Hi everyone. Up until now, Sarah has diligently picked up the new editions of Druthers each month for people to distribute. CLEAR has been actively involved in distributing these weekly in Kelowna, with the assistance of wonderful volunteers.
HELP!!
Sarah needs someone to pick up the Druthers from the Diamond delivery depot at 2805 Acland Rd, Kelowna
Around the first week of each month.
We need someone to pick them up now, in November and drop them off at Sarah’s place.
Can you please help? Delivery of Druthers is critical to supporting freedom in British Columbia and provides Canadians with unprecedented information and articles that MSM simply won’t touch!
Please email us at: clear2012@pm.me if you can help pick them up. There will be about 200 bundles, with 100 to a bundle.
Thank you!
————————————–
PM Trudeau – is under mind control
See his response to an unscripted question. At all times, watch his eyes – he is definitely under mind control; and listen to his answers – either someone is telling him what to say via an ear piece or some form of telepathy/mind control (see MK Ultra), or he is reading from a script somewhere to a question that was not expected and thus he did not have a prepared answer.
We need a truly independent inquiry – not some committee where the arbitrator is appointed and the terms and conditions set out by the Prime Dictator of Canada.
Many myths and much disinformation have circulated for
years about our common law, our Constitution, our rights and freedoms, and other important topics.
This incredible Webinar series will finally provide irrefutable documentation confirming the true source of our property rights and the supremacy of God in our Constitution – and why we should be thankful they are NOT in the Charter!!
If you want answers to what your common law and Constitutional rights and freedoms are
Definitions and applications of the most important words in our law
Where your Constitutional right and power of civil disobedience to all unlawful statutes and orders originates
How Gov’ts and judges use “legal fictions” to steal your fundamental rights and freedoms from you
What limited rights, powers, and duties Gov’ts truly have
And much, much more…this is the Webinar series you have been waiting for!
We provide all sources of our research for verification purposes!!
By registering to this Webinar series, you will have
downloadable access to each presentation you have registered to watch!
All webinars have a password that is provided to you to access each show you wish to receive, or if you register for the series, all webinars.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau said in a statement that he intends to hold the government to account and wants the inquiry to be as “open and transparent” as possible.
Hearings will be livestreamed online and members of the public will have opportunities to share their views, with a final report expected early next year. For live streaming, see:
Recently it has been announced that as of Oct. 6, merchants will be allowed to charge customers a fee for paying by credit cards.
The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash.
Withdraw money on Sunday from the bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.
NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!
USE CASH!!!
————————————–
Hands-on Help!!!
Each Sunday, for as long as we can, we are delivering Druthers/Pandemic Papers Publications, including CLEAR rally cards and other important inserts such as our Masks/PCR brochure, and the recently released UNITY Health & Sciences brochure, for door-to-door delivery to all the mail boxes in Kelowna
See these inserts below
Though labour intensive, the outings are enjoyable and productive
But we need YOUR help!
There is simply no other way we can reach so many people who have believed the Gov’t/MSM narrative/lies
Join us each Sunday by signing the CLEAR Newspaper Delivery Sign Up Sheet at the CLEAR table & providing your EMAIL address to Linda & Nikki.
We need about 8-10 people to deliver about 100 flyers each – only about 90 min.
Each Sunday we will meet at a specified location to be announced by email on Saturday night. Start times will be 11:30 a.m.
Many recipients continue to thank us for delivering these to their doorsteps!
Contact Unity Health & Sciences Team to volunteer to distribute their professional brochures and Medical Doctor Packages throughout your home area, and to your medical doctor!
Not every doctor, analyst, and specialist is on the gov’t side and many have strong science and personal experiences opposing the gov’t narrative.
Even though COVID-19 restrictions are, for the most part, no longer in effect, other freedom issues have arisen as gov’ts use the cover of COVID-19 to introduce other more formidable liberty restrictions, including privacy violations.
Freedom is a multi-generational struggle – our legacy is to leave a better place for our children, not simply to quit after an issue appears to be over and anger diminishes; and of course, it rarely is truly over.
We urge you to provide designs (clear2012@pm.me) and/or your own signs for upcoming threats, including Digital ID
RCMP member sent on unpaid leave writes this powerful letter you must read
————————————–
We will not be locking down over RSV which has a 0.0000047% death rate. This is nowhere near an emergency.
You will not mask us, you will not quarantine. You will not keep kids out of school. NEVER AGAIN. -Human Rights Attorney, Lee Dundas pic.twitter.com/iyqcO1xXHG
[Richard Warman, a board member of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network sued journalists Jonathan Kay & Barbara Kay, seeking $25,000 & $10,000 for tweets suggesting CAHN assisted violent Antifa and that Warman uses lawsuits to silence critics. Warman lost big time with costs to be decided. It’s fascinating to learn that a grant of $25,000 from the malodorous Southern Poverty Law Centre helped set up CAHN. CAHN has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from theCanadian taxpayer and $500,000 in 2020 from the Bank of Montreal. CAHN has been a loud proponent of censorship. In a taxpayer-funded booklet to combat “hate” in schools, it makes the ludicrous claim that the Red Ensign is a hate symbol. — Paul Fromm]
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE OTTAWA SMALL CLAIMS COURT
OVERVIEW [1] This was a claim for $25,000.00 against Jonathan Kay and $10,000.00 against Barbara Kay, for defamation and loss of reputation. [2] The alleged defamatory communication relating to Jonathan Kay was from a hyperlinked article he tweeted on November 12, 2019, titled: “Ant-hate Southern Poverty Law Center Partner Funds Violent Canadian Antifa” [3] On November 12, 2019, Jonathan Kay wrote and/or printed words alleged to be defamatory including: November 12, 2019 @Jonkay “really unsettling. Why wd an “anti hate” group like @antihateca be supporting antifa thugs? Few years back, u could make a case that many antifa members really opposed rt wing extremism, but antifa has now just become a hate cult engaged in street violence”. [image] “Anti-Hate Southern Poverty Law Center Funds Violent Antifa It shouldn’t be a big demand for left-wing groups to disavow Antifa violence and certainly not to partner with the movement or its supporting organizations. The federalist.com Exhibit 1, Tab 3
[4] A further communication tweeted by Jonathan Kay January 25, 2020, reads: “great @c2cjournal piece on the race-hustling at @antihateca, which scares its donors with exaggerated fearmongering, & pushes censorship. Also notes CAHN’S de facto support for antifa, a street gang & dox shop that exudes the same hate CAHN claims to fight [sic]”. [5] The alleged defamatory communication relating to Barbara Kay was from a hyperlinked article she tweeted on November 12, 2019, titled: “Ant-hate Southern Poverty Law Center Partner Funds Violent Canadian Antifa” [6] On November 12, 2019, Barbara Kay wrote and/or printed words alleged to be defamatory including: November 12, 2019 @BarbaraRKay “Not a good look for @antihateca in this article. [image] “Anti-Hate Southern Poverty Law Center Funds Violent Antifa It shouldn’t be a big demand for left-wing groups to disavow Antifa violence and certainly not to partner with the movement or its supporting organizations. The federalist.com
[7] The defendants raise the following defences: a) The impugned publications are not defamatory of the plaintiff (“Warman”) b) Justification of lesser meanings
c) Fair Comment d) Qualified Privilege e) Lack of Malice f) Lack of Damages g) Republication h) s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43
FACTS Parties [8] Warman is a lawyer and at the material time, a volunteer board member of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (“CAHN”). [9] Jonathan Kay (“Jonathan”) at the material time was a journalist with the Twitter handle “@jonkay”, and Barbara Kay (“Barbara”) was at the material time a columnist at the National Post and had a Twitter handle “@BarbaraRKay”. Publication/Endorsement [10] On November 12, 2019, Jonathan communicated the content referred to, supra, through his Twitter account and the text included a hyper link: https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/119463849796280296
[11] On January 25, 2020, Jonathan Kay published the tweet referred to, supra.
