Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott in Ontario to Face Re-trial On Hate Law Charges From Criticizing the LGBTQ Privileged People

Photos: Whatcott in Ontario and link to excellent MassResistance article

Amethyst Harbour, 20 minutes east of Thunder Bay

Dear Friends,

I am now living in Toronto and preparing for my second so-called “hate crime” trial, having been acquitted the first time. Ontario’s courts threw out 125 cases last year, including a sexual assault, a murder and attempted murder, and all sorts of lesser crimes due to a lack of resources to try them in a timely manner. But they found the resources to not only prosecute me and take me to trial once for my Gospel flyer but to also appeal my acquittal and try me again. The Ontario Court of Appeals has expressed concerns about timely prosecutions and lack of court resources, but agreed with the Attorney General of Ontario that I should go on trial again even though my “crime” is delivering a Gospel flyer (that is pretty benign, but that I am not allowed to show you) at a homosexual parade full of rude behaviour and is now eight years old. The Court of Appeals reasoning for this second trial is because the first trial didn’t benefit from the testimony of homosexual academic Nick Mule’ whose expertise seems to be kink and queering social work and who argued in his taxpayer funded submission to the court that I committed microgressions against the homosexual pride participants in 2016. These microagressions apparently lead to “minority stress” which if not prosecuted will lead to poor health outcomes for those who read my flyer.

One thing I note about homosexual activists like Mule’, they seem loathe accepting responsibility for the harms caused to themselves and their buddies by their risky sexual appetites and in this case would rather blame their maladies on my Gospel flyer that advised them to repent and keep their pants up. Unfortunately, rather than actually take my advice and keep their pants up, which would no doubt eliminate the harms I warned them about, anal warts, HIV, syphilis, hepatitis, etc…… they prefer to go through another trial to get me in jail, not content with the results of their $104 million class action lawsuit and first criminal trial.

Anyways, the above picture of Amethyst Harbour was taken by me on March 19th, the second day after my arrival in Ontario. The temperature was a frosty -5 Celsius. The harbour is still frozen, the ground was covered in snow and the snow fall the following day was forecasted to be 15 centimetres. As I looked at this beautiful, ice covered harbour leading to Lake Superior, I reflected on the taxpayer funded CBC’s hyperbolic screaming that the “world is on fire” (they showed me a picture in August of a wildfire in Greece as proof the world was on fire) and they warned us that we clearly were all going to burn to death if we didn’t do something (pay carbon taxes and ruin our energy industry) to mitigate Canada’s production of C02, about 1% of the world’s total. I note CO2 was once known as plant food in my grade 8 science class and was considered beneficial to life.

CBC’s picture of a wildfire was somewhat misleading and had my Prosecutor been nitpicking the CBC’s hyperbole, they might have gotten convicted, as the CBC would have lacked truth as a defence. When the wildfires in Greece were burning, the world was not on fire. In actual fact a small percentage of Greece was on fire, 174,000 hectares to be precise, which in reality is under 2% of Greece. For Greece (a geographically small country) the wildfire was pretty nasty but not unheard of. Last year’s wildfire was definitely not the “world on fire.” I note you pay $1.5 billion annually for this fearmongering rubbish that passes for news.

My picture of anal warts shared at the Toronto unGodly pride parade by contrast is a real concern for homosexuals attending the parade. My stats that over 60% of HIV – homosexuals and over 90% of HIV+ homosexuals have HPV of the rectum was found to be true. While I am facing a second criminal trial and the Crown is now asking 6-12 months in jail (they no longer are asking for 18 months) for my sharing of accurate information, I note I gave my accurate information to homosexual Pride attendees free of charge. CBC execs on the other hand receive hefty taxpayer funded paychecks and generous bonuses for sharing misinformation.

Bill with good friends in downtown Toronto

Anyways, this picture is of me with some good friends on Saturday in chilly +2 celsius Toronto, four years into the city’s self declared “climate emergency.” The fellow behind me spent time in jail for beating up a number of Antifa thugs in a Hamilton park who attacked another friend of mine Phil Thomas. During the assault Phil was completely non-violent. He was peacefully preaching in the park against unGodly homosexual pride. Phil’s face was bloodied, but he did not retaliate when punched multiple times by several Antifa thugs, rather he continued to preach while receiving blows. The fellow behind me on the other hand got upset when he saw Phil getting punched and grabbed a helmet and literally clobbered four or five Antifa thugs single handedly. He went to jail for quite awhile, but strangely no one from Antifa ever gets arrested, charged, or incarcerated in Canada though they initiate roughly 100% of the violent confrontations they are involved in.

