Another Pinched, Petty Victory for Political Correctness: Terry Jones Kept Out of Canada

Another Pinched, Petty Victory for Political Correctness: Terry Jones Kept Out of Canada

 

Political correctness is a mean, petty creed, the modern anti-religious successor to its pinched Puritan ancestors.

 

Pastor Terry Jones is a controversial Floridapreacher who was invited to come to Canadato participate in a debate on Islam. At first, things looked hopeful. The National Post (October 9, 2012) reported: “Invited to speak in London, England, last year, Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who gained notoriety for his “International Burn a Koran Day,” never made it because the British government barred him from entering the country for ‘the public good.’

But with Mr. Jones scheduled to speak inTorontoon Thursday to argue that “Islam is not compatible with Western society,” Canadian immigration officials are saying there is little they can do since they lack similar powers.”.

Never underestimate the devious ability of bureaucrats to undermine free speech. Canada Border Service which couldn’t effectively keep out a shipload of Tamils brought in by the Tamil Taiger teerrorists or effectively prevent repeat visits by Jamaican gangsters already deported were lying in wait for aU.S.pastor and they figured out a way to deny him entry toCanada,

 

The Toronto Star (October 11,2012) reported: “Jones, who leads Florida’s tiny Dove World Outreach Centre, was held up for four hours earlier Thursday at the Windsor border crossing, before being denied entry into Canada to attend the evening event outside the Ontario Legislature.

The vehicle Jones shared with Pastor Wayne Sapp, as well as their cellphone records and computers, was searched while the two were interrogated by Canada Border Services Agency about the intent of their visit and what he was prepared to preach at the event.

Authorities also seized two 1-by-1.5-metre cardboard signs that said, “Koran burning site” and “Islam is the new Nazism.”

“Dr. Jones is obviously very disappointed. It’s a big blow to him and all of us,” said his spokesperson, Fran Ingram, inFlorida. “This is not about him. This is about free speech in the West.”

In barring Jones, border officials cited a fine he got in Germany in 1993 for using the title “doctor” there (as a recipient of an honorary doctorate in theology), as well as a criminal charge of breaching the peace at a planned rally in Detroit last year.

Ingram said Jones got both decisions overturned on appeal. However, unconvinced border officials demanded proof.”

 

Talk about petty! Whether he calls himself Reverend, Doctor or Grand Pooh-bah seems irrelevant.

 

There is, of course, a strong Christian-hating element inCanada’s elite. However, the ostensible reason for twisting regulations into unsavory pretzels were that the pastor’s views might drive radical Moslems to violence.

 

Thus, Jonathan Kay of the National Post (October 10, 2012) supported keeping Pastor Terry Jones out ofCanada: “But neither man is a Canadian citizen. Our government doesn’t owe either of them a podium. And so the decision whether to let Jones into the country to deliver a hate speech in front of the Ontario legislature on Thursday shouldn’t necessarily be governed by the same free-speech standard contained in Brandenburg, or even by Canada’s (less permissive) hate speech laws.

A more sensible approach is to look past Jones’ intentions, and examine only the single practical question of whether his speech inCanadais likely to cause violence. Based on precedent, I’d say the answer is yes.”

 

Two huge errors. Pastor Jones never got a chance to give his speech. Thus, Kay’s labelling it a “hate speech” is utterly unfair and speculative. So too is his speculation that his speech might cause vioence. Actually, his speech wouldn’t cause violence. The violence would come presumably from yet another mistake in Canada\s immigration policies – letting radical Moslems immigrate toCanadaand not insisting that they conform to Canadian ways and tolerance of others’ religious views.

 

For years I have warned that multiculturalism would cost us many of our rights, including free speech. The banning of Pastor Jones fromCanadais a clear example. His right to speak was violated as well as the rights of Canadians to hear his views and hear a debate.

 

The mere threat of bad behaviour by poorly screened immigrants was enough to send our politically correct establishment scurrying to twist the rules to keep the pastor out.

 

Too bad Pastor Jones is an honest Christian who told the truth when he tried to cross the border. He should have used another name and told the border guard: “I’m a refugee/” Of course, the claim would seem preposterous. No matter, at this point being a “refugee claimant,” he’d be allowed in. Even though it would be obvious he was lying about his identity, the mere lie, according to immigration regulations, wouldn’t be enough to send him back or at least incarcerate him. If the pastor wished to speechify or debate inCanadafor a few weeks, he’d be given welfare and public housing, If he needed some dental work done, no problem. If he needed a mole removed or a general check-up, Canadian medical services would be at his disposal.

