Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland wanted individuals whose bank accounts had been frozen to be denied their cash until they reported to the police. The suggestion was not ultimately acted upon,
Is Canada becoming an illiberal democracy?
That description is typically associated with developing countries such as India, or recent democracies such as Hungary, where right-of-centre governments are accused by western observers of democratic backsliding and an illiberal turn. It’s ironic, then, that, by some measures, Canada, which we once assumed to be a bastion of liberal democracy, is becoming increasingly illiberal.
Sure, we have a government that is ostensibly centre-left and claims to have a “progressive” and “inclusive” agenda. Yet it was the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that invoked highly illiberal emergency powers during peacetime. This had only happened once before, under another Liberal government, led another Trudeau, during the October Crisis of 1970.
You would think that in a country in which many people, certainly many of the elites, profess liberal and progressive values, a lot of them would have been disturbed by last winter’s declaration of an emergency. Police forces acting under government orders broke up a peaceful protest in the nation’s capital, and the bank accounts of many innocent Canadians who participated in, or gave support to, the Freedom Convoy were frozen.
We recently learned through secret cabinet documents that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland wanted individuals whose bank accounts had been frozen to be denied their cash until they reported to the police. The suggestion was not ultimately acted upon, but was made public in a redacted document shared with the Public Order Emergency Commission.
What is even more alarming is that the major banks were apparently pleased with this suggestion. One financial institution, Farm Credit Canada, a Crown corporation that provides financial services primarily to farms, went so far as to tell its employees to proactively and secretly record the names of customers who they suspected may have been involved with the convoy, according to a Blacklock’s Reporter story based on documents provided through an access to information request. This sounds more like communist East Germany, than India or Hungary.
But it’s not just the liberal elite who seem to be giving up on liberal values in Canada. A recent poll by Innovative Research Group found that 51 per cent of Canadians surveyed said that they supported the use of the Emergencies Act, which is actually up two per cent since February.
This, despite revelations in the ongoing public inquiry, which fell within the polling period, that law enforcement officials at all levels did not believe that there was an imminent threat to Canada’s national security and that the protesters were not violent extremists, which demolishes the government’s stated rationale for its use of the Emergencies Act. It’s more than a little disturbing that more people actually support the emergency declaration after these revelations were made public.
Until not that long ago, Canada was, and was widely seen internationally, as a sane and pragmatic country, where rights and freedoms were protected, and encroached upon only when absolutely necessary, such as in the two world wars. While Pierre Trudeau’s use of emergency powers to round up a small group of separatists in Quebec has been debated, the overreach of all levels of government in dealing with the pandemic has been nothing short of astonishing.
Canada had the toughest restrictions in the advanced world, something that Justin Trudeau himself bragged about, and now, when the rest of the world is moving on, voices in Canada’s “liberal” elite are again fear-mongering and urging for fresh restrictions, such as a return to mandatory masking, with the threat of new vaccine mandates not officially disavowed by the federal government.
It’s noteworthy that much of the advanced world has been moving to the right, most recently Italy and Sweden, but Canada remains in thrall to a government driven by a leftist ideology that is among the most illiberal in the western world. How did the citizens of a country that proclaims itself the “true north strong and free” start accepting life under government diktat and the loss of our individual liberties?
Misinformation re: the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy GoFundMe.”Hear the interruptions by the chair, and the numerous “thank you for the question”.There are some similarities to the Ottawa hearings in how questions were answered, obfuscated, or avoided.
There is not as much information on the Internet as there should be for this important revisionist historian. But that’s the story of our time.
Walendy was born in Berlin on 21 January 1927. He died November 17 in the same city at the ripe age of 95. His best-known book is the classic Truth for Germany – The Question of Guilt for the Second World War, first published in 1964.
He served in the Reich Labor Service and then as a Luftwaffe helper as a teenager before being drafted into the Wehrmacht when he turned 18 in 1945. Walendy completed his secondary education after the war, then attended journalism school in Aachen. Between 1950 to 1956 he studied political science at the Hochschule für Politik in West Berlin, receiving a diploma (a degree in Germany). For the next ten years he was employed as the director of a folk high school (adult education) in Herford and as business leader of an employers association in Bielefeld. [Remember, he was associated with “undesireable” political views in post-war Germany.]
In 1965, Walendy independently founded the Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung (“Publishing House for Folklore and Contemporary Historical Research”) in Vlotho, which continues today under his wife Margarethe’s name. It maintains close contact with the Belgian revisionist organisation Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO).
