it that television show is broadcast across the nation and the world and the number of viewers who watched it exceed, by far, the number of readers who frequent my (as one of the mainstream media’s writers recently stated), “nasty little blog called Radical Press.”

Within the span of those six short minutes, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and who also supports Zionism, publicly made the following disparaging statements about me and my website:

“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where Arthur Topham just happens to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”

If this is the sort of ‘impartial, objective and unbiased’ coverage that I can expect from Canada’s mainstream media throughout the upcoming trial do you find it that strange or unusual or unreasonable that I would want to hold on to my fundamental Charter right to be able to continue operating my website and posting my side of the story in my own defence for those who wish to have an alternative perspective to the one that the msm is now so blatantly broadcasting the minute that an Indictment has come down?

Do you not see the obvious slander, libel and defamation of my person and my motives and my work in these public statements? Do you not see how it already is prejudicing my chances for a fair and just trial? Does it mean nothing to you?

Is this what you, as professionals in the field of law and order and justice, condone and are striving to support in your apparent effort to take away my one means of defending myself from such open and mean spirited vituperation?

All I can say is that, in the stillness and quiet of your own inner mind and soul, you try to see and understand the injustice of what you are doing.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
———–

Q:    Det. Wilson, are you familiar with Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q:    Section 11(d) of the Charter protects the presumption of innocence. I put it to you that this includes the idea that an accused person should not be punished for a crime unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q:    Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that no accused person should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I suggest to you that this means the state should not unreasonably interfere with the liberty of an accused person unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    As of October 9, 2012, and to this day, there is no bail order preventing me from publishing content to RadicalPress.com pending trial. Is that correct?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    And in January 2013, this court specifically determined that it would not be appropriate to impose a bail condition prohibiting me from publishing on RadicalPress.com pending trial. Do you recognize this as a decision of this court?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q: On November 21, 2012 I received an email from my then web hosting company  Netfirms.com which contained an email letter which you had sent to Zach P of the legal department sometime between November 5th when the Indictment was handed down and November 21, 2012. In your letter you informed Zach P that I had been charged with a Section 319(2) Canadian Criminal Code offence, alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and that you felt that the contents of my website (quote) “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy. Is that correct?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    What was your objective in writing to NetFirms.com?

[Wilson then explained that he had written to my web host server “To notify them of a potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]

Q:    By alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and suggesting to Netfirms.com that you felt that the contents of my website “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy were you not in effect asking NetFirms.com to do what this Honourable Court has been unwilling to do, namely shut down RadicalPress.com in advance of my trial?

[Wilson basically repeated what he’d just said about simply notifying them of a “potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]

Q:    Do you think you allegations contained in your letter to Netfirms.com were appropriate in view of the presumption of innocence?

Q:    Do you think your allegations were appropriate in view of the right to reasonable bail on just terms?

[Again Wilson basically repeated what he’d previously stated. A.T.]

Q: Your allegations, as stated in your email to Netfirms.com, resulted in my web hosting company giving me a 48 hour notice to remove all of the alleged “hateful speech” or else face having my website removed and losing seven years of publishing content. This sudden 48-hour ultimatum was impossible for me to rectify as Netfirms.com had no idea what the alleged offending articles were and as a further result of your allegations they were unwilling to even negotiate with me. I was faced with having to move the site to another host server in an extremely short period of time and in the process of doing so all the content on the website was damaged and hundreds upon hundreds of articles are now in need of editing to restore them to their original condition. Were you at all concerned that your allegations to NetFirms.com might result in the destruction of important evidence?

[Ditto. A.T.]

Testimony of Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud

Lonnie&Frank700Final

The final lap in the Preliminary Inquiry was the calling of two witnesses in my defence. Both Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud are two of many individuals who have come to realize that the mainstream media no longer serves the general public when it comes to issues of social justice. Both these people have been through the wringer and the stories of the injustices that they’ve witnesses and been subjected to are nothing short of incredible.

