Category Archives: Uncategorized

Mississauga Realtor Fired for Circulating Pro-family Views

Posted on by

Mississauga Realtor Fired for Circulating Pro-family Views

Mix in a real estate agent who cites a U.S. study about some ill effects of children being raised by a same sex couple, add a snarly former school teacher who is shocked and appalled and complaints to the local newspaper, the police, the human rights commission and, perhaps, even dear Abby and what do you get? A little community controversy?

 No, not in these mean, politically correct times. The real estate agent is fired. The RE/MAX giant his former employer is running scared and  takes out a huge, grovelling ad “to apologize for the inappropriate communication.” [There’s that vague  catch-all, politically correct term.] “RE/MAX does not tolerate any form of discriminatory behaviour.” (Mississauga News, May 8, 2013)The agent in question expressed an opinion in a flyer distributed to  advertise his services. The only “discriminatory behaviour” was RE/MAX’s firing of this man.

The Mississauga News (May 8, 2013) reported: ” A City Centre real estate agent has been fired for distributing a controversial flyer to residents in Lorne Park and Port Credit earlier this week. RE/MAX Realty One sales agent Andrew Ciastek was let go this afternoon in the wake of publishing what many residents view as homophobic material in a recent newsletter.  
On Wednesday, the Sussex Centre realtor said he will issue a formal apology and make a donation to a local charity of RE/MAX’s choosing. ‘We cannot and will not tolerate any form of discriminatory behaviour,’ said Christine Martysiewicz, director of internal and public relations for RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada. …   The piece in question was a research study saying that unemployment is three times higher among offspring of homosexual couples than those of heterosexual couples.  The study was conducted by Mark Regnerus, a Texas University sociology professor. The flyer cites the report as having been originally published in Social Research Science, although Ciastek says he found it in a copy of Polish .Jon McDonald who lives in the Lorne Park area is just one of the residents up in arms over a "traditional family" article in the home-delivered flyer of a local ReMax agent.
Busybody Complainer and Former Schoolteacher Jon McDonald cost a man his job.
 RE/MAX has been working with Peel Regional Police’s Hate Crime Division and has been informed that no charges will be laid against Ciastek. Lorne Park resident Jon McDonald contacted The News when he saw the flyer Tuesday and filed complaints with RE/MAX, Peel   ‘It’s just not right,’ said McDonald, a retired elementary school teacher  said.”
The Toronto Star (May 2, 2013) reported: “Andrew Ciastek, a sales representative for RE/MAX, distributed the flyers — which said ‘traditional family is the best for the future of the kids’ — to hundreds of homes in the Port Credit and Lorne Park neighbourhoods. ‘I didn’t want to offend anybody . . . I didn’t have bad intentions,’ Ciastek said. Ciastek also told the Star he will apologize ‘because I understand some people were very hurt. It is the right thing to apologize.’”
Of course, intent means nothing to the politically correct. Only the words matter. A privileged minority “might” be offended. Mr. Ciastek should not have offered to apologize, unless he really didn’t believe what he’d written. Why should he apologize for his views.
Notice, as well, that it’s not the science cited by Mr. Ciastek that RE/MAX criticizes, only that he said anything critical of a privileged minority. Truth does not matter.
We have warned that the promoters of the homosexual agenda are one of the biggest threats to free speech in Canada. Christians and people of all faiths who uphold the traditional view of the family beware. The homosexual agenda of silencing critics has claimed another victim: Marc Lemire, Bill Whatcott and now Andrew Ciastek.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update

Posted on by
Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update

 