Walendy as author and publisher
As early as 1964 he published his own book, Wahrheit für Deutschland – Die Schuldfrage des Zweiten Weltkriegs (Truth for Germany – The Question of Guilt for the Second World War), which in 1979 was listed by Germany’s ‘Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons’ as material that could not be publicly advertised or given to young readers. The sole reason was that it differed from the official history in the way it presented the events that led up to WWII. In other words, it didn’t put the full blame on the German Third Reich.
After a long legal battle. this restriction was lifted in 1994 on the grounds that Walendy’s constitutional rights (as an academic) had been violated.
Castle Hill Publishers (UK) republished an “updated, expanded and corrected,” and re-translated 2nd edition in 2014, under the title Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World. I personally don’t appreciated the change in title, so I don’t know if I would appreciate the new translation either. But since it’s probably an attempt to increase the book’s readership in today’s world, and since Udo Walendy must have given his permission, and I don’t intend to study and compare the two versions, my cursory opinion is irrelevant.
Walendy’s historical revisionist magazine series Historische Tatsachen (Historical Facts), continues to be published by the Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO) in Flanders. It began in 1974 with a translation of Richard Harwood’s booklet “Did Six Million Really Die?”.
Walendy was also responsible for the German translation of Arthur Butz’s ground-breaking book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which shed a shining light on so much of the faulty, often concocted, “evidence” for the “Holocaust.”
Udo Walendy was imprisoned in 1999 for fifteen months for “publicly questioning the Holocaust” under Germany’s Volksverhetzung law (incitement to hatred).
We’ve now lost one of the best of the German patriots, who continued to fight throughout all these years, sacrificing personal material ambitions and comfort in the interests of justice and truth for the nation he loved. A true fighter. Herzlichen Dank, Udo Walendy. — Carolyn Yeager
Deceit, Lies, Propaganda & Journalism in the World Wars by Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review
This information-packed broadcast dissects lies and deceit from the two world wars. Fantastic stories about German atrocities in World War I were promoted to mobilize public opinion in the US, Britain and France, and the public was kept in ignorance about the scope and horror of the fighting. One of the wars most lurid and widely-circulated atrocity tales was the story that the Germans were boiling the bodies of dead soldiers to extract glycerin for munitions. In World War II, Allied spinmeisters portrayed the disastrous British evacuation of Dunkirk as a great success. It was only years later that the legend of the miracle of Dunkirk was deflated. Another durable Allied propaganda myth was the story of merciless German bombing of the English city of Coventry. Churchill was eager to escalate the killing to enrage American public opinion, and thereby encourage US entry into the war on Britain’s side. For that reason, it was the British, not the Germans, who first began indiscriminate bombing of civilians. As historian Phillip Knightley points out, German news reports about the war were generally more accurate and reliable than those of the Allies
We Must Insist on Politicians Who Loudly Support Free Speechp
FILE – U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., speaks about Twitter, April 28, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. On Monday July 25, 2022, a judge in Atlanta has rejected an appeal by a group of voters and affirmed the Georgia secretary of state’s decision that U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is eligible to run for reelection. The voters said she played a big role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and was therefore ineligible for reelection. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
On Saturday, November 19, Toronto White Lives Matter commemorated the Holodomor — the genocide by deliberate starvation of 8-10-million Ukrainians 1932-1933 by Stalin’s communists.
Hi everyone. Up until now, Sarah has diligently picked up the new editions of Druthers each month for people to distribute. CLEAR has been actively involved in distributing these weekly in Kelowna, with the assistance of wonderful volunteers.
HELP!!
Sarah needs someone to pick up the Druthers from the Diamond delivery depot at 2805 Acland Rd, Kelowna
Around the first week of each month.
We need someone to pick them up now, in November and drop them off at Sarah’s place.
Can you please help? Delivery of Druthers is critical to supporting freedom in British Columbia and provides Canadians with unprecedented information and articles that MSM simply won’t touch!
Please email us at: clear2012@pm.me if you can help pick them up. There will be about 200 bundles, with 100 to a bundle.
Thank you!
————————————–
PM Trudeau – is under mind control
See his response to an unscripted question. At all times, watch his eyes – he is definitely under mind control; and listen to his answers – either someone is telling him what to say via an ear piece or some form of telepathy/mind control (see MK Ultra), or he is reading from a script somewhere to a question that was not expected and thus he did not have a prepared answer.
We need a truly independent inquiry – not some committee where the arbitrator is appointed and the terms and conditions set out by the Prime Dictator of Canada.
Many myths and much disinformation have circulated for
years about our common law, our Constitution, our rights and freedoms, and other important topics.
This incredible Webinar series will finally provide irrefutable documentation confirming the true source of our property rights and the supremacy of God in our Constitution – and why we should be thankful they are NOT in the Charter!!