[12] On November 12, 2019, Barbara communicated the content referred to, supra, through her Twitter account and the text included a hyper link: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRKay/status/119426470236223 48880
[13] Notice of Libel was served on the defendants on November 22, 2019.
ISSUES [14] A) Defamation – were the impugned tweets defamatory. Did they contain allegations against Warman that would lower him in the estimation of reasonable people or cause him to be regarded with hatred, fear, or dislike? B) Justification – were the words substantially true. What were the tweets in their natural and ordinary meanings meant or understood to mean? C) Fair comment – Did the tweets consist of expressions of opinion, on matters of public interest. Did the defendants honestly hold those opinions? D) Qualified privilege – were the tweets published in good faith. Did the defendants honestly believe they were fair and accurate and related to maters of public interest? E) Malice – did the defendants believe what they published to be true. Was their belief reasonably held and did they act reasonably in expressing their views? F) Damages – If the words were defamatory, did Warman suffer actual injury or damage to his reputation? G) Strategic lawsuit against public participation – Do the Charter or the Courts of Justice Act offer a defence?
EVIDENCE Richard Warman General [15] Warman is a lawyer, a Judge Advocate General reservist, and has been involved with human rights issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where he was formerly employed, filing 16 successful complaints against neo-Nazis, and white supremacist groups and individuals over the last 20 years. [16] Warman is a well-known public speaker on human rights and anti-racist activism. And a recipient of numerous awards and honors for his human rights advocacy. Exhibit 2, Tabs 4-5 [17] In 2018 the Canadian Anti Hate Network (CAHN”) was formed by three individuals, Bernie Farber, Evan Balgord and Amira Al – Ghawaby. Their website was active from about July of that year. [18] The non-profit corporation started with a budget of $25,000 from the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”), though there was no formal alliance between them. [19] CAHN’S mandate was to educate the public with respect to hate groups and counter the activities of those hate groups. [20] Warman joined CAHN’s board in 2018. He provided direction to the executive director Balgord, the only paid member, helped obtain funding, and dealt with legal issues as well. His role was coordinating anti racist and anti-fascist movements. [21] Numerous articles including ones from the Canadian Jewish News, the CAHN website, and news articles identify Warman as a CAHN board member from August 2, 2018, to September 2019.
[22] In 2019 a peace bond was issued under s.810 of the Criminal Code against Kevin Goudreau, a member of the Canadian Neo – Nazi movement, for threats against CAHN . The bond named Warman, as part of CAHN. Exhibit 1 – Tab 17 [23] Warman’s work was positively received and resulted in medals for good citizenship; a sovereign volunteer medal; and a Queen’s diamond medal, and an Ottawa Citizen article asking, “is this the bravest man in Canada?” [24] Warman testified that he was on a “hit list” for racists and white supremacists; was criticized by those opposed to legal controls on hate speech; and, generally, was opposed by those holding “libertarian” views. [25] Warman dealt with them by disabusing them, engaging with them, ignoring them if possible, or issuing libel actions against them. His reputation for integrity and honesty is crucial to his work as a lawyer and advocate for human rights. [26] Warman admitted he has received no serious threats in the last 5 years and that the impugned tweets haven’t exacerbated the situation. [27] He still is portrayed positively in mainstream media and has no knowledge of anyone concluding that he personally funds hate groups, which he testified he does not do, nor has he encouraged violence. [28] In cross examination, Warman was referred to a Maclean’s magazine article by Charlie Gillis regarding s13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Warman’s use of that section, which required no intent; did not have truth as a defence; and discouraged legitimate free speech. Warman brought more complaints to the CHRC than anyone else.
[29] After a Warman sent a libel notice to a library, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association got involved resulting ultimately in the repeal of s13. The National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Globe and Mail, Law Times and the Canadian Lawyer all did articles on Warman and his involvement with s13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
2008 Libel action against Jonathan Kay and the National Post [30] In February 2018, Jonathan published an article on the National Post website alleging that Warman manufactured his own hate material, and that there was a phony racism industry in Canada. Exhibit 1, Tab 9, p 62/113 [31] Warman then commenced a libel action which was settled. The National Post apologized and retracted the post. November 12, 2019, Tweets [32] Neither Warman nor CAHN had any contact with the defendants before the November 12, 2019, tweets which Warman considered defamatory in that he believed they conveyed the message that he personally funded antifa. [33] Warman admitted in cross examination that he had no knowledge if the impugned tweets were liked, retweeted, commented on and admitted the tweets never went “viral”. [34] Warman did not e-mail Jonathan regarding the November 12, 2019, tweet but instead retained counsel who gave Notice of Libel to the defendants on November 21, 2019. Exhibit 1, Tabs 7,8, page 5/113 [35] Warman contacted The Federalist in December 2019 seeking a retraction since their article was based on an earlier Huffington Post article wrongly alleging the source of funding for Antifa. Exhibit 1, Tab 4, page 38
[36] Although Warman received no response to his December 2, 2019, e-mail, the Federalist did change the article, though not in a manner satisfactory to Warman. Warman never sent a libel notice nor commence an action against the Federalist. Exhibit 8 [37] This action was then commenced in January 2020.
Steven Rogers [38] Rogers is an expert in digital forensics, gave evidence on behalf of Warman regarding the impugned tweets, and filed a report dated January 25, 2020. Exhibit 1 – Tab 18, pages 37/176 [39] Rogers gave evidence as to the number of followers the defendants had but was unable to say how many of those followers saw the tweets and whether those tweets went “viral”. He gave no evidence that any of the tweets were “pinned”. Jonathan Kay General [40] Jonathan is a journalist and has written for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the National Post, Al Jazeera, and the Canadian Jewish News. He also worked with the New Yorker, Harper, and the Walrus. [41] Kay describes himself as an activist working for social justice causes, and a public intellectual who rejects all ideological extremism. His first employment was in Montreal in 1995 working with Irwin Cotler, a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and a well-known human rights advocate.
[42] Jonathan is Jewish, and his father fled the USSR, so he is mindful of the dangers of extremism from both the left and right wings of the ideological spectrum. [43] Jonathan was not aware of Warman except for his activity commencing litigation or using s13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to act against hate groups. He was aware of the 2008 Macleans magazine article entitled “Righteous Crusader or Civil Rights Menace” Exhibit 3 – Tab 6 2008 Libel Action [44] In 2008 Jonathan wrote an article for the National Post describing the admonishment received by Warman from the Human Right Tribunal regarding his infiltrating the Northern Alliance by posing as a neo-Nazi. Exhibit 1, Tab 9 [45] Jonathan relied on expert testimony from Bernard Klatt, believing him to be an expert witness, for the article, which testimony was in part inaccurate. The article was retracted on February 20, 2008. Exhibit 2, Tab 2 [46] Notwithstanding the retraction, Warman still sued the National Post and Jonathan, seeking an apology which Warman described as an antidote to defamation. The action was settled before trial. [47] Jonathan was aware of CAHN, which was led by Bernie Farber, who Jonathan knew for over twenty years, and who Jonathan considered a “good egg” . Jonathan was positively disposed both to Farber and CAHN since Farber was a leader of the Canadian Jewish Congress and fought racism from both the left and right.