The Lonnie Landrud story, should it ever receive the attention that it deserves, will undoubtedly go down in B.C. history as one of the most extraordinary and horrific examples of police corruption and government cover up ever to have occurred in this province. Mr. Landrud had the unfortunate fate in 1999 of witnessing the killing of a young woman by the name of Deena Lynn Braem in Quesnel by two RCMP officers, Cst. Paul Collister and Cst. Bev Hosker. When he called 911 and reported the incident it was the beginning of what is now 15 years of hell on earth for Mr. Landrud. He has had eleven attempts on his life since he first sought justice and at present the police have placed a $100,000 bounty on his head. Mr. Landrud has done everything conceivable to have his case investigated by an independent body and to date has had all of his honest and earnest efforts rebuffed by every level of government from the Prime Ministers office through to the RCMP Complaints Commission and the office of the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark. During one attempt on his life by the RCMP Lonnie Landrud, in self-defence, shot his attacker Cst. Paul Collister with a 12-gauge shotgun, severely damaging the police officers left arm to the point where ample DNA evidence was left at the scene of the shooting to verify the fact that the officer had been wounded. The whole incident was covered up and denied by the investigating agencies and to date no one is willing to investigate and verify the evidence that still exists which will prove all of the allegations which Mr. Landrud has been desperately attempting to have examined.

When I finally heard about Mr. Landrud’s story and watched the videos where he had been interviewed back in 2007 I ran his story on RadicalPress.com in order to assist him in getting the truth out about what he had witnessed and suffered since the night he stumbled on the murder scene. Lonnie Landrud’s story is best told in his own words and writings and for this reason I’ve placed the url to his videos below and also the url to (yet another) letter which Mr. Landrud wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Federal Solicitor General, Rob Nicholson, Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia and Adrian Dix, NDP Leader of the Opposition Party on April 24th, 2013.

Mr. Landrud testified at the Preliminary Inquiry and told the court about his case and the urgent need for alternative media sites like RadicalPress.com that are willing to carry his story where no none of the mainstream media would do the job.

LonnieVidHr

Click on the url below to view
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1362

 Mr. Frank Frost also testified before the court regarding the importance of the social media and alternative news networks like RadicalPress.com. Mr. Frost is another individual who has been the victim of RCMP corruption and judicial misfeasance. Again, like Lonnie Landrud, Mr. Frost followed all the customary channels in an effort to expose the murder of a young child in Victoria, B.C. and was met with police and judicial cover-up every which way he turned. Framed and incarcerated for four months in the Prince George Regional Correction Centre where he was refused even a single phone call for FOUR MONTHS, Frank Frost has continued to take a pro-active position with respect to demands that the corruption that he’s exposing within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the RCMP and the Courts be investigated and rectified. For further information on Mr. Frost’s case please watch his videos located here.

We have not heard the last from either of these two valiant, courageous individuals nor have we heard the last from RadicalPress.com with respect to the pervasive corruption within every level of Canadian government, the mainstream media and all levels of Canada’s judiciary.

This wraps up Legal Update #17 for January 27th, 2014.

*****
 
My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

New “Hate” Charge Files Against Topham: Defence Denied Statement of Particulars

Posted on by

New “Hate” Charge Files Against Topham: Defence Denied Statement of Particulars

Here’s the executive summary of this update in Arthur Topham and his Radicalpress.com’s battle against charges under Canada’s notorious thought control “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.)

1. Mr. Topham, a layman with no background in law, has been denied legal aid in a Rowbotham Application. He must handle his defence in his preliminary hearing alone.

2. Just before the preliminary hearing was to start, January 22, he was charged with a third count of “hate”:
I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” Notice: There are no specifics as to which statements are deemed to have promoted hatred against this privileged group. It’s hard to organize a response or defence in a background. This is prosecution by ambush.

3. The Court refused to compel the Crown to produce Mr. Topham’s tormenters, complainants Richard Warman and B’nai Brith operative Harry Abrams or the two “hate squad” investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas.)

