Tremaine Free; Christian Evangelist Bill Whatcott “A Security Risk”?

Tremaine Free; Christian Evangelist Bill Whatcott “A Security Risk”?
VICTORIA, BC. October 18, 2014. This morning I received a call from political prisoner Terry Tremaine who had just been freed from his vindictive 30 day sentence imposed AFTER he had purged his contempt; that is, removed or asked to be removed (by STORMFRONT) several dozen postings that had been complained of by his longtime tormentor Richard Warman.
 
Mr. Tremaine had commented to me several days before his release for civil contempt against a law that Parliament has repealed (Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act): “Those characters is judges robes were determined to give me a custodial sentence. There is terrible overcrowding in Saskatchewan prisons. They were transferring inmates from the crowded jail in Saskatoon to Regina. This was clearly a punitive, political sentence. They should have given me a suspended sentence or an ankle bracelet.”
 
 
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Political prisoner Terry Tremaine
 
Political prisoners are clearly treated more harshly in Canada, expense to the taxpayer be damned.
 
Meanwhile, activist and evangelist Bill Whatcott wanted to visit Mr. Tremaine in prison, partly in support of free speech and partly as the imperative of his Bibilical duty to comfort the afflicted and visit the imprisoned. Unlike many who talk a lot about religion, Mr. Whatcott actually practices what he proclaims. So, he applied to the prison to visit Mr. Tremaine. Mr. Tremaine duly signed an authorization accepting a visit by Mr. Whatcott.
 
However, no visit ever took place. “Saskatchewan Corrections turned me down as a ‘security risk’,” Mr. Whatcott told CAFE. “I’m not going to break the guy out. He’s only serving 30 days,” he scoffed. “I am not a drug pusher.”
 
Authorities regularly invoke “security” to justify bullying and repression. Visitors see the prisoners behind a plexiglass barrier.  The notion that the 50ish evangelist would somehow be a danger to Mr. Tremaine or the prison is ludicrous. The “security threat” assertion becomes even more inane when we consider that Mr. Whatcott and I both visisted another political prisoner, Brad Love in Lindsay in May. Ontario’s prisons seemed to have no problem with Mr. Whatcott visiting Mr. Love or another female political prisoner, anti-abortion campaigner Linda Gibbons, then incarcerated in Milton in the Vanier Centre for Women. — Paul Fromm
 
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Frederick Fromm's photo.
Evangelist Bill Whatcott

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

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

Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13

Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAFE’s lawyer Barclay Johnson of Victoria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then,  Royal Assent.

Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially,  unconstitutional.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels.

We usually don't quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? ["Call Susie for a good time -- 403 -777-7777" "No, Susie is no fun."]

However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:

"And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there's nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.

 Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we'll see how things play out."

The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality -- minus the financial penalties -- of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government -- NDP, Liberal? -- might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don't kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

To: mailto:h******* 

Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304

 Dear Sir,

I did.

The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given Royal Assent.

Thanks for your concern for free speech.

Yours,

Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut

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

FREE SPEECH URGENT — E-MAIL SENATORS IMMEDIATELY, C-304 Is Now Being Debated for Third and Final Reading

FREE SPEECH URGENT — E-MAIL SENATORS IMMEDIATELY, C-304 Is Now Being Debated for Third and Final Reading
Yesterday, June 25, C-304, which had recently received Second Reading in the Senate, was before the Senate Human Rights Committee. Bill C-304 is crucial in regaining some measure of freedom of speech in Canada. Introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons by Alberta MP Brian Storseth last year, it was past by the House of Commons, June 8, 2012. This Bill would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship — truth is no defence, intent is no defence) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which makes criticism of privileged minorities very risky.
Censorship had some pals at the Senate’s Human Rights Committee, including Sen. Munson who subjected Mr. Storseth to some withering questioning.
However, this morning, according to the office of Sen. Robina Jaffer, Bill C-304 was “reported out of committee, without amendment.”
This is good news for freedom of speech.
The final step is now Third and final Reading. I spoke to the office of senior Ontario Senator Robert Runciman this afternoon. Bill C-304 will be debated either later today or tomorrow for Third Reading.
Those of us who have fought Internet censorship since the days of the Zundelsite case, 1996-2002, this is an exciting moment.
We need your help NOW! I don’t mean tonight or tomorrow. Bill C-304 may come up momentarily.
Please e-mail the Senate. The list is enclosed.
Please be brief and to the point.
Urge the Senators to vote for Bill C-304.
I enclose my letter on behalf of CAFE
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

