Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech

Posted on by
The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court of Canada has made Canada’s ruling elite’s contempt for traditional Christianity quite clear. Christians got stomped and booted in a unanimous six judge decision in the Whatcott case, rendered February 27. While much is made of punishing only the most extreme expressions against privileged minorities, in fact, anyone with strong opinions about homosexuals or other privileged groups like Jews, must be very careful. Where does ridicule, which apparently is acceptable end, and “detestation” and “vilification” that “incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination and other harmful effects” begin? Got that?  Privileged minorities have a superior right not to be “delegitimized”; that is, told that there is something wrong with their behaviour. That newly minted right erases your right to criticize them. Your words, if strong enough, “risk” – note nothing needs be proven —  causing discrimination (which is not always unlawful) or “other harmful effects.” What might those be?

 

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.”

 

 

The Court outlines the conflict: “

Four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission concerning four flyers published and distributed by the respondent, William Whatcott. The flyers were distributed to the public and targeted homosexuals and were challenged by the complainants on the basis that they promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that the flyers constituted publications that contravened s. 14 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S.  1979, c. S-24.1 as they exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of their sexual orientation: (2005), 52 C.H.R.R. D/264. Section 14(1)(b) of the Code prohibits the publication or display of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground”. The Code lists “sexual orientation” as a prohibited ground (s. 2(1)(m.01)(vi)).” Mr. Whatcott was fined $17,500 which was to go to the four homosexual who complained against him.  “The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the Tribunal’s decision: 2007 SKQB 450, 306 Sask. R. 186. That decision was reversed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“Whatcott (C.A.)”). The appellate court accepted that s. 14(1)(b) was constitutional but held that the flyers at issue did not meet the test for hatred and were not prohibited publications within the meaning of s. 14(1)(b) of the

Code.”

Human Rights Censorship Victim William Whatcott

 

 

The Court went on to note “Whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.” Now, you might think that “the likely effect” would require some proof, but NO! You see the effects of “hate” are subtle and often there is no proof of any harm. The Court advances the ludicrous conclusion that, although William Whatcott, a fervent evangelical Christian, is the one silenced and fined, somehow his very criticism of homosexuals in the leaflets he handed out back in 2002 was alleged to have intimidated (or night have, as no proof was offered) homosexuals from debating public policy. “Hate speech is at some distance from the spirit of s. 2(b) because it does little to promote, and can in fact impede, the values underlying freedom of expression. Hate speech can also distort or limit the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence the voice of its target group. These are important considerations in balancing hate speech with competing Charter rights and in assessing the constitutionality of the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code. Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect. Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech. Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind. Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views. Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse. Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate.”

 

So, neither discussing politics nor morality is a protection. All that matters is being most delicate in any criticism of privileged “vulnerable minorities.”

 

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut 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.

The Canadian Press (March 9, 2013) reported on a   television advertising campaign by the separatist government of Quebec to promote public tolerance of homosexuals and lesbians kissing in public: “A public display of affection between a couple shouldn’t usually elicit a reaction from people. But what if those engaging in that passionate smooch are a same-sex couple? The Quebec government has launched a unique advertising campaign designed to get the province thinking about just how open-minded it really is when it comes to homosexuality. The TV, radio and web campaign shows routine, everyday scenes in which the viewer has no idea until the end that the ad is about sexual orientation. One shows a man texting his lover while awaiting him at the airport.”

The Court all but admits that Trudeau’s Charter is bogus in its guarantee of free speech or freedom of belief. The peasants get the speech rights the Court chooses to give them: “The limitation imposed on freedom of expression by the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code is a limitation prescribed by law within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings.[except traditional Christians.] The objective for which the limit is imposed, namely tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination, is pressing and substantial. Hate speech is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

 

Thus, from Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting to genocide against homosexuals on the streets of Regina. This Supreme Court fantasy is nonsense. Mr. Whatcott never called for deportation, violence or genocide. There was, of course, not a shred of evidence that anything negative resulted from Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets. In the irrational world of the judicial revolutionaries, there doesn’t have to be any evidence. The cultural Marxists simply insist that we must believe: “The fact that s. 14(1)(b) of the Code does not require intent by the publisher or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it overbroad.  Systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination and the preventive measures found in human rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent. The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm.” The prattle about “systemic” discrimination is absurd. Mr. Whatcott was a lone wolf pamphleteer. He was part of no “system.”