The bald fellow to my right I met for the first time. I truly enjoyed his company. I discovered he was a former sodomite who has come to Christ. He is now living with my other two friends. The other fellow with the beard to my right is a courageous street preacher who was actually preaching with a group of Christians at the 2016 Toronto unGodly pride parade when I was there. They were abused by homosexual pride attendees for boldly preaching the Gospel, but were not criminally charged like me.

My next court date is Monday, April 8, at 9:00 am. I am scheduled to appear in what is known as “Practice Court.” I assume “Practice Court” is a division of the Ontario Superior Court and should be at 330 University Ave in Downtown Toronto. There will likely be a zoom link too.

Earlier today I talked with legal aid. They are requesting I send them disclosure as they decide whether or not I will be able to have legal representation at my trial. If I get legal aid a fine lady by the name of Mindy who worked with Mr. John Rosen and has her own lawfirm has agreed to represent me. If I don’t get legal aid, God might yet provide a Christian lawyer pro-bono, I have no idea who that lawyer would be, but God has done that in times past, or I may go to court with the assistance of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and represent myself.

When you are arrested, don’t worry about how to respond or what to say. God will give you the right words at the right time.” Matthew 10:19

MassResistance wrote an excellent article on my second upcoming trial. You can read it here. https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen5/24a/Whatcott-facing-second-trial/index.html

I would appreciate it if you keep these matters in your prayers.

At this point in time I am not raising money for a lawyer as it is unlikely I could ever raise anything close to the $100,000 needed for another trial and it makes more sense to apply for legal aid and failing that self represent. However, my life is still costing money, especially in Toronto and had to quit the job I had to come here and deal with this second trial. For those who would like to help keep me going you can donate to my cause here:


In Christ’s Service, Bill Whatcott

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.” James:1:12

Share this:

Canadian Christian forced to undergo second ‘hate crime’ trial after already being acquitted

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Albertan Christian Bill Whatcott must be retried for ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ for distributing flyers warning against homosexual acts during the June 2016 ‘Pride Parade’ in Toronto.

Featured Image LifeSiteNews


  • 19

Mon Mar 4, 2024 – 4:00 pm EST

Listen to this article

0:00 / 5:31BeyondWords

LifeFunder: Help Canadian Christian Bill Whatcott fund his legal defense.

OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — An Albertan Christian is being forced to undergo second “hate crime” trial after already being acquitted in 2021.  

On February 15, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Christian activist Bill Whatcott must be retried for “Wilful Promotion of Hatred” for distributing flyers warning against homosexual acts during the June 2016 gay “Pride Parade” in Toronto. 

“The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision this morning and upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that my acquittal for ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ be overturned and a new trial be ordered,” Whatcott wrote on his blog.  

Whatcott’s legal battle began in 2016 after he and a half dozen other Christian activists entered the Toronto gay “Pride Parade” under the guise of being members of “The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association.” 

Whatcott has explained that he and his friends entered the parade as “gay zombie cannabis consumers” because the parade was not accepting of open Christians, figuring if they made an attempt to blend in they would be more effective. 

During the parade, they handed out about 3,000 small packages made to look like condoms that contained Gospel passages and graphic photos of sexually transmitted disease sufferers, warning people of the physical and spiritual dangers related to homosexual practices and sharing the good news that Jesus Christ died for all of humanity, including those who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. 

Following the parade, homosexual activists announced a $104 million dollar class-action lawsuit, seemingly in a bid to financially ruin Whatcott and to discourage any future activism.

After two years of litigation, the homosexual activists dropped the lawsuit.

However, in 2018, the then-Liberal government of Ontario charged Whatcott with Public Incitement of Hate, contrary to s. 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, alleging that his flyer was tantamount to criminal “hate speech.”

subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic

Whatcott voluntarily surrendered to police in Calgary after a Canada-wide warrant was put out for his arrest. He was released on bail, with one of the terms of release being that his flyer faced a publication ban in Canada.  

