Senator Apologizes for Using “Nigger” to Make A Point

Posted on May 22, 2017 by admin

So crazy has political correctness become and the supremacy of minorities that a Canadian senator trying to score a point against free speech is forced to cringe and apologize for having used the word “nigger” as an example of language that hurts people and that must not be allowed.

The Toronto Star (May 18, 2017) reported: “Sen. André Pratte apologized Thursday for using a notorious racial slur during a Senate committee hearing, where he uttered the so-called “N-word” as an example of an epithet that should never be used. In an interview with the The Canadian Press, Pratte said he was trying to make the point during Wednesday’s hearing that there are limits to free speech when speaking about people, especially those who are vulnerable and subject to discrimination. ‘In making that point, I mentioned black people, for instance, and that’s when I used the word,’ Pratte said.

If he offended people by using the word in that context, he apologizes unreservedly, Pratte said.

‘Obviously I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, he said. ‘I accept it was an improper choice of example . . . and I apologize that for that.’ Committee witnesses at the Senate legal affairs committee were making free-speech arguments while debating the Liberal government’s legislation to bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.

If passed, the legislation would make it illegal to deny someone a job or to discriminate against them in the workplace on the basis of their gender identity or how they express it. It would also amend the Criminal Code to extend hate-speech laws.”

The Committee was studying Bill C-16, a dangerous anti-free speech measure, which will add the transgendered and sexually confused to that list of privileges groups which you may not criticize, or criticize only with much difficulty, under Canada’s notorious “hate law”, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.

Scottish YouTuber Faces a Year in Prison For Teaching ‘Nazi Trick’ to Girlfriend’s Dog

Posted on May 21, 2017 by admin

Scottish YouTuber Faces a Year in Prison For Teaching ‘Nazi Trick’ to Girlfriend’s Dog

Throughout the Western World, the most lethal enemy of free speech is the Jewish pro-censorship lobby. Now, in Scotland firmly in the grip of dour, grim homorless political correctness, a You Tube comic could face a year in prison as an example for a comic You Tube he made a year ago.

Paul Fromm.,

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

By William Hicks|3:39 pm, May 19, 2017

Kevin Pillar — Latest Victim Punished by Privileged Minority

Posted on May 21, 2017 by admin

Kevin Pillar — Latest Victim Punished by Privileged Minority

For years CAFE has warned that the most mortal enemy of freedom of speech, after the organized Jewish lobby, is the homosexual lobby. The LGBTQ crowd are the newest privileged minority whom one dares not criticize without the roof falling in on you, all of this aided by Establishment collaborators.

The latest victim is Toronto Blue Jays centre fielder Kevin Pillar. In Wednesday’s night’s losing game against the Atlanta Braves,having struck out, he yelled “faggot” at the Braves’ pitcher. Actually, in its report, THE NATIONAL POST (May 18, 2017) coyly wouldn’t even say the offensive word which earned Pillar a two day suspension and a denunciation by his team’s own management:

Inline image 1

“It took the better part of a day, but Kevin Pillar eventually figured out what he needed to say.

The use of a homophobic slur, as the Toronto centrefielder has now acknowledged he used on Wednesday night, is an absolute liability offence. Anger, embarrassment, the frustration of losing three in a row to the freaking Braves, none of it excuses using that epithet in that space: the middle of a baseball diamond in a game watched by hundreds of thousands of fans.

Language matters, and whatever the fallout of the Pillar incident, it’s these kind of things that slowly make change happen.

Pillar did his learning on the fly. In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday night’s incident in Atlanta, when he shouted the homophobic f-word at Braves pitcher Jason Motte, Pillar apologized for being immature and stupid and said he was ‘a competitive guy and (it was) the heat of the moment.’”

However, according to reporter Scott Stinson, his apology wasn’t nearly enough. He hadn’t grovelled for having made a nasty comment about a privileged minority. A day later, he’d been given the word about the choking ideology of political correctness and whom you may and may not insult. Preachy reporter Scott Stinson explains: “It was an unacceptable response to the use of a homophobic slur on the playing field, while representing his team and his sport. Pillar’s statements on Wednesday night, while contrite and sincere, never addressed what he actually said, making it appear as though he was primarily apologetic for losing his temper. By Thursday afternoon, he had at least identified the missing part of that apology. He said on his Twitter account that he had ‘helped extend the use of a word that has no place in baseball, in sports, or anywhere in society today.’ Pillar said he was ‘completely and utterly embarrassed’ and apologized to everyone involved, including ‘the LBGTQ community for the lack of respect I displayed.’”

