Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression. Vancouver, April 23, 2017
Topham, M-103, Anti-Islamophobia, Schaefer — Free Speech Battles in the Spring of 2017
Author Archives: admin
Judge Dismisses $104-million Class Action Suit to Silence Christian Preacher Bill Whatcott but Then Orders He Reveal Names of Supporters
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/transgender
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-
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
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
German right-wing extremist Ernst Zundel sits in a court in Mannheim, Germany, on Nov. 8, 2005, at the beginning of a trial to face charges including incitement libel and disparaging the dead. (Michael Probst/Associated Press)
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.
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
POSTED APR 25, 2017 4:48 PM EDT
LAST UPDATED APR 25, 2017 AT 5:04 PM EDT
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:
“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
“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
“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
“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
“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
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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
German Political Prisoner Goes into Exile Before Return to Prison
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”.
German Thought Criminal, 81, Returns to Prison, April 19, 2017
German Thought Criminal, 81, Returns to Prison, April 19, 2017
Even a German, appeals court judge worries that Mr. Mahler drew a 10 year sentence for thought crime — “holocaust denial” — harsher than the sentences of many convicted of rape or muer in Germany
Although quite ill and having lost part of a leg to amputation, Mr. Mahler is being returned to serve three years more — the rest of his sentence.
Horst Mahler – last public appearance before returning to prison
Hoax Letter Sent to Lesbian Councillor on Eve of YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing
Hoax Letter Sent to Lesbian Councillor on Eve of YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing
Two weeks before a long delayed Board of Review hearing into the cancellation of YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine’s mailing rights, out of the blue an anonymous person, naturally, sends an anti-homosexual letter to Toronto lesbian councillor Krystyn Wong-Tam. So, what? Don’t people have a right to experss themselves. Unfortunately, the anonymous writer left a real return address — the oft-vandalized offices of YOUR WARD NEWS.
Wong-Tam was triggered into typical victimhood. City News reported (April 12, 2017): ““I think it’s really important for us to recognize that when language that is used is hateful and discriminatory, it actually creates a climate of fear and violence,’ Wong-Tam said. ‘It can lead to violence, and I don’t want people to feel unsafe.’ ,,, The Councillor says the note has left her staff on edge. ‘I think they were quite alarmed, and they were almost dislodged,’ Wong-Tam explains.” Oh, the drama!
“The letter was sent on a day where millions around the world are marking The Day of Pink, a movement against bullying, discrimination, homophobia, transphobia and transmisogyny. The councillor says there’s a responsibility on her end to identify hate speech, especially as someone sitting in a position of privilege,” City News continued. Fact is, not everybody likes homosexuals and their need to parade and push themselves before the public. “Hate speech” — what about just a different opinion? And, by the way, just what is “transmisogyny” in that rapidly expanding politically correct catalogue of opinions we can not hold?
But, is the letter real, or is it part of a campaign to smear YOUR WARD NEWS? We wouldn’t put it past the homosexual lobby or those who’d like to silence YWN to have written this letter themselves. This spring has seen a number of hoaxes. Remember the 125 or more Jewish synagogues or community centres in the U.S., New Zealand and even Calgary, Alberta that received bomb threats. Oh, dear, the Nazis are back in town. It’s all Trump supporters or the AtlRight. Even President Trump got snookered into denouncing the “anti-semitism” Well, it turned out that the FBI identified some 19-year old Israeli computer nerd as the perpetrator for reasons unknown of these 125 threats. It wasn’t the Nazis, the AltRight or Trump supporters. That boo=hoo story got dropped pretty quickly
Victimized YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears quickly sent out a statement making it quite clear that YWN had nothing to do with the letter.
Leroy St. Germaine and I were made aware of this letter via Twitter posts earlier today. We chose to ignore it as, obviously, neither myself, nor
Leroy St. Germaine, nor to our knowledge anyone associated with either The New Constitution Party of Canada or Your Ward News, were behind the
letter. The fact that it was written anonymously yet contains our return address, was written in a very inflammatory manner, and was timed to be
mailed a mere two weeks before a Board of Review into our mailing rights, makes the letter appear to be a “hate crime hoax”. Furthermore, the fact
that Councillor Wong-Tam published the letter’s return address rather than wait for police to review the matter, makes me suspect that either she is
complicit in the hoax, or she saw an opportunity to use it for political theatre. — Dr. James Sears, Founder and Leader New Constitution Party of Canada
Paul Fromm on Persecution of YOUR WARD NEWS — “The Extremists Club”. London, England, March 28, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=MEW3W5Ew0Pc&feature=vm