Monthly Archives: February 2013

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

Posted on by

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Posted on by

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Please charge ______my VISA#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

Posted on by

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

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

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

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

 

 

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

Canadians, Contact Your Senator About Bill C-34: Let’s Get a Move On!

Posted on by
Canadians, Contact Your Senator About Bill C-304: Let’s Get a Move On!

What ever happened to Bill C-304? That was the private member’s bill passed last June abolishing Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It passed the House of Commons last June, went to the Senate and just seemed to disappear. For this totalitarian piece of political correctness to disappear it must pass the Senate and then receive Royal Consent (the latter a formality). We get the feeling that the human wrongs crowd has some friends in the Red Chamber.
CAFE spoke to the office of Sen.  Bob Runciman, who chairs the Senate Justice Committee, on Friday February 1. The bill is currently before the Senate for second reading. The Senate doesn’t have the tight agenda that the Commons does. Thus, any Senator may speak on any agenda item on a given date. Sen. Runciman’s office said a number of senators still seem to want to speak to the bill before it gets sent on to committee for clause by clause study and, then, third and final reading. The Senate sponsor of the bill is Sen.  Doug Finley. (finled@sen.parl.gc.ca) Bill C-304 is on the agenda for February 5,opening day of the post-Christmas session: “Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Finley, seconded by the Honourable Senator Frum, for the second reading of Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). —(Honourable Senator Kinsella) Apparently, it was last discussed on June 27!
It’s time to nudge the senators to pass this bill at second reading, send it on to committee and, then, give it third and final reading.
Below are the e-mails of almost all of the Canadian senators. As well, there is a link to the list of senators, if you particularly want to target your own province’s senators or to find the FAX or snail mail address to send a letter.
Please act immediately.
Paul Fromm
Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca., harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca, , , maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, atauls@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, belled@sen.parl.gc.ca, boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca, braled@sen.parl.gc.ca, brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca, brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca, buthjo@sen.parl.gc.ca, callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca, campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca, carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca, dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca, champa@sen.parl.gc.ca, chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca, mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca, dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca, coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca, cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca, cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dagenj@sen.parl.gc.ca, dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca, debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca, eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca, envert@sen.parl.gc.ca, finled@sen.parl.gc.ca, fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca, frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca., harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca, joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca, kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca, kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca, langd@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca, martin@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcintp@sen.parl.gc.ca, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca, merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca, meredd@sen.parl.gc.ca, mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca, mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca, ngoth@sen.parl.gc.ca, neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca, nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, patted@sen.parl.gc.ca, plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca, rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca, poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca, runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca, setha@sen.parl.gc.ca, sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithlw@sen.parl.gc.ca, stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca, stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca, tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, ungerbe@sen.parl.gc.ca, vernej@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca, wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca, wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, whitev@sen.parl.gc.ca,  maltag@sen.parl.gc.ca,