Not long after that, the Blue Jays released a statement that said the organization was “extremely disappointed” by the comments Pillar made on Wednesday night, and it also apologized to everyone, including the gay community. About three hours before Thursday’s game, the Blue Jays suspended Pillar for two games after discussions with Major League Baseball and the players’ association.”

Now, a frustrated player shouting an insult at the pitcher might not be very sportsmanlike, but does it really merit this selective punishment? What if he had shouted “asshole”, “mother fucker”, “goof” or some other insult. Likely nothing! It wasn’t losing his temper that was the sin but saying something derogatory about a privileged minority.

Freedom spontaneity and sports are being choked by political correctness

Topham, M-103, Anti-Islamophobia, Schaefer — Free Speech Battles in the Spring of 2017

Posted on May 13, 2017 by admin

Topham, M-103, Anti-Islamophobia, Schaefer — Free Speech Battles in the Spring of 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf2l9uqFPrE

Topham, M-103, Anti-Islamophobia, Schaefer — Free Speech Battles in the Spring of 2017

Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression. Vancouver, April 23, 2017

Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters

Posted on May 13, 2017 by admin

Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters

After Canada’s Jewish lobby, the most mortal enemies of free speech in Canada are the activists the the LGBTQ homosexual/lesbian/transgendered and sexually disfunctional crowd. Irrepressible evangelist Bill Whatcott keeps finding ways to bring his hard Gospel admonitions to the LGBTQ crowd. Last summer, he and some supporters infiltrated Toronto’s Gay Pride Parade as Gay Zombies. He handed out tracts and condoms. The hideous revenge planned for him was a $104-million class action suit launched by homosexual activists and lawyers. The idea was to saddle Mr. Whatcott and those who joined or financially supported him with a horrific judgement (and costs). The clear point of this intimidation was to warn potential supporters: “You could be on the hook for huge costs. Nightmares of losing one’s home or bank account were the clear threat. Some of Mr. Whatcott’s more timid supporters have already backed off.

From the start, the claim was preposterous, but with Canada’s courts deeply infiltrated by homo-friendly elements and the Cultural Marxist creed of victimology, one never knows. As the LifeSiteNews report below explains, the judge threw out the class action suit BUT preached that the plaintiffs might pursue other civil actions against Bill and his band. To that end, he ordered Bill to reveal the names of his supporters. Bill announced he’d rather go to prison. His lawyers are appealing the judge’s extraordinary order.

In the never ending battle to secure our ancient liberties of free speech from the demonic clutches of the thought control freaks, this is definiItely a case to watch.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

ONTARIO, April 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An Ontario judge has ordered a Christian who evangelizes homosexuals to identify his financial backers and anonymous friends who helped him hand out info packets about the physical and spiritual dangers of anal sex at Toronto’s [Gay] Pride Parade last year. “There could be serious repercussions for me, including prolonged jail time if I don’t comply with the order to disclose the names of my supporters,” said Christian activist Bill Whatcott. “Generally, Christians should comply with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or when the order is unjust in the eyes of God,” he added. Homosexual activists last year launched a $104 million class-action lawsuit against Whatcott for defamation after he and a handful of friends infiltrated the [Toronto Gay] Pride Parade dressed as green “gay zombies.” They handed out what looked to be free condoms in packets that said “Zombie Safe Sex” but which contained messages about the physical and spiritual dangers of homosexual practices. The messages encouraged active homosexuals to change their lifestyle and accept the Christian faith.

Last month, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, ruling in Hudspeth v. Whatcott that the homosexual activists George Smitherman and Christopher Hudspeth could not claim defamation of an entire group, such as the Pride Parade participants or the “LGTBTQ2SI Community,” but only of individuals. [You need a politically correct guidebook to keep track of the growing number of sexually weird privileged groups.]

