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 Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!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 Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!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 Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed.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 Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!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 Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed.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

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

 

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

The Ruling:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

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

 

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

 

Two-Front – Maximum Disruption Campaign

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

John Robson | Ottawa Citizen

Self-censorship? Me? Absolutely!

Dec 14, 2007

 

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

 

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

 

As a notable freedom fighter would say: disgusting!

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

 

 

 

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

Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”
TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.
Challenging Canada’s Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: “Why can’t there be ‘anti-Semitism?’ Anti-Christianity is rampant. There’s a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam.”
Under Canadian law, he noted, “you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion.” He noted that some years ago he was called “a perverted monster” for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. “A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment,” he explained.
 
“Opinions should be allowed,” Mr., Christie said. “Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself”
Photo: Doug Christie Addresses CAFE'S Christmas Gathering -- "Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime"

TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.

Challenging Canada's Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: "Why can't there be 'anti-Semitism?' Anti-Christianity is rampant. There's a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam."

Under Canadian law, he noted, "you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion." He noted that some years ago he was called "a perverted monster" for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. "A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment," he explained.

"Opinions should be allowed," Mr., Christie said. "Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself"

"Truth will offend," the Battling Barrister noted. "Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?" There's low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. "If you disagree, why not debate him. If we're not free to debate, what are our brains for?"  he asked. "A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding." 

In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, "the complaint of 'discrimination' does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals," he explained. "But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: 'You've offended me. So, I'm taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'"

Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is "a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced 'diversity' where people don't have a common understanding." But we're not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we'll go to court and academics and 'experts' at great expense will talk about 'human rights,' but what they practise is really tyranny," he said. "We've delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality."

"We're seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In  Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate 'lifestyle' to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief," he charged.

Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says "context" is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to "marry" two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual "marriage" violates his faith. "He belongs to the state," Mr. Christie concluded.

The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, "the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it's all too complicated." But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women,

Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case -- the constitutional challenge to  the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13  but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: "It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13's extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you've expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias." Mr. Justice Mosley "is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36," an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "Now he's adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting" and which he assured the media was constitutional.

Indeed, "Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley," he added.

In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: "The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don't think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!"

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

 

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

A Bitter Grudging Partial Victory in Lemire Case

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

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

 

Freedomsite


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

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

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

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

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

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the difference?

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

 

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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