[48] Jonathan was unaware of anyone else but Farber as a part of CAHN and did not know Warman was with CAHN until he was served with the libel notice. He was aware of a May 8, 2018, CBC article profiling CAHN but testified that the article made no mention of Warman. Exhibit 6 [49] Jonathan was aware of Antifa and its activities and described its earlier messaging as “benign”. However, subsequent YouTube videos taken of antifa demonstration were described by Jonathan as violent, thuggish, destructive of property and not all about “peace and love”.
November 12, 2019, tweets [50] Jonathan referred to a CAHN article by the CEO Balgord dated September 20, 2017, as an apologist tract for Antifa, describing the need for “physical disruption” to get their message across. Exhibit 3, Tab 9
[51] A Quillette article (Jonathan was an editor) about Columbia’s Journalism dated June 18, 2019, described Antifa as violent and advocating violence to effect change. The article described what happened to Andy Ngo, a friend of Jonathan’s, who was a 5’2” gay Vietnamese conservative journalist covering Antifa activity in Portland Oregon when he was badly beaten by Antifa members, described by Jonathan as “thugs”. Exhibit 5, Tab 32; Exhibit 2, Tab 8 [52] Jonathan described numerous instances where Antifa used intimidation, violence and generally mimicked fascist group activities in Portland, Oregon, and Hamilton Ontario and, for example, screamed at an elderly woman at a town hall event in October 2019, where they tried to block a speaker, Maxime Bernier, and called her “Nazi scum” . Exhibit 5, Tabs 3-6, Tab 31
[53] Jonathan attributed the Federalist article to Bernie Farber and was disappointed that Farber, whom he had great respect for, praised “muscular resistance” (balaclavas and pipes) and felt that CAHN only called out right wing hate mongers. He felt betrayed by Farber. Exhibit 1, Tab 4
[54] Regarding the impugned November 12, 2019, tweet, Jonathan was upset that instead of ratcheting down the culture war and divisiveness, Farber was devoting his own voice and CAHN’s to promoting Antifa, and getting government funding for his efforts, while few Canadians knew about Antifa’s street violence. Exhibit 1, Tab 3
[55] Jonathan testified that he “tagged” or sub tweeted CAHN, so they had notice of the tweet. He was blocked from contacting CAHN directly. The tweet was about CAHN’s organization and was the institutional extension of Farber’s stature. [56] Jonathan had no problem with any private individual supporting Antifa but institutions like CAHN supporting Antifa give it public approbation and signals approval – a very valuable currency. [57] Jonathan had no interest in Warman, said nothing about Warman in any tweet and had no interest in any issues between the Federalist , Huffington Post and Warman. He testified that e thought only of Bernie Farber ad Evan Balgor as being connected with CAHN. [58] As to the tweet itself, Jonathan testified it “dropped like a stone”, there was no image of any likes , retweets, comments , nor was the tweet “pinned” so it would always be on top of Jonathan’s tweets, so there was very little dissemination. He deleted the tweet but doesn’t know whether that was before or after receiving the Notice of Libel.
January 25, 2020, tweet [59] Regarding the second impugned tweet, dated Jan 25, 2020, Jonathan was concerned with what he described as “race hustling”, and cancel culture pushing censorship. Exhibit 1, Tab 11 [60] Jonathan contacted a CAHN board member, Professor Perry, who counted 300 right wing extremist groups in Canada, which became a media story attracting the attention of the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, seeking the names of the groups. The disclosure was never provided. Exhibit 3, Tab 24, Tab 15 [61] Jonathan’s concern was that CAHN was stirring up the idea of apocalyptic threat and calling out right wing but not left wing hate groups. He referred to CAHN articles describing how to find local Antifa chapters and referring to an international Antifa defence fund Exhibit 4, Tab 3, Exhibit 7 [62] Jonathan testified that Warman had a reputation as a litigation enthusiast and is now prominent on the CAHN website, so he has suffered no diminution in reputation . [63] Jonathan did not offer an apology regarding his tweets because none referred to Warman; CAHN was and is still a partisan organization; and, finally, in 2008 when Jonathan and the National Post did retract the impugned article, Warman still sued anyway. Barbara Kay General [64] Barbara testified that she was a journalist for over 22 years and had a lifelong interest in writing about human rights, cancel culture and antisemitism.
[65] Barbara is a self-described “classic liberal” championing individual (as opposed to state’s) rights, due process, freedom of speech, and conscience, and is most concerned with left wing as opposed to right wing antisemitism, since right wing antisemitism has no institutional support. [66] Her concerns are with universities exercising “cancel culture” and repressing free speech. [67] Barbara had a positive impression of Bernie Farber until he got “woke” and, as the voice of the Jewish community, was ignoring left wing antisemitism.
Knowledge of Warman and CAHN [68] Barbara was only aware of Warman’s impersonating fascists and using s13 of the CHRA and suing “small potatoes” and believed he was using libel chill to compel respect. She had no knowledge of any connection with CAHN. [69] Barbara read the Federalist article and sent her tweet the same day it was published. She was concerned with Farber’s praising “muscular resistance” and was unaware that Warman was a CAHN board member. She thought that Farber was CAHN and CAHN was Farber. November 12, 2019, tweet [70] Barbara had used that expression “not a good look” many times before the impugned tweet. Her concern was that an anti-hate group was endorsing antifa which was not a good look for a respectable organization. Exhibit 1, Tab 3 [71] Her testimony was that she believed it was in the public interest to know about that support, and that CAHN could do better. As a journalist her duty was “see something, say something”.
[72] Barbara’s testified that she wanted CAHN to fight antisemitism and wanted their reputation to be good. She believed a government funded organization should do better and live up to its name. [73] As to Warman, Barbara testified that his reputation is flourishing, and that his “brand” is as a human rights lawyer, not as any representative of CAHN. She did not contact CAHN regarding the federalist article or her tweet since she was blocked from contacting CAHN.
ANALYSIS Were the tweets defamatory [74] The plaintiff submits the impugned tweets lowered Warman’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person given his association with, and as a board member of, CAHN. [75] The Kays submit that the tweets did not refer to Warman personally, only to CAHN, and further submit that they did not republish the article on the Federalist website which did name Warman. [76] The evidence was that Warman did not run CAHN; was not its most identifiable or visible member; and was often unable to be a part of CAHNs activities due to conflicts of interest with his work with the Judge Advocate General, in cases involving federal parties and politics and the armed forces. [77] Warman’s reputation among those following human rights issues was as a human rights lawyer, not a principal of CAHN. The evidence was that Bernie Farber and Evan Balgord were much more publicly seen as the alter ego of CAHN, and neither has sued the Kays.