Whatcott’s case proceeded through the criminal justice system for 3 years before finally being heard in the Superior Court for Ontario in October 2021.  

On December 10, 2021 the trial judge released his judgment finding Whatcott “not guilty,” entering a verdict of acquittal. 

However, the Attorney General of Ontario refused to accept the verdict, instead appealing the decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 21, 2023. 

The government argued the 2021 ruling failed to properly consider homosexual activist Nick Mules’ “expert” analysis Whatcott’s flyer, alleging it promulgated “homophobic tropes” and “microaggressions.” Ultimately, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided Whatcott must indeed face a second trial. 

“It seems Supreme Court disagrees with my lawyer and Justice Goldstein and they are content to have me go through another trial again with Nick Mule’s input,” Whatcott lamented. 

“So the first trial is voided and we are back to June 2018 when the Canada wide arrest warrant was issued and I will be going on trial again probably some time later this year,” he added. 

LifeSiteNews had launched a LifeFunder campaign to help Whatcott in his legal battles, a fund which is still active. To donate to financially support Whatcott, click here.   

Whatcott being forced to undergo a trial for a crime which he has already been acquitted of came just weeks before the federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced Bill C-63, seeking to create the “Online Harms Act.” 

Bill C-63 will create the Online Harms Act and modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography. 

In addition to these laudable goals, however, the bill also seeks to increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner, as well as seeking to broaden the scope of the government’s ability to crackdown on speech.  

A top constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews that the legislation will allow a yet-to-be-formed digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.  

The proposed commission’s ombudsperson, along with the other offices, will be charged with dealing with public complaints regarding online content as well as put forth a regulatory function in a five-person panel “appointed by the government.” This panel will be charged with monitoring internet platform behaviors to hold people “accountable.”  

Most worryingly, the new bill will allow it so that anyone can file a complaint against another person with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “posting hate speech online” that is deemed “discriminatory” against a wide range of so-called protected categories, notably gender, race, sexuality, or other areas.  

Penalties for violations of the proposed law include $20,000 fines and jail time

Remembering A Free Speech Martyr & Christian Author, Malcolm Ross

Remembering A Free Speech Martyr & Christian Author, Malcolm Ross

A friend gave me his treasure trove of tapes and book and pamphlets among which are many recordings of CAFE meetings

I listen to a tape in short segments. 
I am most of the way through the talk given by Malcolm Ross June 25th 1998 “My 10 Year Battle for Vindication.”
I’m pretty sure I bought Ross’ book from you at some point. [The book is Cross-Examination: Christianity on Trial –– BY Malcolm Ross fired for his religious writings on abortion and other issues appealed to Canada’s Supreme Court in 1990. This rare book is available for $25.00 plus $10 postage from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.]

I will be turning the tape-recording in to a transcript. His explanation of the implications of the ruling of the Supremes is shocking a quarter of a century later — astonishing not a scintilla of genuine “evidence” that any real person felt they were in a “poisoned environment” in his classroom. Yet, the Supremes figured out that it was only reasonable to draw the inference  of such !!

This, I fear, is what’s going to happen to Bill Whatcott, if he goes through the meatgrinder again. The Bible itself becomes ‘hate literature’ if published anywhere outside some little ‘safe space’ of a building properly registered with the gov’t as a ‘charity’ for purposes of income tax receipts

Ross cites a book to do with the doctrines of modern Juda-ism in which the “Holocaust” is understood to be an essential part of that religion.

There isn’t one person in a million who grasps that. I sure didn’t

What that means for Canada, is,    after the recent amendment to section 319 of the Criminal Code, a person can be prosecuted for ‘blasphemy’ against the state-sanctioned religion,  if some one of the Jud-aic persuasion, feels his or her dignity has been impugned by his questioning the Hollywood version of World War II.

Gordon Watson

Jordan Peterson ruling empowers woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinionseverywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions

Jordan Peterson ruling empowers woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions

Howard Levitt: The question that should have been put to the court was whether the college’s code of ethics overreached Author of the article: Howard Levitt Published Aug 25, 2023  •  Last updated 1 day ago  •  4 minute read 59 Comments

Jordan Peterson was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.
Jordan Peterson was ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo a coaching program on professionalism in public statements. Photo by Chris Williamson/Getty Images

I can predict one thing with certainty about anyone who reads this week’s Ontario Court decision about Jordan Peterson and the College of Psychologists: they will be stricken with overwhelming boredom.