If you want answers to what your common law and Constitutional rights and freedoms are
Definitions and applications of the most important words in our law
Where your Constitutional right and power of civil disobedience to all unlawful statutes and orders originates
How Gov’ts and judges use “legal fictions” to steal your fundamental rights and freedoms from you
What limited rights, powers, and duties Gov’ts truly have
And much, much more…this is the Webinar series you have been waiting for!
We provide all sources of our research for verification purposes!!
By registering to this Webinar series, you will have
downloadable access to each presentation you have registered to watch!
All webinars have a password that is provided to you to access each show you wish to receive, or if you register for the series, all webinars.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau said in a statement that he intends to hold the government to account and wants the inquiry to be as “open and transparent” as possible.
Hearings will be livestreamed online and members of the public will have opportunities to share their views, with a final report expected early next year. For live streaming, see:
Recently it has been announced that as of Oct. 6, merchants will be allowed to charge customers a fee for paying by credit cards.
The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash.
Withdraw money on Sunday from the bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.
NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!
USE CASH!!!
————————————–
Hands-on Help!!!
Each Sunday, for as long as we can, we are delivering Druthers/Pandemic Papers Publications, including CLEAR rally cards and other important inserts such as our Masks/PCR brochure, and the recently released UNITY Health & Sciences brochure, for door-to-door delivery to all the mail boxes in Kelowna
See these inserts below
Though labour intensive, the outings are enjoyable and productive
But we need YOUR help!
There is simply no other way we can reach so many people who have believed the Gov’t/MSM narrative/lies
Join us each Sunday by signing the CLEAR Newspaper Delivery Sign Up Sheet at the CLEAR table & providing your EMAIL address to Linda & Nikki.
We need about 8-10 people to deliver about 100 flyers each – only about 90 min.
Each Sunday we will meet at a specified location to be announced by email on Saturday night. Start times will be 11:30 a.m.
Many recipients continue to thank us for delivering these to their doorsteps!
Contact Unity Health & Sciences Team to volunteer to distribute their professional brochures and Medical Doctor Packages throughout your home area, and to your medical doctor!
Not every doctor, analyst, and specialist is on the gov’t side and many have strong science and personal experiences opposing the gov’t narrative.
Even though COVID-19 restrictions are, for the most part, no longer in effect, other freedom issues have arisen as gov’ts use the cover of COVID-19 to introduce other more formidable liberty restrictions, including privacy violations.
Freedom is a multi-generational struggle – our legacy is to leave a better place for our children, not simply to quit after an issue appears to be over and anger diminishes; and of course, it rarely is truly over.
We urge you to provide designs (clear2012@pm.me) and/or your own signs for upcoming threats, including Digital ID
RCMP member sent on unpaid leave writes this powerful letter you must read
————————————–
We will not be locking down over RSV which has a 0.0000047% death rate. This is nowhere near an emergency.
You will not mask us, you will not quarantine. You will not keep kids out of school. NEVER AGAIN. -Human Rights Attorney, Lee Dundas pic.twitter.com/iyqcO1xXHG
[Richard Warman, a board member of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network sued journalists Jonathan Kay & Barbara Kay, seeking $25,000 & $10,000 for tweets suggesting CAHN assisted violent Antifa and that Warman uses lawsuits to silence critics. Warman lost big time with costs to be decided. It’s fascinating to learn that a grant of $25,000 from the malodorous Southern Poverty Law Centre helped set up CAHN. CAHN has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from theCanadian taxpayer and $500,000 in 2020 from the Bank of Montreal. CAHN has been a loud proponent of censorship. In a taxpayer-funded booklet to combat “hate” in schools, it makes the ludicrous claim that the Red Ensign is a hate symbol. — Paul Fromm]
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE OTTAWA SMALL CLAIMS COURT
OVERVIEW [1] This was a claim for $25,000.00 against Jonathan Kay and $10,000.00 against Barbara Kay, for defamation and loss of reputation. [2] The alleged defamatory communication relating to Jonathan Kay was from a hyperlinked article he tweeted on November 12, 2019, titled: “Ant-hate Southern Poverty Law Center Partner Funds Violent Canadian Antifa” [3] On November 12, 2019, Jonathan Kay wrote and/or printed words alleged to be defamatory including: November 12, 2019 @Jonkay “really unsettling. Why wd an “anti hate” group like @antihateca be supporting antifa thugs? Few years back, u could make a case that many antifa members really opposed rt wing extremism, but antifa has now just become a hate cult engaged in street violence”. [image] “Anti-Hate Southern Poverty Law Center Funds Violent Antifa It shouldn’t be a big demand for left-wing groups to disavow Antifa violence and certainly not to partner with the movement or its supporting organizations. The federalist.com Exhibit 1, Tab 3