 

In a crucial essay (“The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Origin of the Therapeutic State: A Case Study of Jewish Intellectual Activism” Mankind Quarterly, Spring, 2006) Prof. Kevin Macdonald shows that, 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.”

 

 

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. Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness;” that is, gut its purpose of suppressing strong criticisms of some privileged minority. And later in the judgement: “The search for truth is also an important part of self-fulfillment. However, I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.”

 

The Canada of the future will encourage lies and liars, if they flatter privileged groups. Active homosexuals are less likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals is, of course, a falsehood, but, in the Canada envisioned by the Supremos, a cautious man may well decide to avoid the truth and tell this lie. As in the Soviet Union of old, we’ll be proclaiming that the most recent Five Year Plan has succeeded beyond all expectations. Boots are plentiful, even though, actually, we only made boots for the left foot this year.

 

The Supreme Court is quite content with condemning an entire pamphlet or publication because of one strident phrase or term: “However, it is also legitimate to proceed with a closer scrutiny of those parts of the expression which draw nearer to the purview of s. 14(1)(b) of the Code. If, despite the context of the entire publication, even one phrase or sentence is found to bring the publication, as a whole, in contravention of the Code, this precludes its publication in its current form.”

 

Christians got a small sop tossed their way: They can still criticize homosexuals “privately” among themselves but they cannot witness to their faith publicly: “The prohibition only prohibits public communication of hate speech; it does not restrict hateful expression in private communications between individuals.” Can Christians use these repressive laws against their critics? Not likely! They are not a vulnerable group in the world view of the Court’s cultural Marxists: “Although human rights legislation prohibits discrimination of both majority and minority subgroups identifiable by an enumerated characteristic, historical and jurisprudential experience demonstrates that hate speech is virtually always aimed at the minority subgroup. A prohibition of hate speech will only be rationally connected to the objective if its ambit is limited to expression publicly directed at protected group.”

 

And, as a parting shot for having fought, the Court saddled the impoverished Mr. Whatcott, in addition to his now reduced fine of $15,000,  with costs, likely well over $150,000! “Given that Mr. Whatcott was found in contravention of the Code, the Commission is awarded costs throughout, including costs of the application for leave to appeal in this Court.”

 

The Supreme Court did acquit Mr. Whatcott for two of his pamphlets and ruled some of the hazy language of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Acts censorship section unconstitutional: “A prohibition of any representation that ‘ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. Those words are constitutionally invalid and are severed from the statutory provision in accordance with these reasons. The remaining prohibition of any representation ‘that exposes or tends to expose to hatred’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground  is a reasonable limit and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” A tiny victory, but it will take a Philadelphia lawyer to sniff out the difference between ridicule, belittling and likely exposing a privileged group to hatred. The prudent man will just shut up rather than run the risk when commenting on one of Canada’s privileged groups.

 

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 as there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

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.”in Toronto today for a memo…rial 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.

Vancouver Friends & Supporters Mourn the Passing of Doug Christie

Posted on by
Vancouver Friends & Supporters Mourn the Passing of Doug Christie
 VANCOUVER. March 26, 2013. The last of four memorial meetings sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression across Canada took place here this evening. Friend…s, former clients, admirers and members of Doug Christie’s Western Block party gathered to remember the Battling Barrister.

Cecilia “Sissy” von Dehn is a former nurse and midwife who, with a friend, several times passed out copies of Bill 48, the draconian legislation, brought in by the former NDP government, that sets up bubble zones around abortion clinics where no protests are allowed. “I felt no one knew what a bubble zone was. I distributed the law. We never discussed abortion. Apparently telling people what the law is in British Columbia is illegal. Our sign said: ‘You are in a bubble zone, Read Bill 48,'” Mrs. von Dehn explained.

