Free Speech Lawyer Sylvia Stolz Threatened With Prosecution in Switzerland

Free Speech Lawyer Sylvia Stolz Threatened With Prosecution in Switzerland

A great woman. Miss Stolz was sentenced to three years and three months in prison for her spirited defence of political prisoner Ernst Zundel in 2005.

On November 24, she was a guest speaker at the 8th Anti-Censorship Conference held in Chur, Switzerland. She spoke of the difficulties lawyers have in defending Europe’s new heretics — those who express doubts about the so-called holocaust. One can deny God, even deny science, believe in creatures from outer space, but to question Europe’s new state religion of holocaust is to invite persecution, heavy fines or prison. She reflected on the fact that “holocaust” is not clearly defined and that many of the tenets of this new religion have not actually been proven in court.

Well, all hell broke loose. The organizers of the Civic Hall at which the meeting was held have been told they cannot rent it again. An investigation is under way to see whether any “far right” literature was distributed. In this video Sylvia Stolz explains that “far right” is widely used by the politically correct to label any nationalist who stands up for his “volk” or people. Now, there are calls for criminal charges of “casting doubt on the holocaust” to be laid against Miss Stolz and conference organizer Ivo Sasek. Already, a Swiss lawyer has filed a complaint against Miss Stolz.

A politically correct Inquisition holds sway over much of Europe, where a new secular religion — another group’s tribal history, is imposed upon the populace. Anyone who suggests that some of the religion’s claims seem exaggerated or impossible is not argued with but prosecuted and jailed. Further, any lawyer too vigorous in the heretic’s defence faces jail or disbarment. A new Dark Age has descended over a Europe that grins like the village idiot (or, perhaps, more politically correctly ‘mentally challenged person’) and considers itself a champion of democracy and human rights.

In this video (English sub-titles) German lawyer Sylvia Stolz replies to her critics as rumours swirl that she will be charged (again) with ‘Holocaust Denial’ for a speech she gave at an anti-censorship conference in November 2012.


YouTube

Hate Cop Tries to get Topham’s U.S. Server to Drop Him

Hate Cop Tries to get Topham’s U.S. Server to Drop Him
Hate Cop Tries to get Topham's U.S. Server to Drop Him-arthur-topham2.jpg
We try not to oversell our case. However, when we label police “hate squads” as the thought police, we are being precise and accurate. In an undated letter, Detective-Constable Terry Wilson, who self-importantly identified himself as “Detective Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police E-Division Major Crime” wrote to pressure Canadian dissident Arthur Topham’s U.S. Internet Service Provider to drop him.
True, Mr. Topham has been charged under Canada’s notorious Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code for wilfully promoting hate against privileged groups. Det. Wilson asserts  that Mr.Topham is using his radicalpress website for “Hate Speech or other offensive speech or content.”
The New World Order thought cops clearly know nothing of our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Mr. Topham is a victim of a minority-instigated charge. That’s all it is — an accusation. In our system, the accused is still INNOCENT until proven guilty in court.
Police are supposed to investigate “crime” not write to other countries to try to inflict punishment on a man who has not even been tried yet.
What a country! This thought cop is actually a member of the Mounties’ “Major Crime Division.” For a frightened politically correct Establishment, maybe “thought crimes” and dissent really are “major crimes.”
Arthur Topham asks that you write in decent terms to Zach P at legal@netfirms-inc.com  — doesn’t anyone give a full name anymore? — and urge him not to give in to Wilson’s bullying and attempt at state censorship.
We note that during Prime Minister Harper’s recent visit to India, he was challenged about the Canadian government’s toleration of Sikh radicalism and support for Khalistan — an independent Punjab. “I’t may be a political position that both the government of Canada and the  government of India disagree with. We can’t interfere with the right of  political freedom of expression,'” the Vancouver Sun (Nov.9, 2012) reported him as saying. We hope Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laughed in  his face and whispered: “What about Arthur Topham?”
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Email from Netfirms.com regarding Det-Cst Terry Wilson’s letter to them.

