And this is MPPs’ idea of democracy. All 3 abortion parties collude to gag anti-abortion protests.
London Forum Organiser Charged Under Race Act
Jez Turner – organiser of the London Forum – has been charged with “inciting racial hatred” in connection with his speech at the “Anti-Shomrim” rally in Whitehall on 4th July 2015.
The Zionist lobby group “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” had brought a legal action to force the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges against Mr Turner, even though the CPS had originally decided he committed no offence.
An initial hearing will be held at 1.30 pm on Monday 30th October at Westminster Magistrates Court, Marylebone.
Meanwhile another prosecution instigated by the CAA sees anti-Zionist folk singer Alison Chabloz facing charges under the Communications Act, relating to songs uploaded to YouTube. A full day’s hearing of this case will take place at the same Marylebone court on October 25th at 10 am.
Ms Chabloz was arrested again last Wednesday and subjected to an extraordinary 48 hours of custody including travel from London to Derbyshire, following alleged breach of bail conditions.
While we are restricted in reporting these cases at the present stage of proceedings, there will be full updates in forthcoming editions of H&D.
CAFE’S PRESENTATION TO ONTARIO LEGISLATURE COMMITTEE RE: BRUTAL RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT TO PROTEST ABORTIONS
Outline of Submission to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on General Government Regarding Bill 163. An Act to Enable the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017
The provisions of this Act are a severe restriction on freedom of speech of persons wishing to protest abortions. This Act is less about “safe access” to abortion services than it is about preventing persons who oppose abortion possibly upsetting persons working in or accessing these services. There is no constitutional or human right not to be upset.
Abortion is a controversial and vexing issue. Following the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in R v Morgentaler, Canada, in effect, has abortion on demand. A woman may destroy her unborn child almost until its head emerges from the womb. Thus, abortion is completely legal. On the other hand, many people, whether from sincerely held religious beliefs or secular moral ethics, believe the unborn child is not a piece of extraneous protoplasm but a human life. As such, they see abortion as murder. Some wish to protest abortion in general; some gather outside abortion clinics hoping to bringing these concerns to the people involved.
Thus, we have rights in conflict. Under existing laws protesters have no right to block access to a building or to assault people entering the building. These laws should be enforced. On the other hand, anti-abortion protests should be seen as informational pickets.
A report by on picketing by Gary Catherwood of Fasken Martineau (2005) may be useful to the Committee: “ Common law tort principles apply. At common law, the Courts have very recently concluded that secondary picketing is permissible provided it is not done in a way which is otherwise tortious. The Courts have found that the right of an unrelated employer to perform business activities is less important than a union’s right to picket and communicate information about its dispute. .. Common law tort principles apply. At common law, the Courts have very recently concluded that secondary picketing is permissible provided it is not done in a way which is otherwise tortious. The Courts have found that the right of an unrelated employer to perform business activities is less important than a union’s right to picket and communicate information about its dispute.” As in a labour dispute, it is important for anti-abortion protesters to be at the site where abortions are performed, as it is for strikers to set up their informational picket at the site of the business being struck.
The safe zone of 150 metres — a football field and a half — make a mockery out of the right to effectively stage an informational picket. Anyone violating a safe zone faces a fine of $5,000 and up to six months in prison for the first offence and subsequent infractions could see fines increase to $10,000 with up to a year in prison.
For perspective on these proposed draconian punishments, for example, Section 445 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a fine of up to $10,000 and or up to 18 months in prison for killing, wounding maiming or injuring animals under one’s control. Thus, peacefully supporting human life inside the 150-metre bubble zone would attract the same penalty on second conviction as taking an axe and terminating the life of one’s cat or dog.
Injuring or endangering other animals
445. (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse,
(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose; or
(b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.
Section 3.1(c) of this Bill makes it a crime, inside the bubble zone, to “perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval
concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means. ” Would driving one’s car even inadvertently past an abortion clinic with a pro-life bumper sticker be an offence? This law criminalizes expression of sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs.
In our respectful submission, this legislation is excessive, severely infringes on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and dissent and should be withdrawn or defeated.
____________________________________
The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) CAFÉ is a non-profit educational organization that was incorporated in the Province of Ontario, on April 13, 1983 CAFÉ has over 30 years of experience intervening in tribunals and court cases on issues of freedom of expression.
