Author Archives: admin

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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 →

Warman to be Subpoenaed in Terry Tremaine Case

Posted on by

 

Warman to be Subpoenaed in Terry Tremaine Case

VICTORIA. June 28, 2012. Just returned from Regina, Douglas Christie, lawyer for Canadian political prisoner Terry Tremaine, told a meeting of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) that Richard Warman will be subpoenaed as a witness in the “hate” trial of the former university lecturer. Warman is the instigator of a slew of complaints that have targeted Mr. Tremaine in what many observers see as a political vendetta.

Warman who styles himself an “Ottawa human rights lawyer” but who works for the Department of National Defence, filed a human rights complaint under Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) against Mr. Tremaine for his postings on Stormfront in 2005. That April, more than a year before the tribunal heard the complaint, Warman wrote to Mr. Tremaine’s employer at the University of Saskatchewan threatening to go to the police and the press. The university panicked and Mr. Tremaine lost his job. He was then impoverished and unable to afford a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that was to be held in August, 2006.

Continue reading →

Hear Paul Fromm Fill in for Maggie Roddin on “The Unsolicited Opinion” Tuesday 10:00 a.m. to Noon

Posted on by
Hear Paul Fromm Fill in for Maggie Roddin on “The Unsolicited Opinion”  Tuesday 10:00 a.m. to Noon
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
  People can listen  on “The Unsolicited Opinion” via www.republicbroadcasting.org  via studio “B”. 
 
( RBN has two streams now playing simultaneously and both hours of my show are heard via studio B.)
 
The call in number is 877-488-5350 for any  callers.  

 

Topics:
 
!* Immigration lies they tell you in Canada & the U.S.A.
* Introducing political prisoner and thought criminal, scholar, diver, and writer, Terry Tremaine.

Posted on by

NEWMARKET, July 13, 2012. It was certainly a “Black Friday” for freedom of dissent in Canada today. One observer wondered whether this was Pnom Penh or Newmarket,. Late this afternoon in an almost deserted courthouse, after a gruelling seven hours of delays, Judge Kelly Wright sentenced letter writer Brad Love to 18 months in prison. Furthermore, “Mr. Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or police organization, except with the express written permission of a political or religious organization” that welcomes him as a member or associate and with the permission of his probation officer.

The 52-year old critic of Zionism and massive Third World immigration is, thus, effectively silenced — no letters-to-the-editor, no letters to newspapers or provocative tweaks to police chiefs or politicians.In addition, Mr. Love was also enjoined from any communication, direct or indirect, with the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, Hillel, and Robert Tiffin, the Vice-President of the York University Jewish Students Union. Mr. Love was found guilty of sending information packages to these four, having called them to receive permission.

In 2006, now retired Mr. Justice Hogg imposed three years of probation during which Mr. Love was forbidden to write to anybody, without their prior consent. In May, Judge Wright ruled that the Jewish groups in question had not given “informed” consent when they told Mr. Love, who had not identified himself in phone calls, that he could send them his written material.

In sentencing Mr. Love, Judge Wright tore a strip off this dissident who, over the past 20 years, has penned more than 10,000 letters to newspapers and public officials. The judge agreed with Crown Vogel’s submission that Mr. Love was so dedicated to his views that he cannot be rehabilitated. Previous “court orders,” Judge Wright read in a staccato voice, “have had no effect in curbing Mr. Love’s propensity to share his hateful and hurtful opinions.” His actions, she added, “were deliberate and intentional” in sending material “that was hateful and hurtful of the Jewish community and reflected his deep-seated racist beliefs.”

The Crown, in her arguments, made it clear that the political gagging of Mr. Love was her goal: “Mr. Love, in the Crown’s submission, in a unique offender.” She indicated that her goal was “to prevent” Mr. Love’s “views from hurting other people. We need to protect the public from hateful, scurrilous material.” And, so, he must be silenced.

Patrick Leckie, Mr. Love’s lawyer, argued that the material sent to the Jewish groups was essentially private communication and there had been no victim impact statement or proof of any harm done. He also noted that the Crown had not charged Mr. Love with “hate” for those mailings. He also pointed out, as the Crown had admitted, that there was little case law to guide the judge in sentencing.

Just before the judge sent the letter]-writing dissident off for another 18 months in prison — his original sentence when convicted in 2003 under Canada’s notorious “hate law” Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code — Mr. Love briefly addressed the court. He pointed to the seats in the courtroom, empty except for Mr. Love’s brother and two members of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, which has backed the outspoken dissident, and a young policeman waiting to slap the handcuffs on him. “Where are the people who claimed to have been hurt or offended by my letters?” he demanded. “They’ve never shown up in the three years of this trial.”

He also warned that his sentence “would have ramifications in limiting the freedoms of other people who come after me.”

The judge adopted almost to a word the Crown’s sentencing requests and, as she had all through the trial which had stretched over three years, rejected all of the defence’s submissions.

Mr. Love will be seeking bail and release pending an appeal of both the verdict and ferocious sentence and an appeal of a rejected constitutional challenge to Judge Hogg’s original “over broad” order, Mr. Love’s lawyer Patrick Leckie said outside the court. “There’s no way Superior Court will endorse the terms of Judge Hogg’s order,” or this order, he added.