We forward Arthur Topham’s latest update on his Sec. 319 “hate law” case, resulting from complaints by B’nai Brith’s Harry Abrams and complainer-in-chief Richard Warman. This is a crucial case, as it involves the Internet. Mr. Topham, first with a now-stayed Sec. 13 complaint by Abrams, and now with the Criminal Code charges has been in the censors’ sights for a half dozen years. The late Doug Christie was Mr. Topham’s lawyer. With or without counsel, the impoverished Mr. Topham will battle on and we must support him — morally, financially and with advice.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Screen Shot 2013-04-18 at 11.39.37 AM.png
April 19, 2013
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
It’s been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what’s been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada. 
A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting “bug” that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.
Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn’t slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada. 
As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present. 
Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 – 6, 2013. 
Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time. 
When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court – a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren’t in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.
Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.
Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as “particularization” of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.
When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through. 
Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I’d ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn’t that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.
On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: “Particularization of Information” and I based my reasons on the following statement:
“The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes “willful promotion of hatred” within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence.”
Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.
Judge Morgan wasn’t present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013. 
Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the “particularization” application and for the preliminary trial.
As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a “Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue” to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia. 
By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.
Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the  laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the  actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future  posts.
Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an 
                   opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;             
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of 
                   which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be 
                   true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters 
                   producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in 
                   Canada.
When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she’d told me earlier in the morning. I’m presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the AG’s office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding “Particularization of Information”.
I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. 🙂
I’ll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn’t like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.
So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous “hate crime laws” in our judicial system so as to cover up their own  actions against Canada.
Stay tuned folks!
For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
———
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 
The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 

 

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie

Posted on by

My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie

 

 

I remember when I first  met Doug Christie.  In was in late January or February, 1986 at  a meeting in Toronto.  At the time the Zundel and Keegstra cases  were still in the news.  I had read about Doug in both the mainstream  press and in the “underground right-wing” newsletters.  What  immediately struck me about him as he spoke was his air of authority.    By “air of authority” I do not mean that Doug was arrogant, in fact  far from that.  When he spoke, either to a formal audience or when  he spoke informally to you one could tell that he was someone who knew  what he was talking about.  His warnings about the threats to free  speech were very convincing and prophetic.  His answers to people’s  questions were always precise and to the point.  Friends and relatives  who I later brought to these meetings, some of whom had little knowledge  about Doug, also made this same observation.  I can only regret  that I never got to witness him at first hand in the courtrooms.   I can only guess that the opposition were shaking in their boots each  time he would get up to speak.  

 

When I moved out to  Victoria, BC, in the early 1990s I would see more of Doug Christie.   I joined the work party group who often gathered at his house on Townsend  Road in Saanich.  After we stuffed the envelopes with The Friends of Freedom and The Western  Separatist Papers newsletters we would sit down for drinks and  snacks and to listen to Doug’s latest situation reports.  As  with my first impressions, Doug continued to display his grasp of the  situations whether concerning his court cases, or about provincial,  national and international politics and even local Victoria politics.   The group that gathered monthly at the Christie homestead were varied  in their ethnic and religious backgrounds.  There were Germans  and eastern and central Europeans as well as those of English and Scots  and Irish background like myself.  There were Roman Catholics like  Doug and Protestants like myself.  Some were members of the Western  Canada Concept and others might have been called “soft separatists.”   Whatever our differences we were united in our convictions for free  speech and for integrity in government.

 

There were occasions  when taking our stands meant violent opposition and adverse press coverage.   I well remember the night at the 1992 Orwell Dinner when the Victoria  Police raided the downtown Chinese restaurant and arrested English historian  David Irving.  We all followed Doug to the police station and held  an impromptu protest which made the front page of The [Victoria] Times-Colonist the next morning.  When driving along Blanchard  Street I would look at Doug’s vandalized downtown office with the  graffiti: KILL CAUSE!  In the late 1990s I remember those meetings  where gangs of leftists harassed people and tried to obstruct them from  entering public libraries to hear Paul Fromm, Doug Christie and/or that  other Doug, Doug Collins.  Our little group persevered.       

 

Doug’s activism involved  more than just the courtroom and the political soapbox.  During  the Christmas season of 1996 an unexpected blanket of snow covered Victoria,  which put the city (not used to such weather), in a standstill.   One day I was making my way through the slush around the James Bay area  and I saw a van with Western Canada Concept posted on the side.   I knew that it was Doug Christie.  I waved and Doug took me along  with him to help others whose vehicles were stuck or whose walk-ways  needed to be shovelled.

 

I’ve read that at  Doug’s funeral Fr. Lucian Larre asked the valid question (based on  a country music song) about as to “who is going to fill his boots.”   There is another valid question.  Are we all going to continue  to uphold the legacy Doug fought for?  Not all of us can be lawyers  to fight the battles in the courtroom, but we all had some talent to  contribute to the fight.  Doug was aided by many of us in giving  him moral and financial support over the years.  Many of us wrote  letters in support of him and of the freedom for his clients to state  their views.  Will we keep up our end of the fight against the  tyranny of political correctness in whatever way we can?  Will  the Doug Christie we knew be remembered for posterity, or will the libellous  view from the opposition be trumped?