The Vancouver abortion clinic called the police and Mrs. von Dehn and her friend were arrested. She approached many law firms. “They were afraid of an unpopular case. I am grateful Doug Christie fought for another unpopular cause in my case,” she added.

Another Doug Christie client, Terry Tremaine, spoke. Mr. Tremaine  has been victimized by Richard Warman through a human rights complaint, a Criminal Code “hate law” complaint, three “contempt of court” complaints and a complaint to the University of Saskatchewan which resulted in the loss of his teaching position. “This whole country has become a bubble zone against free speech,” he said.

“Doug Christie was my lawyer, but he was also my friend,” Tremaine said. “I haven’t been so affected by the death of anyone since the death of my own father in 1985,” he added. “No only have I lost my lawyer, I have lost my dear friend.”
Mr. Tremaine was teaching at Red Deer College in 1983 while the James Keegstra “hate law” case was in progress. A student whose father had been Mr. Keegstra’s principal invited him to attend court one day. This was the first occasion Mr. Tremaine saw the Battling Barrister.Photo
James Keegstra was testifying. Mr. Tremaine had been prepared to see a monster from hyperventilating stories in the press. “But James Keegstra didn’t have horns. He was a sincere and thoughtful person and he started me off on a course of research that continues to this day.”
“Doug Christie’s life was built on principle. He was devoted to freedom of speech and fought against people being fed into an unjust system.”
“Doug Christie’s life was based on principle and he would withstand the rejection of lesser men. He was not swayed by the opinions of insignificant men. Doug was a hero for freedom,” he concluded.
In his wrap-up, CAFE Director Paul Fromm reminded the audience that Doug Christie often said: The only freedoms you have are the ones you’re prepared to fight for.”
“We have had thirty years of Trudeau’s lying Charter. He hijacked our Anglo-Saxon Common Law and replaced it with continental Napoleonic Law, where the state stingily doles out ‘rights’ to the serfs. The Charter, despite the apparent guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and freedom of religion is a fraud. We are far less free today, in terms of free speech, than we were before the Charter,” Mr. Fromm said.Photo
“In the Whatcott decision, traditional Christians have just had the boots put to them by a Supreme Court panel of six who included three Jews, who, and we’re not supposed to notice this fact, constitute less than one percent of the population. Made up rights, like self actualization and satisfaction for privileged minorities, have trumped freedom of speech for Christians. These are hard times.”
“Doug Christie helped hold back the censors’ onslaught. He got the archaic ‘false news’ law thrown out at the Zundel trial and developed many challenges to the hate law which have not been adjudicated. He achieved the acquittal of Chief David Ahenakew and the staying of charges against Terry Tremaine in hate law cases. We must carry on with his work,” Mr. Fromm pledged. — Paul Fromm

Douglas Hewson Christie, RIP

Posted on by
Douglas  Hewson Christie, RIP
Douglas Christie
April 1946 – March 11, 2013
 
 
Keltie Zubko

I am heart-broken to say that Doug passed away this afternoon in Victoria Hospice. Cadeyrn, Kalonica, Doug’s sister Jane, and I were all with him and able to say all that was in our hearts to say before he let go of the pain and suffering to leave us with the immense gifts of his love for us and the lessons of his life.

 

 

Marc Lemire:

 

Douglas Christie was a great man and will be missed by so many.  He was one of my personal heroes!
Dear Supporters of Free Speech:
 