As the court put it, “The issue in this case is whether the panel’s decision to order Dr. Peterson to complete a SCERP (remedial re-education) was reasonable.” Advertisement 2 Story continues below

The decision essentially states the court will not overturn the College of Psychologists’ decision because, whether it agrees with the decision or not, it did not meet the test of being so patently unreasonable that the court would second guess the college. According to the court, the college, not the court, is the expert body within its domain.

That is the proper legal test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case called Vavilov, for the review of any administrative tribunal’s decision, whether it be the Labour Board, Immigration Appeal Board, Landlord and Tenant board or any other administrative body.

But there are two significant problems with this decision and result. First, it is not the test that should have been applied to this particular case (which may, in fairness to the court, have been a function of the arguments made before it by counsel). Second, the impact of this decision is to empower woke bodies everywhere to discipline members who express unpopular opinions that cause someone “offence.” Of course, if prevailing political sentiments change, others will be next in that firing line.

This decision will inevitably motivate political enemies of any member of a regulatory body — whether it be one of lawyers, osteopaths, engineers or, well, psychologists — who have no legal basis for any claim otherwise, to harass that person by filing complaints about their expressed opinions or writings.

If someone, for example, complained about this column, they could file a Law Society complaint and make me spend money, time and stress defending myself. There is no real remedy as it is difficult legally to sue someone for filing a disciplinary complaint as such complaints are privileged — that is, protected from a lawsuit for defamation.

This decision will encourage such future complaints. The decision also answers the wrong question.

The issue should not have been whether the College of Psychologists’ decision was transparent and reasonable given its code of ethics (and which it found Peterson had arguably violated), but whether the college even has the legal jurisdiction to develop a code of ethics in the first place that prohibit the free expression of its members, unrelated to their clinical psychological practice, particularly if that free expression breached no laws — that is, wasn’t criminal nor defamatory.

The court’s starting point was that the college did not act unreasonably in concluding Peterson had violated its code of ethics in some of his political statements. But the real question should have been whether the legislation creating the college empowered it to go so far as to create a code that limits its members’ free and lawful speech.

Regulatory professional bodies are, after all, legislated into existence for the purposes of educating their members, ensuring competence and protecting the public from malpractice in their selected fields. Peterson’s political statements attacking Justice Trudeau, Gerald Butts, etc., had nothing to do with any of those legislative mandates. And they had nothing to do with his practice of psychology (which he has not practiced for several years). None of the complainants were even his patients.

The court in this case appeared to take the college’s code of ethics as a given, something that it had the right to impose and therefore supported the college’s right to force Peterson to take remedial re-education at his expense as a prelude to potential future discipline if his re-education does not curb his future “offensive” political comments. The question that should have been put to the court was whether the code of ethics itself overreached and was beyond the college’s legislative mandate.

My advice is that Queens Park should review this decision and enact legislation preventing regulatory associations from curtailing the otherwise lawful free speech of their members. That is the simple solution to this. Otherwise, those whose opinions are different from those of their governing bodies, and who lack the resources of Peterson to fight back, will be quickly silenced in a manner antithetical to our liberties.

Hey, Kelowna, Leave Our Rallies Alone

Hi everyone.

Here is the flyer for the Tuesday, June 20, 2023 rally at Kelowna City Hall to oppose their Petition to ban our rallies.

City Council will be sitting on this date starting at 3:00 p.m. Let’s be there early to greet them!!!

2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

We need to get as many people as possible to come out for just a couple of hours and oppose what the City is doing as the implications will be felt by everyone if they are successful.

I would be grateful if you can please forward this to your lists ASAP and encourage everyone to come out. Please encourage everyone to make their own signage as well.

As a lawyer once told me years ago, the first line of defence is to deny everything…make sure people don’t get heard.

That is what the City is now attempting to do.

The Petition that the City filed and all supporting affidavits are located on our website at: https://clearbc.org/city-of-kelowna/

Once our materials are done, they will be posted on our site as well.

Thanks kindly In freedom


Call It What It Is — Legalized Anti-White Discrimination: Canada’s Legal System is Hostile to Whites

Human rights tribunal says the quiet part out loud

  • National Post
  • 22 Mar 2023
  • BRUCE PARDY Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.