[78] The plaintiff has not proven, on a balance of probability, that the impugned tweets would lead a reasonable person to believe they referred to Warman. While they could refer to Warman, they did not actually refer to him and, as found, supra, he was not CAHN’s alter ego nor was he CAHN’s sole actor, or even its primary actor. [79] Defamation of CAHN does not constitute defamation of Warman. Warman has failed to prove, on a balance of probability, that he was “the face” of CAHN, or it’s alter ego, and although a reference to CAHN could refer to Warman, that is not sufficient in law to constitute defamation of Warman. Foulidis v Ford 2012 ONSC 7189 [80] The Kays evidence was that they both saw Bernie Farber as the chair of CAHN; the face of CAHN and its most prolific member because he was the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress. [81] They did not have Warman in mind as part of CAHN when they published their tweets, and their evidence was that they did not even know Warman was a CAHN board member until served with Notice of Libel. [82] Articles published in 2018 on CBC and TVO refer to Farber as the founder of CAHN and refer to Evan Balgord as a co-founder. Neither mention Warman. At the time of the impugned tweets, November 2019, CAHN had more than 15 members. It was not a minor organization, and its identity was not the same as any board member. Exhibit 3, Tab 10; Exhibit 6 [83] Farber’s Wikipedia page refers to Farber running the Canadian Anti Hate Network with Evan Balgord. There is no mention of Warman. Warman’s Wikipedia page does not refer to his role as a CAHN board member. Exhibit 3, Tab 22, page 227; Exhibit 5, Tab 24
[84] Neither CAHN , Farber, Balgord nor other CAHN board members sued the Kays, and Warman did not sue the Federalist nor the C2C Journal, the Canadian publication which published the article referred to in the 2020 tweet. [85] Warman admitted in cross exam that a person reading the impugned tweets may not have associated them with him, and in fact gave no evidence that anyone reading the tweets believed they were about him. [86] Warman did submit that the Federalist article headlined in the tweet referred to him and was defamatory, but he also testified that he wrote the Federalist asking them to remove the allegations about him personally funding violent Antifa groups in the body of the article (which they apparently did) and did not seek to have them change the headline nor remove other allegations referring to CAHN. Exhibit 8 [87] The headline/sub headline of the tweets criticize CAHN policy but do not refer to any individual, and any person would therefore have to read the article itself to understand the tweets or headline. The ordinary meaning of the tweets and headlines is that CAHN provides material assistance to Antifa, not that Warman personally funds violent groups. [88] The Kays did not republish the Federalist article by simply linking to it, and Warman’s name appears only in the article, not the headline or sub headline. This does not constitute a repeat or republication of the defamatory content. Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269 [89] I find therefore that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proving on a balance of probability that the defendants’ words referred to him and were defamatory of him.
[90] Even if the impugned tweets were defamatory, which I have found has not been proven, the Kays have raised defences which would shift the onus to Warman to prove malice on the part of the Kays, or either of them.
Fair Comment [91] The public has an interest in the fight against hate crime in Canada and the parties involved in that fight, including CAHN and Antifa. [92] The Kays both gave evidence of their longstanding activism regarding human rights and antisemitism and their tweets comment on the fact that the Federalist and C2C Journal articles both allege that CAHN supports or assists the Antifa movement. [93] Warman’s evidence was that he and CAHN were part of the Antifa movement; Farber has praised their muscular resistance; and Balgord referred to Antifa’s use of physical disruption. Exhibit 1, Tab 4; Exhibit 3, Tabs 8, 9 [94] The Kays evidence, which I accept, was that Warman was not the subject of their tweets – they were unaware that he was a CAHN board member at the relevant times – and that Farber and CAHN were the subjects since Farber was well known, particularly within the Jewish community, and CAHN had influence as a partly government funded Canadian organization. [95] I find therefore that it has not been proven, on a balance of probability, that the opinions which were the subject of the impugned tweets were dominantly motivated by malice. [96] I accept the Kays’ evidence that they reasonably believed their opinions to be accurate, and find that there was insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probability, that there was a reckless disregard for the truth.
Justification [97] The evidence disclosed that CAHN did in fact assist Antifa and that the movement has been violent. The Kays submission, which I accept, is that a human rights network like CAHN arguably (except in the most extreme circumstances) should not support a violent movement, and to do so, to most reasonable observers, would not be a “good look”.
Qualified privilege [98] The defendants have not proven, on a balance of probability, that the recipients of the impugned tweets had an interest or duty to receive them. The test is objective – i.e., it is not whether the Kays believed the recipients (which include, in the case of tweets, the world at large) but whether they were necessary to discharge the duty giving rise to the privilege. [99] The case cited by the defendants regarding the application of qualified privilege to tweets, which is under appeal, is not applicable here. There was no moral nor professional duty on the Kays as there was in the medical doctor in the Gill decision. Gill v Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279
DAMAGES [100] Although there was no evidence led as to reputational damage; the impugned tweets were “dud” and did not go “viral”; the first tweet was deleted prior to the Notice of Libel being served; and there was no publication of the Federalist article which was considered by Warman to be the most defamatory, general damages are presumed in a defamation case.
[101] While Warman is well known as a righteous crusader against white supremacy and right-wing racist hate and has been recognized and appropriately lauded for his work, he is also a controversial figure and I accept the evidence of the Kays that he has used litigation to silence or intimidate those he sees as his critics, or who oppose his methods of prosecuting hate groups. [102] I also accept the Kays’ evidence as to why no apology was made given that Jonathan Kay was still sued after the National Post retracted its article and apologized for its inaccuracy, in 2008. [103] Finally, I accept the evidence of the Kays that no apology was warranted where neither of them referred to Warman in their tweets and did not in fact even have him in mind when they published them. [104] Had Warman succeeded in this action against the Kays, I would therefore have awarded nominal damages in the amount of $5,000 against Jonathan Kay and $500 against Barbara Kay whose tweet was far less recognizable and damaging to Warman.
AWARD [105] Having regard to all the above, and in recognizing the importance of maintaining open debate on matters of public interest, while being mindful that although freedom of expression is to be protected, it is not a “get out of jail free card” for those exceeding reasonable limits, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
COSTS [106] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, each party has 10 days from the release of these reasons to serve and file cost submissions, not to exceed 3 typed pages excluding a Bill of Costs, together with copies of any offers made pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, which would impact costs
21
Dated at Ottawa this 9th day of November 2022. David Dwoskin Deputy Judge D. Dwoskin
Persecuted Professor & COVID Dissident Sues Queen’s University & Dr. Stephen Archer for $600,000 For “Malicious, Aggressive, Condescending & Defamatory” Statements
Haldimand-Norfolk top doc alleges ‘relentless harassment’ in lawsuit against former employer
Dr. Matt Strauss claims his public criticism of COVID-19 health measures led to a hostile work environment
By J.P. AntonacciLocal Journalism Initiative ReporterSat., Nov. 12, 2022timer3 min. read
Haldimand-Norfolk’s top doctor is suing his former employer.
As first reported by CBC News, acting medical officer of health Dr. Matt Strauss is seeking more than $600,000 in damages and lost wages from Queen’s University and Dr. Stephen Archer, head of the school’s department of medicine.