4. The Court turned down Mr. Topham’s application for particulars on the two original counts: specifically, which posts were deemed to promote hatred against Jews.

5. Finally, with the full might of the State arrayed against an impoverished, unrepresented victim, wave the bully fist of further restrictions on him: Crown Counsel Johnson announced, writes Mr Topham, that ” after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.”|

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16 January 16th, 2014

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #16January 16th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) “hate crime” charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.
Since that date I’ve been back in court a few more times on related matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.
During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive amount of purported “evidence” which the Crown intends to rely upon to justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles, posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order Crown to further particularize the case.
That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was “seeking” “particulars relating to the Crown’s theory.” In the Judge’s estimation, “An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the effect of limiting the Crown’s theory of the case; something that Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law.” It all sounds good in “theory” doesn’t it?
Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd, 2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness, Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to “prove” that I was the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never denied.
On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas). In that letter I wrote:
As I’m sure you are well aware the preliminary inquiry is an important opportunity for me to cross-examine witnesses and gather relevant evidence for pre-trial Charter applications in Supreme Court. Much of the necessary evidence for the Charter applications will be put on the record at that time and therefore I feel it behooves the Crown, in the interest of justice, to call those persons specified above for cross-examination by myself, or, in the event I am able to procure counsel in advance of the January 22nd date, my legal representative.

I never heard back from CC Johnston on this matter and so I filed another application on December 30th, 2013 stating the reasons as:

“The complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) and the police investigators (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas) are relevant and necessary witnesses for the purpose of the preliminary inquiry. The Crown is refusing to to call these witnesses. I respectfully request that the Crown be compelled to produce these witnesses.”

As a result a hearing date was set for January 3rd, 2014. During the hearing Crown argued that they didn’t have to produce any witnesses that they chose not to and downplayed the whole notion of the importance of the Preliminary Hearing process. I was given a fourteen page document indexed as: United States of America v. Shephard [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067. This document, according to both Judge Morgan and Crown Counsel Johnston, clearing showed that the threshold to be met in order to justify ordering a trial to be held was so low as to be practically impossible to refute.

Prior to the January 3rd date the Judge had set another date of January 7th, 2014 for what is called a “focus hearing” which, translated into English, means a time to go over the ins and outs of what would be transpiring during the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on Jan. 22nd. He then decided to deal with that matter too on the 3rd and skip the Jan. 7th date. It was during this hearing that Judge Morgan addressed the issue of the thousands of emails which were still on my stolen computers and had not been returned to me. I told the judge that they were relevant to my defence and that they should be returned as part of the disclosure package which had already been returned some months ago. The judge concurred with my argument and after some discussion with Crown directed CC Johnston to contact Det. Cst. Wilson and have him return all of my email correspondence to me. He gave the Crown until January 14th to prepare a response to his recommendation and it was on that date that I was to return to court to find out the results. When I appeared on January 14th I learned that the emails had been downloaded to a file that was supposedly being sent up to the Crown’s office and that I would be notified as soon as it arrived. Judge Morgan told me to contact Crown Counsel’s office if I didn’t hear anything after a couple of days.

It was also on Jan. 14th that I first learned that Crown was also calling Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit to appear at the Preliminary Inquiry. Then, to top things off, came the sudden announcement by Crown Counsel Johnston that the Crown had filed a third count against me! It was a repeat of the original May 16th, 2012 sec. 319(2) CCC charge. This new indictment, known as “Count 3”, had received the consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia on the 31st of December, 2013 and was signed by Peter A. Juk, QC Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The reasons stated were that I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Having made this announcement to Judge Morgan and myself CC Johnston then added that nothing more would be forthcoming as a result of it until after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry when an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.

One further thing needs to be added to this update prior to closing off. This morning, January 16th, 2014 I sent a letter to Crown Counsel Johnston informing her that I had subpoenaed two witnesses to appear in my defence for the Preliminary Inquiry slated for January 22nd, 2013. In that letter I wrote:

“Please take notice that I have subpoenaed and will be calling two witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry to be held on January 22nd, 2014.