 

But, to honestly come toCanadato express a controversial opinion or two no way!

 

In a related issue, the Toronto Sun (October 12, 2012) asked its readers: “Do you think anger towards the anti-Islam film is justified?”

  • ·Yes, it is blasphemous
  • ·No, it is freedom of speech
  • ·Only if it doesn’t include violence
  • ·I don’t know

Vote

  • Yes, it is      blasphemous: 7%; 855 votes

 

*     No, it is freedom of speech: 68%; 8374 votes

  • Only if it doesn’t include violence: 21%; 2555 votes

 

  • don’t know 3%; 422 votes

Sec. 13 is Nearly Dead: Commons Gives Third & Final Reading to Bill to Repeal Internet Censorship

Sec. 13 is Nearly Dead: Commons Gives Third & Final Reading to Bill to Repeal Internet Censorship

Wednesday, June 6, was a good day for free speech in Canada. The House of Commons, voting 153-136, gave third and final reading to Bill C-304, Alberta MP Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill that will repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, it’s on to the Senate and likely approval and then Royal assent. We’re advised by one MP that Sec. 13 may be dead by the end of the Summer. Brian Storseth deserves high marks for his perseverance as do his caucus colleagues. However, the real heroes are the many victims of Sec. 13 who fought a lonely fight before kangaroo court “tribunals” usually ignored when not being vilified by the complacent press — people like John Micka, Glenn Bahr, Melissa Guille, Tom Winnicki, Jason Ouwendyk, Terry Tremaine, Eldon Warman (a de-taxer and no relative of arch complaint filer Richard Warman. Special honours go to Marc Lemire for not only fighting and winning against Richard Warman but also challenging successfully the constitutionality of Sec. 13. Marc’s intrepid lawyer Barbara Kulazska generated the briefs and paperwork that helped discredit this evil law. Marc’s long fight helped expose the police state nature of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Who can forget the Commission’s blind (don’t ask) “investigator” Dean Steacy insisting he gives no weight to freedom of speech as “freedom of speech is an American concept.” Tribute must also go to Doug Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League who have been steadfast allies against Sec. 13 and, especially to Doug for his masterful summation December 13, 2011 at the judicial review of constitutionality of Sec. 13. And modestly, CAFE can share in the credit. We have represented the unrepresented victims in many a Sec. 13 tribunal; we have intervened forcefully during Marc Lemire’s long fight and we have helped raise money for the victims.

Sec. 13, one of the two evil tentacles of state censorship of the Internet, hangs on by just a thread of its putrifying tissue. Still, it’s depressing that only one Liberal (Newfoundland and Labrador MP Scott Simms) voted for Bill C-304. Postmedia (June 7, 2012) reported: ” ‘It’s a really important step for freedom of expression in our country,’ Storseth said Thursday, the morning after the bill passed third and final reading in the House of Commons. There hasn’t been a tremendous pushback as you would have seen seven or eight years ago when this issue first really arose, and I think it’s because there has been a fruitful debate in our country.'”

Sadly the NDP’s Justice critic spouted utter nonsense in opposition to getting rid of this power of censorship: “Canadian police departments reported 1,401 hate crimes in 2010, or 4.1 hate crimes per 100,000 population, according to recently released data from Statistics Canada. New Democrat public-safety critic Randall Garrison said Wednesday that, due to the large number of hate crimes, the human-rights commission needs to have the power to combat the issue online and force individuals and groups to remove websites containing hateful speech. Removing the sections from the human-rights code will effectively strip the commission of its power to educate Canadians and shut down inappropriate websites, he said. ‘We do have a serious problem,’ Garrison said. ‘If you take away the power to take (websites) down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even to talk to people about it and educate them about it.'”

We see with brutal clarity what the game is — silence critics, have websites, not just an offending phrase or remark, removed. This was the demand in the Marc Lemire case, until the defence team revealed that complainant Richard Warman had posted on the Freedomsite. If ALL the Freedomsite, even the address, as Warman once contended, was “hate” then surely Warman’s comments under one of his sneaky pseudonyms on the Freedomsite were “hate” too. The entire removal of dissident Terry Tremaine’s site http://nspcanada.nfshost.com is the demand of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which is hellbent on tossing him in prison for “contempt.” The site contains movies and much material from mainline sources, including many of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. Yet, the demand is for its total suppression. “Hate crimes,” as reported lovingly in police statistics, are seldom prosecuted and even less frequently result in a conviction. The puny numbers refers to “reports” rather than confirmed “crimes” and are mostly graffiti and insults — really small potatoes.