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

 

June 26, 2013

 
Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech — Support Bill C-304 on Third Reading
Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member’s Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
 
Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was  vague — communicating views “likely to expose” designated or privileged groups to “hatred or contempt.” No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. “Contempt” would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers were a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher rates of lung cancer would be “likely” to expose them to “contempt” is not hatred. Truth would not matter.
 
Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to “shut down” through “maximum disruption” those with an ideology he opposed.
 
Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a “representative” for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse BY process.
 
The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead “hate” investigator was questioned during the Warman v. Marc Lemire Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: “None,” he responded, “freedom of expression is an American idea.” Oh, really?
  
There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 (“hate law”) of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime “cease and desist” order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is “similar”? Although he tried to tone down his language, he was eventually found guilty of “contempt of court” for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal’s order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months!
 
Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society.
 
The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. He was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights — not allowed to talk to the foreign media — for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag!
 
In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada.  We urge you to do likewise, do the right thing and vote “aye” to give Third Reading to Bill C-304. 
Respectfully submitted.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
E-MAILS OF CANADIAN SENATORS
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.caharbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.camaltag@sen.parl.gc.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca, harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca, maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca,

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

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

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

Political dissident and free speech warrior Arthur Topham, relying on research done by lawyer Barbara Kulazska and Marc Lemire provides a tidy summary of the repressive Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Marc Lemire is fighting to have ruled unconstitutional before the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE has backed Mr. Lemire's decade-long battle against a complaint by Richard Warman and is intervening on his behalf in the Federal Court fo Appeal.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )

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

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

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As Lemire goes on to state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.   (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons   acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so   communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a   telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament,   any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt   by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on   the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As   Lemire goes on to state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech

The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court of Canada has made Canada’s ruling elite’s contempt for traditional Christianity quite clear. Christians got stomped and booted in a unanimous six judge decision in the Whatcott case, rendered February 27. While much is made of punishing only the most extreme expressions against privileged minorities, in fact, anyone with strong opinions about homosexuals or other privileged groups like Jews, must be very careful. Where does ridicule, which apparently is acceptable end, and “detestation” and “vilification” that “incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination and other harmful effects” begin? Got that?  Privileged minorities have a superior right not to be “delegitimized”; that is, told that there is something wrong with their behaviour. That newly minted right erases your right to criticize them. Your words, if strong enough, “risk” – note nothing needs be proven —  causing discrimination (which is not always unlawful) or “other harmful effects.” What might those be?

 

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of Frankfurt School social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the Frankfurt School. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the Frankfurt School targeted loyalty to family, country and religion.  There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.

 

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

·       Truth is no defence;

  • ·       Intent is no defence;
  • ·       No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;
  • ·       A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;
  • ·       Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”

 

 

The Court outlines the conflict: “

Four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission concerning four flyers published and distributed by the respondent, William Whatcott. The flyers were distributed to the public and targeted homosexuals and were challenged by the complainants on the basis that they promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that the flyers constituted publications that contravened s. 14 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S.  1979, c. S-24.1 as they exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of their sexual orientation: (2005), 52 C.H.R.R. D/264. Section 14(1)(b) of the Code prohibits the publication or display of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground”. The Code lists “sexual orientation” as a prohibited ground (s. 2(1)(m.01)(vi)).” Mr. Whatcott was fined $17,500 which was to go to the four homosexual who complained against him.  “The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the Tribunal’s decision: 2007 SKQB 450, 306 Sask. R. 186. That decision was reversed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“Whatcott (C.A.)”). The appellate court accepted that s. 14(1)(b) was constitutional but held that the flyers at issue did not meet the test for hatred and were not prohibited publications within the meaning of s. 14(1)(b) of the

Code.”

