FREEDOM ALERT! Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship/Truthis No Defence)

Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13

Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was inserted at the last minute, in 1977, on the request of Jewish lobby groups and the then-Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, to “get” one man, John Ross Taylor who was using a telephone answering machine with a recorded message to spread his views. This was in the late 1970s, before today’s Internet technology. Sec. 13 stated: “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” These privileged groups included race, religion, sexual orientation or identity. Mr. Taylor and a number of others using telephone answering machines to spread their views were slapped with “cease and desist orders.” These had the force of a court order.

To broadcast the same or “similar” (whatever that is) messages was considered contempt and cold land you in jail. Happy Warrior John Ross Taylor, an honest and guileless man, was twice sentenced to a year in jail, the last time when he was 77 years of age.

By the  late 1990s, the Internet had replaced telephone answer machines. Sabina Citron, a bitter enemy of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel, made a complaint against him about the Zundelsite, which was located in the U.S. and run by an American citizen, educator and novelist Ingrid Rimland (who would eventually become Mrs. Zundel). This was a hard fought case, which lasted from 1997 to 2002. CAFE was an intervenor. On the censorship side were a number of Jewish groups. The defence argued, inter alia, that the Internet was not “telephonic communication”, as the section was then worded. Bill C-36, an omnibus anti-terrorism law covering many things was brought in as a response to 9/11. It gave control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and clarified that it did cover the Internet.

Along came Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and bitter enemy of free speech — he had earlier tried to get various venues for British author David Icke cancelled. Warman started filing a flurry of human rights complaints against various nationalist bloggers, historical revisionists and others. For a while he was even working for the Canadian Human Rights Commission
, in a way, drumming up business for them.

Most of his victims were poor and few could afford a lawyer. CAFE assisted a number of these victims (Terry Tremaine, Glen Bahr, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, and others, and intervened in the  Marc Lemire/Freedomsite case.

We witnessed a massacre. Along the way, it was ruled that truth was no defence, intent was no defence. No harm had to be proved. In one case, we proved that, prior to Warman’s complaint, only one person, anti-free speech offence hunter Richard Warman, had ever clicked on the offending comment. The wording of the Section “likely to expose” is very loose. What is “likely”? No evidence had to be presented that anyone actually saw the comments, believed them and started to hate a privileged minority. Hatred may be hard to define, but what about “contempt”? Contempt is a negative feeling toward a person.

As it turned out, ANY strong criticism of a privileged group, even if true or fair comment, could lower a person’s opinion of that group and, therefore, might “expose them to contempt.” We learned that there was no defence to a charge under Sec. 13. The anti-free speech complainants, the vast majority Warman’s, won in every case but one — a record only surpassed in North Korea. The press paid no attention to this bullzosing of freedom. Often, echoing the complainant they had demonized the victims as “neo-nazis” or “racists” or “White supremacists”.

Eventually, others decided to mimic the success of Jewish groups and Warman, who worked closely with them, to silence their critics. A group of Moslems, angry at Mark Steyn for his book on the Islamicization of Europe, which had been exerpted in Maclean’s made a Sec. 13 complaint against Maclean’s. Finally, the press paid attention and they learned that there basically was no defence to a charge and that the vast majority had been brought by one man.

Soon, religious groups began to pay attention. We had warned Real Women back in 1998 that having we their teeth on historical revisionists and immigration critics, the thought control freaks would move on to others — Christians who opposed abortion or the LGBTQ agenda. A groundswell of opposition arose to Sec. 13. A Conservative Party conference called for its repeal. A Conservative backbencher, Brian Storseth, introduced  a private member’s bill repealing Sec. 13, which passed in 2014.

Warman no longer has his favourite toy. The enemies of free speech have smarted ever since. Now, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, on whose board sits Richard Warman and Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a decades-long advocate of censorship. Sadly this frenetically pro-censorship gropup has lucked into government money. Even worse, this summer they were the beneficiary of a $500,000 grant from the Bank of Montreal. [No, corporate Canada is no friend of free speech.]