With ill grace, some of the leftist bloggers are now spreading the line that the opponents of Sec. 13 made their lot worse: Someone using the pseudonym “chapel” wrote on leftist BigCityLiberal’s blog, “Those opposing Sec. 13 bit off their nose to spite their face. No more silly servants sang [sec] questions on hate related issues; now big burly cops and the threat of jail are the real deal.” Not exactly. The remaining censorship tentacle is Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code – the notorious “hate law”. However, and this is a big however, unlike Sec. 13, there are defences — truth, sincerely held religious belief or opinion, material discussed for the public good.

Johnathan Kay of the National Post (June 7, 2012) rejoiced at the demise of Sec. 13: “Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups. All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of ‘human rights.”

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=155573&start=30

The Fighting Side of Me: Paul Fromm Interviews Lady Michèle Renouf

The Fighting Side of Me:
Paul Fromm Interviews Lady Michèle Renouf
Counter-Currents Radio 60:32 / 139 words
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.

Lady Michèle Renouf is an Australian activist, documentary filmmaker, and former model focusing on free speech issues concerning the historical analysis of real and alleged casualties during World War II and their connection to the historiographical narrative developed in the post-war period. Her videos are available for purchase on DVD through her website.

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the “Add special instructions to seller” box at Paypal.)

Judge Ponders Sending Dissident to Prison for Not Shutting Down His Website

Judge Ponders Sending Dissident to Prison for Not Shutting Down His Website

VANCOUVER. October 10, 2012. A controversial website http://nspcanada.nfshost.com. may soon disappear and many postings by a Regina university lecturer may be removed from STORMFRONT, if Canada’s thought control advocates get their way.

A federal judge was asked to jail Internet dissident and webmaster Terry Tremaine for months or until he breaks and removes a controversial website. After a tense morning of demands for the jailing of a man who has posted politically incorrect opinions on the Internet and equally strong submissions by his lawyer Douglas Christie decrying censorship and bullying by the state, Judge Sean Harrington adjourned court and reserved judgement in Mr. Tremaine’s contempt of court hearing here.

Representing the Canadian Human Rights Commission Daniel Poulin urged an 85 day term of incarceration for Mr. Tremaine or until “the original material found to be offensive” under Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (now repealed by the House of Commons) is removed. He argued that leaving the postings complained of was violating a Human Rights Tribunal’s order to “cease and desist.” In a further demand that had Internet savvy listeners shaking their heads, he insisted that Mr. Tremaine must remove his signature block from his more than 3,000 posting on Stormfront, where he posted under the name “mathdoktor99” because it provides the web address of his website. He then seemed to go further and said: “The only way to ensure the material is not repeated is to remove the website,” even though it was acknowledged there were several thousands of postings and audio and musical items, only a few of which formed the basis of the 2005 complaint by Richard Warman.

Mr. Poulin charged that Mr. Tremaine “knew he was ignoring the cease and desist order and he did so purposefully.” So, in Mr. Poulin’s submission, Mr. Tremaine is to be ordered to take down his website and write to STORMFRONT to remove material deemed offensive in the Tribunal’s order.

How, the judge asked, is Mr. Tremaine to “purge his contempt and remove material from the Internet” if he is in jail?

“He can have his lawyer do it or hire a consultant,” Mr. Poulin shot back.

Further, “if he fails to remove the website after 85 days, he must transfer the website to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We’ll remove it and make it a blank page.” And then the final kick at Mr. Tremaine, who was rendered penniless after Richard Warman complained to the University of Saskatchewan long before the initial complaint was adjudicated and cost Mr. Tremaine his job. “While we recognize Mr. Tremaine’s ability to pay is limited, we seek costs.”

Richard Warman who has hounded Mr. Tremaine with the original human rights complaint, a complaint to his employer, a criminal code Sec. 319 “hate law” complaint, and at least three contempt of court complaints rose to make his sentencing submissions.

Warman demanded a jail term of three to six months, even if Mr. Tremaine removes the website. “Deterrence and denunciation are important, given the five year extensive period of contempt. I’d be concerned if he was let out as soon as he purged his contempt,” Mr. Warman continued.