Human Rights Censorship Victim William Whatcott

 

 

The Court went on to noteWhether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.” Now, you might think that “the likely effect” would require some proof, but NO! You see the effects of “hate” are subtle and often there is no proof of any harm. The Court advances the ludicrous conclusion that, although William Whatcott, a fervent evangelical Christian, is the one silenced and fined, somehow his very criticism of homosexuals in the leaflets he handed out back in 2002 was alleged to have intimidated (or night have, as no proof was offered) homosexuals from debating public policy. “Hate speech is at some distance from the spirit of s. 2(b) because it does little to promote, and can in fact impede, the values underlying freedom of expression. Hate speech can also distort or limit the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence the voice of its target group. These are important considerations in balancing hate speech with competing Charter rights and in assessing the constitutionality of the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code. Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect. Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech. Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind. Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views. Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse. Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate.”

 

So, neither discussing politics nor morality is a protection. All that matters is being most delicate in any criticism of privileged “vulnerable minorities.”

 

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same sex marriage. Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott!  Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.

The Canadian Press (March 9, 2013) reported on a   television advertising campaign by the separatist government of Quebec to promote public tolerance of homosexuals and lesbians kissing in public: “A public display of affection between a couple shouldn’t usually elicit a reaction from people. But what if those engaging in that passionate smooch are a same-sex couple? The Quebec government has launched a unique advertising campaign designed to get the province thinking about just how open-minded it really is when it comes to homosexuality. The TV, radio and web campaign shows routine, everyday scenes in which the viewer has no idea until the end that the ad is about sexual orientation. One shows a man texting his lover while awaiting him at the airport.”

The Court all but admits that Trudeau’s Charter is bogus in its guarantee of free speech or freedom of belief. The peasants get the speech rights the Court chooses to give them: “The limitation imposed on freedom of expression by the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code is a limitation prescribed by law within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.[except traditional Christians.] The objective for which the limit is imposed, namely tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination, is pressing and substantial. Hate speech is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

 

Thus, from Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting to genocide against homosexuals on the streets of Regina. This Supreme Court fantasy is nonsense. Mr. Whatcott never called for deportation, violence or genocide. There was, of course, not a shred of evidence that anything negative resulted from Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets. In the irrational world of the judicial revolutionaries, there doesn’t have to be any evidence. The cultural Marxists simply insist that we must believe: “The fact that s. 14(1)(b) of the Code does not require intent by the publisher or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it overbroad.  Systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination and the preventive measures found in human rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent. The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm.” The prattle about “systemic” discrimination is absurd. Mr. Whatcott was a lone wolf pamphleteer. He was part of no “system.”

 

In a crucial essay (“The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Origin of the Therapeutic State: A Case Study of Jewish Intellectual Activism” Mankind Quarterly, Spring, 2006) Prof. Kevin Macdonald shows that, despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way: “The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect

renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of universal

injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.

 

The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the

movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority, without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes.”

 

 

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness;” that is, gut its purpose of suppressing strong criticisms of some privileged minority. And later in the judgement: “The search for truth is also an important part of self-fulfillment. However, I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.”

 

The Canada of the future will encourage lies and liars, if they flatter privileged groups. Active homosexuals are less likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals is, of course, a falsehood, but, in the Canada envisioned by the Supremos, a cautious man may well decide to avoid the truth and tell this lie. As in the Soviet Union of old, we’ll be proclaiming that the most recent Five Year Plan has succeeded beyond all expectations. Boots are plentiful, even though, actually, we only made boots for the left foot this year.