Thus free speech supporters should be concerned by the following news from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.:  “Earlier this month [December] we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.” The problem was views on the Internet dissenting from political correctness.

Government-funded Militant Anti-Free Speech Group, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network Wants Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) Back

Government-funded Militant Anti-Free Speech Group, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network Wants Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) Back

Hatemongers Don’t Face Serious Enough Consequences in Canadian Courts

While Canada has clear legal definitions of what does and does not constitute hate speech, enforcement is lacking. In the cases when known peddlers are actually brought before a judge, the trials are delayed, extended, and lack consequences. It’s time to bring back section 13. Posted on December 30, 2020

Elizabeth Simons 

Canadian Anti-Hate Network



Unsplash


We need to do away with the myth that hate and racism aren’t issues in Canada, especially online. We produce hate speech and internationally recognized hate figures at a disproportionately high rate — in many measures we’re worse than the United States on a per capita basis. 

As it stands now, we do not have the legal tools needed to reverse this trend.

On 4Chan, we represent almost 6% of posts made to the worst message board on the site, and earlier this year UK based think tank Institute for Strategic Dialogue identified 6,600 online channels where Canadians posted hateful content.

Before we begin, let’s quickly debunk the central bad faith argument against our hate speech laws. “Hate” is not impossible to define or undefined — the Supreme Court has clearly defined it and endorsed a guide to determining what is and isn’t criminal hate speech. Our laws have been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court as Charter consistent.

The laws strike a good balance between freedom of expression and criminalizing what is dangerous hate speech. Unfortunately, they aren’t enforced and they don’t have sharp enough teeth to be a deterrent. The very worst actors continue spreading hate largely with impunity.

Police services across Canada are the main roadblock. A few do take it seriously and act, but most are reluctant in the extreme to investigate hate-related charges against individuals — whether that’s hate speech, continuous harassment, and even death threats. Sometimes, overwhelming community pressure on the police works — but shouldn’t be necessary.

Even if the law is applied correctly, it’s not strong enough to be a deterrent. Some hatemongers make a mockery of it and use the opportunity to grandstand. 

James Sears, the discredited former medical doctor who served as editor for Toronto-based Your Ward News, was sentenced to the maximum one year in prison in 2019 for promoting hatred against women and Jews. The crown proceeded with the charge as a summary offence.

Ontario Justice Richard Blouin wished he could hand down more, saying at the time “It is impossible, in my view, to conclude that Mr. Sears … should receive a sentence of any less than 18 months in jail.” 

Sears hasn’t seen a day in jail yet. He was allowed to stay out, pending his argument that his lawyer misrepresented him by not giving him an opportunity to deny the holocaust and call notorious antisemites as “expert witnesses.” He regrets nothing.

Hate vlogger Kevin Johnston was initially charged with a single count of wilful promotion of hatred in 2017. Johnston has still not been tried. In 2019 he lost a $2.5 million judgment to Toronto philanthropist Mohamad Fakih for his role in racially motivated defamation against Fakih in which he repeatedly accused him of being a terrorist. 

Ontario Superior Court Justice Jane Ferguson called Johnston’s attacks on Fakih “hate speech at its worst.” 

Travis Patron, leader of the overtly neo-Nazi federal Canadian Nationalist Party, has been “under investigation” by the RCMP for over a year for a video in which he claimed Jews are a “parasitic tribe” and called for their expulsion from Canada. Patron continues to make antisemitic posts and flyers and do photo ops giving the Nazi salute.

It’s an open and shut case. What could possibly make it take this long to lay charges? 

In 2018, a warrant was issued for Gabriel Sohier Chaput, aka Zeiger — called one of the most prominent neo-Nazis in North America, and writer with The Daily Stormer, a white supremacist website — for spreading hatred. Having been on the run for two years, in August 2020 Chaput reappeared and is awaiting trial in Montreal. 

Chaput is one of the ideological leaders of the newest generation of neo-Nazi terrorists — his hands are soaked in blood. It’s a travesty that the most he’s likely to get is a year. It’s uncertain whether he will even spend it in prison, given the pandemic. 