In June 2021, an Ontario high school student tried to sign up for a summer program. He was rejected because he was white. The “Summerup” program, sponsored by the Ontario government, was open only to Black students. His father filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal alleging racial discrimination. Last November, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint, saying the quiet part out loud. White people, wrote the Tribunal, cannot claim discrimination.

The law appears to say otherwise. Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, every person has a right to equal treatment without discrimination. The Code, however, has a loophole. “Special programs” are exempt. Special programs give special treatment. They discriminate “to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity.” A government, company or organization like a school board can apply to designate a discriminatory program as a special program.

The Summerup program had not been designated as a special program. But the Tribunal determined it met the requirements anyway, which the Code empowers it to do. If a program discriminates against the “correct” groups, it will fit within the exemption as a matter of course. The Tribunal wrote, “an allegation of racial discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of colour is not one that can be or has been successfully claimed by persons who are white and non-racialized.” The statute that purports to prohibit discrimination authorizes it instead.

It’s not just the Human Rights Tribunal. For almost 40 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has eviscerated legal equality. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. But the Court has given it the opposite meaning. Like the Human Rights Code, the Charter has an equity exception, and like the Tribunal, the Court has made the exception into the rule. The Charter, the Court insists, requires not equal treatment between individuals but equal or comparable outcomes between identity groups.

The Charter does not merely allow discrimination against certain groups, the Court has said, but sometimes requires it. For instance, in 2020 the Court declared unconstitutional a RCMP job-sharing scheme that enabled employees to work part-time if they wished. The voluntary program was open to men and women. Since part-time employees worked fewer hours, they earned lower pension entitlements. More women than men chose to enrol, and as a result more women than men ended up with lower pensions. The program was unconstitutional because the rules of the program were the same for men and women.

Other courts, of course, have followed suit. In December 2022, the Ontario Divisional Court declared a standardized math test for teacher candidates unconstitutional. East and southeast Asian and white candidates passed the test more frequently than Black and Indigenous test-takers. Therefore, the Court concluded, the test was discriminatory, “which occurs when neutral laws have a disproportionate impact on members of enumerated or analogous groups.” The Court did not care why different groups passed the test at different rates. The fact of disparate success was enough to bring use of the test to an end.

Justice is supposed to be blind. Blind justice means that the same rules and standards apply to everyone without arbitrary distinctions. When the law treats people as individuals rather than as members of groups, it does not matter whether they are Black or white, man or woman, straight or gay, rich or poor. The law should not care who you are.

Unlike Canadians, Americans have a right to equal treatment, at least in principle. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require it. The American legal system still contains within it the essence of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a society in which people are judged by the content of their character (as evidenced in their actions) rather than the colour of their skin. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide a challenge to Harvard University’s race-based undergraduate admissions process, which complainants allege discriminates against Asian and white applicants. In the U.S., “equal protection” is still the legal test.

In Canada, legislatures, courts, and tribunals have rejected equal protection, but they are not the only ones. Professional regulators, universities, and other public institutions have piled on, too. The Law Society of Ontario insists that in the practice of law there are too many of certain kinds of people and not enough of others. It aims to socially engineer the profession’s demographic makeup and to require lawyers and firms to comport with mandatory “equity, diversity and inclusion” measures. Universities offer admission processes, support programs, and faculty positions for which only certain races are eligible. Government agencies offer grants and other benefits to specific identity groups.

Preferential measures, distinguishing between people by their colour, lineage, gender and sexuality, are becoming the order of the day. It is time to say the other quiet part out loud: Canadians have not agreed to be treated unequally.


Canada Claims Authority to Censor Your Internet Searches

Not Canadian? Not in Canada? It doesn’t matter, according to its supreme court.

[While Justin Trudeau, the Trust Fund Kid, was dancing and prancing with his LGBTQ… constituency this past weekend, a media distraction, the unelected tyrants of the Surpreme Court were leeching away Canadians’ freedoms to search the Internet. — Paul Frromm]


CensorshipGeorge TsartsianidisThe Canadian Supreme Court today ruled the country has the authority to demand Google censor and remove links to certain web pages or online content.