But then in a surprise move in the same ruling, the judge ordered Whatcott to deliver the names of a half a dozen anonymous “zombies” who helped hand out the info packets as well as the “unidentified financial backers” who funded the group’s expenses. The judge argued that knowing the identities of the individuals who helped Whatcott was “necessary” to the homosexual activists if they were to decide in the future to go ahead with further legal action on grounds that the judge himself suggested.
But Whatcott said he would rather go to jail than betray his friends and supporters to homosexual activists who have publicly promised to “punish them” with a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

Instead of letting Whatcott face jail time for being in contempt of court in not handing over the names of his friends and supporters, Whatcott’s lawyers are appealing the ruling.

In the appeal, Charles Lugosi and Findlay McCarthy argue that Judge Perell “erred” in ordering Whatcott to reveal the identities of the members of his group after having dismissed the case. “Once it was determined that the action could not proceed as a class proceeding and that the representative plaintiffs [Smitherman and Hudspeth] had no cause of action, then the action should [have] been dismissed, as the plaintiffs were no longer capable of representing members of the classes,” they argued in the appeal.

Whatcott said that the judge ordering him to betray his friends so that homosexual activists can bring legal action against them shows how far the nation has “turn[ed] its back on God” as it “embraces sexual libertinism as its new idol.
Indeed, a judge helping the losing party to refile its claim and ordering the winning party to reveal the identities of friends and helpers to the losers so the helpers of the winning side can be sued is unheard of in property, divorce, criminal, or injury cases,” he said. “Only in a case involving homosexual activism where the homosexual activists are seeking to silence the voice of Christians could such a deviation from established legal norms be contemplated,” he added.

Whatcott has launched a GoGetFunding page to raise $50,000 to help cover his legal costs. So far, he has raised $10,706 (21 percent) of his goal. “If you agree with me this lawsuit is unjust and if you would like to help, please do so,” he wrote on his funding page titled “Help Bill protect his friends and stay out of jail!”

https://gogetfunding.com/help-christian … n-lawsuit/

Whatcott’s lawyers are also arguing that the judge erred in denying costs to Whatcott despite having thrown out the case.
“It would be wrong to put a defendant [Whatcott] to the expense of the litigation process if there is no reasonable cause of action against that defendant on the face of the pleading,” they argued.

“Justice Perell, in striking the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable causes of action, should have awarded the defendant to recover the full legal costs of the motion to strike,” they added.

America A Little Less Free: Zundel Banned from U.S. Because of His Non-Violent Views

Posted on April 27, 2017 by admin

America A Little Less Free: Zundel Banned from U.S. Because of His Non-Violent Views

The Volokh Conspiracy

Ernst Zundel barred from moving to the U.S., though his wife is an American citizen

By Eugene Volokh April 24

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel apparently wanted to move to the United States from Germany. (I say apparently because the decision on which I’m reporting, just posted on Westlaw but decided March 31 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Administrative Appeals Office, referred only to one E.C.Z., but both the initials and the facts described in the decision fit Zundel and likely no one else.) He would normally get an immigrant visa, because his wife of 16 years — who is about 80 years old — is a U.S. citizen. But he was classified as inadmissible because he has been convicted of foreign crimes for which the sentence was five years or more:

[I]n 2007 the Applicant was convicted in Germany of 14 counts of incitement to hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of five years in prison.

And though a waiver of inadmissibility was possible — because of extreme hardship to Zundel’s elderly wife — the office concluded that there was good reason to deny the waiver:

The negative factors in the Applicant’s case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. The record shows that the Applicant is a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record indicates further that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews. Furthermore, the Applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions. Thus, we find that the negative factors in the Applicant’s case outweigh the positive such that a favorable exercise of discretion is not warranted.

Now, I think there’s nothing unconstitutional under current First Amendment law about the decision to exclude Zundel. Various Supreme Court cases, of which the most relevant is Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), generally take the view that the First Amendment and similar constitutional provisions don’t apply to decisions on whether to let in an alien. American immigration law has long barred immigration by aliens who have been members of Communist parties; more recently, it has likewise barred immigration by anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” The view seems to be: We have to live with schmucks who are already Americans, but that doesn’t mean we need to let in more. (Of course, the litigation over President Trump’s Executive Order might change this analysis: If the Supreme Court eventually concludes that the order discriminated based on the religious beliefs of most would-be visitors from certain countries, and that such discrimination violates the First Amendment, then — depending on the breadth of the Court’s rationale — that logic might equally apply to discrimination based on the political beliefs of would-be visitors and would-be immigrants, and might thus lead to an overruling of Kleindienst.)