Mr. Frank Frost will be appearing to testify on the urgency to maintain an alternative news media here in British Columbia in order to ensure that criminal activities on the part of the RCMP, the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s office (Crown) are exposed to the general public. Mr. Frost is a strong, knowledgeable advocate and expert witness in the areas of children and family advocacy and pedophilia within B.C.’s judiciary.

Mr. Lonny Landrud will also be appearing to testify on the importance of maintaining an alternative new media. Mr. Landrud is an expert, knowledgeable witness in the area of judicial misfeasance as it pertains to his own case. Mr. Landrud was witness to a murder of a young woman in Quesnel by RCMP officers and subsequent to reporting this heinous crime to the RCMP has been the subject of numerous attempts on his life by the RCMP. In one instance Mr. Landrud was forced to shoot, in self-defence, an RCMP officer who was attempting to murder him in his home. Since the advent of these events Mr. Landrud has been unable to have his case investigated at any level of government after years of sincere effort and the mainstream news media has refused to investigate or cover his plight. Mr. Landrud will be speaking to the court on the pressing need for an alternative news media that will and does cover his untold story.”

The next few days will be spent preparing for the Preliminary Inquiry. I will send out another update sometime after the 22nd and let readers know what transpired on that day.

For Peace, Freedom of Speech and Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
New Message

To cafe (cafe@canadafirst.net)

Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

*****

My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

Free Dominion Silenced — Richard Warman Cannot Be Criticized on their Site

Posted on by
Free Dominion Silenced — Richard Warman Cannot Be Criticized on their Site
 

Richard Warman seems to do very well in Ottawa with defamation suits. The courts there seem to like him and he pockets fat awards, plus costs. He’s a hometown boy. His wife too works in the legal system. It’s tough for outsiders like the Fourniers or CAFE/Fromm or others who have not had the home town advantage. On January 23, a provincial  superior judge, Robert Smith,  slapped the Fourniers with a crushing Singapore-style $127,000 judgement — damages and costs for Richard Warman in a six-year long defamation suit. The Fourniers are shutting down their website Free Dominion, at least as a discussion board.

 

They write: “As of today, January 23, 2014, and after 13 years online, Free Dominion is closing its doors to the public. We have been successfully censored.

Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith issued an order in the Richard Warman vs Mark and Connie Fournier and John Does defamation case heard September, 2013. In addition to ordering that we must pay Warman $127,000, Justice Smith issued an injunction against us ordering we that never publish, or allow to be published, anything negative about Richard Warman. This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court. If that happened –unlike in the Ottawa courtroom where we were blocked at every turn from presenting a defense– we actually would have no defense. We would both go to jail. This life sentence was imposed for our terrible crimes of voicing our honestly held beliefs and allowing others to do the same. Defamation law, in its current state, is entirely inadequate and counterproductive when applied to the internet. Now it is being used as a tool of censorship. Effectively!

We are assessing our options.

In faith,
Mark and Connie Fournier

“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier

 

The good news is that the Fourniers are appealing.

 

A lawyer we consulted says that Canada’s libel laws have to be changed and brought into the age of the Internet. To make the owner of a discussion board responsible for the comments of anonymous posters is repressive and unrealistic. In the U.S., an aggrieved person must go after the person who wrote the post, not the owner of the discussion board.

 