 

The Supreme Court is quite content with condemning an entire pamphlet or publication because of one strident phrase or term: “However, it is also legitimate to proceed with a closer scrutiny of those parts of the expression which draw nearer to the purview of s. 14(1)(b) of the Code. If, despite the context of the entire publication, even one phrase or sentence is found to bring the publication, as a whole, in contravention of the Code, this precludes its publication in its current form.”

 

Christians got a small sop tossed their way: They can still criticize homosexuals “privately” among themselves but they cannot witness to their faith publicly: “The prohibition only prohibits public communication of hate speech; it does not restrict hateful expression in private communications between individuals.” Can Christians use these repressive laws against their critics? Not likely! They are not a vulnerable group in the world view of the Court’s cultural Marxists: “Although human rights legislation prohibits discrimination of both majority and minority subgroups identifiable by an enumerated characteristic, historical and jurisprudential experience demonstrates that hate speech is virtually always aimed at the minority subgroup. A prohibition of hate speech will only be rationally connected to the objective if its ambit is limited to expression publicly directed at protected group.”

 

And, as a parting shot for having fought, the Court saddled the impoverished Mr. Whatcott, in addition to his now reduced fine of $15,000,  with costs, likely well over $150,000! “Given that Mr. Whatcott was found in contravention of the Code, the Commission is awarded costs throughout, including costs of the application for leave to appeal in this Court.”

 

The Supreme Court did acquit Mr. Whatcott for two of his pamphlets and ruled some of the hazy language of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Acts censorship section unconstitutional: “A prohibition of any representation that ‘ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. Those words are constitutionally invalid and are severed from the statutory provision in accordance with these reasons. The remaining prohibition of any representation ‘that exposes or tends to expose to hatred’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground  is a reasonable limit and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” A tiny victory, but it will take a Philadelphia lawyer to sniff out the difference between ridicule, belittling and likely exposing a privileged group to hatred. The prudent man will just shut up rather than run the risk when commenting on one of Canada’s privileged groups.

 

Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.

The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”

 

At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13  (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on “vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case as there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Judge Sean Harrington’s sentencing decision delivered November 7, 2012 is a nasty piece of work.  It opens:  “The time has come, at last, to penalize Mr. Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

 

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

 

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

 

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009),a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.
at last, to penalize Mr. …Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009), a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.See

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

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

 
Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech — Pass Bill C-304
Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member’s Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was  vague — communicating views “likely to expose” designated or privileged groups to “hatred or contempt.” No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. “Contempt” would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers wer a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher incidents of lung cancer would be “likely” to expose them to “contempt” is not hatred. Truth would not matter.
Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to “shut down” through “maximum disruption” those with an ideology he opposed.
Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a “representative” for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse BY process.
The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead “hate” investigator was questioned during the Warman v. Marc Lemire Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: “None,” he responded, “freedom of expression is an American idea.” Oh, really?
In our submission, the House of Commons was wise to repeal Sec. 13. We understand that it is now in the process of second reading in the Red Chamber. We urge that it receive speedy consent.  It has now been eight months since it was passed in the House of Commons.
There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 (“hate law”) of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime “cease and desist” order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is “similar”? Although he tried to tome down his language, he was eventually found guilty of “contempt of court” for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal’s order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months!
Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society.
The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. The was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights — not allowed to talk to the foreign media — for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag!
In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada.  We urge you to do likewise and pass this piece of legislation as expeditiously as possible.
Respectfully submitted.
Paul Fromm
Director

 

 

E-mail addresses of Canadian Senators
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca, harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca, , , maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca., harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.camaltag@sen.parl.gc.ca,

Canadians, Contact Your Senator About Bill C-34: Let’s Get a Move On!

Canadians, Contact Your Senator About Bill C-304: Let’s Get a Move On!