The idea that governments can force Google to deindex links to pages is unfortunately not new (see the European Union’s “right to be forgotten“). What matters internationally in this case is the government is forcing Google to remove links from searches regardless of where the Internet user is. That is to say: Canada is demanding the authority to censor the internet outside of its physical borders and control what people who are not Canadian citizens can find online.

Today’s court ruling declares that because the Internet doesn’t have any borders, when Canada decides Google has to censor content it should be a global order: “The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.”

The case involves copyright and intellectual property claims. A tech firm was accusing another firm of stealing and duplicating one of its products and selling it online. Google was asked to deindex the links to the firm accused of stealing so that it wouldn’t show up in search results. Google complied with court orders, but only for searches from within Canada.

Canada’s Supreme Court sees geographical limits (even virtual ones) on its ability to censor speech as “facilitating” illegal commerce rather than a speech issue. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling that should give folks pause:

This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.

Canada has hate speech laws. Does it follow that Canada should require Google to deindex pages containing what it deems “hate speech” in the United States? If Canada does not because it acknowledges limits to its reach as a nation is it “facilitating” something unlawful?

The court notes Google removes links due to court orders based on content and still doesn’t seem to see an issue in a country’s boundary of authority:

[Google] acknowledges, fairly, that it can, and often does, exactly what is being asked of it in this case, that is, alter search results. It does so to avoid generating links to child pornography and websites containing “hate speech”. It also complies with notices it receives under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2680 (1998) to de-index content from its search results that allegedly infringes copyright, and removes websites that are subject to court orders.

The court, in justifying its ruling, is unwittingly bringing up problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is intended as a tool for fight online piracy and intellectual property theft by making it easier to remove copyrighted material through an ownership claim process. It is also prone to abuse.

People abuse the DMCA’s “take down” process in order to try to censor speech, critiques or commentary, they find objectionable. It can be as minor as trying to censor critical video game reviews, or extend as far as criticizing another country’s leaders. Ecuadorian officials once attempted to use the DMCA to censor criticism of government actions. Google itself has stepped in to try to help users fend off abusive DMCA take-down requests.

Invoking other forms of legally recognized internet censorship is not, perhaps, the defense Canada’s Supreme Court is looking for. A closer examination highlights the potential for abuses. And claiming the authority to censor Google links everywhere in the world is a decision begging to be abused.

Read the court’s ruling here. France has attempted similar international censorship methods.

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost
Paul Fromm explains how free speech and property rights took another hit at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada in not hearing an appeal in the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression and Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
Paul Fromm explains how they lost the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Di…

Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court

Good news and bad news. CAFÉ’s chances of winning “leave” or acceptance of the Supreme Court to appeal the appalling decision of Mr. Justice Grant of the Court of Queen’s Bench in New Brunswick and upheld last July by the Court of Appeals of New Brunswick have vastly improved. That’s the good news. CAFÉ’s chances of being granted leave to appeal have improved. That’s the bad news because an appeal in ferociously expensive. Our appeal costs could soar to $60,000 and we are behind in our bills.

The McCorkill case is vital to freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights. Should a court be able to nullify a will or bequest because the recipient’s views are “contrary to public policy”? The late Robert McCorkill of St. John, New Brunswick was a professor of chemistry and left his sizable estate of old coins and rare artifacts to the U.S.  White Nationalist group known as the National Alliance.

Inline image 1

Professor McCorkill died in 2004. The estate was finally probated in 2013. Then, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a malicious group of U.S. censors who make a profitable business of spying on, exposing and legally harassing those they claim are “haters”, found out and raised a storm. The usual hysterical stuff: the bequest would revive the “Nazi” movement in the U.S. And, yes, there’d be a gas chamber on every other corner. The only problem was that the SPLC had no legal standing in Canada. However, the next thing we knew, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman got into the act and declared that the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” At first, this seemed absurd. However, miraculously Isabel McCorkell [yes, different spelling], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill – she had not attended his funeral or challenged his will during the probate proceedings – surfaced. Interestingly, she lived in Ottawa. She sought and obtained an order to freeze the proceeds until she could make an application to have the will nullified on the grounds that it was … “contrary to public policy.” She was quickly joined in her endeavours by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. At this point, CAFÉ sought and was granted intervener status. This is clearly a vital case on several levels. It is a case defending freedom of speech and freedom of belief. It is also upholding property rights. Should a judge be able to overturn the clear wishes of a testator? Should a person not be able to dispose of his property as he sees fit and not have the views or morals of his beneficiaries scrutinized by a judge?