Subject:  [P10300383000000000] Radical Press.com

Date:  21 November, 2012 12:11:12 PM PST

To:  Arthur Topham <radical@radicalpress.com>
Hello Arthur,
We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.
Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.  The notice we received is below.
As you may know, we are a web hosting company. We are not responsible for the content or links posted by our customers who create and place content on websites that we host. We further do not “monitor” the websites that we host or prescreen the content placed by customers on their sites. However, when we become aware of allegations of improper activity by one of our customers using a hosted site, which would be a violation of our Terms of Service (TOS) governing the web sites, we take such situations seriously, investigate promptly, and take appropriate action.
Should you have further questions, please contact us.
Regards, Zach P Corporate Support
———————–
Here’s the bullying letter from Thought Cop Det-Cst Terry Wilson to Netfirms.com
This letter is undated.
Dear Sir or Madame, I am Detective Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police E-Division Major Crime. I am the lead investigator into a Hate Propaganda investigation involving the above internet site.
I understand that on May 31, 12 we have requested, through the US Department of Justice, to preserve this website as we were working on a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). I wish to confirm that this website is still being persevered as the MLAT process has taken longer than anticipated.
Secondly I would like to advise you that the administrator/owner of the website Mr Roy Arthur Topham has been now charged criminally with Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code of Canada for Wilful Promoting Hatred, over his website
www.radicalpress.comI see by your website policy that this may in fact contravene you policy, section 4 (b)(i) by using the website for “Hate Speech or other offensive speech or content”. 
If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at the above email or at
604-543-4903.
Detective Constable Terry WILSON
B.C. Hate Crime Team t.wilson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca 604-543-4903 

Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”

Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”
TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.
Challenging Canada’s Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: “Why can’t there be ‘anti-Semitism?’ Anti-Christianity is rampant. There’s a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam.”
Under Canadian law, he noted, “you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion.” He noted that some years ago he was called “a perverted monster” for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. “A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment,” he explained.
 
“Opinions should be allowed,” Mr., Christie said. “Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself”
Photo: Doug Christie Addresses CAFE'S Christmas Gathering -- "Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime"

TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.

Challenging Canada's Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: "Why can't there be 'anti-Semitism?' Anti-Christianity is rampant. There's a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam."

Under Canadian law, he noted, "you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion." He noted that some years ago he was called "a perverted monster" for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. "A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment," he explained.

"Opinions should be allowed," Mr., Christie said. "Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself"

"Truth will offend," the Battling Barrister noted. "Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?" There's low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. "If you disagree, why not debate him. If we're not free to debate, what are our brains for?"  he asked. "A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding." 

In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, "the complaint of 'discrimination' does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals," he explained. "But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: 'You've offended me. So, I'm taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'"

Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is "a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced 'diversity' where people don't have a common understanding." But we're not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we'll go to court and academics and 'experts' at great expense will talk about 'human rights,' but what they practise is really tyranny," he said. "We've delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality."

"We're seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In  Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate 'lifestyle' to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief," he charged.

Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says "context" is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to "marry" two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual "marriage" violates his faith. "He belongs to the state," Mr. Christie concluded.

The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, "the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it's all too complicated." But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women,

Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case -- the constitutional challenge to  the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13  but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: "It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13's extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you've expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias." Mr. Justice Mosley "is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36," an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "Now he's adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting" and which he assured the media was constitutional.

Indeed, "Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley," he added.

In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: "The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don't think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!"

 
“Truth will offend,” the Battling Barrister noted. “Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?” There’s low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. “If you disagree, why not debate him. If we’re not free to debate, what are our brains for?”  he asked. “A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding.”
 
In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, “the complaint of ‘discrimination’ does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals,” he explained. “But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: ‘You’ve offended me. So, I’m taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'”
Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is “a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced ‘diversity’ where people don’t have a common understanding.” But we’re not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we’ll go to court and academics and ‘experts’ at great expense will talk about ‘human rights,’ but what they practise is really tyranny,” he said. “We’ve delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality.”
“We’re seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In  Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate ‘lifestyle’ to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief,” he charged.
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says “context” is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to “marry” two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual “marriage” violates his faith. “He belongs to the state,” Mr. Christie concluded.
The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, “the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it’s all too complicated.” But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women,
Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case — the constitutional challenge to  the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13  but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: “It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13’s extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you’ve expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias.” Mr. Justice Mosley “is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36,” an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. “Now he’s adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting” and which he assured the media was constitutional.
Indeed, “Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley,” he added.
In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: “The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don’t think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!”

 

Setback for Censorship: B.C. Judge Refuses to Gag Dissident Topham Before “Hate” Trial

Setback for Censorship: B.C. Judge Refuses to Gag Dissident Arthur Topham Before “Hate” Trial
Radical Press Legal Update #8
January 4, 2012