What ever happened to Bill C-304? That was the private member’s bill passed last June abolishing Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It passed the House of Commons last June, went to the Senate and just seemed to disappear. For this totalitarian piece of political correctness to disappear it must pass the Senate and then receive Royal Consent (the latter a formality). We get the feeling that the human wrongs crowd has some friends in the Red Chamber.
CAFE spoke to the office of Sen.  Bob Runciman, who chairs the Senate Justice Committee, on Friday February 1. The bill is currently before the Senate for second reading. The Senate doesn’t have the tight agenda that the Commons does. Thus, any Senator may speak on any agenda item on a given date. Sen. Runciman’s office said a number of senators still seem to want to speak to the bill before it gets sent on to committee for clause by clause study and, then, third and final reading. The Senate sponsor of the bill is Sen.  Doug Finley. (finled@sen.parl.gc.ca) Bill C-304 is on the agenda for February 5,opening day of the post-Christmas session: “Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Finley, seconded by the Honourable Senator Frum, for the second reading of Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). —(Honourable Senator Kinsella) Apparently, it was last discussed on June 27!
It’s time to nudge the senators to pass this bill at second reading, send it on to committee and, then, give it third and final reading.
Below are the e-mails of almost all of the Canadian senators. As well, there is a link to the list of senators, if you particularly want to target your own province’s senators or to find the FAX or snail mail address to send a letter.
Please act immediately.
Paul Fromm
Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca., harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca, , , maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca., harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.camaltag@sen.parl.gc.ca,