Last September, CAFÉ sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Only about one in 10 applications for leave are granted. The SCC seeks cases that have a national interest. Surely, some degree of certainty in estate law would constitute such a national interest. That was our argument. However, this argument was greatly strengthened recently by a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals in the Spence case. Rev. Eric Spence was a Jamaican preacher who left all of his $400,000 estate to one daughter, whom he hadn’t seen in 30 years, and left nothing to Verolin, the daughter he’d raised and financed through university, because she’d had a child with a White man. In January, 2015, as we had predicted in our arguments before the Court of Queen’s Bench, the McCorkill decision would be the beginning of a flood of allegations. Verolin successfully had her father’s will nullified. Judge Cory. A Gilmore inveighed against
Spence’s “clearly stated racist principle” and declared that the will “not only offended human sensibilities but also public policy”. She then nullified the will as being “contrary to public policy.” BMO Trust, on behalf of the Spence Estate, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals. In a March 8 decision , the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned, Judge Gilmore’s decision, and reinstated the will’s provisions. This decision is immensely helpful should our case reach the Supreme Court.

Some key points from the appeal:
* Proceeding by affidavit flawed: “In support of the application, Verolin filed her own affidavit, together with an affidavit sworn by Imogene Parchment … who had acted as Eric’s occasional caregiver. … Neither Verolin nor Imogene were cross-examined on their affidavits (13). … The application judge erred by embarking on a public policy-based review pf thje impugned terms of Eric’s will and that she further erred by admitting the Extrinsic Evidence entered in this case. It follows tat I would allow the appeal. (113) This finding is most helpful because the entire McCorkill application was heard using only “extrinsic evidence” in the form of affidavits. None of the deponents was cross-examined. CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge succeeded in getting some affidavits struck, but a number of fiery ones filled with accusations against the National Alliance remained as part of the record.
* BMO’s arguments on behalf of the Spence Estate. “BMO Trust … submits that the application judge erred by placing any weight on the Extrinsic Evidence. … BMO Trust argues that the application judge unjustifiably interfered with Eric, testamentary freedom, which allows him to distribute his property as he chooses. … Allowing the application judge’s decision to stand would increase uncertainty is estate law and open the floodgates to litigation in estates matters.” (24-26) This latter argument was also forcefully made by CAFE both before the Court of Queen’s Bench and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal,
* Testamentary Freedom, “A testator;s freedom to distribute [his] property as [he] chooses is a deeply entrenched common law principle.” (30) “he Supreme Court has also recognized the importance of testamentary autonomy, holding that it should not be interfered with lightly, but only in so far as the law requires.” (31)
* The Court noted that the Spence will was a private trust. There were no behaviour actions required of the beneficiary. “Eric’s residual bequest imposes no conditions or stipulations. “The courts have recognized various categories of cases where public policy may be invoked to void a conditional testamentary gift” (like marrying a particular person, celibacy, or membership in a particular church) (55) There were no such conditions in either the Spence will or the McCorkill will.
* There is strong criticism of the reasoning in the McCorkill decision. McCorkill found “this authority extends to cases where the terms of the bequest do not include discriminatory conditions bu evidence is tendered that a testator’s alleged motive is making the bequest offends public policy. I see no support in the established jurisprudence for the acceptance of such an open-ended invitation to enlarge the scope of the public policy doctrine in estates cases.” (58) McCorkill extends the law dangerously. “Prior to McCorkill, public policy based justification for judicial interference with a testator’s freedom to dispose of [his] property had been advanced only in respect of conditional testamentary gifts. In McCorkill, as in this case, the testator’s residual gift was absolute, not conditional.” (62) “However, Professor Ziff [Bruce Ziff, “Welcome to the Newest Unworthy heir”] acknowledges that, even in unworthy heir cases like McCorkill, the invocation of public policy considerations to void an unconditional testamentary bequest may overreach the proper ambit of the public policy doctrine. ‘The more challenging problem with McCorkill is that it may be overbroad.'”
* Neither the Spence nor the McCorkill bequests offend the Charter or provincial human rights acts. “Neither the Ontario Human Rights Code … nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to justify court interference with the testator’s intentions. the Human Rights Code, of course, ensures that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to service,s good and facilities without discrimination based on race … the Charter pertains to state action. Neither reaches testamentary disposition of a private nature.” (74) This would seem to apply to McCorkill, as well.