The injunction granted to Richard Warman is an outrage. It makes 41 comments — deemed defamatory — forbidden. While the Fourniers may be able to tiptoe in their own comments around the thin-skinned self-styled Ottawa “human rights” lawyer, they fear a troll, a mischievous “anti-racist” or even an exuberant critic of Warman’s decade long attack on posters he disapproves of on the Internet might repeat one of the forbidden criticisms — even as I am forbidden by Madam Monique Metivier’s judgement to call Mr. Warman a “censor” — and, thus, land the Fourniers into a position where they are in contempt of court and on a swift trip to prison — two more potential political prisoners in this land that preaches free speech, but practices repression.
Canada’s libel laws desperately need reform. As they stand now, they are capriciously applied, A prominent Vancovuer shock jock called Doug Christie “a perverted monster” for defending Ernst Zundel’s right to speak. That was not considered defamatory. Canada’s libel laws are beginning to resemble those of Singapore in the past. Yes, opposition to the strongman was permitted and there was a feeble opposition and the trappings of democracy. However, any opposition politician who criticized a government member quickly found himself sued for libel. Ruinous judgements soon all but silenced the opposition.
Sadly, Canada seems headed in this direction.
The Fourniers have decided to shut down FreeDominion as a discussion board. That may be wise in a repressive state but it is sad. Canada needs more spirited discussion, not less.

 

 
 
 
The Ottawa Citizen (January 29, 2014) explains the horrific blow to free speech further:
 
“

Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling

 

Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman wins long-running legal battle

 
By Andrew Duffy, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 28, 2014
 
 

 
Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling
 

Richard Warman has been awarded more than $127,000 in general damages, aggravated damages, punitive damages and court costs because of 41 defamatory statements published on the conservative website in 2007.

Photograph by: Bruno Schlumberger , BRUNO SCHLUMBERGER

OTTAWA — The online political forum, Free Dominion, has shut down after a wholesale defeat in a libel case brought by Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman.

A jury concluded that Warman was maliciously defamed by four commentators on Free Dominion, a website that bills itself as “the voice of principled conservatism.”

Warman has been awarded more than $127,000 in general damages, aggravated damages, punitive damages and court costs because of 41 defamatory statements published on the conservative website in 2007.

Warman rose to prominence during the past decade by using the Canadian Human Rights Act to shut down the websites of people spreading hate speech; it made him the target of free speech advocates in the conservative blogosphere, and on websites such as Free Dominion.

In a recently released decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith granted Warman a permanent injunction that prohibits Free Dominion from ever repeating “in any manner whatsoever” any of the 41 defamations.

The website’s operators, Connie and Mark Fournier, of Kingston, this week shut down freedominion.ca, saying they could not control what comments other people posted.

“By leaving the forum open and allowing people to comment, we’d be opening ourselves to a contempt-of-court charge,” Connie Fournier said Tuesday.

“If someone repeated one of those comments, we would be in trouble — and could even go to jail.”

The Fourniers have operated the website as a “labour of love” for the past 13 years.

“It’s really sad to be at the point where we have to shut down the political forum,” she said. “But we’ve come to the point where it would be crazy for us to keep it open: it would be too much of a risk.”

They have vowed to appeal the defamation case and have launched a campaign on Indiegogo.com to raise money for their legal costs. The campaign has so far raised $2,800 of its $25,000 goal.”

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Arthur Topham Heads to “Preliminary Hearing” on “Hate” Charges; New Count Laid at Last Minute

Posted on by
Arthur Topham Heads to “Preliminary Hearing” on “Hate” Charges; New Count Laid at Last Minute
 
 
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) “hate crime” charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.
Since that date I’ve been back in court a few more times on related matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.

 During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive amount of purported “evidence” which the Crown intends to rely upon to justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles, posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order Crown to further particularize the case.
 That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was “seeking” “particulars relating to the Crown’s theory.” In the Judge’s estimation, “An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the effect of limiting the Crown’s theory of the case; something that Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law.” It all sounds good in “theory” doesn’t it?
Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd, 2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness, Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to “prove” that I was the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never denied.
On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas). In that letter I wrote:
As I’m sure you are well aware the preliminary inquiry is an important opportunity for me to cross-examine witnesses and gather relevant evidence for pre-trial Charter applications in Supreme Court. Much of the necessary evidence for the Charter applications will be put on the record at that time and therefore I feel it behooves the Crown, in the interest of justice, to call those persons specified above for cross-examination by myself, or, in the event I am able to procure counsel in advance of the January 22nd date, my legal representative.