[4] A further communication tweeted by Jonathan Kay January 25, 2020, reads: “great @c2cjournal piece on the race-hustling at @antihateca, which scares its donors with exaggerated fearmongering, & pushes censorship. Also notes CAHN’S de facto support for antifa, a street gang & dox shop that exudes the same hate CAHN claims to fight [sic]”. [5] The alleged defamatory communication relating to Barbara Kay was from a hyperlinked article she tweeted on November 12, 2019, titled: “Ant-hate Southern Poverty Law Center Partner Funds Violent Canadian Antifa” [6] On November 12, 2019, Barbara Kay wrote and/or printed words alleged to be defamatory including: November 12, 2019 @BarbaraRKay “Not a good look for @antihateca in this article. [image] “Anti-Hate Southern Poverty Law Center Funds Violent Antifa It shouldn’t be a big demand for left-wing groups to disavow Antifa violence and certainly not to partner with the movement or its supporting organizations. The federalist.com
[7] The defendants raise the following defences: a) The impugned publications are not defamatory of the plaintiff (“Warman”) b) Justification of lesser meanings
c) Fair Comment d) Qualified Privilege e) Lack of Malice f) Lack of Damages g) Republication h) s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43
FACTS Parties [8] Warman is a lawyer and at the material time, a volunteer board member of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (“CAHN”). [9] Jonathan Kay (“Jonathan”) at the material time was a journalist with the Twitter handle “@jonkay”, and Barbara Kay (“Barbara”) was at the material time a columnist at the National Post and had a Twitter handle “@BarbaraRKay”. Publication/Endorsement [10] On November 12, 2019, Jonathan communicated the content referred to, supra, through his Twitter account and the text included a hyper link: https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/119463849796280296
[11] On January 25, 2020, Jonathan Kay published the tweet referred to, supra.
[12] On November 12, 2019, Barbara communicated the content referred to, supra, through her Twitter account and the text included a hyper link: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRKay/status/119426470236223 48880
[13] Notice of Libel was served on the defendants on November 22, 2019.
ISSUES [14] A) Defamation – were the impugned tweets defamatory. Did they contain allegations against Warman that would lower him in the estimation of reasonable people or cause him to be regarded with hatred, fear, or dislike? B) Justification – were the words substantially true. What were the tweets in their natural and ordinary meanings meant or understood to mean? C) Fair comment – Did the tweets consist of expressions of opinion, on matters of public interest. Did the defendants honestly hold those opinions? D) Qualified privilege – were the tweets published in good faith. Did the defendants honestly believe they were fair and accurate and related to maters of public interest? E) Malice – did the defendants believe what they published to be true. Was their belief reasonably held and did they act reasonably in expressing their views? F) Damages – If the words were defamatory, did Warman suffer actual injury or damage to his reputation? G) Strategic lawsuit against public participation – Do the Charter or the Courts of Justice Act offer a defence?
EVIDENCE Richard Warman General [15] Warman is a lawyer, a Judge Advocate General reservist, and has been involved with human rights issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where he was formerly employed, filing 16 successful complaints against neo-Nazis, and white supremacist groups and individuals over the last 20 years. [16] Warman is a well-known public speaker on human rights and anti-racist activism. And a recipient of numerous awards and honors for his human rights advocacy. Exhibit 2, Tabs 4-5 [17] In 2018 the Canadian Anti Hate Network (CAHN”) was formed by three individuals, Bernie Farber, Evan Balgord and Amira Al – Ghawaby. Their website was active from about July of that year. [18] The non-profit corporation started with a budget of $25,000 from the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”), though there was no formal alliance between them. [19] CAHN’S mandate was to educate the public with respect to hate groups and counter the activities of those hate groups. [20] Warman joined CAHN’s board in 2018. He provided direction to the executive director Balgord, the only paid member, helped obtain funding, and dealt with legal issues as well. His role was coordinating anti racist and anti-fascist movements. [21] Numerous articles including ones from the Canadian Jewish News, the CAHN website, and news articles identify Warman as a CAHN board member from August 2, 2018, to September 2019.