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,
January 3, 2013 was a good day in B.C. and across the nation for those who have taken up metaphorical arms in defence of Canada’s fundamental right to freedom of speech on the Internet.
Here in B.C. and out in Ontario those battling against the forces of media censorship and repression were, in both cases, successful in their efforts and thus, for once, I have only positive news to report.
During the last court appearance in December presiding Judge Church, after hearing arguments from both the Crown and Defence regarding the Crown’s rather strident and persistent effort to reimpose the original bail conditions that were placed on me by Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM back on May 16, 2012, reserved her judgement on the issue until January 3, 2013.
My lawyer Doug Christie attended by telephone from Victoria, B.C. and  my wife  and I were in the Quesnel Court room at 1:30 p.m. to hear Judge Church’s decision.
The Judge first gave an overview of the Crown’s arguments and those of Defence lawyer Mr. Christie before presenting her own position on the issue. According to Judge Church the Crown’s basic argument was that while I had legally resumed publishing on RadicalPress.com on November 2, 2012 I was still publishing material that the Crown felt was of the same calibre as that originally complained of by Harry Abrams and Richard Warman. To back up Crown’s argument Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston had submitted to Judge Church on December 19, 2012 a couple of screen shots taken from the radicalpress.com website that had supposed controversial headings which CC Johnston felt were significant enough that they warranted reinstating the original draconian restrictions that Cst Terry Wilson had unilaterally saddled me with on the day of my arrest in May.
Having considered these apparently pithy examples of willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group”  Judge Church went on to say that while the screen shots may have (as Crown was alleging), indicated an “undertone” of hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, Crown had not gone so far as to state that the captured text was in fact hateful. Furthermore, Crown had not disclosed to Judge Church any additional corroborating information pertaining to the screen shots in question which Crown was alleging were displaying such sentiments and so, according to the Judge, she had no way of determining whether or not the screen shots or the accompanying articles were, in fact, contravening sec. 319(2) of the CC of Canada.
Judge Church then went on to review Defence council Doug Christie’s arguments which basically stated Crown was attempting to pre-judge the published materials before a trial was held to determine whether or not they were in truth a contravention of sec. 319(2). It was also established that I am, in fact, a publisher and that under Canada’s constitution I have the right to publish articles deemed to be of interest to the general public and until such time that said articles are proven in a court of law to have contravened Canada’s hate crime legislation that my right to publish should not be pre-emptively prohibited simply because of allegations of wrong doing by those who feel particular materials are wilfully promoting hatred toward an ethnic minority. Throughout the course of her comments the Judge referred to the cases cited by both Crown and Defence during the previous hearing on December 19, 2012.
Another issue that had come up on December 19, 2012 was that of Disclosure. The Crown had then argued that they were withholding disclosure from my attorney because of a breach of protocol that had occurred back in the summer when a confidential document released to Doug Christie was later found to have been posted on a third party website (FreeDominion.ca). The Judge went on to describe the event which had to do with what is called a “Warned Statement” which was a digitally recorded conversation between myself and the arresting officer Cst Terry Wilson on the day of my arrest. The Crown alleged that the breach (committed by me due to ignorance of the nature of the document) posed a serious threat to the safety of the two complainants in the case Warman and Abrams and for that reason Crown had filed a further application demanding that my lawyer not provide me with any further disclosure because I might intentionally publish it or give it to someone else who might publish it and in the process endanger the complainants. CC Johnston had cited the case of the Basi-Virk Trial involving the BC Rail/BC Liberal government scandal as reasoning for her allegations.
The Judge then went on to state that the case law cited by Crown in fact dealt with examples where secondary parties who were testifying may have been at risk but that in my case it was information which I personally had given to Cst. Terry Wilson and was, as my lawyer had stated, not of the same nature and certainly did not pose any direct threat to either of the two individuals who had complained to the RCMP. As such the Judge did not feel that the Crown’s argument that Mr. Christie be restricted in sharing disclosure with me was valid.
Judge Church also considered Doug Christie’s counter argument that it would be an unreasonable and onerous position to be placed in were he not allowed to share the information in any disclosure with his client unless I was under his direct supervision given the fact that he was in Victoria and I was 700 km away in Quesnel. Mr. Christie had indicated on December 19, 2012 that he and his client would be more than willing to sign an undertaking prohibiting me from disclosing any further confidential information in order to insure that no such breach occurred a second time. The Judge was able to see the logic of Mr. Christie’s arguments while at the same time dismissing Crown’s position that the breach in question could have endangered the two complainants and went on to say that while she would not be imposing the two original conditions that prohibited me from publishing on radicalpress.com or writing articles for publication wherever I so chose she would be issuing an order that would make it illegal for me republish any further disclosure. At this point she also stating she would not impose upon Mr. Christie the condition that he be in attendance whenever disclosing confidential documents to me.
Having read out her decision regarding the matters at hand the Judge reinstated the new bail conditions and asked me if I understood them. I acknowledged that I did. As such here are the new bail conditions which I am now to legally abide by:
CONDITION ONE: You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
CONDITION TWO: You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Richard Warman or Harry Abrams except as follows: (a) while in attendance at court; (b) through legal counsel.
CONDITION THREE: You shall not possess any weapon as defined in Section 2 of the criminal Code except for purposes directly related to your employment.
CONDITION FOUR: You shall not distribute, circulate or share all or any part of the Crown disclosure material with any person or organization.
CONDITION FIVE: You shall not publish or post all or any part of the Crown disclosure material on any internet site that can be read by the general public.
Having listened to the conditions of the new undertaking and given my consent to obey them the Judge then concluded the hearing. My wife and I then went for coffee and returned later to the Court Registry office where the undertaking was waiting for my signature. After signing it and obtaining a copy we left the building.
Included in the new undertaking was a notice stating that I would appear in court on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm PT in Quesnel for the preliminary hearing.
For some unknown reason Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston was absent from the court room and another assistant Crown counsel was sitting in for her.
So by all indications it looks like I will finally have some temporary respite from all the legal machinations that have been occurring over the past three months and I can focus on raising funds and adding further information to radicalpress.com that will assist others in understanding both the importance of this case and why it is that Canadians must sit up and pay much more attention to what these foreign lobbyists are doing to wreck our inherent right to freedom of expression and censor any and debate that focuses on the criminal and racist actions of the state of Israel and its dangerous and supremacist ideology known as Zionism.
Sincerely
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
————————————————————
NOTE: 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 interest censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to apply for legal aid. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses.
As of January 3, 2013 there are additional costs to those already incurred that now stand at $5,222.79 still owing on Mr. Christie’s account. Given my minimal monthly pension of approximately $1400.00 out of which I must pay my mortgage and utilities and insurance on home and vehicles (this doesn’t cover additional costs for fuel and food) which come to approximately $1200.00 one can see that it’s virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses without further assistance from supporters.
As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me 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. Cash of course also works. 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.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham Pub/Ed The Radical Press