We’ve heard reports that antisemitic “newspaper” Your Ward News is being distributed in #Toronto. If you see it, plz contact @TorontoPolice
A Christian Derails Transgender’s Campaign for Election
From CAFE meeting in Vancouver, Saturday, October 7, 2017
 |
Dear YouTube, this is SATIRE ~ POLITICAL MUSICAL SATIRE, based on an Edith Paif song ‘La vie en rose’. Edith Piaf performed regularly in occupied France duri…
|
|
******************************
Dear all, a short account of my brief but unpleasant ordeal last week.
The new charge for causing yet more gross offence by way of singing satirical songs concerns a YouTube version (now removed) of this song which, for obvious reasons, I am unable to share on my above blog post:
https://www.bitchute.com/
Musical wishes, Alison Chabloz.
*******************
Last week, for having expressed myself musically via the Internet, I was entertained at Her Majesty’s pleasure during 48 hours.
Clearly at the beck and call of my predatory stalkers, police first arrested me for an alleged breach of bail outside Court 8 at Westminster Mags then, ten minutes later, de-arrested me. Within half an hour, I was re-arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for my songs (again), handcuffed and carted off to Charing Cross police station where I was held for six hours to await two officers from Derbyshire police to take me back to my home county for questioning.
In Buxton, I spent another 31 hours in custody, was interviewed, rearrested for breaching bail and for another count of sending a ‘grossly offensive message’ – i.e. posting another humorous song on YouTube, clearly marked as SATIRE and which contains NO HATE SPEECH whatsoever – and finally charged with the latter two offences. I was told that the incitement charge is pending police investigation. I was refused bail and informed that police had requested I be held on remand.
On the morning of October 6th, I was again handcuffed and driven in a prison bus to Chesterfield Immediate Remand Court where I pleaded not guilty to malicious communications and was freed under the same bail conditions with the new charge transferred to the next legal argument hearing at Westminster on October 25th.
Now, three days after being released and of course being the subject of all-too-predictable arrogant gloating online from my predatory stalkers (yet total silence from the mainstream press), my impression is that my persecutors were trying to break me.
I was treated badly at Charing Cross, made to suffer three hours of torture in a freezing cold police van with no seat and refused a number of my rights. I have compiled a fully detailed report which has been sent to my lawyers.
All for singing satirical songs? What has happened to this country, when the authorities behave in such a despicable manner towards an artist who has never caused any harm to anyone? What do my predatory stalkers hope to achieve?
Anyway, I am absolutely fine. As I have said before, this kind of persecution only strengthens my resolve. Thanks to everyone who has sent me kind words of support.
The Crown now must convince District Judge Zani that ridiculing Jewish lies, power and influence in a song is grossly offensive. Other points of law to be discussed at the next hearing are whether sharing a URL constitutes sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message and deciding whether YouTube is a public communications network.
My bail terms specify that anything I post has to be BOTH racist/anti-Semitic AND grossly offensive in order for me to be charged with a breach. Certainly, one of the interviewing officers didn’t seem to be offended at all – one foot tapping the beat during the showing of a police screencapture video of my alleged musical crimes!
If my trial goes ahead, all the footage of the three songs concerned will be shown in court – the third clip clearly showing a YouTube warning notice for delicate flowers who might be offended by watching! If the authorities want to make themselves look utterly ridiculous then I can’t really see any problem. Likewise, if they decide to put an artist on trial for singing satirical songs, find me guilty and send me to prison, I have absolutely no problem with that either.
Once again, my predatory stalkers have omitted to include another of my songs which, considering the definition of what they claim to be ‘grossly offensive’, could easily have been subject to similar nonsense charges. I wonder why?
Oct 10, 2017 visiting Horst Mahler,
German Excerpt with English below in red :
Es freute uns sehr, Horst Mahler in akzeptablem Zustand, den Umständen entsprechend, wieder zu sehen. Sein Geist ist ungebrochen und in den Gesprächen
We are very happy to find Horst Mahler in an acceptable state, considering the circumstances, to see him again. His Spirit is unbroken and in our conversations
sprühte er vor Zuversicht. Diese Zuversicht bezog sich nicht auf das Wohl seiner Person, vielmehr auf den Ausgang des Kampfes. Seine Worte „Nicht ich bin
he sparkles with confidence. This confidence was not in reference to the wellbeing of his person, but it is in the end result of the battle. His Words “ Not I is
angeklagt, sondern mein Buch und die Wahrheit die aus ihm spricht“, machen uns wieder deutlich, wie richtig er mit seinen Erkenntnissen über den Feind der
accused, but my book and the truth that is revealed in it”, will confirm to us again, how right he is with his recognition of the enemy that
Völker liegt. Horst Mahler klagt nicht über seine Situation, befürwortet kein Mitleid und erst recht keine defätistischen Ansichten. Sein Wollen ist der Kampf
lies over the People. Horst Mahler is not complaining about his situation, seeks no sympathy and especially has no defeatist attitude. His goal is the fight
gegen den jüdischen Ungeist durch das Erwachen des deutschen Geistes.
against the Jewish Daemon through the awakening of the German Spirit.