Andreychuk, RaynellRaynell Andreychuk Conservative Saskatchewan 01993-03-11March 11, 1993 Mulroney 02019-08-14August 14, 2019
Ataullahjan, SalmaSalma Ataullahjan Conservative Ontario (Toronto) 02010-07-09July 9, 2010[10] Harper 02027-04-29April 29, 2027
Baker, GeorgeGeorge Baker Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador 02002-03-26March 26, 2002[11] Chrétien 02017-09-04September 4, 2017
Batters, DeniseDenise Batters Conservative Saskatchewan 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02045-06-18June 18, 2045
Bellemare, DianeDiane Bellemare Conservative Quebec (Alma) 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02024-10-13October 13, 2024
Beyak, LynnLynn Beyak Conservative Ontario 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02024-02-18February 18, 2024
Black, DougDoug Black Conservative Alberta 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02027-05-10May 10, 2027
Boisvenu, Pierre-HuguesPierre-Hugues Boisvenu Conservative Quebec (La Salle) 02010-01-29January 29, 2010[13] Harper 02024-02-12February 12, 2024
Braley, DavidDavid Braley Conservative Ontario 02010-05-20May 20, 2010[14] Harper 02016-05-31May 31, 2016
Brazeau, PatrickPatrick Brazeau Conservative Quebec (Repentigny) 02009-01-08January 8, 2009[15] Harper 02049-11-11November 11, 2049
Brown, BertBert Brown Conservative Alberta 02007-07-10July 10, 2007[16] Harper 02013-03-22March 22, 2013
Buth, JoAnneJoAnne Buth Conservative Manitoba 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02029-05-23May 23, 2029
Callbeck, Catherine S.Catherine S. Callbeck Liberal Prince Edward Island 01997-09-23September 23, 1997[18] Chrétien 02014-07-25July 25, 2014
Campbell, Larry W.Larry W. Campbell Liberal British Columbia 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02023-02-28February 28, 2023
Carignan, ClaudeClaude Carignan Conservative Quebec (Mille Isles) 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02039-12-04December 4, 2039
Champagne, AndréeAndrée Champagne Conservative Quebec (Grandville) 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02014-07-17July 17, 2014
Chaput, MariaMaria Chaput Liberal Manitoba 02002-12-12December 12, 2002[21] Chrétien 02017-05-07May 7, 2017
Charette-Poulin, MarieMarie Charette-Poulin Liberal Ontario (Northern Ontario) 01995-09-21September 21, 1995 Chrétien 02020-06-21June 21, 2020
Comeau, Gerald J.Gerald J. Comeau Conservative Nova Scotia 01990-08-30August 30, 1990 Mulroney 02021-02-01February 1, 2021
Cools, Anne C.Anne C. Cools Independent Ontario (Toronto Centre-York) 01984-01-13January 13, 1984 Trudeau 02018-08-12August 12, 2018
Cordy, Jane MarieJane Marie Cordy Liberal Nova Scotia 02000-06-09June 9, 2000[22] Chrétien 02025-07-02July 2, 2025
Cowan, JimJim Cowan Liberal Nova Scotia 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02017-01-22January 22, 2017
Dagenais, Jean-GuyJean-Guy Dagenais Conservative Quebec (Victoria) 02012-01-17January 17, 2012[17] Harper 02025-02-02February 2, 2025
Dallaire, RoméoRoméo Dallaire Liberal Quebec (Gulf) 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02022-06-25June 25, 2022
Dawson, DennisDennis Dawson Liberal Quebec (Lauzon) 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02024-09-28September 28, 2024
Day, Joseph A.Joseph A. Day Liberal New Brunswick (Saint John-Kennebecasis) 02001-10-04October 4, 2001[24] Chrétien 02020-01-24January 24, 2020
De Bané, PierrePierre De Bané Liberal Quebec (De la Vallière) 01984-06-29June 29, 1984 Trudeau 02013-08-02August 2, 2013
Demers, JacquesJacques Demers Conservative Quebec (Rigaud) 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02019-08-25August 25, 2019
Downe, Percy E.Percy E. Downe Liberal Prince Edward Island (Charlottetown) 02003-06-26June 26, 2003[25] Chrétien 02029-07-08July 8, 2029
Doyle, NormanNorman Doyle Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02020-11-11November 11, 2020
Duffy, MichaelMichael Duffy Conservative Prince Edward Island (Cavendish) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02021-05-27May 27, 2021
Dyck, Lillian EvaLillian Eva Dyck Liberal Saskatchewan 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02020-08-24August 24, 2020
Eaton, NicoleNicole Eaton Conservative Ontario (Caledon) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02020-01-21January 21, 2020
Eggleton, ArtArt Eggleton Liberal Ontario 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[19] Martin 02018-09-29September 29, 2018
Enverga, Tobias C.Tobias C. Enverga Conservative Ontario 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02030-12-02December 2, 2030