[22] In 2019 a peace bond was issued under s.810 of the Criminal Code against Kevin Goudreau, a member of the Canadian Neo – Nazi movement, for threats against CAHN . The bond named Warman, as part of CAHN. Exhibit 1 – Tab 17 [23] Warman’s work was positively received and resulted in medals for good citizenship; a sovereign volunteer medal; and a Queen’s diamond medal, and an Ottawa Citizen article asking, “is this the bravest man in Canada?” [24] Warman testified that he was on a “hit list” for racists and white supremacists; was criticized by those opposed to legal controls on hate speech; and, generally, was opposed by those holding “libertarian” views. [25] Warman dealt with them by disabusing them, engaging with them, ignoring them if possible, or issuing libel actions against them. His reputation for integrity and honesty is crucial to his work as a lawyer and advocate for human rights. [26] Warman admitted he has received no serious threats in the last 5 years and that the impugned tweets haven’t exacerbated the situation. [27] He still is portrayed positively in mainstream media and has no knowledge of anyone concluding that he personally funds hate groups, which he testified he does not do, nor has he encouraged violence. [28] In cross examination, Warman was referred to a Maclean’s magazine article by Charlie Gillis regarding s13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Warman’s use of that section, which required no intent; did not have truth as a defence; and discouraged legitimate free speech. Warman brought more complaints to the CHRC than anyone else.
[29] After a Warman sent a libel notice to a library, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association got involved resulting ultimately in the repeal of s13. The National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Globe and Mail, Law Times and the Canadian Lawyer all did articles on Warman and his involvement with s13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
2008 Libel action against Jonathan Kay and the National Post [30] In February 2018, Jonathan published an article on the National Post website alleging that Warman manufactured his own hate material, and that there was a phony racism industry in Canada. Exhibit 1, Tab 9, p 62/113 [31] Warman then commenced a libel action which was settled. The National Post apologized and retracted the post. November 12, 2019, Tweets [32] Neither Warman nor CAHN had any contact with the defendants before the November 12, 2019, tweets which Warman considered defamatory in that he believed they conveyed the message that he personally funded antifa. [33] Warman admitted in cross examination that he had no knowledge if the impugned tweets were liked, retweeted, commented on and admitted the tweets never went “viral”. [34] Warman did not e-mail Jonathan regarding the November 12, 2019, tweet but instead retained counsel who gave Notice of Libel to the defendants on November 21, 2019. Exhibit 1, Tabs 7,8, page 5/113 [35] Warman contacted The Federalist in December 2019 seeking a retraction since their article was based on an earlier Huffington Post article wrongly alleging the source of funding for Antifa. Exhibit 1, Tab 4, page 38
[36] Although Warman received no response to his December 2, 2019, e-mail, the Federalist did change the article, though not in a manner satisfactory to Warman. Warman never sent a libel notice nor commence an action against the Federalist. Exhibit 8 [37] This action was then commenced in January 2020.
Steven Rogers [38] Rogers is an expert in digital forensics, gave evidence on behalf of Warman regarding the impugned tweets, and filed a report dated January 25, 2020. Exhibit 1 – Tab 18, pages 37/176 [39] Rogers gave evidence as to the number of followers the defendants had but was unable to say how many of those followers saw the tweets and whether those tweets went “viral”. He gave no evidence that any of the tweets were “pinned”. Jonathan Kay General [40] Jonathan is a journalist and has written for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the National Post, Al Jazeera, and the Canadian Jewish News. He also worked with the New Yorker, Harper, and the Walrus. [41] Kay describes himself as an activist working for social justice causes, and a public intellectual who rejects all ideological extremism. His first employment was in Montreal in 1995 working with Irwin Cotler, a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and a well-known human rights advocate.
[42] Jonathan is Jewish, and his father fled the USSR, so he is mindful of the dangers of extremism from both the left and right wings of the ideological spectrum. [43] Jonathan was not aware of Warman except for his activity commencing litigation or using s13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to act against hate groups. He was aware of the 2008 Macleans magazine article entitled “Righteous Crusader or Civil Rights Menace” Exhibit 3 – Tab 6 2008 Libel Action [44] In 2008 Jonathan wrote an article for the National Post describing the admonishment received by Warman from the Human Right Tribunal regarding his infiltrating the Northern Alliance by posing as a neo-Nazi. Exhibit 1, Tab 9 [45] Jonathan relied on expert testimony from Bernard Klatt, believing him to be an expert witness, for the article, which testimony was in part inaccurate. The article was retracted on February 20, 2008. Exhibit 2, Tab 2 [46] Notwithstanding the retraction, Warman still sued the National Post and Jonathan, seeking an apology which Warman described as an antidote to defamation. The action was settled before trial. [47] Jonathan was aware of CAHN, which was led by Bernie Farber, who Jonathan knew for over twenty years, and who Jonathan considered a “good egg” . Jonathan was positively disposed both to Farber and CAHN since Farber was a leader of the Canadian Jewish Congress and fought racism from both the left and right.