With every passing day it should be clear that “diversity” is a code word for anti-White.
The CBC (August 22, 2017) explained: “A man who was seen proudly flying a Confederate flag from his truck at a downtown Hamilton construction site has been fired, his employer says. Keith Lipiec posed for pictures with the flag at a Yoke Group job site at Hamilton’s historic Treble Hall at the corner of King and John Streets yesterday.
Yoke Group owner and CEO Anthony Quattrociocchi told CBC News Monday evening that Lipiec has been fired.
“I have absolutely zero tolerance for this behaviour. He will no longer be working for Yoke Group,” Quattrociocchi said in an email.
evening, saying the company believes “strongly in diversity, inclusiveness and acceptance.”
“There is zero tolerance for racism and discrimination in our business and on our sites,” the statement reads. “We were deeply offended by the actions of the rogue temporary employee at our Treble Hall site today.
“We do not condone or support this individual’s actions. We encourage freedom of speech but not when it evokes any form of hatred or discrimination.” So, freedom of speech to say “nice” or bland things. Keith Pipiec was only flying a flag; he wasn’t hating or discriminating against anybody!Hamilton Man Fired for Showing A Confederate Flag
Ugly dispute at festival last summer led to councillor’s motion
Part of a video taken by Ybia Anderson during a dispute last summer over the Confederate flagsdisplayed on this replica of the General Lee, a car made famous in The Dukes of Hazzard TV show. (Ybia Anderson) Toronto city council is set to discuss a call for a ban this week on the Confederate battle flag in public spaces stemming from a raucous confrontation during a festival in suburban Toronto this summer.
Coun. Neethan Shan of Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River has introduced a motion that aims to clarify what symbols can be displayed during events in parks and other public spaces.
He’s also calling for an outright ban on the Confederate flag, in particular from city-owned spaces and at city-sponsored events.
- Man displaying Confederate flag
fired from job site - Confederate flag: 10 facts about the controversial symbol
“I think at some point we have to put our foot down and say what is not acceptable when it comes to symbols of hate,” Shan told CBC Toronto on Friday.
His interest was sparked by an incident during last summer’s Highland Creek Festival, which is held annually on public lands in the city’s Highland Creek Village neighbourhood.
Coun. Neethan Shan has asked city staff to investigate the feasibility of banning the Confederate flag from city-owned spaces and city-sponsored events.Ybia Anderson was visiting the festival with her three-year-old son when she noticed a replica of the General Lee, the customized Dodge Charger from the U.S. TV program The Dukes of Hazzard.
The vehicle was displaying two Confederate flags — one on its roof and the other on its bumper. Despite her objection, organizers refused to move the car.
In a tape she recorded of the incident, Anderson can be heard demanding that the person in charge of the car remove it, which he refuses to do.
Anderson’s dispute over a Confederate flag last summer led to this week’s motion by Shan. (Ybia Anderson)“Let me tell you what I want: I want the car gone. “I want it out of sight. It does not belong here,” she says.
“It represents lynching and death of black people… This is racist … This does not belong here.”
On Friday, Anderson told CBC Toronto she’s glad Shan is trying to ban displays of the flag in public places.
“I absolutely support it, because I think there’s a disconnect happening … I think people do not understand and define the Confederate flag as a hate symbol, which it is,” she said.
Not a free expression issue, Shan says
Shan’s motion calls on city staff to look into the feasibility of banning the flag.
He said he doesn’t believe a ban could be construed as a violation of a person’s right to free expression
“This is not a case of freedom of expression or freedom of speech,” he said. “It is a symbol of hate that infringes on the well-being of other people in a place that is public, and a place that is publicly funded, in a place that is publicly maintained or supported by the community.”
Two-thirds of councillors must agree to discuss his motion at this council meeting. Otherwise, it will be referred to a city commitee, where it could be killed, or sent back to next month’s council meeting for a vote.