I never heard back from CC Johnston on this matter and so I filed another application on December 30th, 2013 stating the reasons as:

“The complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) and the police investigators (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas) are relevant and necessary witnesses for the purpose of the preliminary inquiry. The Crown is refusing to to call these witnesses. I respectfully request that the Crown be compelled to produce these witnesses.”

As a result a hearing date was set for January 3rd, 2014. During the hearing Crown argued that they didn’t have to produce any witnesses that they chose not to and downplayed the whole notion of the importance of the Preliminary Hearing process. I was given a fourteen page document indexed as: United States of America v. Shephard [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067. This document, according to both Judge Morgan and Crown Counsel Johnston, clearing showed that the threshold to be met in order to justify ordering a trial to be held was so low as to be practically impossible to refute.

Prior to the January 3rd date the Judge had set another date of January 7th, 2014 for what is called a “focus hearing” which, translated into English, means a time to go over the ins and outs of what would be transpiring during the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on Jan. 22nd. He then decided to deal with that matter too on the 3rd and skip the Jan. 7th date. It was during this hearing that Judge Morgan addressed the issue of the thousands of emails which were still on my stolen computers and had not been returned to me. I told the judge that they were relevant to my defence and that they should be returned as part of the disclosure package which had already been returned some months ago. The judge concurred with my argument and after some discussion with Crown directed CC Johnston to contact Det. Cst. Wilson and have him return all of my email correspondence to me. He gave the Crown until January 14th to prepare a response to his recommendation and it was on that date that I was to return to court to find out the results. When I appeared on January 14th I learned that the emails had been downloaded to a file that was supposedly being sent up to the Crown’s office and that I would be notified as soon as it arrived. Judge Morgan told me to contact Crown Counsel’s office if I didn’t hear anything after a couple of days.

It was also on Jan. 14th that I first learned that Crown was also calling Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit to appear at the Preliminary Inquiry. Then, to top things off, came the sudden announcement by Crown Counsel Johnston that the Crown had filed a third count against me! It was a repeat of the original May 16th, 2012 sec. 319(2) CCC charge. This new indictment, known as “Count 3”, had received the consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia on the 31st of December, 2013 and was signed by Peter A. Juk, QC Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The reasons stated were that I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Having made this announcement to Judge Morgan and myself CC Johnston then added that nothing more would be forthcoming as a result of it until after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry when an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.

One further thing needs to be added to this update prior to closing off. This morning, January 16th, 2014 I sent a letter to Crown Counsel Johnston informing her that I had subpoenaed two witnesses to appear in my defence for the Preliminary Inquiry slated for January 22nd, 2013. In that letter I wrote:

“Please take notice that I have subpoenaed and will be calling two witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry to be held on January 22nd, 2014.

Mr. Frank Frost will be appearing to testify on the urgency to maintain an alternative news media here in British Columbia in order to ensure that criminal activities on the part of the RCMP, the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s office (Crown) are exposed to the general public. Mr. Frost is a strong, knowledgable advocate and expert witness in the areas of children and family advocacy and pedophelia within B.C.’s judiciary.

Mr. Lonny Landrud will also be appearing to testify on the importance of maintaining an alternative new media. Mr. Landrud is an expert, knowledgeable witness in the area of judicial misfeasance as it pertains to his own case. Mr. Landrud was witness to a murder of a young woman in Quesnel by RCMP officers and subsequent to reporting this heinous crime to the RCMP has been the subject of numerous attempts on his life by the RCMP. In one instance Mr. Landrud was forced to shoot, in self-defence, an RCMP officer who was attempting to murder him in his home. Since the advent of these events Mr. Landrud has been unable to have his case investigated at any level of government after years of sincere effort and the mainstream news media has refused to investigate or cover his plight. Mr. Landrud will be speaking to the court on the pressing need for an alternative news media that will and does cover his untold story.”

The next few days will be spent preparing for the Preliminary Inquiry. I will send out another update sometime after the 22nd and let readers know what transpired on that day.

For Peace, Freedom of Speech and Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network

“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”


*****


My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund

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).