Archer was Strauss’s direct supervisor when he was an assistant professor of medicine at Queen’s from July 2019 to November 2021, at which time Strauss also practiced internal medicine and worked in the ICU at Kingston General Hospital.
In a statement of claim filed on Oct. 20, Strauss alleges that his time at Queen’s was marked by “consistent and relentless harassment … humiliation and belittlement” by Archer and other Queen’s employees — motivated, Strauss claims, by his public criticism of lockdowns and other health measures implemented in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Strauss claims the “malicious, aggressive, condescending and defamatory statements” levelled by Archer in emails and letters to Strauss and his colleagues damaged his reputation and forced him to resign due to the hostile work environment.
Archer’s criticisms of Strauss’s COVID-related newspaper columns and tweets caused Strauss to “become upset and anxious,” according to the claim.
None of the allegations in the claim have been tested in court. A statement of defence has not yet been filed.
“I am not sure how the CBC became aware of a recent court filing issued by my lawyer,” Strauss posted to Twitter Thursday evening.
“It is my strong preference that this matter remain between the parties involved. Therefore, I will not be providing any comment about this case.
“That said, I am a firm believer in academic freedom, particularly on matters of significant public interest. I will continue to advocate for this principle in my public commentary.”
In response to a request for comment sent to the university and Archer, the university said it was “aware of the statement of claim filed with the court.”
“The university has not been served with the claim and therefore has not filed, nor been required to file a statement of defence. As such, the claim represents only the plaintiff’s perspective,” the statement read.
“As this is a Human Resources matter, the university will not be commenting further.”
Archer did not respond directly to the request for comment.
According to the publicly available court filing, Archer accused Dr. Strauss of “grabbing headlines for the wrong reasons.”
“You were hired to be a physician not a publicist,” Archer allegedly told him in a December 2020 email included in the statement of claim, adding he was “very concerned about your maturity and professionalism and believe your professed love of freedom of expression is more self centered than in service of our patients or trainees.”
Strauss said his superior defamed him by suggesting he was “promulgating false information and not caring about the health of the public” while “seeding mistrust for public health institutions” through “dangerous and misleading” public comments.
Archer’s public censure of Strauss’s activities came despite what Strauss claims was an “entirely positive” annual performance review in March 2021.
Strauss said Archer targeted him in part because he had signed the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published in October 2020 calling for people at least risk of adverse affects from COVID-19 to be allowed to live with few public health restrictions in order to encourage the development of herd immunity.
Archer published a five-point refutation of the Great Barrington Declaration on the university’s website in the following month.
Strauss contends the “eight months of harassment” he allegedly experienced at Queen’s was a calculated campaign by Archer to get him to quit his job. After raising objections regarding how he was being treated, Strauss claims Archer informed him in June 2021 his contract would not be renewed after it came to an end the following year.
Strauss argues that left him with no choice but to leave the university in November 2021, with more than seven months left on his contract.
That September Strauss was hired as acting medical officer of health in Haldimand-Norfolk.
The lawsuit seeks at least $600,000 in damages — including half a million for defamation — along with wages and benefits lost due to what Strauss’ filing describes as his “constructive dismissal.”
Strauss also wants the university to delete what he considers defamatory statements made about him by Queen’s staff from any university platform and prevent their further dissemination.
Making Canada better’: An excerpt from the anti-woke speech by a general that caused an uproar
Lt.-Gen. Michel Maisonneuve pulled no punches in describing what he thinks needs to be done to make Canada great again Author of the article: Lt.-Gen. J.O. Michel Maisonneuve, Special to National Post Publishing date: Nov 17, 2022 • 9 hours ago • 9 minute read 603 Comments
Retired Lt.-Gen. Michel Maisonneuve received a standing ovation from senior military personnel for a speech he made slamming cancel culture, climate change extremism and weak leadership, but he has also come under criticism for his candid remarks. Photo by GlobeNewswire
The following is an excerpt from a speech delivered by Lt.-Gen. Michel Maisonneuve (retired) at a Nov. 9 gala in Ottawa as he accepted the Vimy Award, a top defence award. He received a standing ovation from senior military officers in attendance.
The Vimy Award. How humbling; what a tremendous honour. With this honour comes the opportunity to accept this award with a speech that acknowledges the spirit of Vimy and shares with you my vision for Canada today and for the future.
Article content
Canada — once we were great. We stopped the Americans in 1812, we gave the world Billy Bishop, Alexander Graham Bell and Lucy Maud Montgomery. We isolated insulin, invented the zipper and the snowblower. In World War One we mobilized 620,000 troops. We were victorious at Vimy Ridge. In World War Two we were brave enough to land at Dieppe, and we secured our beach on D-Day. The Devil’s Brigade remains the template for special forces the world over. Our small country boasted the world’s third largest navy at the end of that conflict.
We became internationally recognized peacekeepers and more than 80,000 of us served on missions during the Cold War. We beat the Russians on their ice in 1972 and a young man named Terry Fox continues to inspire us all with his unparalleled courage and determination. We gave the world the Canadarm in space; we won a world series. When the world changed again on 9/11, Canada stepped up — first to join the coalition of the willing and send in ships and JTF 2. Serving with distinction in Afghanistan — we still mourn the loss of our 159 men and women. Canada was a great nation and though we are faltering today I believe we can be great again.
I believe we can be great again
Since this is my speech, I get to share what I believe Canada needs to do to take the world stage again; to be thought of first when it comes to seeking alliances, to be seen as a serious country once again.
What will it take? Well, I believe it will take leadership and service. These two crucial foundations of greatness for any nation have somehow become secondary — lost in these days of entitlement, “me first”, “not my problem” and endless subsidies and handouts.
Let me start with leadership. Leadership applies in all pursuits and at all levels. Great leaders are distinguished by the success of those they lead and the entity they lead — be it a country, an army, a corporation or a sports team. When that entity succeeds, we recognize its leader … and when that entity fails, misses, or misses the playoffs, the leader must — should — take responsibility.
History has given us many great leaders. Ask yourself: would those leaders have been as successful in today’s world? Well, let’s see; today’s world, where social media captures every move and word spoken — taken in context or not. Where cancel culture still flourishes and there is no call for redaction or amendment even when accusations are proved false. Truth is not a requirement; once cancelled, you are done.
Once cancelled, you are done
Today’s world, where balanced journalism is difficult to find. The practice of presenting the facts — a truthful illustration of an event, a personality or issue that allowed the reader to form their own opinion — is no longer compulsory in mainstream media. The line between “news” and op-eds has blurred and too often we are subjected to sermons written not by seasoned journalists but by first-year graduates of woke journalism schools. Unbiased reporting seems to have died with Christie Blatchford and Matthew Fisher.
Today’s world, where extremism — once the almost exclusive purview of religious zealots — seems to be flourishing in all aspects of our lives, on the right … and on the left. Some of the most popular “causes” and beliefs of today are embraced by all manner of extremists with no thought of how to achieve this utopian ideal in a responsible or plausible manner. For example, Canada’s prosperity is being sacrificed at the altar of climate change as opposed to being used to help the world transition to clean energy. Throwing soup and paint at the world’s art treasures is as heinous as it is useless. The perpetrators should be punished, not celebrated.