The day’s proceedings were a measure of Ontario’s sclerotic court system. The sentencing had been set down in a dedicated courtroom for 10:00 a.m. However, various remands and other matters delayed the Love matter until 12:30. By 1:00, it was time for lunch. Back at 2:15. A further recess had to be called to locate documents the Crown should have had for the file. At 4:10 the judge announced she’d need 20 minutes to consider her verdict. Court resumed at 4:48 and Mr. Love soon after 5:00 p.m was carted off to the cells and political silence, just like his dissidents in Communist China.

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to “Hate Law”

Posted on by

Columnist Andrew Coyne Calls for End to “Hate Law”

For the third time in a week a major newspaper or columnist has called for the end of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law,” Now, that Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been repealed by the House of Commons and is all but certain to pass the Senate, the remaining legal throttle on free speech on the Internet is the “hate law.” Today, the following excellent article by columnist Andrew Coyne appeared front page int he National Post (July 10, 2012) and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, among other outlets.

Last week, in reaction to publicity CAFE had put out about the Terry Tremaine Sec. 319 case, moving its way at a glacial pace through the courts in Regina, the National Post picked up the story. On July 4, columnist Marni Soupcoff wrote a column entitled “Tremaine’s platform for neo-Nazi views helpfully provided by Canada’s criminal code.” While gratuitously slagging Mr. Tremaine, Soupcoff said: “The real problem lies with section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which makes “willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group” by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation” an offense punishable by prison time. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 in the Keegstra case that the provision is constitutional. But the Tremaine case is reminding us that constitutionality doesn’t make a law sensible or desirable…..
The trouble starts once the government enters the equation, at the invitation of section 319(2), and sets itself up as the arbiter of whether Tremaine’s ideas are simply too offensive and disagreeable to legally abide. Suddenly, then, to counter this hefty power to subjectively vet a citizen’s speech and decide whether it should land him behind bars for a several years, the government forces itself into the position of having to provide Tremaine a far prettier platform than he’d ever have been able to achieve on his own.”

The next day, the National Post weighed in with an editorial questioning Sec. 319: “. However, he will now be treated to a media-publicized trial in a Canadian courtroom, in which he will be able to air his nasty views for the benefit of mainstream journalists.”

We can only hope that calls will continue and grow for Canada to be rid of this minority-inspired piece of censorship that would be more fitting in Red China or despotisms like Burma (or Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself this week.)

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Continue reading →

Terry Tremaine’s “Hate” Case Attracting Media Attention & Criticism of Sec. 319 (“hate law”)

Posted on by

Terry Tremaine’s “Hate” Case Attracting Media Attention & Criticism of Sec. 319 (“hate law”)
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON.,
M9W 5L3
416-428-5308
The Editor,
THE NATIONAL POST.
Dear Sir:
Re: “Handing hatred a microphone,” (National Post, July 5, 2012), if this were any other than a highly charged political case, your headline and conclusion (“hatemongers such as Mr.Tremaine”) would have contained the mandatory “alleged” hatred. The Terry Tremaine trial on charges of “willful promotion of hate” hasn’t even started yet. Presumably, that’s what the trial will determine: whether or not Mr. Tremaine’s political opinions expressed on the Internet on several U.S. websites constitute “hate.”
I agree with your condemnation of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” You ask: “How many Canadians had heard of Mr. Tremaine before the charges against him were laid. … We hadn’t.” Your ignorance is a scandal.
The Canadian Association for Free Expression has sent regular report on Terry Tremaine’s travails over the past six years, including to your paper and many other media outlets in Canada..
Mr. Tremaine has been the victim of a political vendetta by Ottawa civil servant Richard Warman. In 2005, Mr. Warman launched a human rights complain against him under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Before any tribunal had been convened., Mr. Warman approached Mr. Tremaine’s employer, the University of Saskatchewan with a complaint. Mr. Tremaine lost his job as a lecturer and was unable to afford a lawyer for the human rights Tribunal. Next, Mr. Warman launched a complaint with the Regina Police under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Cod – the case at hand.
For the past four years, Mr. Tremaine’s bail conditions have prevented him from posting his views on any “White supremacist” website. Too bad his name isn’t Wei Wei. This Chinese dissident was jailed and then stripped of his political rights for a year and was not allowed to talk to the Western media during that time. Many Canadian papers came to his defence and protested Red China’s denial of freedom of speech. Rightly so.
However, the always self righteous Canadian media is often silent with abuses closer to home. Mr. Tremaine has been gagged four times as long as Mr. Wei Wei, with no end in sight..
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Continue reading →

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

Posted on by

RoadKill Radio News: Canada Attacks Free Speech with Entrapment and Intimidation

Interview with Marc Lemire

The only Canadian to ever win at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Join Kari Simpson and Ron Gray as they speak to free speech champion Marc Lemire, the leading force in the campaign to remove the oppressive Section 13 from Canada’s Human Rights Code. Is the tide finally turning in favour of free speech in Canada?

Watch the interview:

http://roadkillradio.com/2012/07/10/roadkill-radio-news-canada-attacks-free-speech-with-entrapment-and-intimidation/

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

Posted on by

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