Neo-Nazi Paul Fromm was under investigation by the Hamilton Police Service for posting the manifesto of the Christchurch killer, titled “The Great Replacement” — a nod to the white supremacist conspiracy theory that white people are being replaced —  in full on his website in 2019. Fromm had stated, “[The shooter’s] analysis of the crisis we face is cogent.”* 

They decided not to charge him.

British Columbia’s Arthur Topham, convicted in 2015 of one count of communicating online statements that wilfully promoted hatred against Jews, and again in 2017, had been sentenced to a six month conditional sentence, two years probation, a curfew, and was banned from posting online. 

In early 2020, Topham was again before the courts for breaching his probation order and spreading online hate. 

Some of these people just won’t stop — not as things are.

Our hate speech law,  s. 319 (2), is crafted to balance freedom of expression while criminalizing the worst hate speech. Unfortunately, it’s not a deterrent for the most vitriolic offenders because the police won’t enforce it, and some hate mongers laugh off the consequences. 

It feels like we’re banging our heads against the wall filing criminal complaints.

Before 2014, members of the public could file a hate speech complaint under s.13. Credible complaints went to the Human Rights Tribunal, and a panel of judges could order hatemongers to stop. It was relatively fast, gave communities the power to defend themselves legally, and it worked. It gave us direct access to justice

If they refused to stop, they were in violation of a standing court order and were relatively quickly thrown in jail. Eventually, most of them learned their lesson.

Earlier this month we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.

Every single anti-racist and human rights group we know of wants it back.

Bring it back.

Follow Elizabeth Simons on Twitter @esimons_

_____* This viciously anti-free speech group utterly distorts my posting of the Christchurch Manifesto. Yes, I said his analysis of the dire position of Europeans, betrayed internally and being replaced by an elite-organized Third World invasion_was correct. BUT, and this is a huge BUT, I added that his solution — shooting up two mosques and killing 31 people was NOT the solution._________________________________________

Sears’ St. Germaine Appeal Against “Hate Law” Conviction & Sentence Proceeds Under Protest Via Zoom

Sears’ St. Germaine Appeal Against “Hate Law” Conviction & Sentence Proceeds Under Protest Via Zoom

On Thursday, November 5, Judge Peter Cavanaugh turned down a motion for postponement of the Appeal proceedings as a previous judge had abruptly ordered the Appeal by Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine to proceed by Zoom after the Crown Attorney said his life was a risk in open court as Dr. Sears cannot, for religious and medical reason, wear a mask.

The Appeal is against both the conviction and maximum one year sentence handed handed down in the matter of Sec. 319 “hate law” charges against satirical broadsheet editor Dr. James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine,

In a piece of legal arcana, the judge ruled that the order was not appealable at this stage but could only be challenged at a further appeal.

The appeal proceeded today under protest.

What Sort of Man Seeks to Have Another Fired, His livelihood Imperilled & He and His Family reduced to Poverty?

What Sort of Man Seeks to Have Another Fired, His livelihood Imperilled & He and His Family reduced to Poverty?

Indeed, what sort of man seeks to have another fired, his livelihood imperilled and  he and his family reduced to poverty? And all because of the victim’s political beliefs at one time expressed on his own time and on his own time. What sort of driven man would do such a thing? Why, a person who describes himself as an Ottawa-based “human rights lawyer”. That would be federal civil servant Richard Warman. Warman seems to find immense time to try to ruin people with whom he disagrees politically.

In the glory days of Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship), Warman filed nearly 30 complaints. He boasts, in his affidavit seeking a peace bond against Kevin Goudreau, who has never contacted him”,” I have successfully brought 16 human rights complaints against online hate … resulting in permanent cease and desist orders.” Also, many of the victims were fined and two — Terry Tremaine and Thomas Winnicki — ended up spending time in prison because of Mr. Warman’s actions. More recently in attacking anti-Cultural Marxist satirical publication YOUR WARD NEWS, Warman, who lives in Ottawa, contacted Child Protective Services in Toronto, according to testimony at a recent trial, to try to get editor Dr. Sears’ son taken away. [An investigation found that Dr. Sears and his wife were loving parents.]