Today’s world is also where taking personal responsibility for our own actions has disappeared from the landscape while the phenomenon of collective apologies flourishes in our country. Individuals and groups fight over who gets to wear the coveted victim’s cloak. But any role they may have played in their own fate or in injuring others is dismissed as learned behaviour, inherited flaws or generational oppression.
So I am not here to debate whether those great leaders of yesteryear would be as successful in today’s world. But nor will I judge the decisions they made in their time against the standards of today. Enough statues have been toppled; erasing our history is not the solution.
I believe that the most important leadership skills have not changed and are even more so today than ever.
Zelenskyy has rallied the world to his just cause
Secondly, cohesion, acceptance and tolerance. Today’s leaders must stop dividing those they lead! Hasn’t history shown us that success as a leader demands cohesion, unity and respect of all those they lead — not just those who agree wholeheartedly with them? Can you imagine a military leader labelling half of his command as deplorables, fringe radicals or less-thans and then expect them to fight as one? Today’s leaders must find a way to unite; not divide.
Leaders lead. There is a difference between making a good decision, based on research and consultation, and making a decision because it is popular or it polls well. The best decisions are those made for the good of the whole — not just good for friends of the leader. Today, special interests have trumped the collective good. Making decisions for the collective good requires strength of character, the communications skills to explain, and a great deal of courage.
Courage remains one of the most important qualities of a leader. The courage of ideas, courage in the face of criticism, the courage to guide and lead. The courage to create a vision for the good of all. The courage to recognize a mistake and accept responsibility — personal — for that mistake.
Courage remains one of the most important qualities
The second key to bring Canada back to prominence is service.
Just a short two months ago, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second, queen of Canada, died. It would be impossible to find a better example of service. On her coronation she promised that she would dedicate her life, whether long or short, to the service of all. Over the next 70 years, in good times and in bad, she placed the care of her realm and subjects above all else. She exemplified character and duty and provided us all with an example of dedication to service. She kept her promise. May she rest in peace.
The idea, the concept of service seems to be forgotten in our “me-first” culture. Service to others, to one’s country, to humanity must be a noble aspiration. The obligation to give back in gratitude for a life filled with blessings, peace and good fortune should not be innovative. It seems that Canadians have lost the desire to serve and the need to serve their country.
The military — being in the service of one’s country — used to be a most highly regarded profession. Today, I see a military woefully underfunded, undermanned and under-appreciated; a force where uniforms have become a means of personal expression rather than a symbol of collective pride and unity: uniforms are no longer uniform. The idea of serving in our armed forces is getting little traction. Could it be because the moral contract under which our military serve is broken?
Today, I see a military woefully underfunded and under-appreciated
Members of the Armed Forces fulfill their side of the moral contract that exists between them and Canadian society — they serve and are ready to serve in dangerous missions at home or abroad to protect our country and project Canadian values.
But Canada should also be holding up its end of the contract: providing them with the state-of-the-art tools they need, the best leadership, equipment, education and training to be safe and successful, and looking after them when they become veterans. In my opinion, we are failing. Because for Canadians generally, the Armed Forces are not important until there is a crisis, and successive governments’ support of the forces reflect that mindset. Our troops who have dedicated their lives to serve this country deserve better.
We are in Veterans’ Week, commemorating those who exemplified the concept of service by putting their life on the line for us, and honouring those who gave up their tomorrows for our todays. Let’s use them as our example to serve. If more inspiration is required one need not look far: let’s remember the words of two of the finest leaders of our time:
Margaret Thatcher believed “There’s no such thing as entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.” And of course, JFK most famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”
In the name of service, I challenge us
Soon the festive season will arrive; a season of generosity and benevolence. In the name of service, I challenge us. Offer to volunteer, no matter where: an animal shelter, home for the homeless, seniors or veterans. The most important gift we can give is our time.
Story continues below
Article content
I challenge us all to donate — instead of selling that surplus coffee maker on Kijiji, let’s donate it to Mission Services or Goodwill or the Salvation Army. I challenge us to be compassionate: give the panhandler enough cash for a warm meal but also ask them their name, wish them well and shake their hand.
I believe we can make Canada better. To find common ground with our neighbour and to unite our country rather than divide it. To apply our leadership and service; to live with compassion, tolerance and patience — but most of all to be proud of Canada and everything we once stood for.
We Canadians live in the greatest country in the world with almost unlimited resources, a tolerant and diverse people, and an educated population who can aspire to the greatest heights. We should be prepared to serve our country and be proud to do so. And our leaders must share this vision.
“If not us, who? If not now, when?”
Because, as Satchmo has told us, in spite of it all … it is a wonderful world.
Special to National Post
Lt.-Gen. Maisonneuve spent 35 years in the CAF and 10 more as Academic Director of RMC Saint-Jean. He testified in The Hague against Slobodan Milosevic, commanded the funeral for the Unknown Soldier in Ottawa, is a huge advocate for veterans, a long-time supporter of bilingualism and served as the first Chief of Staff of NATO’s Supreme Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Va.
You are receiving this email as one of the first 10,000 Canadians that signed the public petition to support the National Citizens’ Inquiry (NCI). Your action was the first step towards holding our federal and provincial governments accountable for their COVID-19 policies. As our public research revealed, 3-out-of-4 Canadians report having been harmed by these restrictions. Today, we took the second step together.
This morning, former Leader of the Opposition and Member of Parliament, Preston Manning formally launched the NCI. The announcement was broadcasted live from Parliament across all of Canada. Mr. Manning provided a detailed overview of the NCI, particularly the next steps for establishing a Commission of credible, competent, and impartial Commissioners. As part of today’s launch, the full NCI website is now live. We encourage you to check it out to learn more about the NCI. Share it with your family, friends, and community members of this important initiative. It will take significant effort to make the NCI successful, and we are grateful to count on your support.
Help us keep the momentum going!
The NCI is a historic and unprecedented citizen-led initiative in Canada. We need your help to make it a success. Can you help us by doing one or two of the following?Sign the petition and share it with at least 3 friends!Register to VolunteerSuggest a Commissioner
Toronto End the Lockdown leader, Chris Sky, now a political exile from COVID repression in Canada, warns of the coming tripledemic , an excuse for remasking. He warns of the global digital ID which will allow government to monitor and control you. “I’m never wearing a mask again!”
“People are not complying!” Resistance is NOT futile.
He’s the author of “Just Say Now” a book available for $25.00 from C.A.F.E., P.O. Box 332 Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada.
Yesterday was the 103rd annual Remembrance Day, honouring those who have risked their lives to fight for freedom in other countries. Many died, or were wounded, and scarred forever by their experiences. These were the soldiers on the front lines, away from their families, living in fear every moment, praying for an end to the wars, while their families kept the home-fires burning.