 

May God give us strength?

 

Yours,

 

 

 

 

 

Alexander David (“Alex”)  Greer

Tax Rebel Jack Klundert Speaks at Doug Christie Memorial in London

Posted on by
Tax Rebel Jack Klundert Speaks at Doug Christie Memorial in London
LONDON, March 24, 2013. At the second of four memorials for  free speech lawyer Doug Christie, tax rebel Jack Klundert of Windsor, Ontario paid tribute to his long-time lawyer and friend. The memorials are being organized by the Canadian Association for free Expression: Toronto, March 23; London, March 24; Edmonton, March 25; and Vancouver, March 26.
“In 1992,” Mr. Klundert recounted, “I heard from Murray Gauvreau that the Income Tax Act was illegal. I was advised to get a copy of Canada’s Constitution. Believe it or not, the Queen’s Printer didn’t have one. I finally got a copy from Ron Gostick.”
“In 1994, I decided to challenge the Income Tax Act. In 1997, I went to court and won,” he said. “In fact, we’ve been to court four times and won three times, However, the Federal Court always overturned our lower court victories. It has been over 17 years of battle” and Doug Christie was his lawyer throughout.Photo
“And the presence of that fine man was the only reason,” he added, “why I had any success at all in fighting the oppression of our freedoms under the repressive Income Tax system. I was seeking freedom in a different way,” the Windsor optometrist explained.
“Doug Christie had a great heart for freedom and for justice,” Mr. Klundert explained. “He is the man God sent me.  Every case we vowed to fight for freedom and for justice and to do God’s will. It is difficult to stand day after day getting flack because you don’t believe in political correctness.”
Doug “bought his cowboy hat to celebrate after winning a case in the expectation of being paid. He wasn’t but he continued to wear it as a celebration of freedom and the unpredictable nature of  the life of a lawyer.”

Photo

Also speaking at the meeting was another Doug Christie client, Malcolm Ross from Moncton, New Brunswick. He lost his teaching position after the Supreme Court upheld a New Brunswick Human Rights Commission finding that his writings and very presence in the classroom created “a poisoned environment” even though he never taught the girl who had complained and she had not even attended the school where he taught.
Meeting chairman Paul Fromm noted that Doug Christie sometimes felt despondent about the threats to free speech in Canada and felt that he had accomplished little. Mr. Fromm reminded Mr. Christie on occasion and has told many audiences across Canada that Doug Christie is a legal giant. He had been to the Supreme Court at least nine times. “He appeared before the Supreme Court so often they had to give him his own dressing room,” Mr. Fromm quipped. “Most lawyers never go to a court of appeal let alone the Supreme Court.”
“Doug Christie got rid of Canada’s arcane ‘false news’ law in the Zundel case, when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1992,” Mr. Fromm noted. “Also,” he added, “Doug Christie gutted the ‘war crimes law’ in the Finta case which went all the way to the Supreme Court. Canada would no longer be able to try people who had not been Canadian citizens for action committed in a foreign country against people who were not Canadians,” he added. “At least this aspect of German-bashing and Slav-bashing, brought in by Brian Mulroney at the behest of the Jewish lobby was overturned.”
“And, while Doug Christie did not live to see the demise of Canada’s notorious “hate law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code — he did develop arguments about Internet communication advanced in the Terry Tremaine case, that may, in future cases. limit this law’s use to hobble free expression on the Internet,” Mr. Fromm concluded.

Emotional Farewell for Free Speech Warrior in Toronto

Posted on by

Emotional Farewell for Free Speech Warrior in

Toronto

TORONTO. March 23, 2013. Friends, clients, admirers and fellow free speech warriors going back to the two Zundel “false news trials” (1984 and 1988) gathered in Toronto today for a memorial to free speech lawyer Doug Christie who died of liver cancer in Victoria, March 11. Marc Lemire who assisted CAFÉ in organizing this meeting, brought several interesting collages of photos of Doug Christie’s life and cases, especially those in Toronto (Zundel, Finta, Lemire, etc.) Michelle Erstikaitis provided a portrait of Mr. Christie and a bouquet of flowers.