[48] Jonathan was unaware of anyone else but Farber as a part of CAHN and did not know Warman was with CAHN until he was served with the libel notice. He was aware of a May 8, 2018, CBC article profiling CAHN but testified that the article made no mention of Warman. Exhibit 6 [49] Jonathan was aware of Antifa and its activities and described its earlier messaging as “benign”. However, subsequent YouTube videos taken of antifa demonstration were described by Jonathan as violent, thuggish, destructive of property and not all about “peace and love”.
November 12, 2019, tweets [50] Jonathan referred to a CAHN article by the CEO Balgord dated September 20, 2017, as an apologist tract for Antifa, describing the need for “physical disruption” to get their message across. Exhibit 3, Tab 9
[51] A Quillette article (Jonathan was an editor) about Columbia’s Journalism dated June 18, 2019, described Antifa as violent and advocating violence to effect change. The article described what happened to Andy Ngo, a friend of Jonathan’s, who was a 5’2” gay Vietnamese conservative journalist covering Antifa activity in Portland Oregon when he was badly beaten by Antifa members, described by Jonathan as “thugs”. Exhibit 5, Tab 32; Exhibit 2, Tab 8 [52] Jonathan described numerous instances where Antifa used intimidation, violence and generally mimicked fascist group activities in Portland, Oregon, and Hamilton Ontario and, for example, screamed at an elderly woman at a town hall event in October 2019, where they tried to block a speaker, Maxime Bernier, and called her “Nazi scum” . Exhibit 5, Tabs 3-6, Tab 31
[53] Jonathan attributed the Federalist article to Bernie Farber and was disappointed that Farber, whom he had great respect for, praised “muscular resistance” (balaclavas and pipes) and felt that CAHN only called out right wing hate mongers. He felt betrayed by Farber. Exhibit 1, Tab 4
[54] Regarding the impugned November 12, 2019, tweet, Jonathan was upset that instead of ratcheting down the culture war and divisiveness, Farber was devoting his own voice and CAHN’s to promoting Antifa, and getting government funding for his efforts, while few Canadians knew about Antifa’s street violence. Exhibit 1, Tab 3
[55] Jonathan testified that he “tagged” or sub tweeted CAHN, so they had notice of the tweet. He was blocked from contacting CAHN directly. The tweet was about CAHN’s organization and was the institutional extension of Farber’s stature. [56] Jonathan had no problem with any private individual supporting Antifa but institutions like CAHN supporting Antifa give it public approbation and signals approval – a very valuable currency. [57] Jonathan had no interest in Warman, said nothing about Warman in any tweet and had no interest in any issues between the Federalist , Huffington Post and Warman. He testified that e thought only of Bernie Farber ad Evan Balgor as being connected with CAHN. [58] As to the tweet itself, Jonathan testified it “dropped like a stone”, there was no image of any likes , retweets, comments , nor was the tweet “pinned” so it would always be on top of Jonathan’s tweets, so there was very little dissemination. He deleted the tweet but doesn’t know whether that was before or after receiving the Notice of Libel.
January 25, 2020, tweet [59] Regarding the second impugned tweet, dated Jan 25, 2020, Jonathan was concerned with what he described as “race hustling”, and cancel culture pushing censorship. Exhibit 1, Tab 11 [60] Jonathan contacted a CAHN board member, Professor Perry, who counted 300 right wing extremist groups in Canada, which became a media story attracting the attention of the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, seeking the names of the groups. The disclosure was never provided. Exhibit 3, Tab 24, Tab 15 [61] Jonathan’s concern was that CAHN was stirring up the idea of apocalyptic threat and calling out right wing but not left wing hate groups. He referred to CAHN articles describing how to find local Antifa chapters and referring to an international Antifa defence fund Exhibit 4, Tab 3, Exhibit 7 [62] Jonathan testified that Warman had a reputation as a litigation enthusiast and is now prominent on the CAHN website, so he has suffered no diminution in reputation . [63] Jonathan did not offer an apology regarding his tweets because none referred to Warman; CAHN was and is still a partisan organization; and, finally, in 2008 when Jonathan and the National Post did retract the impugned article, Warman still sued anyway. Barbara Kay General [64] Barbara testified that she was a journalist for over 22 years and had a lifelong interest in writing about human rights, cancel culture and antisemitism.
[65] Barbara is a self-described “classic liberal” championing individual (as opposed to state’s) rights, due process, freedom of speech, and conscience, and is most concerned with left wing as opposed to right wing antisemitism, since right wing antisemitism has no institutional support. [66] Her concerns are with universities exercising “cancel culture” and repressing free speech. [67] Barbara had a positive impression of Bernie Farber until he got “woke” and, as the voice of the Jewish community, was ignoring left wing antisemitism.