Then, warming to his subject, he harrumphed: “There is the self-evident seriousness of Mr. Tremaine’s trying to alienate control of his site. It boggles the mind to think of anything so contemptuous of the court.” He referred to the startling revelation in court the previous day that Mr. Tremaine was arranging to sell his website to someone in the U.S., which is not bound by Canada’s police state censorship laws. The judge issued an order preventing him from communicating the password to anyone else.

However, Judge Harrington interjected, “there is no law preventing him from selling his website.”

Warman also wanted the order to direct Terry Tremaine to write to archive.org to ask that their copy of his site be removed.

Mr. Warman, too, said he was seeking costs, even though much of his trip to Vancouver would have been paid for by the Commission which called him as a witness. “You’re here as a complainant who is also a solicitor,” the judge noted.

“I have a day job and have foregone that revenue and I practise also as a solicitor and have foregone that income. [Mr. Tremaine’s] inability to pay is not a reason for not awarding costs.

Mr. Warman, too, didn’t want the large number of innocuous postings on Terry Tremaine’s website to remain: “You’ll recognize the dangers of sifting the wheat from the chaff on the nspc website. It is much better to close it entirely. If we don’t, we’ll be back here again soon and this matter will never end.

Acting for Terry Tremaine Douglas Christie, who is also general counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, pointed out that, since Marc Lemire won his tribunal case and got Sec. 13 declared effectively unconstitutional, until a federal judge upheld the law, but stripped of penalties, that the sky had not fallen. There were no serious adverse consequences. That judge’s decision may well be appealed. The Senate may soon pass the repeal of Sec. 13 and the Supreme Court decision on Whatcott is eagerly awaited. This case challenged the power of human rights commissions to restrict free expression. He urged the judge to delay sentencing until these decisions are in. “Parliament has already determined that this material is not illegal,” he said.

He reflected on the bizarre ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal: “Now you are liable for contempt of an order even before you are informed of the order.”

“Mr. Tremaine’s right to free speech is important. His freedom to speak is your freedom and mine as well.”

In a comment that would draw a sharp rebuke from Richard Warman and a threat to complain to the Law Society of British Columbia, Mr. Christie said: “Mr. Warman has made a career out of shooting cripples,” as a figure of speech. His victims are “people who are marginal.” Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. “Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.”

“Tolerance,” Mr. Christie reminded the court, “is best as a virtue when it is practised rather than preached.”

“Is there an order for Mr. Tremaine not to sell his website to some American who wants it? What my friends really need is to abolish the 1st Amendment. My friends hunt down ideas they do not like. They want to add ‘remove’ if the order’s ‘cease and desist’ doesn’t mean that.”

He pointed out that a recent Supreme Court decision authored by Madam Justice Rosalie Abella held that a link is not libel.” Mr. Tremaine’s signature block on STORMFRONT.org is just a link and should not be ordered removed.

“My friends want the nspc website shut down so that Mr. Tremaine cannot be known. The objective is to eliminate thoughts.”

Mr. Warman, he argued, “didn’t have to be here. He’s a witness, counsel and plaintiff. He’s a voluntary participant. Now he wants costs which will haunt Terry Tremaine for life. He should not be entitled to costs.”

“There’s nothing illegal or immoral if the website is sold to an American. We don’t yet police the world. Unlike Canada, free speech really means something in the U.S.” He cited the case of a recent anti-Moslem video which sparked violence, riots and murder in the Middle East. Yet, no serious politician in the U.S. suggested banning it.

“Is it contempt of court to render yourself non-compliant” by trying to sell the website?” he asked.

“Mr. Warman’s proposal to put Terry Tremaine’s ideas down the memory hole is like most totalitarian states in the world.”

The clumsily worded human rights tribunal order enjoined Mr. Tremaine from “telephonic” communication. He did not engage in “telephonic” communication in the period in question: February – December, 2007, Mr. Christie said. “It is legitimate to communicate what is not specifically prohibited,” he added.

Mr. Christie denounced Mr. Warman’s “draconian, systematic totalitarian treatment of Terry Tremaine. He deprived him of his job, drove him into a mental hospital, refused an apology (which would have ended the human rights complaint in 2006) and kept him in litigation for years. Mr. Warman is a one-man anti-Nazi brigade.”