I just received these e-mails from Keltie Zubko, Doug’s wife, and Marc Lemire, the intrepid challenger of Canada’s notorious  Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship).
Doug was an immensely brave man and a towering presence in Court. His height and firmness of bearing made an impact on many a judge, and, I suspect, many a miscreant or liar under cross-examination.  Other lawyers have told me that Doug was one of the most intimidating cross-examiners in this Dominion. As a former client, (my firing for my political views by the Peel Board of Education and the libel charge by Richard Warman for calling him a “censor”)  I can testify that Doug was demanding and unrelenting that his clients organize and prepare their material.
My friend of more than 30 years was motivated by a deep love of freedom and a suspicion of government and authority. Perhaps, in the best of ways, he was a symbol of the ’60s, an era we both grew up in. It was an era that, however faultily, sought freedom. Neither of us was part of the “tune out, turn on” ethos of the time, but both of us deeply valued individual freedom. Doug lived to see what used to be common political culture of a largely European Canada — “I disagree with you, but you have a right to your opinion” — become the prissy, prune-faced political correctness of  Canada today: agree with the minority agenda or you shut up!
One of his last legal acts was to review the catastrophic Supreme Court of Canada Whatcott decision, where a fervent fundamentalist pamphleteer was found guilty and fined by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for passing out leaflets critical of homosexual teachings in public schools. Doug sadly concluded: “Free speech as we knew it in Canada, is dead.” Having read this revolutionary decision, I, who at first dismissed the conclusion as the pessimism of a dying man, believe his grim view is right.
Doug’s unshakable courage in the face of press abuse — he was once called a “perverted monster” by a  Vancouver talk show  host for having defended revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel — put others in the legal profession to shame, Doug 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 lawyers 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.
The Doug I knew was a sensitive and proud man. He was a deeply moral man. He did not seek notoriety. He felt the rejections and condemnations deeply. Yet, Doug felt a higher imperative — individual freedom and liberty.  These had once been the values of our generation. But many of the free speech advocates of the 1960s had grown old and paunchy and grey and had been subverted into Frankfurt School political correctness. They had become the very repressive, narrow-minded Establishment they  had once reviled. Doug never lost that youthful passion for freedom.
Ranged, often with the highly talented legal researcher Barbara Kulazska at his side, against the endless money and batteries of lawyers of various repressive government bodies, Doug Christie was a one man Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke holding back the tidal wave of repression. His achievements were many. He singlehandedly got Canada’s archaic “false news” law used to  try to silence Ernst Zundel ruled unconstitutional. His persistence in the Terry Tremaine Sec. 319 “hate law” case got the charges stayed for undue delay,
Doug’s towering presence in the defence of freedom will be sorely missed. The would-be censors, the minority zealots who would silence any opinion but their own and those who hate the unfettered thoughts of free men and women whenever they deviate from the prune-faced, fussy little orthodoxy of political correctness may feel a little freer to pursue their repressive instincts tonight with the passing of this great man.
Another important aspect of Doug Christie was his political life as an outspoken and often lonely champion of Western separation. I first met Doug Christie on a rainy late afternoon at the Vancouver television studios of the then famous Jack Webster Show. At the time, Doug apparently had something to do with the British Columbia provincial Conservative Party. Although a seemingly quiet man,  as we exchanged a few words, I knew I had met a man with an imposing presence. we parted and I went in to do my interview with the irrascible Scot to promote my critique of foreign aid, the recently published book Down the Drain: A Critical Re-examination of Canadian Foreign Aid Policy.