Richard Warman

So, while snowflake Richard Warman whines about being so afraid of his political enemies, he relentlessly seeks to have them destroyed. In a July 16 letter he wrote on behalf of  the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to Hamilton City Council, Warman who works for the federal government (when does he find time to do all this mischief?)  seeks to have Mr. Lemire fired for his political views. Mr. Lemire was the longtime webmaster of the Freedomsite and was the subject of a Warman Sec. 13 complaint which Mr. Lemire partially won.

The letter filled with the false “neo-Nazi” smear, reads as follows: “I am a human rights lawyer in Ottawa and brought the successful human rights complaint against Marc Lemire for online hate (http://canlii.ca/t/1q60s).   I have commented in numerous media stories about the recent exposure by Mack Lamoureux of VICE Canada that Marc Lemire is an employee of the City of Hamilton. I note that since the VICE article, various media reports have indicated that Marc Lemire denies any ongoing role in the neo-Nazi[sic] movement, minimizes any prior role despite Federal Court findings to the contrary, and claims that this was all many years in the past and that he is now reformed.

I do not believe this to be true. Marc Lemire openly acknowledges that he is responsible for the website http://www.freedomsite.org/. It took me less than 5-minutes to come up with multiple examples of Holocaust denial material from Marc Lemire’s Freedomsite website that remain available as of right now. Marc Lemire continues to publish to the world columns by Holocaust denier Philip Belgrave and others and at the bottom of the columns readers are invited to submit material to the webmaster (Lemire) for publication. The first article is titled “What is Anti-Semitism?” and states that Jews were not exterminated nor were they the principal sufferers in WWII, links to Ernst Zundel’s

Holocaust denial website calling it a “Detoxification Programme to Cure the Politically Correct of the Hollywood version of the Holocaust”, and links to 3 other Holocaust denial websites – URL link below and pdf version attached: ….

I am confident that if I continued my search, I would find further such hate propaganda. Based on the fact that Holocaust denial material remains available on Marc Lemire’s website, I submit to you that he is not fit to be an employee of the City of Hamilton.

It might be noted that, even in Canada, questioning the so-called holocaust is not a crime, and, far from being “hate”, is, in fact pursuit of the truth.

People’s Party of Canada Will Repeal Much of the “Hate Law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code & Law Giving Special Privileges to the Transgendered (C-16)

Issue

The rights of Canadians to freely hold and express beliefs are being eroded at an alarming speed under the Trudeau government. Some of its recent decisions even require that Canadians renounce their most deeply held moral convictions and express opinions they disagree with.

In 2018, the Liberal government denied summer job funding to organizations, including charities, that would not sign an attestation supporting abortion. It also passed bill C-16 as part of a trend to force Canadians to express support for the existence of various gender identities beyond the biological categories of male and female, and to use pronouns demanded by those who identify with these other genders.

In addition to these assaults on conscience, the government launched a series of regulatory attacks on free speech on the internet and is pressuring social media companies, which are already censoring speech that isn’t politically correct, to crack down even more. It is also considering bringing back Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This hate speech provision was repealed by the Conservative government in 2013 because it was being used arbitrarily to censor statements that offended some people on the internet.

In what appears to be a first step towards restricting our right to criticize some religions, it adopted M-103, a motion that condemns religious discrimination but only specifically mentions one religion, Islam, and without defining the term “islamophobia.”

Finally, on university campuses, a growing number of faculty and administrators—those who should be fighting for open debate of controversial ideas—have become aggressive advocates for censorship.

Facts

History and social scientific research show that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, when maximally protected, advance the intellectual life of a nation, foster greater ideological diversity and societal understanding, and nurture other freedoms necessary for a successful democracy.

This is why Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees citizens freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

Our Plan

What some people find politically incorrect, offensive or even hateful cannot serve as the legal basis for discrimination and censorship. Canadians should be able to enjoy maximum freedom of conscience and expression as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter.