Knowledge of Warman and CAHN [68] Barbara was only aware of Warman’s impersonating fascists and using s13 of the CHRA and suing “small potatoes” and believed he was using libel chill to compel respect. She had no knowledge of any connection with CAHN. [69] Barbara read the Federalist article and sent her tweet the same day it was published. She was concerned with Farber’s praising “muscular resistance” and was unaware that Warman was a CAHN board member. She thought that Farber was CAHN and CAHN was Farber. November 12, 2019, tweet [70] Barbara had used that expression “not a good look” many times before the impugned tweet. Her concern was that an anti-hate group was endorsing antifa which was not a good look for a respectable organization. Exhibit 1, Tab 3 [71] Her testimony was that she believed it was in the public interest to know about that support, and that CAHN could do better. As a journalist her duty was “see something, say something”.
[72] Barbara’s testified that she wanted CAHN to fight antisemitism and wanted their reputation to be good. She believed a government funded organization should do better and live up to its name. [73] As to Warman, Barbara testified that his reputation is flourishing, and that his “brand” is as a human rights lawyer, not as any representative of CAHN. She did not contact CAHN regarding the federalist article or her tweet since she was blocked from contacting CAHN.
ANALYSIS Were the tweets defamatory [74] The plaintiff submits the impugned tweets lowered Warman’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person given his association with, and as a board member of, CAHN. [75] The Kays submit that the tweets did not refer to Warman personally, only to CAHN, and further submit that they did not republish the article on the Federalist website which did name Warman. [76] The evidence was that Warman did not run CAHN; was not its most identifiable or visible member; and was often unable to be a part of CAHNs activities due to conflicts of interest with his work with the Judge Advocate General, in cases involving federal parties and politics and the armed forces. [77] Warman’s reputation among those following human rights issues was as a human rights lawyer, not a principal of CAHN. The evidence was that Bernie Farber and Evan Balgord were much more publicly seen as the alter ego of CAHN, and neither has sued the Kays.
[78] The plaintiff has not proven, on a balance of probability, that the impugned tweets would lead a reasonable person to believe they referred to Warman. While they could refer to Warman, they did not actually refer to him and, as found, supra, he was not CAHN’s alter ego nor was he CAHN’s sole actor, or even its primary actor. [79] Defamation of CAHN does not constitute defamation of Warman. Warman has failed to prove, on a balance of probability, that he was “the face” of CAHN, or it’s alter ego, and although a reference to CAHN could refer to Warman, that is not sufficient in law to constitute defamation of Warman. Foulidis v Ford 2012 ONSC 7189 [80] The Kays evidence was that they both saw Bernie Farber as the chair of CAHN; the face of CAHN and its most prolific member because he was the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress. [81] They did not have Warman in mind as part of CAHN when they published their tweets, and their evidence was that they did not even know Warman was a CAHN board member until served with Notice of Libel. [82] Articles published in 2018 on CBC and TVO refer to Farber as the founder of CAHN and refer to Evan Balgord as a co-founder. Neither mention Warman. At the time of the impugned tweets, November 2019, CAHN had more than 15 members. It was not a minor organization, and its identity was not the same as any board member. Exhibit 3, Tab 10; Exhibit 6 [83] Farber’s Wikipedia page refers to Farber running the Canadian Anti Hate Network with Evan Balgord. There is no mention of Warman. Warman’s Wikipedia page does not refer to his role as a CAHN board member. Exhibit 3, Tab 22, page 227; Exhibit 5, Tab 24
[84] Neither CAHN , Farber, Balgord nor other CAHN board members sued the Kays, and Warman did not sue the Federalist nor the C2C Journal, the Canadian publication which published the article referred to in the 2020 tweet. [85] Warman admitted in cross exam that a person reading the impugned tweets may not have associated them with him, and in fact gave no evidence that anyone reading the tweets believed they were about him. [86] Warman did submit that the Federalist article headlined in the tweet referred to him and was defamatory, but he also testified that he wrote the Federalist asking them to remove the allegations about him personally funding violent Antifa groups in the body of the article (which they apparently did) and did not seek to have them change the headline nor remove other allegations referring to CAHN. Exhibit 8 [87] The headline/sub headline of the tweets criticize CAHN policy but do not refer to any individual, and any person would therefore have to read the article itself to understand the tweets or headline. The ordinary meaning of the tweets and headlines is that CAHN provides material assistance to Antifa, not that Warman personally funds violent groups. [88] The Kays did not republish the Federalist article by simply linking to it, and Warman’s name appears only in the article, not the headline or sub headline. This does not constitute a repeat or republication of the defamatory content. Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269 [89] I find therefore that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proving on a balance of probability that the defendants’ words referred to him and were defamatory of him.