Now, the Thought Police Are After Ezra Levant for Criticisms of Gypsies

Now, the Thought Police Are After Ezra Levant for Criticisms of Gypsies

“Hate laws” exist to shield privileged groups from criticism and to shut down or stifle debate on key topics, like immigration. Beginning in the 1930s, the Canadian Jewish Congress began lobbying mightily for “hate” laws. Finally, in 1970, thanks to socialist Pierre Trudeau, they succeeded and we got Canada’s notorious “hate law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.

The latest potential victim is Ezra Levant, himself Jewish but no admirer of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Levant is a lawyer, writer and news commentator on Sun News television.

The delightful thing about “hate laws” is that a privileged minority can holler “hate” and now their critic becomes the object of attack. It’s an old sleazy lawyer’s trick: accuse the accuser. The neat thing is, by whooping up this noise about “hate”. the privilege group avoids having to answer or refute the criticism or deal with unflattering facts because the mere mention of these facts is “hate.”.

The Toronto Star (October 24, 2012) reported:” A complaint about broadcaster Ezra Levant’s rant that likened Gypsies to ‘swindlers’ has prompted a Toronto police investigation. Toronto’s Roma Community Centre, which has called the rant ‘vertly racist, prejudicial, and demeaning,’ lodged the complaint with police on Oct. 11.
Const. Wendy Drummond confirmed Toronto police had received the complaint and were investigating the comments aired on Levant’s Sun News show, The Source, on Sept. 5.

An Oct. 15 statement from Roma Community Centre executive director Gina Csányi-Robah described Levant’s comments as “nearly nine minutes of on-air racist hate-speech targeting our community.” Early in Levant’s segment, “The Jew vs. the Gypsies,” he likened Gypsies with ‘swindlers,’ and said ‘too many have come here as false refugees.’ Levant attempted to qualify his comments by saying politically correct terms are being used to obscure the truth.

Csányi-Robah said called the comments “one of the longest and most sustained on-air broadcasts of hate-speech against any community in Canada that we’ve witnessed since our organization was established in 1997.”

Levant argued: “‘These are gypsies,’ he tells us, ‘a culture synonymous with swindlers. The phrase gypsy and cheater have been so interchangeable historically that the word has entered the English language as a verb: he gypped me. Well the gypsies have gypped us. Too many have come here as false refugees. And they come here to gyp us again and rob us blind as they have done in Europe for centuries. . . They’re gypsies. And one of the central characteristics of that culture is that their chief economy is theft and begging.” (Toronto Star, September 15, 2012)

Forget all the fog about “hate”: the only relevant question is whether what Levant said was true. Do Gypsy “refugees” — not all, of course — commit many crimes, especially theft and shoplifting? Even though our press tends to downplay immigrant crimes, or, as in a recant television news story about Gypsy gangs descending on stores to shoplift that identified the bizarrely dressed perpetrators as dressed in Eastern European costumes, there have been many reports of considerable criminality among the Gypsy “refugee” claimants, many who seem to hit the ground thieving not long after they land.