Urging a delay in handing down a judgement, Mr. Christie said: “Sec. 13 is on its way out. It won’t be around in a year. Terry Tremaine is not a bad man, He may have some bad ideas but he also has some good ideas that may benefit humanity.”

Concluding, Mr. Christie said: “Many people have suffered from these Warman complaints. Terry Tremaine has suffered well and truly enough since 2005. There is no need to make him suffer further.”

Judge Harrington reserved judgement.

A Small Victory for the Victims: Richard Warman and National Post owe Fourniers $7,230.44

Free speech and its defence in Canada are definitely not free but come at a huge cost.

 

Mark and Connie Fournier are among the most abused of Richard Warman’s victims. Until finally stopped by the Marc Lemire case which ruled Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act essentially unconstitutional, Richard Warman, as part of his “maximum disruption” tactic had been on a tear filing complaints at no cost and sometimes a profit to himself against persons whose politics he didn’t like: a diverse group of dissident victims he dubbed “neo-Nazis.” By way of further mischief, he filed or attempted to file Sec. 319(hate law) complaints against many of them, including Glen Bahr, Jessica Beaumont,. Alexan Kulbashian, Marc Lemire, and Terry Tremaine. (the list may not be all inclusive).Not all of these complaints led to charges. In addition, at least in the Terry Tremain case, busybody Warman went after the victim’s jobs successfully in Terry Tremaine’s case).

 

Now, if you defended free speech and criticized Warman’s legal rampage, you could face problems. CAFE and I were stout defenders of the victims and vocal critics of Richard Warman. retribution came swiftly. We were both sued for defamation. After five years of huge costs and legal torment, amazingly we lost. [According to Madame Justice Monique Methivier’s understanding of law and the English language, we may not call Richard Warman a censor. We note that observers in a freer country like theU.S.who also understand the English language as well seem to feel the term applies.] We faced a judgement of $43,000, not to mention our own hefty legal costs.

Continue reading

Lady Michele Renouf Slams “Swindlespeak” as a Zionist Tool for Fooling Us

Lady Michele Renouf Slams “Swindlespeak” as a Zionist Tool for Fooling Us

HAMILTON, September 30, 2012. A cross Canada speaking tour with Lady Michele Renouf, British model, actress, film maker and free speech activist opened to a standing room only meeting tonight here.

Speaking to promote her new two hour video ,Dresden Holocaust 1945 Lady Michele urged the use of new language to discuss and define our dilemma. Her career in television advertising has helped form her vision of the use of language.

“Our predators – our traditional enemies – work by ‘swindlespeak’,” she explained. “It tells us the very opposite of the truth.” For instance, the term ‘diversity’ describes a good thing. “However, the policy of mass immigration from the Third World to Europe and North America will destroy diversity and result in one sad blend.”

The proper definition of the term ‘holocaust’ is a burned offering, the eclectic free speech supporter who has studied comparative religion, explained. “The British wartime strategy was to dehouse the German population and to burn them alive. Churchill sought to create a holocaust.”
“There was a deliberate intention to kill the German people. This was decided at an Allied conference by Churchill and Roosevelt in 1943. “The plan was to firebomb and make human torches out of German civilians in 60 German cities.”

At a meeting in 1944 in Quebec City, an even more inhumane plot was hatched for the post war period,. “The plan was to deliberately starve and decimate the German people,” she explained. This was the notorious Morgenthau Plan.

The Morgenthau Plan was not fully implemented after the war. The Allies decided to exploit and “rip off” Germany instead.

Lady Michele Renouf is a world traveller. She has twice visited Tehran and met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “I urged President Ahmadinejad to tell his followers not to shout, ’Death to America,’ but to chant, ‘Down with Zionism; Up with Jeffersonian America.’” President Jefferson, she explained, opposed foreign wars and meddling.

Despite death threats, including one police have traced to a fanatical former Israeli settler in Canada who urged sending her the deadly poison ricin, Lady Michele is fearless: “We have to get over the fear barrier,” she said. “Our predator enemies thrive on making people unable to listen because their jobs depend on their not listening” to questions about the existing order.

Lady Michele’s Canadian tour is sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

 

Copies of her dvd Dresden Holocaust 1945 can be obtained, postpaid, by sending $30 to C-FAR Books, P.O, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.