Andreychuk, RaynellRaynell Andreychuk Conservative Saskatchewan 01993-03-11March 11, 1993 Mulroney 02019-08-14August 14, 2019
Ataullahjan, SalmaSalma Ataullahjan Conservative Ontario (Toronto) 02010-07-09July 9, 2010[10] Harper 02027-04-29April 29, 2027
Baker, GeorgeGeorge Baker Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador 02002-03-26March 26, 2002[11] Chrétien 02017-09-04September 4, 2017
Batters, DeniseDenise Batters Conservative Saskatchewan 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02045-06-18June 18, 2045
Bellemare, DianeDiane Bellemare Conservative Quebec (Alma) 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02024-10-13October 13, 2024
Beyak, LynnLynn Beyak Conservative Ontario 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02024-02-18February 18, 2024
Black, DougDoug Black Conservative Alberta 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02027-05-10May 10, 2027
Boisvenu, Pierre-HuguesPierre-Hugues Boisvenu Conservative Quebec (La Salle) 02010-01-29January 29, 2010[13] Harper 02024-02-12February 12, 2024
Braley, DavidDavid Braley Conservative Ontario 02010-05-20May 20, 2010[14] Harper 02016-05-31May 31, 2016
Brazeau, PatrickPatrick Brazeau Conservative Quebec (Repentigny) 02009-01-08January 8, 2009[15] Harper 02049-11-11November 11, 2049
Brown, BertBert Brown Conservative Alberta 02007-07-10July 10, 2007[16] Harper 02013-03-22March 22, 2013
Buth, JoAnneJoAnne Buth Conservative Manitoba 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02029-05-23May 23, 2029
Callbeck, Catherine S.Catherine S. Callbeck Liberal Prince Edward Island 01997-09-23September 23, 1997[18] Chrétien 02014-07-25July 25, 2014
Campbell, Larry W.Larry W. Campbell Liberal British Columbia 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02023-02-28February 28, 2023
Carignan, ClaudeClaude Carignan Conservative Quebec (Mille Isles) 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02039-12-04December 4, 2039
Champagne, AndréeAndrée Champagne Conservative Quebec (Grandville) 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02014-07-17July 17, 2014
Chaput, MariaMaria Chaput Liberal Manitoba 02002-12-12December 12, 2002[21] Chrétien 02017-05-07May 7, 2017
Charette-Poulin, MarieMarie Charette-Poulin Liberal Ontario (Northern Ontario) 01995-09-21September 21, 1995 Chrétien 02020-06-21June 21, 2020
Comeau, Gerald J.Gerald J. Comeau Conservative Nova Scotia 01990-08-30August 30, 1990 Mulroney 02021-02-01February 1, 2021
Cools, Anne C.Anne C. Cools Independent Ontario (Toronto Centre-York) 01984-01-13January 13, 1984 Trudeau 02018-08-12August 12, 2018
Cordy, Jane MarieJane Marie Cordy Liberal Nova Scotia 02000-06-09June 9, 2000[22] Chrétien 02025-07-02July 2, 2025
Cowan, JimJim Cowan Liberal Nova Scotia 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02017-01-22January 22, 2017
Dagenais, Jean-GuyJean-Guy Dagenais Conservative Quebec (Victoria) 02012-01-17January 17, 2012[17] Harper 02025-02-02February 2, 2025
Dallaire, RoméoRoméo Dallaire Liberal Quebec (Gulf) 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02022-06-25June 25, 2022
Dawson, DennisDennis Dawson Liberal Quebec (Lauzon) 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02024-09-28September 28, 2024
Day, Joseph A.Joseph A. Day Liberal New Brunswick (Saint John-Kennebecasis) 02001-10-04October 4, 2001[24] Chrétien 02020-01-24January 24, 2020
De Bané, PierrePierre De Bané Liberal Quebec (De la Vallière) 01984-06-29June 29, 1984 Trudeau 02013-08-02August 2, 2013
Demers, JacquesJacques Demers Conservative Quebec (Rigaud) 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02019-08-25August 25, 2019
Downe, Percy E.Percy E. Downe Liberal Prince Edward Island (Charlottetown) 02003-06-26June 26, 2003[25] Chrétien 02029-07-08July 8, 2029
Doyle, NormanNorman Doyle Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02020-11-11November 11, 2020
Duffy, MichaelMichael Duffy Conservative Prince Edward Island (Cavendish) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02021-05-27May 27, 2021
Dyck, Lillian EvaLillian Eva Dyck Liberal Saskatchewan 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02020-08-24August 24, 2020
Eaton, NicoleNicole Eaton Conservative Ontario (Caledon) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02020-01-21January 21, 2020
Eggleton, ArtArt Eggleton Liberal Ontario 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[19] Martin 02018-09-29September 29, 2018
Enverga, Tobias C.Tobias C. Enverga Conservative Ontario 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02030-12-02December 2, 2030
Finley, DougDoug Finley Conservative Ontario 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02021-07-25July 25, 2021