Even Bernie Farber former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, in a feverish denunciation of Ezra Levant, reluctantly admitted: “There will always be those who claim the Roma engage in lawlessness and crime. And in Europe, statistics do demonstrate a significant increase in theft by those living in Roma encampments. These numbers have been used by French authorities to justify large scale deportations of Roma.|” (National Post, September 25, 2012)

“The Canadian Border Services Agency is asleep at the wheel allowing more than 400 alleged Roma gypsies – many of whom have extensive criminal records – into the country and specifically the GTA, critics say.
This week, the Durham Regional Police Service confirmed they had arrested 34 people and laid 263 charges in the largest investigation of its kind in the region,” CNEWS reported (September 8, 2012)

.

“Former Conservative MPP Toni Skarica, an Ontario Crown Attorney who, speaking at a parliamentary committee, said Roma refugees from Hungary come to Canada because ‘we have the most generous welfare package for refugees in the world. That’s why they’re coming here, because they get the best deal here.’” (Toronto Star, September 15, 2012)

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has repeatedly denounced the wholesale welfare scamming being perpetrated by many Gypsy “refugee” claimants. And, as to Ezra Levant’s charge that many are phoney refugee claimants, that is the conclusion of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, which rejects the overwhelming number of claims. Think about it. Hungary is a democratic country and part of the European Union. If Gypsies felt persecuted in Hungary, they could move, let’s say to Germany. The rub is that, while they get welfare and many social benefits including housing in Hungary, most other European countries would require them to work. They would not get welfare. So, hey, head to Pollyanna Canada, say the magic “:refugee” word, scarf up welfare and other social services and maybe do a little bit of thieving on the side.

A healthy nation would not rely on political police to investigate “hate.” We should have a full debate. Let the complaining Gypsy leader Gina Csányi-Robah offer evidence that her people are not disproportionately involved in shoplifting Perhaps, she can bring forth evidence that the shoplifting is really being perpetrated by clever Icelanders in dark face, dressed up in “Eastern European folk costumes.”

A full 98 per cent of Gypsy refugee claims worldwide end up in Canada and the vast majority of these claims are abandoned or rejected.

The government is bringing in new legislation to limit Gypsy “refugee” claims. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney ” hopes to create a list of countries that generally don’t produce refugees, to make it easier for the Canada Border Services Agency to separate unfounded refugee claims from those that have merit. Hungary, where a bulk of Roma refugee claims come from – and from where the vast majority are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected – would be on that list. ‘Countries whose nationals have an acceptance rate of 25% or less, or where 60% or more of claimants from a country have abandoned or withdrawn their claims … would be subject to designation,’ he said.” (CNEWS, October 16, 2012).

Canadians seem to approve. They were asked: “Do you think the federal government should attempt to limit Roma refugee claims?”

An overwhelming 85.7% said yes; 10% said no; and 4% were not sure.”? (CNEWS, October 16, 2012).

Political Dissidents Treated More Harshly Than Traitors and Violent Criminals in Canada’s Criminal Justice System

Political Dissidents Treated More Harshly Than Traitors and Violent Criminals in Canada’s Criminal Justice System

Lina Wertmüller, born Arcangela Felice Assunta Wertmüller von Elgg Español von Braueich, is an Italian film director of aristocratic Swiss descent. A contemporary of Fellini’s, Wertmüller was the first female director to be nominated for an Academy Award (four of them, in fact) for her seminal 1975 movie, Seven Beauties. A typical Wertmüller vehicle, the film explores northern v. southern Italian class issues, politics (Wertmüller’s are guaranteed to offend everyone), love, machismo and an offbeat humour that makes you laugh out loud, in spite of yourself.

The film’s hapless protagonist is named Pasqualino Seven Beauties, for the seven sisters he feels obliged to marry off brilliantly for the sake of a much adored widowed mother. Dressed in linen, Pasqualino’s progress through the streets of his village is a sustained seduction of every female he encounters: This one is chucked under the chin, that is proffered a rose, a third is whirled round in a dance step. And the women adore him right back. But Pasqualino’s idyllic world comes off the rails in a stunning moment of reckoning — he sees with his own horrified eyes — his eldest sister performing in a burlesque review. The sister is huge; she has a prominent wen, a big nose and bigger jaw. Her stage attire is no-nonsense cantilevered vintage lingerie. Her grotesque stage routine nevertheless drives her male admirers wild with lust. The shame of it all blinds Pasqualino; he vows to kill her pimp.