A Knapsack of Conservative Literature Scooped by Customs Censors

A Knapsack of Conservative Literature Scooped by Customs Censors

Is a speech by former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) about Martin Luther King “hate propaganda”? Some eager beaver censor wannabe at Canada Customs or Canada Border Service Agency, as it is now called, seems to think so. Activist Douglas Pearson was one of several Canadians returning from the July 6-7 annual conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens in Nashville, TN on July 8. He flew into Toronto’s Island Airport. His knapsack was ransacked and searched. What did the agent find? A pound of cocaine? A bag of smelly khat leaves, so beloved by Toronto’s drug addled Somali youth? No, nothing so dramatic. The agent found “literature.” When all was said and done, the snoops haul included: the Frankfurt School, a dvd produced by the Conservative Citizens Foundation; Communism With the Mask Off, a speech delivered in Nurnberg on September 13, 1935 by Dr. Joseph Goebbels; Pre-Emptive Ideology, Occasional Papers of the Citizens’ Foundation, Issue #7; The King Holiday and its Meaning, speech by Senator Jesse Helms, introduction by Samuel Francis; The Citizens Informer, Vol. 45, No. 1 (newspaper published thrice yearly by the Council of Conservative Citizens); The First Freedom, June, 2012, a newspaper; The Alabamian, May-June, 2012, a newsletter published by the Alabama Council of Conservative Citizens and CofCC Board member Leonard Wilson; and the Northwest Observer, Volumes #115 (February, 2012), #116 (March, 2012), and #117 (April, 2012), published by long-time U.S. writer Harold Covington.
This seizure #2012-4952-K27-0013 was made, presumably because the literature was considered “hate.” The suspect material then sent off to the “Prohibited Importations Unit” at 150 Isabella St. in Ottawa. If the material is deemed to fall under Classification D9-1-15 of the Custom Act – that is, “hate propaganda” – it will be seized. The victim can appeal through the bureaucracy. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the victim can take the matter to court. CAFÉ has considered this latter course on several occasions, but the cost might be $40,000 to salvage a $5 book. Should there be no appeal, “the material will be destroyed 90 days after the date of determination.” How are books destroyed? A good supporter of CAFÉ who had a copy of David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism seized some years ago, was told by a Customs officials that they were “burned.” So, our thought police practise book burning in Canada.

CAFÉ has fought the censorship provisions of the Canada Customs Act for 30 years. Persecutions and Customs censor vigilance wax and wane. In one orgy of censorship madness in the late ‘90s, Paul Fromm had a book bag with some 90 items, including Irish Fairy Tales, seized. He got almost all of the books back in the end. However, the thought policing powers of the Customs Act are an affront to free speech and the seizure of one’s property for “determination” is a violation of our rights to property, rights Trudeau’s Charter did not confer on us. Many Canadians have been deceived by this Napoleonic piece of sophistry. Anglo-Saxon law says the citizen has the right to do anything, except what is expressly forbidden by laws. The Napoleonic system says the citizen has only the rights conferred upon him by the State, The Charter’s rights are bogus, all subject to such “restrictions as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The continual gutting of our free speech rights under the Charter shows how weak it is.

Conservatives drop immigration committee witnesses after complaints of ‘disgusting’ website

Conservatives drop immigration committee witnesses after complaints of ‘disgusting’ website

 

“We’ll plug our ears because we don’t want to hear what you have to say” — the New Openness of the Canadian Political Class

 

Twice in one week, Canadian officials behaved like bratty children. The Harper government ostentatiously directed our diplomats to walk out of he UN General Assembly prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahme\adenijad’s speech earlier this week. What is the point of having a place to meet the leaders — like them or not — of the world but then refuse to listen? This childish behaviour reminds one of the bratty kid who plugs his ears and chants and makes noise when another child is speaking.

 

Then, on Wednesday the Conservatives, under Opposition pressure, pulled two of their witnesses, a Montreal husband and wife team who run an immigration reform website. The Canadian Press (September 26, 2012) reported: “The Conservative government pulled two of its own witnesses from an immigration committee at the eleventh-hour Wednesday, calling material on the group’s website disgusting and un-Canadian. Although the witnesses — Madi and Julien Lussier of the Canadian Immigration Forum — were not publicly listed by the committee, they had been scheduled to appear at its first meeting of the current parliamentary session. NDP and Liberal MPs immediately balked at their presence as soon as they arrived at the committee, pointing to elements on the group’s website that they called shocking. Several MPs on the committee are immigrants.