But oddly, the decision suggests that Zundel might have had a legal right under existing law to immigrate after all (even if that right could constitutionally be taken away by a change in the law) — and that DHS’s Administrative Appeals Office might not fully understand American First Amendment law. The office stated,

A foreign conviction can be the basis for a finding of inadmissibility only where the conviction is “for conduct which is deemed criminal by United States standards.” Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I&N Dec. 135, 137 (BIA 1981).

(To give an example of the Ramirez-Rivero principle in action, one 2015 decision held that a 1997 Cuban conviction for “speculation and hoarding” couldn’t disqualify an alien from admissibility to the United States.) But as best I can tell from press accounts, Zundel’s speech that formed the basis of his German conviction would not have been “deemed criminal by United States standards.” Denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments is just not a crime under American law. Indeed, it can’t be made a crime, given the First Amendment.

But here’s what the office said as it went on:

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829 (1969).

But, as the office notes, the Brandenburg exception is limited to advocacy intended and likely to produce crime in the next few minutes, hours or at most days (see Hess v. Indiana [1973]), the classic example being a speech to an enraged crowd outside a building, urging it to storm the building. To my knowledge, Zundel’s convictions don’t stem from such behavior.

So the exclusion of Zundel was itself not a First Amendment violation. But, based on Ramirez-Rivero — and certainly the office’s description of Ramirez-Rivero — it appears to have been a violation of American immigration law. And in the process of misapplying Ramirez-Rivero, the office seems to have erroneously concluded that Holocaust denial and the expression of anti-Semitic sentiments would be “deemed criminal by United States standards.” That strikes me as mistaken, though I’d be glad to hear any corrections or clarifications from readers who are more knowledgeable about immigration law than I am.

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Follow @volokhc

CAFE Backs Freedom of the Press & Free Speech As YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing Opens in Toronto

Posted on April 25, 2017 by admin

CAFE Backs Freedom of the Press & Free Speech As YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing Opens in Toronto

Temporary ban on delivery of controversial newspaper under review

BY NEWS STAFF

POSTED APR 25, 2017 4:48 PM EDT

LAST UPDATED APR 25, 2017 AT 5:04 PM EDT

LOCAL

Procedures have begun for Board of Review hearings over a controversial newspaper that began appearing in mailboxes across Toronto last year.

In June 2016, Canada Post was ordered by the federal government to prohibit delivery of Your Ward News, a publication that sparked allegations of racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism and hate. Judy Foote, the minister responsible for Canada Post, issued the interim prohibitory order under the Canada Post Corporation Act.

James Sears, the publication’s editor-in-chief appealed that order and, as procedure under the Act dictates, Foote appointed a Board of Review consisting of three members to consider whether Canada Post should legally distribute the paper.

Over the last few months, members of the public had the opportunity to make submissions in the hopes of participating in the review.

It has been a divided issue encompassing a debate between proponents of freedom of speech and opponents of alleged hate speech. Here’s what some players on both sides had to say as the proceedings began Tuesday.

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression:

Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“This is an incredibly arbitrary and ruthless power all because some politically-correct people didn’t like what’s in Your Ward News. Tough. People should have the right to publish what they want. If people don’t want to read, there’s a garbage can. There’s a blue box. There’s the bottom of the birdcage. What we are seeing is an effort by people who don’t like the content for whatever reason to say, ‘I don’t like it and you can’t read it and you can’t send it out.’ And that’s what this battle is all about…..We used to be a country where we said, ‘Look, I don’t agree with you. But you’ve got a right to your opinion. You’ve got a right to say it. That’s what Your Ward News is.”