Finley, DougDoug Finley Conservative Ontario 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02021-07-25July 25, 2021
Fortin-Duplessis, SuzanneSuzanne Fortin-Duplessis Conservative Quebec (Rougemont) 02009-01-14January 14, 2009[15] Harper 02015-06-20June 20, 2015
Fraser, JoanJoan Fraser Liberal Quebec (De Lorimier) 01998-09-17September 17, 1998[26] Chrétien 02019-10-12October 12, 2019
Frum, LindaLinda Frum Conservative Ontario 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02038-01-13January 13, 2038
Furey, GeorgeGeorge Furey Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador 01999-08-11August 11, 1999[27] Chrétien 02023-05-12May 12, 2023
Gerstein, IrvingIrving Gerstein Conservative Ontario (Toronto) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02016-02-10February 10, 2016
Greene, StephenStephen Greene Conservative Nova Scotia (Halifax) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02024-12-08December 8, 2024
Raine, Nancy GreeneNancy Greene Raine Conservative British Columbia (Sun Peaks) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02018-05-11May 11, 2018
Harb, MacMac Harb Liberal Ontario 02003-09-09September 9, 2003[28] Chrétien 02028-11-10November 10, 2028
Hervieux-Payette, CélineCéline Hervieux-Payette Liberal Quebec (Bedford) 01995-03-21March 21, 1995 Chrétien 02016-04-22April 22, 2016
Housakos, LeoLeo Housakos Conservative Quebec (Wellington) 02009-01-08January 8, 2009[15] Harper 02043-01-10January 10, 2043
Hubley, LibbeLibbe Hubley Liberal Prince Edward Island 02001-03-08March 8, 2001[29] Chrétien 02017-09-08September 8, 2017
Jaffer, Mobina S.B.Mobina S.B. Jaffer Liberal British Columbia 02001-06-13June 13, 2001[30] Chrétien 02024-08-20August 20, 2024
Johnson, Janis G.Janis G. Johnson Conservative Manitoba (Winnipeg – Interlake) 01990-09-27September 27, 1990 Mulroney 02021-04-27April 27, 2021
Joyal, SergeSerge Joyal Liberal Quebec (Kennebec) 01997-11-26November 26, 1997[31] Chrétien 02020-02-01February 1, 2020
Kenny, ColinColin Kenny Liberal Ontario (Rideau) 01984-06-29June 29, 1984 Trudeau 02018-12-10December 10, 2018
Kinsella, Noël A.Noël A. Kinsella Conservative New Brunswick (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 01990-09-12September 12, 1990 Mulroney 02014-11-28November 28, 2014
Lang, Hector DanielHector Daniel Lang Conservative Yukon (Whitehorse) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02023-04-03April 3, 2023
LeBreton, MarjoryMarjory LeBreton Conservative Ontario 01993-06-18June 18, 1993 Mulroney 02015-07-04July 4, 2015
Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M.Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas Liberal New Brunswick 02005-09-21September 21, 2005[19] Martin 02023-04-15April 15, 2023
MacDonald, Michael L.Michael L. MacDonald Conservative Nova Scotia (Dartmouth) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02030-05-04May 4, 2030
Maltais, GhislainGhislain Maltais Conservative Quebec (Shawinigan) 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02019-04-22April 22, 2019
Manning, FabianFabian Manning Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02011-05-25May 25, 2011[32] Harper 02039-05-21May 21, 2039
Marshall, ElizabethElizabeth Marshall Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02010-01-29January 29, 2010[13] Harper 02026-09-07September 7, 2026
Martin, YonahYonah Martin Conservative British Columbia (Vancouver) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02040-04-11April 11, 2040
Massicotte, Paul J.Paul J. Massicotte Liberal Quebec (De Lanaudière) 02003-06-26June 26, 2003[25] Chrétien 02026-09-10September 10, 2026
McCoy, ElaineElaine McCoy Progressive Conservative Alberta 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02021-03-07March 7, 2021
McInnis, TomTom McInnis Conservative Nova Scotia 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02020-04-09April 9, 2020
McIntyre, PaulPaul McIntyre Conservative New Brunswick 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02019-11-02November 2, 2019
Mercer, Terry M.Terry M. Mercer Liberal Nova Scotia (Northend Halifax) 02003-11-07November 7, 2003[33] Chrétien 02022-05-06May 6, 2022
Merchant, PanaPana Merchant Liberal Saskatchewan 02002-12-12December 12, 2002[21] Chrétien 02018-04-02April 2, 2018
Don MeredithDon Meredith Conservative Ontario 02010-12-18December 18, 2010[34] Harper 02039-07-13July 13, 2039
Mitchell, GrantGrant Mitchell Liberal Alberta 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02026-07-19July 19, 2026
Mockler, PercyPercy Mockler Conservative New Brunswick (Saint-Léonard) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02024-04-14April 14, 2024