Fortin-Duplessis, SuzanneSuzanne Fortin-Duplessis Conservative Quebec (Rougemont) 02009-01-14January 14, 2009[15] Harper 02015-06-20June 20, 2015
Fraser, JoanJoan Fraser Liberal Quebec (De Lorimier) 01998-09-17September 17, 1998[26] Chrétien 02019-10-12October 12, 2019
Frum, LindaLinda Frum Conservative Ontario 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02038-01-13January 13, 2038
Furey, GeorgeGeorge Furey Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador 01999-08-11August 11, 1999[27] Chrétien 02023-05-12May 12, 2023
Gerstein, IrvingIrving Gerstein Conservative Ontario (Toronto) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02016-02-10February 10, 2016
Greene, StephenStephen Greene Conservative Nova Scotia (Halifax) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02024-12-08December 8, 2024
Raine, Nancy GreeneNancy Greene Raine Conservative British Columbia (Sun Peaks) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02018-05-11May 11, 2018
Harb, MacMac Harb Liberal Ontario 02003-09-09September 9, 2003[28] Chrétien 02028-11-10November 10, 2028
Hervieux-Payette, CélineCéline Hervieux-Payette Liberal Quebec (Bedford) 01995-03-21March 21, 1995 Chrétien 02016-04-22April 22, 2016
Housakos, LeoLeo Housakos Conservative Quebec (Wellington) 02009-01-08January 8, 2009[15] Harper 02043-01-10January 10, 2043
Hubley, LibbeLibbe Hubley Liberal Prince Edward Island 02001-03-08March 8, 2001[29] Chrétien 02017-09-08September 8, 2017
Jaffer, Mobina S.B.Mobina S.B. Jaffer Liberal British Columbia 02001-06-13June 13, 2001[30] Chrétien 02024-08-20August 20, 2024
Johnson, Janis G.Janis G. Johnson Conservative Manitoba (Winnipeg – Interlake) 01990-09-27September 27, 1990 Mulroney 02021-04-27April 27, 2021
Joyal, SergeSerge Joyal Liberal Quebec (Kennebec) 01997-11-26November 26, 1997[31] Chrétien 02020-02-01February 1, 2020
Kenny, ColinColin Kenny Liberal Ontario (Rideau) 01984-06-29June 29, 1984 Trudeau 02018-12-10December 10, 2018
Kinsella, Noël A.Noël A. Kinsella Conservative New Brunswick (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 01990-09-12September 12, 1990 Mulroney 02014-11-28November 28, 2014
Lang, Hector DanielHector Daniel Lang Conservative Yukon (Whitehorse) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02023-04-03April 3, 2023
LeBreton, MarjoryMarjory LeBreton Conservative Ontario 01993-06-18June 18, 1993 Mulroney 02015-07-04July 4, 2015
Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M.Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas Liberal New Brunswick 02005-09-21September 21, 2005[19] Martin 02023-04-15April 15, 2023
MacDonald, Michael L.Michael L. MacDonald Conservative Nova Scotia (Dartmouth) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02030-05-04May 4, 2030
Maltais, GhislainGhislain Maltais Conservative Quebec (Shawinigan) 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02019-04-22April 22, 2019
Manning, FabianFabian Manning Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02011-05-25May 25, 2011[32] Harper 02039-05-21May 21, 2039
Marshall, ElizabethElizabeth Marshall Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02010-01-29January 29, 2010[13] Harper 02026-09-07September 7, 2026
Martin, YonahYonah Martin Conservative British Columbia (Vancouver) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02040-04-11April 11, 2040
Massicotte, Paul J.Paul J. Massicotte Liberal Quebec (De Lanaudière) 02003-06-26June 26, 2003[25] Chrétien 02026-09-10September 10, 2026
McCoy, ElaineElaine McCoy Progressive Conservative Alberta 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02021-03-07March 7, 2021
McInnis, TomTom McInnis Conservative Nova Scotia 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02020-04-09April 9, 2020
McIntyre, PaulPaul McIntyre Conservative New Brunswick 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02019-11-02November 2, 2019
Mercer, Terry M.Terry M. Mercer Liberal Nova Scotia (Northend Halifax) 02003-11-07November 7, 2003[33] Chrétien 02022-05-06May 6, 2022
Merchant, PanaPana Merchant Liberal Saskatchewan 02002-12-12December 12, 2002[21] Chrétien 02018-04-02April 2, 2018
Don MeredithDon Meredith Conservative Ontario 02010-12-18December 18, 2010[34] Harper 02039-07-13July 13, 2039
Mitchell, GrantGrant Mitchell Liberal Alberta 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02026-07-19July 19, 2026
Mockler, PercyPercy Mockler Conservative New Brunswick (Saint-Léonard) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02024-04-14April 14, 2024
Moore, Wilfred P.Wilfred P. Moore Liberal Nova Scotia (Stanhope St./South Shore) 01996-09-26September 26, 1996[35] Chrétien 02017-01-14January 14, 2017