Erich Holy of the German World Congress (Deutsche Welt Kongress), a long-time admirer of Mr. Christie, said: “Doug could cast a spell over an audience. We drew inspiration in the battle for free speech from him. … On behalf of the German World Congress, we honour Doug Christie’s memory and extend our condolences to the family of this great man.”

One of Doug Christie’s clients, a teacher persecuted and eventually relieved of his teaching position for expressing his religious and political views, especially opposition to Zionism, on his own time, spoke next. Malcolm Ross from Moncton, New Brunswick recalled: “For 10 years I was fighting and testifying as to my belief that Canada was a Christian nation, but that many of the Christian churches are enemies of our Race and our people.” Mr. Ross hailed Doug Christie as a fellow traditional Christian, “but the Christianity we both shared was the masculine Christianity of the Crusades,” he explained.

Recalling the Supreme Court hearing into the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission complaint against him, alleging that his views expressed outside the classroom created a “poisoned environment,” Mr., Ross said “there were 23 lawyers, many of them Jews, versus two Scotsmen. Now, those are pretty good odds,” he quipped. “Then, I was sent away and told I couldn’t assist Doug. So, then it was 23 to one.”

Mr. Ross remembered one of the Supreme Court judges complaining: “This talk by Mr. Ross about the Kingship of Christ makes me very uncomfortable in a pluralistic society.”

“The Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 against me,” Mr. Ross recalled. “Doug said: ‘We’ll go to the United Nations.’ The Canadian Government’s brief was basically that of the Canadian Jewish Congress. We lost there 17-0.”

Amazingly, Mr. Ross recounted, “the Supreme Court of Canada said even though they found no evidence that I had taught my beliefs in the classroom or that I had influenced anyone, still it seemed ‘reasonable’ for them to assume that I had contributed to a ‘poisoned environment.”

Mr. Ross said that, in 1996, “the Supreme Court returned its decision on the Eve of Passover, a Wednesday. The Court usually releases decisions on Thursday. Keith Landy of the Canadian Jewish Congress said the date ‘sent a message.’ It was unusual because it was in the middle of the Christian Holy Week, when Christians remember the sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious Resurrection.”

“We are not defeated when we lose in court,” the New Brunswick teacher told his hushed audience, “but only when we compromise.”

“Doug Christie,” he said, “was a righteous man with a heart of fire.”

“The government of New Brunswick paid the personal lawyer of the complainant David Attis (Atlantic head of the Canadian Jewish Congress) $225,000. They paid my lawyer nothing.”

The main witness against Malcolm Ross was David Attis’s daughter. She had not attended the school where Mr. Ross taught nor had ever seen him. Still, she claimed that anti-Jewish taunts directed at her by several students should be laid at his feet. One boy called her names after she wrestled him to the ground and stuck two fingers into his eye with the goal of ripping out his eye.

“Doug was a good friend. He enjoyed himself. Indeed, we were the only two people in that court in New Brunswick who seemed to be enjoying themselves,” Mr. Ross recalled.

“Doug Christie had a passionate love of freedom and the Red Ensign,” Canada’s traditional flag, Mr. Ross concluded.

Sydney White who lectures on Studies in Propaganda at the University of Toronto read a poem she’d composed called “Censored”. In her introduction, she added: “I have heard Doug Christie speak. Freedom of speech is the most important part of any democracy or republic,” she said. “Canada is becoming increasingly politically correct and factually incorrect.”

Marc Lemire, the only victim to win a Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) case, and who is currently before the Federal Court of Appeals seeking to have Sec. 13 declared unconstitutional, said: “I’ve known Doug for 20 years. I first met him when I was 17. He was one of my heroes. The comments, even in some nasty articles in the press, show how many people loved and admired Doug.”

“Doug was great at cross-examination, like his cross-examination of government witness Karen Mock (of B’nai Brith) in my case. He delivered a forceful summation, December 11, 2011, in my Sec. 13 case in Federal Court.”