I next met Doug when I travelled to Red Deer for  a meeting to support a thoughtful school teacher Jim Keegstra who was being charged under Canada’s notorious “hate law”, section 319 of the Criminal Code. By now, Doug Christie was famous as a champion of Western separation.
The early 1980s were heady times. The arrogant Trudeau socialists had brought in the National Energy Programme. Alberta, devastated by a slump in oil prices, had ruined people walking away from their homes, on which they often owed more than what they were worth. Alberta was in near revolt. Doug Christie criss-crossed the West arguing for separation and independence. No longer should the West be bled dry by the East and held up with high prices for Eastern manufactured goods. He held up a vision of more populist and responsive government in a unilingual English country. State intrusion in ownership of guns would be reduced and, of course, anti-free speech laws would be abolished. The West would be a proud country of independent men and women, not a nanny state of  Ottawa-controlled serfs.
Doug Christie’s message was a powerful one. He spoke to packed meetings in halls across Western Canada. He packed the Jubilee Auditorium in Edmonton with several thousand people. His party the Western Canada Concept contested a by-election in Alberta and the separatist candidate Gordon Kessler was elected.
There were, of course, problems. The party tended to be run out of Doug Christie’s briefcase. A flock of opportunists and not a few federalist agents joined the party. There was a lack of seasoned and experienced staff. Divisions followed and plagued the party.
In 1984, the Mulroney Conservatives were elected with a large  representation of Western MPs. They repealed some of the worst abuses of the NEP. However, with their many neo-Liberal policies, they left many real populists and conservatives feeling betrayed. There arose a new populist party, the Reform Party, with the slogan “the West wants in.” It was well-funded and seemed to offer a less radical answer to Western grievances.
Doug Christie soldiered on explaining his vision in the monthly Western Separatist Papers and later on the WCC website . The meetings were fewer and less well attended. The WCC ran a few candidates in each federal election, but the enthusiasm for separation had passed. In the past decade, the West has become rich. Saskatchewan, once an exporter of wheat and people, is now a “have” province. Alberta’s oil sands are a job magnet.
So, was Doug Christie’s vision of an independent West wrong? Only history will tell. For much of the 140-year long struggle for Irish independence, those pushing for an independent state were for long periods of time treated, even by many Irishmen, as crackpots. But their day came as it may come for Western Canadian Independence.
Whatever history’s final judgement of Doug Christie’s Western Canada Concept, he kept the faith and articulated a vision of a free and independent West with intelligence and dedication.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Posted on by

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Judge Sean Harrington’s sentencing decision delivered November 7, 2012 is a nasty piece of work.  It opens:  “The time has come, at last, to penalize Mr. Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

 

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

 

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

 

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009),a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.
at last, to penalize Mr. …Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009), a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.See

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Posted on by

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Dissident Terry Tremaine was sentenced to one month in prison definite and six months more, should he not remove several dozen postings from his website and request that STORMFRONT remove some of his postings as Mathdoktor 99, including the statement of defence he proposed to read at his contempt of court hearing in Regina, July 22, 2009. [Unbeknownst to him and CAFÉ’s Paul Fromm who was advising him, the hearing had been adjourned the day before.] Oh, yes, the impoverished Mr. Tremaine was also saddled with the flush Canadian Human Rights Commission’s costs and certain costs for civil servant and chronic complainant Richard Warman. The Canadian justice system proceeds at a ponderous pace. In December, Mr. Tremaine’s sentence was stayed pending an appeal against this sentence later this Spring. However, he faces a hearing before sentencing Judge Sean Harrington where the Canadian Human Rights Commission will seek a warrant of committal, which will actually send Mr. Tremaine to prison [although its execution is stayed pending the appeal.] This hearing will determine whether Mr. Tremaine goes to prison for a month or six. He has removed the designated posts from his website http://nspcanada.nfshost.com. Will this satisfy the judicial censors? Who knows?
Terry Tremaine Receiving CAFE Free Speech Award, Regina, 2012,
from CAFE Director Paul Fromm
Doug Christie Mr. Tremaine’s lawyer will argue that Mr. Tremaine already served 22 days in jail in Regina in August, 2009 in regards to the STORMFRONT post and should be credited against his one month sentence on a 1.5 for one basis, thus effectively negating the sentence.

 

Help CAFE Support The Victims of Canada’s Anti-Free Speech Laws

 

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s campaign to support the victims of Canada’s censorship laws..

__    Please activate my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

 

Please charge ______my VISA#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

Posted on by

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 
Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech — Pass Bill C-304
Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member’s Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was  vague — communicating views “likely to expose” designated or privileged groups to “hatred or contempt.” No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. “Contempt” would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers wer a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher incidents of lung cancer would be “likely” to expose them to “contempt” is not hatred. Truth would not matter.
Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to “shut down” through “maximum disruption” those with an ideology he opposed.
Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a “representative” for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse BY process.
The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead “hate” investigator was questioned during the Warman v. Marc Lemire Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: “None,” he responded, “freedom of expression is an American idea.” Oh, really?
In our submission, the House of Commons was wise to repeal Sec. 13. We understand that it is now in the process of second reading in the Red Chamber. We urge that it receive speedy consent.  It has now been eight months since it was passed in the House of Commons.
There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 (“hate law”) of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime “cease and desist” order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is “similar”? Although he tried to tome down his language, he was eventually found guilty of “contempt of court” for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal’s order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months!
Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society.
The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. The was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights — not allowed to talk to the foreign media — for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag!
In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada.  We urge you to do likewise and pass this piece of legislation as expeditiously as possible.
Respectfully submitted.
Paul Fromm
Director