Munson, JimJim Munson Liberal Ontario (Ottawa/Rideau Canal) 02003-12-10December 10, 2003[33] Chrétien 02021-07-24July 24, 2021
Nancy Ruth Conservative Ontario (Cluny) 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02017-01-06January 6, 2017
Neufeld, RichardRichard Neufeld Conservative British Columbia (Charlie Lake) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02019-11-06November 6, 2019
Ngo, Thanh HaiThanh Hai Ngo Conservative Ontario 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02022-01-03January 3, 2022
Nolin, Pierre ClaudePierre Claude Nolin Conservative Quebec (De Salaberry) 01993-06-18June 18, 1993 Mulroney 02025-10-30October 30, 2025
Ogilvie, KelvinKelvin Ogilvie Conservative Nova Scotia 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02017-11-06November 6, 2017
Oh, VictorVictor Oh Conservative Ontario 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02024-06-10June 10, 2024
Oliver, Donald H.Donald H. Oliver Conservative Nova Scotia (South Shore) 01990-09-07September 7, 1990 Mulroney 02013-11-16November 16, 2013
Patterson, DennisDennis Patterson Conservative Nunavut 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02023-12-30December 30, 2023
Plett, DonDon Plett Conservative Manitoba 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02025-05-14May 14, 2025
Poirier, Rose-MayRose-May Poirier Conservative New Brunswick 02010-02-28February 28, 2010[13] Harper 02029-03-02March 2, 2029
Ringuette, PierrettePierrette Ringuette Liberal New Brunswick 02002-12-12December 12, 2002[21] Chrétien 02030-12-31December 31, 2030
Rivard, MichelMichel Rivard Conservative Quebec (The Laurentides) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02016-08-07August 7, 2016
Rivest, Jean-ClaudeJean-Claude Rivest Independent Quebec (Stadacona) 01993-03-11March 11, 1993 Mulroney 02018-01-27January 27, 2018
Robichaud, FernandFernand Robichaud Liberal New Brunswick 01997-09-23September 23, 1997[18] Chrétien 02014-12-02December 2, 2014
Runciman, BobBob Runciman Conservative Ontario 02010-01-29January 29, 2010[13] Harper 02017-08-10August 10, 2017
Segal, HughHugh Segal Conservative Ontario (Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds) 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02025-10-13October 13, 2025
Seidman, JudithJudith Seidman Conservative Quebec (De la Durantaye) 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02025-09-01September 1, 2025
Seth, AshaAsha Seth Conservative Ontario 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02014-12-15December 15, 2014
Sibbeston, Nick G.Nick G. Sibbeston Liberal Northwest Territories 01999-09-02September 2, 1999[27] Chrétien 02018-11-21November 21, 2018
Smith, David P.David P. Smith Liberal Ontario (Cobourg) 02002-06-25June 25, 2002[36] Chrétien 02016-05-16May 16, 2016
Smith, LarryLarry Smith Conservative Quebec (Saurel) 02011-05-25May 25, 2011[37] Harper 02026-04-28April 28, 2026
Stewart-Olsen, CarolynCarolyn Stewart-Olsen Conservative New Brunswick 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02021-07-27July 27, 2021
Stratton, TerryTerry Stratton Conservative Manitoba (Red River) 01993-03-25March 25, 1993 Mulroney 02013-03-16March 16, 2013
Tardif, ClaudetteClaudette Tardif Liberal Alberta 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02023-07-27July 27, 2023
Tkachuk, DavidDavid Tkachuk Conservative Saskatchewan 01993-06-08June 8, 1993 Mulroney 02020-02-18February 18, 2020
Unger, BettyBetty Unger Conservative Alberta 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02018-08-08August 8, 2018
Verner, JoséeJosée Verner Conservative Quebec (Montarville) 02011-06-13June 13, 2011[38] Harper 02034-12-30December 30, 2034
Wallace, John D.John D. Wallace Conservative New Brunswick (Rothesay) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02024-03-26March 26, 2024
Wallin, PamelaPamela Wallin Conservative Saskatchewan (Kuroki Beach) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02028-04-10April 10, 2028
Watt, CharlieCharlie Watt Liberal Quebec (Inkerman) 01984-01-16January 16, 1984 Trudeau 02019-06-29June 29, 2019
Wells, DavidDavid Wells Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02037-02-28February 28, 2037
White, VernonVernon White Conservative Ontario 02012-02-20February 20, 2012[39] Harper 02034-02-21February 21, 2034
Zimmer, RodRod Zimmer Liberal Manitoba 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02017-12-19December 19, 2017

Click on a senator’s name to get his FAX and postal address. Letters to the Senate can be sent postage free.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/SenatorsBiography/ISenator.asp?Language=E