“
Today, we are facing a kind of war never imagined then, except in books like 1984. We are the ones who must fight, non-violently, with love in our hearts, using all our mental, spiritual, intellectual and emotional strength to survive and thrive and to hold accountable those responsible for our crisis of government overreach. Our rallies provide a sense of community, a source for exchanging information, with a commitment to “do something” to help others understand what’s going on, and how to protect themselves. Larger initiatives, like the planned National Citizens Inquiry, listed below, provide opportunities to participate in some small way to hold accountable those who are responsible for today’s atrocities against humankind. Please sign the petition and decide what other actions you might take to make this major inquiry a success. ——————————- o0o————————————-
Penticton4Freedom Sunday RallyThis Sunday, November 13th – from 1 to 3 p.m. Corner of Main and Warren, Penticton.Guest speaker – Lydia Kress – What’s going on at Pen High, and what we can do about it? – Shawn Brown – Challenging EI for justice for those who refused to knuckle under
Miss a week and you miss a lot! Fighting for freedom is more fun with friends. Bring a few. ——————————- o0o————————————-<< OTHER EVENTS OF INTEREST >>Weekly noon hour Tuesday “Protesting with Purpose” in front of Richard Cannings’ office at 301 Main Street in Penticton. Get updates there from Wayne and Derrick.——————————- o0o————————————-
Canada’s federal, provincial, and municipal governments’ responses to COVID-19 were of an unprecedented nature. The magnitude of these interventions demands a comprehensive, transparent, and objective inquiry into the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures imposed. National Citizen’s Inquiry Announcement by Preston Manning – VIDEONational Citizens’ Inquiry – Keep the Momentum Going – Take Action HEREPlease express support for a citizen-led, citizen-funded inquiry by signing the petition posted HERE——————————- o0o————————————-
Remember that Freedom Hugs are available at ALL our Penticton4Freedom events!
A quick reminder that the WorldWide Rally for Freedom is taking place this Saturday (Nov 19) at 12noon. There are two locations: see attached posters. Our team will have the table at the Queen’s Park location (come by and say “hi”!) but a few of us will be at the Christie Pits event as well.
We had a small but lively meeting the other night, more on that later. Stay tuned for a December event notice, probably something more casual like a lunch.
Still looking for a volunteer to help with finding venues and booking meetings. Thanks! Rachel Toronto Chapter Vaccine Choice Canada
Please note: Neither I, nor any representatives of VCC are permitted to give medical, nutritional, or legal advice. The responses provided herein are for information purposes only.
Central pillars of our liberal democracies are eroding. We are losing free speech and bodily autonomy. Group-think and cancel culture are rising while the electronic surveillance state controls much of life. As if these weren’t enough, those in positions of authority seem committed to undermining ready access to food, travel and human contact. Most believe we’re powerless. Why?
Many who fled oppressive regimes for the once appealing democratic West can answer: We forget history. We falsely believe we can defeat authoritarianism while maintaining creature comforts, illusions of safety and our societal status. We believe ‘going along’ will bridge an inconvenient season of crazed policy, when in reality we cling to twigs of reputation, ease and illusory security while facing a tsunami of totalitarian control that risks the destruction of our freedom.
There is only one way to arrest this trend. Men and women must courageously and publicly take unrelenting positions against it. We must refuse to assent to the lies dismantling our societies, tearing away our freedoms, and removing our power as free beings.
We are not powerless when standing together, aligning ourselves on the common, fortified ground of integrity, truth, courage and self-sacrifice.
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, in a 1974 article Live Not by Lies, penned these words in a call to corporate courage: “We need not be the first to set out on this path, Ours is but to join! The more of us set out together, the thicker our ranks, the easier and shorter will this path be for us all! If we become thousands—they will not cope, they will be unable to touch us. If we will grow to tens of thousands—we will not recognize our country!”
#declareyourcourage
Declaration
I declare all that follows, calling out as a lie the societal claim that change is impossible. It begins with me:
I will not speak, sign, write, or repeat in any forum or on any platform, anything that is not, as far as I know, the truth;
I will, where opportunity presents, and in spite of the cost, speak out against lies;
I will stand alone if need be, knowing that freedom is “the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” (Pericles)
I will not repeat nor support radically progressive, popularized ideological mantras. I will walk out of state, corporate or privately enforced indoctrinations on the same;
I will not acquiesce to the state’s violation of my God-given freedoms of speech, worship, conscience and bodily autonomy;
I will persevere in the face of threats to livelihood, status or reputation, in spite of the pain or my own self-doubt;
I will, where opportunity presents, support with my words, actions and finances, those similarly convicted of this need for a relentless commitment to truth, freedom and conscience.
All this I undertake, knowing I may suffer loss of the fragile constructs of social status, comfort and ‘safety’. I am willing to do so, in exchange for the far superior and lasting bedrock of truth upon which our futures and freedom (and that of our children) must be grounded.
French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Scotland on Thursday 10th November. He is presently in an Edinburgh prison cell, awaiting a court hearing on 24th November to determine whether he should be extradited to France, where he would be jailed under that country’s laws restricting historical and scientific enquiry.
Vincent Reynouard built his scholarly reputation with a detailed re-examination of what had been termed the ‘Massacre of Oradour’, and went on to become one of the world’s leading sceptical investigators of the ‘Holocaust’. Francophone readers should visit his excellent website.
British and American readers might be shocked that a specialist squad of police from SO15 – the Counter-Terrorism Command, directed from London – swooped on a small Scottish village to arrest this 53-year-old scholar, who is not accused of anything that would be a crime in the UK.
Yet in fact this is simply the latest example – though an especially important example – of an increasing trend across Europe, where politicised courts and prosecutors, aided by politicised police forces and intelligence agencies, are seeking to crush any dissent and enforce a quasi-religious obedience to one particular view of 20th century history.
The question that should immediately occur to any educated European is: why?
Why should our rulers be so afraid of what remains a small minority of scholars who – inspired by revisionist pioneers Robert Faurisson in France and Arthur Butz in the USA – have persisted in raising serious questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews, in unfeasible homicidal gas chambers, on the undocumented alleged orders of Adolf Hitler?
Any other area of history with such blatant evidential problems would have attracted dozens of academic sceptics. Yet with a handful of honourable exceptions, the academic world has not only been cowed into silence, but has queued up to accept lucrative commissions and tenured positions promoting the new religion of Holocaustianity.
Our rulers approach has been the well-tried one of ‘carrot and stick’.
The carrot is the promise of well-remunerated posts in universities and charities, combined with fat cheques from publishers, newspapers, television stations and movie studios.
The stick (increasingly used during the last quarter-century) has involved heavy fines and prison sentences. In Germany, the 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to another year in prison, and is expected to begin her incarceration any day now. Her equally courageous compatriot Horst Mahler (now 86) has at the last count spent about fifteen years in prison since his 70th birthday, again for the ‘crimes’ of publishing articles and books, and giving interviews about this forbidden area of 20th century history. And in the USA the exiled German chemist Germar Rudolf faces determined efforts to have him extradited to Germany, where he would certainly be handed a long jail sentence.
Vincent Reynouard consulting his lawyer during one of his many court appearances in France. In the background can be seen one of Vincent’s most loyal supporters, Jérôme Bourbon, the editor of long-established journal Rivarol.
So far the UK has no such specific law criminalising historical revisionism, and several British historians, including leftists and liberals such as Timothy Garton Ash, have commendably condemned all such laws.
In 2008 a London court rejected the German government’s request for the extradition of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben under a European Arrest Warrant. Will a similar situation protect Vincent Reynouard?
New extradition arrangements post-Brexit have only been in force since 11 pm on 31st December 2020, so while we can see the statutory position, we have little in the way of case law (on either side of the border).