Mr. Lemire recalled attending CAFÉ meetings where Doug spoke years ago. “His comments about free speech first brought it alive in me what free speech really means.” Mr. Lemire quoted Helen Keller’s comment frequently quoted by Mr. Christie: “I am only one, but I am one; I cannot do everything, but I still can do something.”

“Doug was aware of the awesome power of the state to crush people, people like Malcolm Ross. Doug made many trips to the Supreme Court of Canada. He would be alone facing many lawyers opposed to free speech. He’d ask: ‘Do each of these lawyers get the same amount of time as me?’ And, when informed that they would, he’d say with that wicked grim of his: ‘That seems fair.’”

“There’s ‘state approved speech’ and then there’s ‘free speech’, Doug would say.

“The life of Doug Christie showed me that one person could make a difference. Doug Christie never refused to do what he could.”

And, to the enemies of freedom, Mr. Lemire sent the warning: “Enjoy your happy dance. Your glee at Doug Christie’s demise will be short-lived. The battle for freedom will continue.”

Another co-organizer of the memorial, Christian Klein, Director of the Historical Society of Mecklenburg and Upper Canada, said: “I am a spokesman for the German survivors of World War II. My group was expelled from Silesia. History has been falsified or only partially told. There has been practically nothing told of the forced expulsion of 16-million Germans or the bombing of German civilians or the German holocaust by bombing.”

“I was very impressed Doug Christie the lawyer. He was often one alone against many. I was shocked as I was there in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and learned that truth was no defence,” Mr. Klein added. “We must keep telling our account of real history.”

Mr. Klein, a talented musician, then sang, accompanying himself on his guitar, a German freedom song from the Napoleonic Wars – Thoughts Are Free.

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliegen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen
mit Pulver und Blei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich denke was ich will und was mich beglücket,
doch alles in der Still’, und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Und sperrt man mich ein im finsteren Kerker,
das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke.
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken
und Mauern entzwei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Drum will ich auf immer den Sorgen absagen
und will mich auch nimmer mit Grillen mehr plagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen stets lachen und scherzen
und denken dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich liebe den Wein, mein Mädchen vor allen,
sie tut mir allein am besten gefallen.
Ich sitz nicht alleine bei einem Glas Weine,
mein Mädchen dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Thoughts are free, who can guess them?
They flee by like nocturnal shadows.
No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them
with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

I think what I want, and what delights me,
still always reticent, and as it is suitable.
My wish and desire, no one can deny me
and so it will always be: Thoughts are free!

And if I am thrown into the darkest dungeon,
all this would be futile work,
because my thoughts tear all gates
and walls apart: Thoughts are free!

So I will renounce my sorrows forever,
and never again will torture myself with whimsies.
In one’s heart, one can always laugh and joke
and think at the same time: Thoughts are free!

I love wine, and my girl even more,
Only her I like best of all.
I’m not alone with my glass of wine,
my girl is with me: Thoughts are free!

Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, read a tribute to Doug Christie sent by Ottawa-based former diplomat Ian Macdonald.

Mr. Fromm added: Doug Christie “put others in the legal profession to shame. He didn’t just believe in a client’s right to a full and proper defence, he really did believe in freedom of speech: that freedom of expression is the gift you must give to your worst enemy, he told a CAFE meeting in Toronto, December 2, 2012. Many other lawyers lost that belief. Terry Tremaine, later one of Doug’s clients and another Richard Warman free speech victim, called on seven Regina law firms to represent him in a “judicial review” (appeal) against the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision finding him guilty of spreading “hate” on the Internet. Finding out that this was a controversial free speech case running headlong into political correctness, not a single Regina law firm would touch Mr. Tremaine’s case.

Murderers, child molesters, rape-kidnap-murder perpetrators like Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo, or more recently accused murderer and butcher Luka Magnotta, had no trouble finding counsel. The media and other bien pensants would praise their counsel as brave and creative lawyers. Yet, Doug Christie, who stood up for non-violent freethinkers assailed for having unpopular beliefs was often reviled in the press and in the legal profession. It will take a decade or two before the public appreciates what a legal giant and idealist it has lost,” Mr. Fromm concluded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brad Love’s Ten Years Punishment By the Courts for Writing Non-Violent

Posted on by
Brad Love’s Ten Years Punishment By the Courts for Writing Non-Violent
Letters Continues

009

TORONTO. April 25, 2012. “The thousands of dollars I spent to fly back here, to  take 10 days off work, to  rent a car, to fund other expenses are down the drain,” an angry Brad Love told the monthly meeting of the Alternative Forum here tonight. Mr. Love had just learned that his appeal against a brutal 18 month sentence for breach of probation and a further three year political gag order had been postponed. The appeal was to be heard Monday.