* this conclusion would seem to be very applicable to McCorkill: “The desire to guard against a testator’s unsavoury or distasteful testamentary dispositions cannot be allowed to overtake testamentary freedom. The need for a robust application of the principle of testamentary freedom is especially impoirtant … in the context of a testator’s central right to choose his or her residual beneficiaries.” (85)

And, there’s more. Now, there seems to be a contradiction between the Courts of Appeal in New Brunswick and Ontario; the former was quick to overturn the testator’s wishes as the recipient’s views were “contrary to public policy”; the Ontario court refused to overturn the will even though it did involve a degree of racial discrimination. Acting on behalf of Verolin Spence, Earl A. Cherniak advised Andy Lodge, CAFÉ’s lawyer: “Given the similarities of the issues to be decided on the application for leave to appeal in McCorkill and the issues we intend to raise in the Spence matter, we ask that the Panel considering the application for leave in  McCorkill be advised that we will be seeking leave to appeal and will … be bringing a motion to expedite leave.” CAFÉ has agreed that the Spence appeal can be joined to ours, if the Court so wishes. This strengthens our chances of being granted  leave.

This Spring will extremely expensive for CAFÉ. The issues of property rights and freedom of speech and belief are crucial. We need your help urgently! A tiny band of generous, loyal people like you have made this crucial battle possible thus far.

Please send your most generous contribution today.

My thanks, fellow free speech supporter,

Paul Fromm
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__  Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#____________________________________________________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:______________________________________________________________________




CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake


CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

KELOWNA, BC., August 25, 2015. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression announced today that CAFE had,  instructed its lawyer Andy Lodge of St. John to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal against decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal nullifying the bequest of the late Robert McCorkill to the U.S. National Alliance.

“The July 30 decision by the Court of Appeals was dismissive and failed to deal with the substantive arguments and submissions both by CAFE’s lawyer and John Hughes, counsel for the  executor of the estate. In the end, there was no legal precedent for scrutinizing the character of the recipient,” Mr. Fromm said. “This case is crucial for freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights,” Mr. Fromm added.

The Court of Appeals decision was short and uninformative.

The brief two paragraph decision concluded: “Having regard to the application judge’s comprehensive reasons and his determination that  the bequest was void as it was against public policy, we can find no justification to interfere. We are in substantial agreement with the essential reasons of the application judge.

The final paragraph then slapped CAFE with $3,000 in costs ($9,000 total) to each of the parties supporting the nullification of the will on the grounds it was against public policy.

The bequest was deemed “contrary to public policy” because of the politically incorrect ideas of the National Alliance, racial views which are entirely legal in the U.S. where the NA is headquartered.

“After extensive consultations with our supporters in Canada and the U.S., CAFE decided to take this very costly step and seek leave of the Supreme Court to appeal this horrific decision which stomps on free speech and property rights,” said Mr. Fromm.

The Supreme Court grants leave in about only 10 per cent of cases. “However, ” said Mr. Fromm, “this case is of national importance. Its opens the door to endless litigation whenever a bequest is made to a controversial person or organization. It nixes the right of a person to dispose of his property as he sees fit.”

“We were assured by the lawyer for the Attorney General of New Brunswick during the original application that this was a once in a lifetime decision.”

Yet, Mr. Fromm noted, just eight months later, in the Spence case,  an Ontario judge tossed out a will where a Negro preacher disinherited a daughter who had a mixed-race child in favour of her sister who had adhered to her father’s racial views.

The executor for the estate is now appealing this decision.

“This is one of the most serious cases in which CAFE has ever been involved,” said Mr. Fromm. “However, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and property rights are on the line. In the words of Martin Luther, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.” (Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.)


This appeal is a huge and costly undertaking. CAFE needs your support urgently.

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3


__   I believe property rights and the right of freedom of belief and freedom of expression are worth fighting for. Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE appeal the nullification of the the McCorkill will’s bequest to the National Alliance  to the Supreme Court of Canada.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#___________________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________