I am not a lawyer, but I was closely involved in research work for the Töben case, and have had good reason more recently to refresh my memory and understanding of the legal position regarding EU citizens travelling or resident in the UK.
Traditionally the UK’s position on extradition (as was once common internationally) was based on two essential principles. One was the existence of an extradition treaty with the country concerned, which entailed mutual respect for legal systems. For example, the lack of such a treaty with Spain (due to political embarrassment over the presence of numerous anti-Franco exiles, including terrorists, in the UK) meant that Spain became notorious for decades as a refuge for British criminals – i.e. non-political criminals such as bank robbers.
Despite Brexit, French prosecutors seem able to demand extradition from the UK of a man who has committed no crime under UK law.
Once such a treaty was in place, the essential principle was ‘dual criminality’, i.e. that the offence of which the requested fugitive was charged should also be an offence in the country from which extradition was sought. Naturally the criminal laws involved would rarely be identical, and it was up to the courts to resolve whether ‘dual criminality’ applied.
In a case such as that of Vincent Reynouard, this would once have presented a problem for the authorities. It would have been necessary to prove not only that he had committed ‘Holocaust denial’ (not in itself of course an offence in the UK), but that he had done so in a manner which also contravened some UK law (such as the laws against “inciting racial hatred”).
As readers can easily imagine, the “dual criminality” requirement allowed legal loopholes to be exploited in any number of criminal cases, especially those which involved wealthy crooks, or IRA terrorists who had a well-funded support network, and whose extradition from European countries (or the USA) to the UK was occasionally blocked.
So even setting aside our enemies’ broader political agenda, there were (from the general public’s viewpoint) apparent practical advantages to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system, which after long discussion replaced the traditional extradition laws, and took effect in the UK on 1st January 2004.
Under the EAW there was a fundamental assumption that all legal systems within the EU could trust each other to respect natural justice, etc.; and there was no need to establish “dual criminality”.
In place of the latter principle, the EAW established a list of “framework offences”. Once it could be shown that a fugitive was accused of anything that fell within these quite broadly defined “framework offences”, he would be extradited very swiftly in what amounted to a “rubber-stamp” procedure even though it formally took place in court. There was no provision in most cases for the courts to investigate the full circumstances of the alleged ‘crime’ before extradition under an EAW.
This is Baroness Scotland, the ‘British’ government minister who gave Parliament an assurance that the European Arrest Warrant would not be used as a back-door criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. If Vincent Reynouard is extradited, it will be clear evidence that she lied to Parliament.
One of the framework offences was “racism and xenophobia”. However, so far as ‘Holocaust denial’ was concerned, there remained a potential loophole.
This loophole only existed because of objections that were raised in the House of Lords during passage of the legislation that wrote the EAW system into UK law.
Under repeated cross-examination by peers, the Home Office minister in the Lords (Baroness Scotland) gave a specific assurance that the EAW would not amount to a back door criminalisation of Holocaust denial in the UK.
The position was to be as follows. If any element of the ‘offence’ of ‘Holocaust denial’ had taken place in the UK, it would be deemed to fall under UK law and therefore (unless it could be shown that it also involved other existing crimes under UK law) extradition would not take place.
A ‘Holocaust denier’ would only be extradited under a European Arrest Warrant if it could be shown by the requesting country’s authorities that the ‘crime’ had been committed purely and simply within the jurisdiction of the country concerned.
The specific example given to Parliament was of someone who had made a speech in Cologne market place denying the ‘Holocaust’, and had then escaped to the UK before being apprehended. In such a case (provided other boxes were ticked, such as the offence potentially attracting a prison sentence of more than 12 months) the requested person would be extradited.
However, if someone had produced a magazine, or a book, or a website, or an online video, etc., ‘denying the Holocaust’, then such a person would not be extradited. Even though part of the ‘offence’ might have been committed in France, Germany or wherever, part of it would also have been committed in the UK.
The minister’s precise words to Parliament included the following assurance: “Holocaust denial …is a very particular offence. We would say that those engaging in that endeavour in part in this country would not be capable of being extradited as the offence would in part have allegedly been committed in this country, and in this country it is not an offence. So we would not extradite those involved in it.”
Dr Fredrick Töben, whose London lawyers defeated an extradition attempt by German prosecutors in 2008.
Such was the difficulty for the German authorities in the Töben case. They issued a European Arrest Warrant, and Töben was arrested while merely passing through London’s Heathrow Airport on 1st October 2008. He was jailed pending extradition, which at first was expected to be a ‘rubber-stamp’ process.
However, on closer examination (once Töben was represented by extradition specialist Kevin Lowry-Mullins rather than by a duty solicitor) it was found that the German request was insufficiently detailed. The reason for such vagueness was obvious: the authorities both in Berlin and London were well aware that Töben’s alleged criminal conduct did not fall within the very limited definition of ‘Holocaust denial crimes’ for which people could be extradited from the UK. To do so would be a flagrant betrayal of pledges to Parliament during passage of the EAW into UK law.
Consequently, the legal difficulty (and political embarrassment) was colossal. After the Westminster magistrate ruled against extradition, the British and German authorities swiftly dropped their appeal, resulting in Töben’s release.
So the question in 2022 becomes whether the new arrangements that have replaced the EAW post-Brexit, in relation to extradition from or to the UK, are in any way similar in their application to Vincent’s case.
Vincent Reynouard with two of his children: his case is a vital test of whether the UK still retains any respect for traditional liberties.
These new laws were agreed as part of the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ between the UK and the EU which regulates the whole spectrum of such relations post-Brexit. It passed into UK law in the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, which took effect at 11 pm on 31st December 2020.
Broadly speaking this replicates the EAW, in that it is intended to fast-track extradition (in each direction) between the UK and EU countries, and is similar to the existing arrangements that the EU has with Norway and Iceland.
Specifically, there are very limited grounds on which it will be possible to argue that Vincent should not be extradited, and there is a presumption that the whole procedure should be completed swiftly.
It is potentially important that the new law – unlike the EAW system – does not specifically state that the UK and EU nations have “mutual trust” and “mutual confidence” in one other’s legal systems.
Moreover it is stated in the new law that any extradition should be “proportionate” and in particular should avoid long periods of pre-trial detention.
One potential argument is that the French legal system is so heavily politicised in respect of thought-criminals (especially ‘Holocaust deniers’) that there are serious grounds for believing that Vincent Reynouard’s fundamental rights would be imperilled by extradition.
There will be extensive updates here at the Real History blog on the Vincent Reynouard case as it develops. And we shall very soon be reporting on a broader new initiative to advance revisionist scholarship with the aid of a new generation of European intellectual adventurers (to use Professor Robert Faurisson’s celebrated term). — Peter Rushton
The front page of Scotland’s oldest newspaper (now owned by Americans) led with the Reynouard story on Tuesday 15th November. Contrary to the headline, there is no “anti-nazi law”: the French authorities are seeking Vincent Reynouard’s extradition under a law banning critical enquiry into ‘Holocaust’ history. No such law exists in the UK and it is shameful that Police Scotland collaborated in this arrest.The leading French nationalist journal Rivarol also has Vincent Reynouard’s arrest as its front page lead story, though unlike the Glasgow Herald, Rivarol defends traditional European freedoms.
(subject to change without notice!!! Lol – dress warm – NO SNOW!!!!)