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Sara Lefton, vice president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Sara Lefton, vice president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“This is pure and simple hate. When people are getting Your Ward News in the mail and they’re getting it at their doorstep, they feel unsafe, they feel targeted in their homes. There’s no place for hate like this in Canada, and we need the decision to stand so hate like this will not continue … When there are pieces of clear discrimination and hate speech that are being disseminated en masse to people’s doorsteps there should be no place for that, and that shouldn’t be allowed.”

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

Raychyl Whyte, Board of Review applicant

“Someone should still have the right to freedom of speech. I myself know what it is like to have public humiliation, public shame due to libelous comments and presumptions made about me. I know all too well what that is like. However, I still support people’s rights to have their own independent free speech.”

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Warren Kinsella, founding member, Standing Together Against Mailing Prejudice

Warren Kinsella talks to CityNews in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“For the people that have been victimized by this so-called newspaper, that’s a problem. There’s Holocaust denial, there’s propagation of rape, there’s use of the N-word. There’s racism on every single page. It is the most disgusting thing. I’ve been doing this stuff for 30 years. I’ve never seen a publication like this distributed in Canada as widely as this one is and certainly not one distributed by Canada Post … We need to say Canada Post should not be distributing hatred.”

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

Emilie Taman, co-counsel for James Sears

Emilie Taman, co-counsel for James Sears, is seen during an interview in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“It’s not something that I’m necessarily per se excited to be reading about, but I do believe in the constitutional right to free speech, and it’s one that I think is very important to be defended at every opportunity.”

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Derek Richmond, Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Derek Richmond, of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, is seen during an interview in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“Me, personally, I didn’t deliver [Your Ward News] but many of our letter carriers did. A lot of them are very diverse and had to go through the whole day viewing swastikas, viewing hate, viewing sexist material, rape culture. It really affected a lot of our letter carriers.”

Tory Leadership Candidate Andrew Scheer Promises: No Free Speech on Campus = No Federal Money

Posted on April 19, 2017 by admin

Tory Leadership Candidate Andrew Scheer Promises: No Free Speech on Campus = No Federal Money

Did you ever think you’d see a day when the government had to press universities to promote and protect free speech?

Well, here we are.

Inline image 1

We are hearing countless stories of universities being complicit in shutting down free speech. Stories like U of T Prof Jordan Peterson under attack for wanting to use traditional gender pronouns, a pro-life group at Wilfrid Laurier having a prior-approved demonstration shut down or of a student newspaper at McGill which refuses to print pro-Israel articles.

Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses. More and more, the establishment of safe spaces, forbidden topics and the banning of speakers and campus clubs, are making our colleges and universities no-go zones for open dialogue.

Academic inquiry on our campuses should apply not only to professors but to students. It’s not just course-work that defines a post-secondary education, it’s people discussing and developing ideas.

On our campuses today, though, there are small but powerful special interest groups bent on imposing their own brand of political correctness. We cannot surrender our basic rights to them.

Something must be done.

That’s why as Prime Minister I will ensure that only post-secondary institutions which actively promote and protect free speech will be eligible for federal grants.

That’s right.

If public universities fail to protect this most basic right, they will lose the ability to apply for federal funding like NSERC, CIHR, and Canada Research Chair grants.

Free speech is important. That’s why I voted against C-16 and against M-103. As Prime Minister, I will ensure that free speech is always protected.

I’d love to hear what you think about the leadership race and which issues matter the most to you. Take the short survey by clicking below:

Thanks in advance,

Andrew Scheer, MP

Tory Leadership Candidate Pierre Lemieux Blasts Liberal Hostility to Free Speech

Posted on April 18, 2017 by admin

I hope you had a wonderful Easter weekend. I enjoyed being at home with my family at this special time of year, before heading back out on the road today to continue campaigning.

I had the chance to read a number of articles that, unfortunately, remind us all that the war on free speech is far from over, and that political correctness is entrenched within Liberal ideology.

I thought I’d share a few with you, and ask you a quick question. Please have a look and take a few seconds to click on a response…

1. Liberal Minister Maryram Monsef Wants Pro-Life Ads Shut Down

Pro-life ads are being run on buses in Peterborough, and Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef doesn’t like it. While she acknowledges on her Facebook page that these ads are legal and are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, she encourages people to complain to the Advertising Standards Canada. It’s her stated aim to shut down this legally-protected expression of free speech.