Sections of the site include one on so-called “Chinafication” and “Arabization.” There is also a video interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm and several from a conference of the “racialist” group American Renaissance.

The site is called the Canadian Immigration Report, with the subtitle: “The impact of immigration and racial diversity on Canada and Canadians. A survey on the site asks how long immigration to the West should be halted.’If you want to protect and preserve Canada, stop immigration for at least 50 years,’ Madi Lussier wrote in a comment posted last month.”:

 

The main problem seems to be that MPs didn’t like what they thought were the couple’s views. That should be irrelevant. MPs MUST hear what Canadians are thinking, not just the immensely selfish and greedy and self-interested immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, social workers, ESL teachers, business leaders seeking cheap labour and high unemployment to keep wages down, and a few who dream of replacing the European founding/settler people of this country with others

The Canadian Press account continued: ” NDP MP Jinny Simms said she was appalled by what she saw on the website…. About 15 minutes later, the Lussiers were told by a committee aide that they would not be appearing that afternoon. Madi Lussier, who is undergoing cancer treatment, ripped off a wig she was wearing and waved it at the committee. She yelled “Shame!” as they walked out the door.

The Lussiers conceded their views might not be in the mainstream, but said the committee members behaved like cowards for not at least hearing them out. They argued their website features a range of views on immigration. ‘Is Canada going to look the way it does now in 150-200 years? Will the values of gender equality still exist? We don’t know,’ Julien Lussier said outside the committee. ‘Will the value of respecting homosexuals, environmentalism and democracy exist when the majority won’t be of European origin?'”

And, then, he final insult of this disgraceful episode. The Lussiers were disowned by the MP who invited them and we, the European  founding/settler people of this great Dominion are lectured on what it means to be Canadian by a newcomer from Taiwan: ”

Conservative MP Chungsen Leung’s office had put forward the names of the Lussiers as witnesses. He said that a constituent had told him that the Lussiers were lawyers and he was unaware of what was on their website. ‘The views stated on this website are disgusting and anti-Canadian. I am outraged by them,’ Leung said. ‘I have asked the Clerk that these witnesses be pulled. If they do appear, I intend to tell them the views on the website are abhorrent and un-Canadian.’”

Mr. Leung’s party leader, the Prime Minister, is a huge fan of Israel:”Israel’s values are our values,” he says. In the face of large numbers of illegal immigrants from East Africa, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that these illegals threaten to dilute the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Fair enough. Then, why should it be reprehensible, “un-Canadian”  in the words of Chungsen Leung, to not want to see the replacement of the European founding/settler people of this country?

The Regina Leader Post (September 28, 2012) reported:; “In an interview with Postmedia News, Julien Lussier admitted he and his wife’s opinions on immigration are ‘quite avant-garde,’ but that dismissing them so abruptly was unfair.

‘Immigration is public policy. If we can’t talk about our public policy, we have no right criticizing a country like China for shutting down free speech,’ he said.

As for his views on immigration, he said he believes ‘poaching”‘ the best and the brightest from developing countries is unfair to those emerging nations and Canada should not accept any refugees.

Launched three years ago, the website features original content as well as links to both mainstream and alternative media articles. Included are original interviews with white supremacist Paul Fromm and American writer Tito Perdue, the latter of whom is quoted saying ‘the civilizations that black people alone have created … generally turn out to be a kind of hell on earth.'” This was the sixth time they had been scheduled to appear.

It’s almost boring to have to repeat but I am not and CFIRC is not “white supremacist.”  That is a discussion stopping smear, a term of abuse. White supremacists insist on imposing “White”  standards on the world — like, say, imposing our values on the role of women by force of arms in Afghanistan. We have no such imperialist goals. We are White Preservationists who wish to preserve our people’s position in the land we build, no more, no less.

Here the actual audio proccedings of the committee as they decide not to hear the Lussiers.       http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m0GKZEt0pqg

Free Speech Monitor, Number 197, May 2012

Number 197 May, 2012

Number 197                                                   May, 2012

                                                                                         

Crown Clashes With Brad Love Over Parole Ban on Writing to Anyone

 NEWMARKET, March 13, 2012. It was almost as if she were baiting or mocking him, as the Crown Attorney repeatedly asked former political prisoner Brad Love: “Free speech is what this is all about. You think the courts were trying to criminalize your dissent?”

Yes,” the 53-year old old worker and inveterate letter-writer agreed.