[90] Even if the impugned tweets were defamatory, which I have found has not been proven, the Kays have raised defences which would shift the onus to Warman to prove malice on the part of the Kays, or either of them.
Fair Comment [91] The public has an interest in the fight against hate crime in Canada and the parties involved in that fight, including CAHN and Antifa. [92] The Kays both gave evidence of their longstanding activism regarding human rights and antisemitism and their tweets comment on the fact that the Federalist and C2C Journal articles both allege that CAHN supports or assists the Antifa movement. [93] Warman’s evidence was that he and CAHN were part of the Antifa movement; Farber has praised their muscular resistance; and Balgord referred to Antifa’s use of physical disruption. Exhibit 1, Tab 4; Exhibit 3, Tabs 8, 9 [94] The Kays evidence, which I accept, was that Warman was not the subject of their tweets – they were unaware that he was a CAHN board member at the relevant times – and that Farber and CAHN were the subjects since Farber was well known, particularly within the Jewish community, and CAHN had influence as a partly government funded Canadian organization. [95] I find therefore that it has not been proven, on a balance of probability, that the opinions which were the subject of the impugned tweets were dominantly motivated by malice. [96] I accept the Kays’ evidence that they reasonably believed their opinions to be accurate, and find that there was insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probability, that there was a reckless disregard for the truth.
Justification [97] The evidence disclosed that CAHN did in fact assist Antifa and that the movement has been violent. The Kays submission, which I accept, is that a human rights network like CAHN arguably (except in the most extreme circumstances) should not support a violent movement, and to do so, to most reasonable observers, would not be a “good look”.
Qualified privilege [98] The defendants have not proven, on a balance of probability, that the recipients of the impugned tweets had an interest or duty to receive them. The test is objective – i.e., it is not whether the Kays believed the recipients (which include, in the case of tweets, the world at large) but whether they were necessary to discharge the duty giving rise to the privilege. [99] The case cited by the defendants regarding the application of qualified privilege to tweets, which is under appeal, is not applicable here. There was no moral nor professional duty on the Kays as there was in the medical doctor in the Gill decision. Gill v Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279
DAMAGES [100] Although there was no evidence led as to reputational damage; the impugned tweets were “dud” and did not go “viral”; the first tweet was deleted prior to the Notice of Libel being served; and there was no publication of the Federalist article which was considered by Warman to be the most defamatory, general damages are presumed in a defamation case.
[101] While Warman is well known as a righteous crusader against white supremacy and right-wing racist hate and has been recognized and appropriately lauded for his work, he is also a controversial figure and I accept the evidence of the Kays that he has used litigation to silence or intimidate those he sees as his critics, or who oppose his methods of prosecuting hate groups. [102] I also accept the Kays’ evidence as to why no apology was made given that Jonathan Kay was still sued after the National Post retracted its article and apologized for its inaccuracy, in 2008. [103] Finally, I accept the evidence of the Kays that no apology was warranted where neither of them referred to Warman in their tweets and did not in fact even have him in mind when they published them. [104] Had Warman succeeded in this action against the Kays, I would therefore have awarded nominal damages in the amount of $5,000 against Jonathan Kay and $500 against Barbara Kay whose tweet was far less recognizable and damaging to Warman.
AWARD [105] Having regard to all the above, and in recognizing the importance of maintaining open debate on matters of public interest, while being mindful that although freedom of expression is to be protected, it is not a “get out of jail free card” for those exceeding reasonable limits, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
COSTS [106] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, each party has 10 days from the release of these reasons to serve and file cost submissions, not to exceed 3 typed pages excluding a Bill of Costs, together with copies of any offers made pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, which would impact costs
21
Dated at Ottawa this 9th day of November 2022. David Dwoskin Deputy Judge D. Dwoskin
Walendy was born in Berlin on 21 January 1927. He died November 17 in the same city at the ripe age of 95. His best-known book is the classic Truth for Germany – The Question of Guilt for the Second World War, first published in 1964.
As early as 1964 he published his own book, Wahrheit für Deutschland – Die Schuldfrage des Zweiten Weltkriegs (Truth for Germany – The Question of Guilt for the Second World War), which in 1979 was listed by Germany’s ‘Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons’ as material that could not be publicly advertised or given to young readers. The sole reason was that it differed from the official history in the way it presented the events that led up to WWII. In other words, it didn’t put the full blame on the German Third Reich.
(subject to change without notice!!! Lol – dress warm – NO SNOW!!!!)