He does so in one of film’s most memorably hilarious sequences; after almost insurmountable logistical problems, Pasqualino has finally portioned the dismembered body between three suitcases, when his burden arrests the attention of a passing seeing eye dog. After a really bad night, Pasquilino must now endure abuses from a blind man. We see Pasqualino later, as a felon. He encounters a fellow convict as they are transported to prison. Pasqualino boasts that he has received a sentence of 12 years for murder. His companion shrugs and replies that his sentence is set at forty years. Pasqualino gasps and says, “I killed a man in cold blood; I am an axe murderer. I dismembered a body and stuffed it into 3 suitcases destined for Rome, Padua and Brindisi. I’d have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for that dog. You might have heard of me, il monstro di Napoli? But 40 years – what on earth did you do??” His companion quietly says “I’m political.”

And so in Canada today.

Consider:

* Inveterate letter writer — 1,\0,000 in 2o years — Brad Love was charged with “hate” under Sec. 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code. Yet, despite the offer of the $250,000 surety of his parents’ house, he was unable to get bail on these non-violent charges.

* More recently, for a mere breach of probation charge (writing letters and sending an information package to four pubic Jewish groups having acquired their permission), Brad had to post $22,000 cash bail and the surety of $110,000 on his sister’s house. Yet, his lawyer remembered numerous gangbangers charged with attempted murder having gotten bail for under $100,000. It seems dangerous and dissenting ideas are treated more harshly than dangerous and deadly ACTIONS.

*Terry Tremaine, also charged under the notorious Sec. 319, for posting controversial views on STORMFRONT.org, under the name Mathdoktor99, and for posting his views on his own website — http://nspcanada.nfshost.com, also located in another country, was gagged from January, 2008 until just this September. He was not allowed to post on these or any “White supremacist” website. Note, he had not yet been tried, let alone found guilty of thought crimes. Finally, this September, Judge Frederick Kovach gave him back his freedom and tossed out the charges because of undue delay. But how can he regain these four years and eight months of enforced silence?

* Perhaps,.the most puzzling and egregious victim is Arthur Topham, like Terry Tremaine a victim of a Richard Warman complaint. In January, 2008, , he was raided, his computer and firearms taken by the RCMP’s British Columbia thought police, er “hate squad..” He was arrested and briefly jailed. To get out, he had to sign an “undertaking” to:

* Surrender his firearms;

* Not to post his political views on the Internet, especially on his freethinking, anti-Zionist radicalpress.com website;

* Not to communicate directly or indirectly with his tormentors, the complainants Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith, and Richard Warman

What so mind blowing about the Topham case is that he has not even been charged. We are still trying to get an explanation about how it is possible to extract an “undertaking” when no charge has been laid, let alone any wrongdoing proved. The RCMP is still “investigating” and the Crown has yet to get the consent of the British Columbia Attorney General for a “hate charged” against the freethinker in the Cariboo. So, Arthur has been silenced for over five months. Hes been denied his guns even though he lives in bear country and actively prospects for gold in Grizzly territory. It’s his livelihood.

Now, let’s consider a self-admitted Canadian traitor and spy. Sub.Lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle. this blob-faced employee of the Canadian Navy admits over a five year period to passing on a treasure trove of Canadian secrets for $3,000 a month to the Russians. These secrets were not only Canadian military secrets, but also secrets from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Privy Council, Transport Canada, the RCMP, and, most importantly, and most embarrassingly, secret intelligence from our allies. Our allies — the U.S., Britain and Australia — may be less likely to share or share fully intelligence with us. The result could be danger to Canadian soldiers in future missions and to Canadian citizens. He told interrogators “he sent over conve- rsations gleaned from electronic surveillance as well a ‘contact lists’ of intelligence officials.” (Globe and Mail, October 22, 2012)

So, what’s the damage assessment CSIS calls the result of Delisle’s admitted treachery “severe and irreparable.” The secretive Communications Security Establishment (CSE), which monitors electronic and radio communications in many other countries, assesses Delisle’s damage to them as “high.” The Navy’s trinity Centre in Halifax, where Delisle worked, rates the damage to the Canadian Armed forces as “astronomical.” The Department of National Defence terms his impact on them as “exceptionally grave.” (Globe and Mail, Ibid.)

And, yet, unlike Terry Tremaine or Arthur Topham, restricted and punished before ever being found guilty of anything, the already confessed spy who has done incalculable damage is given kid gloves treatment. The Globe and Mail (October 12, 2012) report: “SLt. Delisle will keep his rank and pay for now — at least until a judge delivers a guilty verdict [now scheduled for January, 2013.] His title earns him a monthly salary of about $5,00 to $5,700,” So, a confessed traitor and spy continues to collect salary and benefits, while an Internet dissident like Arthur Topham is stripped of his right to speak and the right to the weapons he needs to defend himself on the job.

The impenetrable Canadian “justice” system truly is an ass!