A People’s Party Government will:

  • Restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression which explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups or persons based on protected criteria such as religion, race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation.
  • Repeal any existing legislation or regulation curtailing free speech on the internet and prevent the reinstatement of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • Repeal C-16 and M-103.
  • Ensure that Canadians can exercise their freedom of conscience to its fullest extent as it is intended under the Charter and are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions.
  • Withhold federal funding from any post-secondary institution shown to be violating the freedom of expression of its students or faculty.

CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP

CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;

Website http://cafe.nfshost.com

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

 

June 21, 2019

 

Hon. David Lametti,

Minister of Justice,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, ON.,

K1A 0A6

 

Dear Minister Lametti:

 

RE: Please Don’t Reintroduce Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code

 

I read in the National Post (June 20, 2019) that  you are considering “very carefully” a recommendation by the Commons Justice Committee to reintroduce the discredited Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was repealed by Parliament in 2013. Please don’t do it.

 

Sec. 13 made it a discriminatory practice to repeatedly communicate over the Internet material that is “likely to expose to hatred or contempt” a long list of privileged groups.

 

I represented a number of the victims of this section at Tribunals. Our organization the Canadian Association for Free Expression participated in a number of other Tribunals including the very complex Warman v Lemire.

 

In practice, Sec. 13 meant certain groups  were virtually immune from criticism. While hatred is a very strong emotion, contempt is merely the result of  negative commentary. To take  a neutral example, were I to say smokers had bad breath, discoloured teeth, stained fingers, smelled and ran added risks of cancer or strokes, I would not be exposing smokers to hatred. I wouldn’t be asking anyone to hate smokers but I would certainly be creating an unfavourable impression of them, and, thus, exposing them to contempt. Thus, were smokers a privileged groups, I’d risk a conviction under Sec. 13.

 

As time went on, Tribunal rulings held that it was not necessary to prove that anyone actually felt or expressed hatred or contempt as a result of the impugned posting. In the Lemire case, logs showed that only five people had ever even read one impugned post. Surely a case of de minimis! It also emerged that truth was not a defence, sincerely held religious belief was not a defence nor was opinion or commentary.

 

Indeed, there actually were no defences, except, perhaps, that the accused person had not posted the controversial material in question. Thus, until the Lemire case, Sec. 13 had a one hundred per cent conviction rate. This would rival the vile legal system of North Korea!

 

After 2001, when Sec. 13 was amended to specifically include material on the Internet, one individual, Richard Warman, a driven “anti-Nazi” campaigner and sometime employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, made the bulk of the complaints, turning it into an industry and, at times a profitable one too for, should the victim post criticisms of Mr. Warman after he filed a complaint, he would then allege retaliation, which exposed the victim to a punitive fine.

 

Sec. 13 was only used against people seen to be on the “right” of the political spectrum. No person expressing strident opinions against Christians or Europeans was ever prosecuted.

 

Much is made of so-called “hate speech” on the Internet. The Internet is not a free for all. Postings expressing extreme hatred can and have been prosecuted under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Those who denounce “hate speech” are using a loaded term to demonize views they don’t like. The accusation of “hate speech” tells you little about the content of the impugned material but does tell you that it is material the accuser hates!

 

The Internet allows a much greater range of views and commentary and a more free wheeling debate, especially on such volatile issues as immigration, than usually appears in Canada’s fairly controlled press that tends to limit the range of acceptable opinions. Such freedom and the divergent voices being heard are upsetting to people who would like a much more controlled public discourse.

 

I have seen lives ruined by Sec. 13 — huge fines and life-long “cease and desist orders” that have the force of a Federal Court order. I have seen individuals jailed for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political views.

 

I urge you to choose freedom. Reject calls for the reintroduction of Sec. 13. Yes, there is some extreme, foolish and insulting material on the Internet. Open discussion and debate tend to isolate and  expose such postings. Canada needs more speech and debate not less. Do not bring back Sec. 13.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

 

 

 

 

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