 

1.     “The system is sucking me dry,” the Alberta-based oil worker explained. “I was charged four years ago for breach of probation – for sending a package of critical commentary to four Jewish groups, who had given me their permission.” Mr. Love was then under parole conditions stemming from a 2003 conviction, under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code)  for writing non-violent letters to some 20 MPs and other public officials. He had received an 18-month jail sentence and Ontario Judge Hogg had imposed conditions under which he was forbidden to write to “anybody” without their express permission. [Those conditions, incidentally, were imposed in Ontario, not in the Congo or Burma.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The average black crack dealer would get legal aid for free, spend 20 minutes in court and get maybe 60 days in prison,” Mr. Love charged. This marks at least a dozen trips back to Ontario for this simple breach of probation charge.

 

 

“I was abandoned by my pervious lawyer as soon as I was sentenced to prison, last July,” Mr. Love recounted.” After six weeks his new lawyer effected his release.

 

“I am still working at Fort McMurray. All I make now seems to go to my lawyer. I wrote these letters These were my opinions. Let the cards fall where they may. Growing up, I was told by my parents: ‘If you don’t like something, speak up. The politicians work for you,’” he recalled.

 

Well, “the ;politicians waste billions of dollars on foreign aid, aid to Haiti, aid to Mali – I don’t even know where Mali is, training Costa Rica’s police force. I  am 54 years old. I work 84 hours a week and the government takes half. I don’t pay taxes; they take them from me,” he charged.

 

Africa, he argued, “produces children faster than we can print foreign aid money. It seems every time I write about immigration, it’s eight White cops who arrest me, not Blacks,. I hate my own government, not Blacks.”

 

Canada’s business and political establishment “want cheap labour. Every immigrant they bring in means a wage cut. A Somali cab driver in Fort Mac said he came from Toronto to Fort Mac ‘because there are too many fucking immigrants in Toronto for me to make any money.’”

 

Mr. Love is an impassioned and highly entertaining speaker. “I hear to the developing world,” he said. “What ‘developing’? Africa has been there for 100,000 years. They should be sending us money.”

 

He predicts that the trend of bringing in cheap foreign labour – despite high unemployment in Canada – will continue in Fort McMurray. Wages will go down and the good times will be gone.”

Mr. Love seems to be a special target of Ontario’s police. “My lawyer told me: ‘You’re on the police radar. Any contact with the police, contact us.’” On Tuesday, on a noon visit to the liquor store in Mississauga’s Applewood Mall, Mt. Love saw he was being surveilled by a police cruiser. He was questioned and asked had he been drinking. [No.] His ID was carefully scrutinized and he was asked where he was staying.

 

“Everything in this country is a joke, just a fumblebutt system,” Mr. Love said. “the police want an incident, to provoke me to react so that they can seize the bail my parents help put up. “This was the day after cops arrested two black bank robbers who jumped a counter and shot two people and some other blacks who robbed people on the subway.” Despite this real crime, “they still have time to watch Brad Love, who is not even from this province.”

 

Despite efforts by Mr. Love and CAFÉ, the Canadian media seems studiously uninterested in Mr. Love’s battering and gagging by the courts. Discussing these costly and prolonged proceedings, Mr. Love noted that no lawyer or judge has ever asked: “Brad, how are you coping?”

 

Some years ago, he recalled, he wrote letters to the Minister of Immigration critical of Haitians. “Four cops showed up and told me: ‘We don’t like the tone of your letters.”

 

“With what they’ve spent persecuting me they could have built a large home for seniors and done something for this country,” he said.

 

Still, Brad Love is a happy warrior: “I am still smiling. I go to work every day. I drink my beer. I snub the government and look at this country as a joke. Sodomy is legal. Gay marriage is legal,” but free speech is illegal.”