Moore, Wilfred P.Wilfred P. Moore Liberal Nova Scotia (Stanhope St./South Shore) 01996-09-26September 26, 1996[35] Chrétien 02017-01-14January 14, 2017
Munson, JimJim Munson Liberal Ontario (Ottawa/Rideau Canal) 02003-12-10December 10, 2003[33] Chrétien 02021-07-24July 24, 2021
Nancy Ruth Conservative Ontario (Cluny) 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02017-01-06January 6, 2017
Neufeld, RichardRichard Neufeld Conservative British Columbia (Charlie Lake) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02019-11-06November 6, 2019
Ngo, Thanh HaiThanh Hai Ngo Conservative Ontario 02012-09-06September 6, 2012[12] Harper 02022-01-03January 3, 2022
Nolin, Pierre ClaudePierre Claude Nolin Conservative Quebec (De Salaberry) 01993-06-18June 18, 1993 Mulroney 02025-10-30October 30, 2025
Ogilvie, KelvinKelvin Ogilvie Conservative Nova Scotia 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02017-11-06November 6, 2017
Oh, VictorVictor Oh Conservative Ontario 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02024-06-10June 10, 2024
Oliver, Donald H.Donald H. Oliver Conservative Nova Scotia (South Shore) 01990-09-07September 7, 1990 Mulroney 02013-11-16November 16, 2013
Patterson, DennisDennis Patterson Conservative Nunavut 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02023-12-30December 30, 2023
Plett, DonDon Plett Conservative Manitoba 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02025-05-14May 14, 2025
Poirier, Rose-MayRose-May Poirier Conservative New Brunswick 02010-02-28February 28, 2010[13] Harper 02029-03-02March 2, 2029
Ringuette, PierrettePierrette Ringuette Liberal New Brunswick 02002-12-12December 12, 2002[21] Chrétien 02030-12-31December 31, 2030
Rivard, MichelMichel Rivard Conservative Quebec (The Laurentides) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02016-08-07August 7, 2016
Rivest, Jean-ClaudeJean-Claude Rivest Independent Quebec (Stadacona) 01993-03-11March 11, 1993 Mulroney 02018-01-27January 27, 2018
Robichaud, FernandFernand Robichaud Liberal New Brunswick 01997-09-23September 23, 1997[18] Chrétien 02014-12-02December 2, 2014
Runciman, BobBob Runciman Conservative Ontario 02010-01-29January 29, 2010[13] Harper 02017-08-10August 10, 2017
Segal, HughHugh Segal Conservative Ontario (Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds) 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02025-10-13October 13, 2025
Seidman, JudithJudith Seidman Conservative Quebec (De la Durantaye) 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02025-09-01September 1, 2025
Seth, AshaAsha Seth Conservative Ontario 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02014-12-15December 15, 2014
Sibbeston, Nick G.Nick G. Sibbeston Liberal Northwest Territories 01999-09-02September 2, 1999[27] Chrétien 02018-11-21November 21, 2018
Smith, David P.David P. Smith Liberal Ontario (Cobourg) 02002-06-25June 25, 2002[36] Chrétien 02016-05-16May 16, 2016
Smith, LarryLarry Smith Conservative Quebec (Saurel) 02011-05-25May 25, 2011[37] Harper 02026-04-28April 28, 2026
Stewart-Olsen, CarolynCarolyn Stewart-Olsen Conservative New Brunswick 02009-08-27August 27, 2009[20] Harper 02021-07-27July 27, 2021
Stratton, TerryTerry Stratton Conservative Manitoba (Red River) 01993-03-25March 25, 1993 Mulroney 02013-03-16March 16, 2013
Tardif, ClaudetteClaudette Tardif Liberal Alberta 02005-03-24March 24, 2005[23] Martin 02023-07-27July 27, 2023
Tkachuk, DavidDavid Tkachuk Conservative Saskatchewan 01993-06-08June 8, 1993 Mulroney 02020-02-18February 18, 2020
Unger, BettyBetty Unger Conservative Alberta 02012-01-06January 6, 2012[17] Harper 02018-08-08August 8, 2018
Verner, JoséeJosée Verner Conservative Quebec (Montarville) 02011-06-13June 13, 2011[38] Harper 02034-12-30December 30, 2034
Wallace, John D.John D. Wallace Conservative New Brunswick (Rothesay) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02024-03-26March 26, 2024
Wallin, PamelaPamela Wallin Conservative Saskatchewan (Kuroki Beach) 02009-01-02January 2, 2009[15] Harper 02028-04-10April 10, 2028
Watt, CharlieCharlie Watt Liberal Quebec (Inkerman) 01984-01-16January 16, 1984 Trudeau 02019-06-29June 29, 2019
Wells, DavidDavid Wells Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador 02013-01-25January 25, 2013 Harper 02037-02-28February 28, 2037
White, VernonVernon White Conservative Ontario 02012-02-20February 20, 2012[39] Harper 02034-02-21February 21, 2034
Zimmer, RodRod Zimmer Liberal Manitoba 02005-08-02August 2, 2005[19] Martin 02017-12-19December 19, 2017