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Terry Tremaine Wins Another One & the CBC Can’t Get Its Facts Right

Terry Tremaine Wins Another One & the CBC Can’t Get Its Facts Right

The Truth: On Tuesday October 16, 2012 a breach (of bail conditions) charge dating from August 5, 2009 was stayed by a judge in Regina. Terry Tremaine was allegedly in breach of a bail undertaking because of a posting on STORMFRONT.org which supposedly was made on July 22, 2009. Under his bail conditions, Mr. Tremaine was not then to access the Internet, except to seek help in preparing his case. The night before he was to appear on a contempt of court charge in Regina, based on a complaint by Richard Warman, he posted his proposed statement of defence, seeking last minute advice from the STORMFRONT community. Because the Commission had never notified Mr. Tremaine that the Tribunal order had been registered in Federal Court and, thus, was now a Federal Court Order), they adjourned the proceedings sine die, without letting Mr. Tremaine know, the day before.

Mr. Tremaine’s bail conditions, however, stemmed from a “hate law” charge under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. dating from January 23, 2008. This charge, too, has been instigated by Richard Warman. Mr. Tremaine was charged with “breach of undertaking and jailed for 22 days in August, 2009, before he could obtain bail.

The breech charge was to be heard, October 16. However, on September 6, Court of Queen’s Bench Judge Frederick Kovach stayed the Sec. 319 “hate” charges. Thus, the “breech” charge became irrelevant.

The CBC story is a mine of bias and misinformation. It states: “A Regina judge has stayed a charge against Terry Tremaine, who was accused of continuing to post hate speech online in defiance of an order from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In 2007, the commission ordered Tremaine to stop posting anti-Jewish material on the Internet.” As already explained, the Regina judge didn’t clear Mr. Tremaine of defiance of a 2007 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (not Commission) order. The CBC’s garbled version understates the full ruthlessness of the bail condition. Mr. Tremaine was not enjoined from posting “hate speech”; he wasn’t allowed to post ANYTHING, except to seek assistance with his defence.

While we wish it were true, it is not, when the CBC reports: “With a stay of proceedings, Tremaine is no longer before the courts over the allegation of disobeying the commission’s order.” The CBC rightly identifies Richard Warman as the complainant behind the charge of contempt of court, or, as they put it, “disobeying a tribunal order.” That charged has not been stayed. Mr. Tremaine was acquitted in November 2010 of criminal contempt (against a Federal Court order) at the divisional level of Federal Court but was found guilty in September 2011 of civil contempt (against the Human Rights Tribunal’s order) at the Federal Appeals Court.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Richard Warman had appealed Federal Court Judge Sean Harrington’s decision acquitting Mr. Tremaine.The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal. So, the matter was returned to the divisional court for sentencing. The sentencing hearing on that matter occurred in Vancouver, October 9 and 10, and the presiding judge, Sean Harrington, has reserved judgment.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

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 Fall campaign for free speech across Canada.

__ Please activate my subscription for 2012 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______my VISA#________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

Terry Tremaine no longer facing charges over alleged online activity
CBC News
Posted: Oct 16, 2012 6:05 PM CST
Last Updated: Oct 16, 2012 7:58 PM CST
A Regina judge has stayed a charge against Terry Tremaine, who was accused of continuing to post hate speech online in defiance of an order from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

In 2007, the commission ordered Tremaine to stop posting anti-Jewish material on the Internet.

In 2009, Richard Warman — who initiated the complaint against Tremaine — said in an affidavit that Tremaine is disobeying the order and was, at that time, continuing to post material that advocates the extermination of the Jewish community and also attacks blacks and other non-whites.

With a stay of proceedings, Tremaine is no longer before the courts over the allegation of disobeying the commission’s order.

It is the second time this fall that a charge against Tremaine has been stayed.

In September a charge of promoting hatred was discontinued because the judge said the case took too long to get to trial.

Tremaine is a former math instructor for the University of Saskatchewan.

Anti-Zionist Publisher Arthur Topham Still Gagged After Five Months, Still No Charges Laid