As Status of Women Minister, you might think she would focus her efforts on protecting vulnerable pregnant women and the babies they are carrying against violent criminal assault. Not a chance under this Liberal government.

(Scroll past the poll for more examples of attempted Liberal censorship.)

Protecting free speech and pushing back against political correctness will be a key focus in a Lemieux government.

How important do you feel it is for a leader to defend free speech?

2. Jordan Peterson Denied Federal Funding

Free speech advocate Jordan Peterson, who has been outspoken in his concerns about the forced use of made-up gender pronouns such as “xer”, “zie” and “perself”, has been denied federal grant funding for the first time ever in his career.

I have appreciated my many meetings and discussions with Dr. Peterson on topics such as C-16, M-103 and on how to best defend free speech. If you’d like to help him continue his work, you can contribute to a crowd-funding initiative that has been started.

3. Liberals Shutting Down Summer Student Funding to Pro-Life Groups

Apparently it wasn’t enough for Justin Trudeau that none of his candidates or MPs be pro-life. Now, if you’re a pro-life student who might want a summer job in this field, the Liberals will shut down opportunities available to you.

After a pro-abortion group complained publicly that Liberal MP Iqra Khalid (yes, the same MP who introduced M-103) had approved summer student funding to a pro-life organization, the Liberals quickly announced that this was “a mistake”.

They have now gone further, and said they will shut down all funding for pro-life organizations, even when the jobs are deemed to have merit by the Ministry of Human Resources and would provide meaningful summer employment to students.

The Liberals are trying to muzzle free speech and debate in this country.

Their actions speak louder than their talking points.

This is a government clearly seized with Liberal ideology, and not real concern for students, women, independent research or the middle class. They seek to punish those who do not agree with them.

Free speech matters to Conservatives, which is why I’ve put it at the heart of my campaign.

Please support me as a leader who will continue to lead the charge for free speech under this Liberal government, and not be bullied by political correctness.

If you would like to help me reach more Canadians with my message, please donate to my campaign today.

Sincerely,

Share this on social media to help spread the word!

German Political Prisoner Goes into Exile Before Return to Prison

Posted on April 18, 2017 by admin

German Political Prisoner Goes into Exile Before Return to Prison

I just want to inform you quickly that

HORST MAHLER – who´s ordered to go back to prison tomorrow, for another three and a half years –

HAS LEFT THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY.

HE IS IN A SAFE PLACE NOW.

Gerhard Ittner

UPDATE, April 20, 2017

One hour ago I had been informed by a friend that had just spoken with him that Horst Mahler is well and feeling relieved where he is now.

Ittner

Nous apprenons à l’instant que, devant rejoindre demain la prison pour
purger une peine supplémentaire de trois ans et demi, le célèbre avocat
révisionniste allemand Horst Mahler, 81 ans, “a quitté la République
fédérale d’Allemagne et se trouve actuellement en lieu sûr”.

CAFE

Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity

Author Archives: admin

Senator Apologizes for Using “Nigger” to Make A Point

Scottish YouTuber Faces a Year in Prison For Teaching ‘Nazi Trick’ to Girlfriend’s Dog

Scottish YouTuber Faces a Year in Prison For Teaching ‘Nazi Trick’ to Girlfriend’s Dog

Kevin Pillar — Latest Victim Punished by Privileged Minority

Topham, M-103, Anti-Islamophobia, Schaefer — Free Speech Battles in the Spring of 2017

Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters

America A Little Less Free: Zundel Banned from U.S. Because of His Non-Violent Views

America A Little Less Free: Zundel Banned from U.S. Because of His Non-Violent Views

CAFE Backs Freedom of the Press & Free Speech As YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing Opens in Toronto

CAFE Backs Freedom of the Press & Free Speech As YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing Opens in Toronto

Temporary ban on delivery of controversial newspaper under review

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Sara Lefton, vice president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Tory Leadership Candidate Andrew Scheer Promises: No Free Speech on Campus = No Federal Money

Tory Leadership Candidate Pierre Lemieux Blasts Liberal Hostility to Free Speech

German Political Prisoner Goes into Exile Before Return to Prison

German Political Prisoner Goes into Exile Before Return to Prison