Today, Mr. Love finished his evidence in a protracted three-year “breach of probation” trial that has seen him return to Toronto ten times for court appearances and his much interrupted trial before Judge Kelly Wright.

At issue was a brutal 2006 parole condition, item “r”, in a list of conditions which Mr. Love had to obey. He was forbidden to write to anyone unless they had granted permission to receive his material. In terms of writing, he was rendered gagged non-person.

The Crown explained what Judge Hogg was seeking to accomplish in 2006: “The goal was to craft a condition where you would not send these editorial comments unless requested.” Mr. Love would frequently send newspaper articles with comments written on them in magic marker.

Mr. Love was arrested by eight detectives at an Alternative Forum meeting, March 9, 2009 in Toronto, just after he’d finished a talk, ironically, on free speech. He had sent packages of news articles with his comments to the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith, the Jewish Students Union and the York University Students Union in regards to the anti-Israeli apartheid week.

In each case, he testified, he called and got permission to send them his views. He’d say: “I saw the article about you guys and I love your radical views. I’d like to send you some of mine. They’d say, ‘sure.'”

“I’d phone them in regard to whatever news story prompted my interest. My interest piqued their interest,” he recalled. “I’d say, ‘Would it be okay, if I sent you some of my stuff?” and they’d say ‘sure.'”

Judge Hogg restricted “what I could say,” Mr. Love testified. “However, I believe I followed his guidelines

Judge Hogg, now retired, had a reputation for being a judicial radical. His order was “overbroad,” said Mr. Love’s lawyer, Peter Leckie.

Mr. Leckie, on re-direct, asked Mr. Love: “Do you feel you did anything wrong in terms of Judge Hogg’s conditions.”

Mr. Love responded that the groups who complained, only a small number of those who’ve received his commentaries, “are either over sensitive on this issue or have an ulterior motive.These groups publicize their beliefs,” he added, “but if they get some material with views they don’t agree with, they call the police. I like to question everything that appears before me in my country.”

In a testy exchange with Mr.  Love, the Crown said: “It’s about your right to exercize freedom of speech. It’s a huge part of what drives you as a person.”

“That what my grandparents fought for in two wars,” Mr. Love shot back. “No one should limit my freedom of expression. I’m 53 years old and I’ve seen more than most people,” Mr. Love added. “I take freedom of expression to the outer limits,” he explained.

Earlier, the Crown had acknowledged that Mr. Love, who reads five books a week and is terminally curious, was very intelligent and self-educated.

The trial, which could send former political prisoner and letter-writer Love back to prison, will hear the judge’s verdict on May 28. — Paul Fromm

Continue reading

Free Speech Monitor Number 199, July/August, 2012

Number 199                            July/August, 2012

Sec. 13 is Nearly Dead: Commons Gives Third  Reading to Bill to Repeal Internet Censorship

Wednesday, June 6, was a  good day for free speech in Canada. The House of Commons, voting 153-136, gave third and final reading to Bill C-304, Alberta MP Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill that will repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, it’s on to the Senate and likely approval and then Royal assent. We’re advised by one MP that Sec. 13 may be dead by the end of the Summer. Brian Storseth deserves high marks for his perseverance as do his caucus colleagues. However, the real heroes are the many victims of Sec. 13 who fought a lonely fight before kangaroo court “tribunals” usually ignored when not being vilified by the complacent press — people like John Micka, Glenn Bahr, Melissa Guille, Tom Winnicki, Jason Ouwendyk, Terry Tremaine, Eldon Warman (a de-taxer and no relative of arch complaint filer Richard Warman. Special honours go to Marc Lemire for not only fighting and winning against Richard  Warman but also challenging successfully the constitutionality of Sec. 13. Marc’s intrepid lawyer Barbara Kulazska generated the briefs and paperwork that helped discredit this evil law. Marc’s long fight helped expose the police state nature of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Who can forget the Commission’s blind (don’t ask) “investigator” Dean Steacy insisting he gives no weight to freedom of speech as “freedom of speech is an American concept.” Tribute must also go to Doug Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League who have been steadfast allies against Sec. 13 and, especially to Doug for his masterful summation December 13, 2011 at the judicial review of constitutionality of Sec. 13. And modestly, CAFE can share in the credit. We have represented the unrepresented victims in many a Sec. 13 tribunal; we have intervened forcefully during Marc Lemire’s long fight and we have helped raise money for the victims.

Continue reading