Anti-Zionist Publisher Arthur Topham Still Gagged After Five Months, Still No Charges Laid
We do things a little differently in Canada. We don’t shoot dissidents in the streets or send them off to torture chambers. Still our political establishment, the police who serve (not you, silly, but) their political masters and protect (not you, silly, but) their pension plans, and the Zionist lobbyists who have pressed for and defended our anti-free speech laws find ways to throttle dissidents just the same.
Last week Canada Border Service Agency stopped Rev. Terry Jones who was on his way to Toronto to participate in a debate on Islam. Yes, he’d threatened to burn the Koran in protest against Islamic terrorism several years ago. CBSA resorted to goonery and legal knit-picking to send him packing. They tore his car apart for four hours — perhaps, the Reverend Sir had hidden a Bible. They invaded his laptop and cellphone. They then alleged he’d committed fraud fraud in Germany claiming to be a PH.D. The charge was later cleared when he explained to the German authorities that his doctorate was honourary.
In a country where politicians routinely lie — remember the B.C. Liberals promising no HST before the last election, then promptly doing a deal with the feds and bringing the HST in — this slight confusion seems remarkably petty. But, whatever, It served their purposes and Rev. Jones was kept out of the country,
Arthur Topham is a freethinker who for years published The Radical Press as a newspaper and, for the past few years, as a website. One of his key concerns has been Zionism. B’nai Brith activist Harry Abrams of Victoria brought a complaint under Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, with Marc Lemire’s stunning Victoria in September 2, 2009, get Sec. 13 declared effectively unconstitutional, the charges have been adjourned.
Still, Abrams and, apparently, arch complainer Richard Warman filed a complaint under Sec. 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code., the notorious “hate law.” In May, Arthur Topham’s home was raided, he was jailed, and his computer taken. He was forced to sign an undertaking — although no charges had been laid — not to write his views on the Internet, not to communicate directly or indirectly with Harry Abrams or Richard Warman, and to surrender his hunting rifles, even though he lives in and pursues placer mining in an area with a large bear population.
Mr. Topham reports that he has succeeded in getting his conditions modified a little. He needs your help. Here is a recent message slightly edited from Mr. Topham.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Arthur Topham, Publisher, RadicalPress.com
October 17, 2012
Now that the censors have lost their opportunity to jail Terry Tremaine for “hate crimes” it’s likely that they’ll be trying to nail me to the cross for this same phony, anti-democratic charge.
——–

I was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) back in May of this year. The charge that was alleged against me was what has now become the Zionist’s standard fare around the world for gaining control of free speech on the Internet – committing a “hate” crime.
As a result of these trumped up charges laid by two of Canada’s most notorious serial complainers – Richard Warman and Harry Abrams – I was put in jail and my home later invaded by the “BC Hate Crime Team” set up to track and destroy any dissidents who criticize either the Zionist ideology or the policies of the state of Israel) and all of my computers and electronic files taken by the said “Hate Crime Team” led by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and his second in command , Cst. Normandie Levas.

BC “HATE CRIME TEAM” Cst. Normandie Levas & Cst. Terry Wilson
Given that I was never formally charged by the Crown that didn’t stop “Captain Hate Crime” Wilson from arbitrarily imposing extremely severe restrictions on me before releasing me from prison. I was ordered not to go on the Internet or e-mail anyone other than those few individuals who I was working with in a private business venture.
Foremost was the order not to post any more articles on the web. The reason for this? Why, according to the police, to stop me from committing further offences. In other words I was already guilty of “crime” and, so, I had to be prohibited from committing more offences! But the real reason was to keep me quiet while the police were busy going through all of my private communications with friends and associates from around the world. I had thousands upon thousands of letters stored in my machine that the police were desperate to get a hold of and snoop into. So desperate in fact that they were willing to obtain an search warrant from a Judge based upon erroneous evidence in order to justify their actions.
After 911 the Zionist insiders were further able to have an additional clause added Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act,that draconian law, stating that it was a hate crime to post anything on the Internet that might hurt the feelings of the Zionists. It was that section of legislation, known as sec. 13, that was first used against me and my website RadicalPress.com back in the year 2007.
What followed was a five year quasi-legal battle with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its Tribunal. They wanted my website shut down in the worst way and heavy fines imposed on me and an order to prevent me from writing anything further on this criminal cartel that’s destroying world harmony.
Eventually, because of public outcry, the federal government of Canada on June 7th, 2012, voted to scrap this specious piece of Zionist legislation and the case against me was finally thrown out. However,with the pending repeal of Sec. 13,I was not the victim of a complaint under the Canadian Criminal Code using Section 319(2) which states, “Wilful promotion of hatred”. It was this charge that landed me in jail back in May and was responsible for the theft of all of my computers and files and the state (Crown) order to not post or go on the Internet.
Eventually my lawyer Doug Christie was able to have the conditions of my Undertaking altered so that now I can send e-mails to friends and associates but I am still not allowed to write articles and post them anywhere on the web. This is why I can now send you a letter explaining why I have not posted on my website or written to people for the last 6 months.
Now the most outlandish and scary aspect of this ordeal is that to date, one hundred and fifty-five days after my arrest, I still have not been charged formally with this offence! Yet, the police and the state have effectively silenced me and prohibited me from publishing anything at all.
Free speech: only in Canada you say? NOT BY A LONG SHOT!
I’m a senior citizen (65 years old) living on a very small pension). Anyone wishing to donate to help with my legal expenses can send funds to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. Canada
V2J 6T8
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
To donate via PayPal please go to the following website www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com and click on the PayPal button on the top right corner of the home page.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Vote

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

 

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

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

 

  • don’t know 3%; 422 votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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