 

“People know I’m right, but they are afraid. They say: ‘I don’t want to be you, Brad.’ People fear losing their house, their bank account, their job. If you’re a dissident, there’s no safety net for you. The government wants to see you broke and living in a ditch.”

 

“It’s hard to believe in my own country,” he added. The decade-long persecution has affected my friends and my family,” he added. “I am not a skinhead, I am not a neo-Nazi. I am not a racist. But I do not like what the government is doing with my money.” – Paul Fromm

Free Speech & Privacy Sacrificed in Nova Scotia Anti-bullying Law

Posted on by
Free Speech &   Privacy Sacrificed in Nova Scotia Anti-bullying Law
In November, 2011, a then 15-year old teenager in Nova Scotia Rehtaeh Parsons went with a girlfriend to a party with  four teenage boys. There was a lot of drinking. [Where were the parents?] At one point, the girlfriend saw Rehtaeh naked and laughing with two of the boys on the bed. She urged her to leave. Later, she returned with her mother and they both failed tro persuade the now drunk girl to leave. She later had sex with two of the boys and vomited out the window,. One of the boys circulated a cellphone photo of a half naked male pressing up against the bottom of a girl .Word got around that Rehtaeh was a “slut”. She became the object of numerous caustic remarks. Was it rape? This April, a despondent Rehtaeh hanged herself. The accusation of cyberbullying went viral.
 
Christie Blatchford reported: “But Postmedia sources point to huge problems with the case that made it virtually impossible to take to court, chiefly the shifting accounts from Rehtaeh herself and independent evidence, including retrieved online messages, that supported the suggestion the sex that took place was consensual. Even the notorious cell phone picture, first sent by one of the alleged assailants and re-circulated thereafter, shows virtually nothing that would stand up in court. The photo is of a male naked from the waist down, giving a thumbs-up sign, pressing into the bare behind of another person who is leaning out a window. What the picture doesn’t reveal, however, is a recognizable face, if there even was a sexual assault going on, or if the second person was a female.” (National Post, April 26, 2013)
 
A panicking Nova Scotia socialist government brought in the Cyber-safety Act which poses huge threats to privacy and free speech. What is it about so many Canadians that their commitment to free speech is a mile wide and half an inch deep. The proposed law might make persistent tweets or Facebook messages that Stephen Harper is a “control freak” actionable as an electronic communication that could reasonably be expected to cause” harm to another person’s health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.” “Self-esdteem” “reputation” — even truthful criticisms of others could have the Nova Scotia goon squad descending on your dwelling without a warrant to seize your computer or cellphone.
 
The Globe and Mail (May 8,. 2013) wisely editorialized: “But the proposed Cyber-safety Act has draconian search-and-seizure elements with major implications for freedom of speech – accused bullies would in effect be silenced by the state. The government could obtain ex parte court orders against alleged bullies, and a five-member investigative squad would have the power (again without notice to the alleged bullies) to enter homes and remove computers and cellphones. Investigators could obtain records of everything an individual has done on the Internet. They could obtain all texts that a purported bully sent and received. 

It’s tough stuff. The act would impose liability on the parents of children accused of engaging in cyberbullying. Are parents to be required to spy on their children, to pore over their cellphone texts, to peer at every message sent on Facebook?

Provincial legislators … no doubt wish to deliver a strong blow against cyberbullying. Online bullying has a destructive power that no one should underestimate, and the Criminal Code’s many tools, including anti-harassment provisions, have for some reason barely been used to combat this form of bullying. But Nova Scotia lawmakers should ask themselves some tough questions as they head down a very new road in Canadian law. Perhaps they believe that only the most extreme cases would be taken up. The proposed law is, however, incredibly broad. Cyberbullying is defined as any electronic communication intended to, or that could reasonably have been expected to, “cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person’s health, emotional well-being, self-esteem or reputation.” And it applies to bullying of adults, too.

Will fair comment be protected? What about satire of public figures such as the famous and legally acceptable editorial cartoon of premier William Vander Zalm pulling the wings off a fly? Would an animal-rights group be able to campaign against the owner of a factory farm, or anti-abortionists against an abortion provider? Is it worth the risks to free speech to create a new, intrusive (and expensive) state bureaucracy?”