 

 

E-mail addresses of Canadian Senators
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca, harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca, , , maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca., harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca,  maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca,

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Posted on by

 

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts

 

 

Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals

and against a lifetime gag order at the “Human Rights” Tribunal

 

 

In what has become more and more typical in Canada’s repressive thought control regime, the Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed the stay motion filed by Marc Lemire.  The stay motion was seeking a short reprieve to allow the court to actually rule on Canada’s draconian shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. 

 

To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you’re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you … but hey this is CanaDUUH.  Sentence first, then we’ll see if the laws ok later.

 

The Ruling:

 

 In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression.  While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom’s enshrines freedom of expression as a “fundamental right”, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as “freedom of speech is an American concept”.  As crazy as that is, that’s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.

 

The Justice found that “the appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal”  Gee,  even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS* a violation of our freedom of expression.  How hard is it to really believe that if the “Human Rights” Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won’t cause “irreparable harm”. And this is not just a hypothetical … the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders / speech bans.

 

The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre.  The “Justice” that writes that “…there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in…”  Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate?

 

This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for “Pre-Crimes” before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada… where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?

 

“Under section 13, citizens are subject to lifetime speech bans–not in the Soviet Union, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Canada. Section 13 prosecutes not crimes but pre-crimes, crimes that have not yet taken place. The phrase “pre-crime”, by the way, comes from a dystopian science fiction story written by Philip K. Dick in 1956. Half a century later, in one of the oldest, most stable democratic societies on the planet, we’re living it…”

  Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

Even if we were to follow the Judges “logic”, what exactly would/could Marc Lemire have even put in an affidavit about his future thoughts?  It may take up to six months for a ruling on if the law is even legitimate, how does anyone know exactly what they are going to say, weeks or months in advance? 

 

Unlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future. The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might “expose” someone to “hatred” and/or “contempt”. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future.

 

Two-Front – Maximum Disruption Campaign

 

After nine years of fighting Marc Lemire, the CHRC must have realized that he is not going to give up very easily.  So they took a page out serial Section 13 complainers handbook; Richard Warman’s “Maximum Disruption”.  The basic strategy of “Maximum Disruption” is to hit your enemies on as many fronts as possible, and that’s exactly what the CHRC has done.

 

Marc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional.  And at the same time, in front of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!)

 

The CHRC is hoping that Lemire’s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases.  This is why we desperately need your help.

 

 

Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought

 

All of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved, reformed or tinkered with.  The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it.

 

The end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: to Silence Thought.  That’s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them, they keep spending and spending.  After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial “politically incorrect” opinions on the internet? 

 

It’s just easier to self-censor yourself, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment.  And that’s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced.  The censors undertake ‘impact prosecutions’ and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary.

 

 

“Now what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone’s right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows? All in all it’s much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers.”

John Robson | Ottawa Citizen

“Self-censorship? Me? Absolutely!”

Dec 14, 2007

 

Take a look at the Marc Lemire case.  This is the 9th year of fighting the censors … all because he posted a SINGLE document on his website, that he didn’t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States.  As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again. 

 

That made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the “Human Rights” Commission – in their parting “F*ck You” to freedom – continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire. 

 

As a notable freedom fighter would say: disgusting!

 

 

Here is a copy of the full ruling by the Federal Court:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 13 is at odds with this country’s entire legal inheritance, stretching back to Magna Carta. Back then, if you recall–in 1215–human rights meant that the king could be restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, Canada’s pseudo-human rights apparatchiks of the commission have entirely inverted that proposition, and human rights now means that the subjects get restrained by the crown in the cause of so-called collective rights that can be regulated only by the state.

 Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009