“Low Grade Racial Terrorism” in Oregon –Words Have No Meaning

Posted on by
“Low Grade Racial Terrorism” in Oregon –Words Have No Meaning

The following story needs some analysis. It’s a good example of the useof propaganda to muddy serious discussion of racial issues. Be very careful andskeptical next time you read a heavy breathing report fuming about terrorismand White supremacy.
The facts:
·       Someone leafletted cars on a street in Milwaukie, Oregon with leafletsin Spanish and English opposing White genocide and adding that anti-racism means anti-White. ·      Some busybody White – it’salways a self-hating White who will do us in – one Dinah Davis decided towaddle along and take the flyers off car windshields. [So much for freedom ofspeech.] ·      For reasons not explainedDavis concluded the flyers were “White supremacist literature.” ·       A racism “expert” Prof. Randy Blazak proclaimed: “Thisis a form of low-grade terrorism, and this is meant to terrorize people whohave been victims of violence,”
The Reality:
1.   Watch the video. It is clearthat the leaflets say very little beyond what the story quoted.

2.   Note that opposing the destruction of your own people, if you are White, means you are a White supremacist and “low-grade” terrorist.


3.   The leaflet does not suggest that other races should be exterminated or ruled, only that White genocide should be opposed. Would a call to stop the genocide of a small Indian tribe in the Amazon be “Indian Supremacy”? Of course not.

4.    To most people terrorism means acts of violence – bombing, beating,

murder, kidnapping, arson – against innocent people, against civilians. These are leaflets, not bombs, saying no more than Whites don’t want to be exterminated.

5.   Note also that neither busybody Davis, who claims to speak for the neighbourhood, nor expert Blazak deals with the  flyers’ accusation:  “”Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.” Ironically, their words and actions prove the point. If they are anti-racists, they are clearly anti-White in that they think calls for White survival are evil

MILWAUKIE, Ore. – A neighborhood was blanketed with racist fliers on Thursday and people there say they won’t tolerate the hateful propaganda.
The group handing out the fliers has a very specific target since they’re only partially in English and are mostly in Spanish. The only two words in English: “white genocide.”
Many people who park along Southeast International Way got one on their windshield.
Dinah Davis, who works on the street, took action after reading the flier.
Davis drives on the street every day to get to work and on Thursday she noticed something out of the ordinary.
“I know enough Spanish to recognize that it is white supremacist literature. I was horrified,” she said.
Someone left them on nearly every parked car.
“Perhaps they think this is a suitable neighborhood. I’m here to tell them, no, it’s not,” Davis said.
She spent the rest of her morning walk going up and down the road picking up the fliers off windshields. She collected a stack of them.
Racism expert Randy Blazak, a professor at Portland State University, translated the words. The letters in red: “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
“This is a form of low-grade terrorism, and this is meant to terrorize people who have been victims of violence,” he said.
The fliers trace to a website called the White Genocide Project.
Blazak said the web has become a popular place to spread intolerance.
“There’s sort of a 24-hour Klan rally happening on the Internet,” he said.
Davis knows this country’s history with hatred has lessened but it hasn’t gone away.
Her main question about the fliers: “Why have it in Spanish? I don’t understand that,” she said.
Blazak explained: “In the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan in Portland was primarily against Catholic immigrants. So this is just another version of targeting the immigrant population.”
He said it’s targeting by intimidation.
Blazak said he was familiar with the White Genocide Project website, but he’s never seen that group active in the Portland area.
He said even though it’s a hate message on paper, it’s still hate and not something to take lightly.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Group-leaves-racist-fliers-on-windshields-neighbors-outraged-206872351.html

Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada

Posted on by

 

The Occidental Observer 
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 12:17 PM PDT
Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies ”The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech“). The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings. Some excerpts and comments:

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the *Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the *Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion. There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:
· Truth is no defence;
· Intent is no defence;
· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;
· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;
· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”
Advertisement

The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate homosexuals. The reality is far different:
Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” wasshut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same sex marriage.
Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence  that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.
 Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique:

Despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way:

The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.
The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.)

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. …

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:
Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.
The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”
At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
It is certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong  voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:

In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).

 Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official that summed up Canadian policy.
Thus we have Jewish activists involved in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly, Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in action.