Click on a senator’s name to get his FAX and postal address. Letters to the Senate can be sent postage free.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/SenatorsBiography/ISenator.asp?Language=E

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Posted on by

 

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish;

Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

The Ruling:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

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

 

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

 

Two-Front – Maximum Disruption Campaign

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

John Robson | Ottawa Citizen

“Self-censorship? Me? Absolutely!”

Dec 14, 2007

 

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

 

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

 

As a notable freedom fighter would say: disgusting!

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 Mark Steyn

Testimony before Parliament

Oct 5, 2009

 

 

 

 

Canadian Human Rights Commission Spreads Lies and Anti-White Guilt

Posted on by

Canadian Human Rights Commission Spreads Lies and Anti-White Guilt

 The passage below is from a document Human Rights in Canada: A Historical Perspective that is on the website of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It contains outright historical lies and is nothing but the usual anti-White guilt mongering politically correct poison. Sadly, the Canadian Majority has to pay for this.

Even the title of this section reveals anti-White bias: “the plight of immigrants” Really? These people were not kidnapped or press ganged. They eagerly and willingly came to Canada to seek a new life and opportunity in a land that offered them a chance and, not like today, a handout,
The article states: “Immigration is funnelled to the West in order to settle and farm the wide  tracts of Prairie land. The profile of the preferred immigrant is white and  British; as stated by Minister Clifford Sifton, “stalwart peasants in  sheepskin coats“. If British immigrants are not available, other white  immigrants will do. White immigrants from Eastern Europe are reluctantly  accepted in large numbers.” Outright lies.  In fact, English settlers were  most decidely not wanted in Western Canada where they were widely seen as effete and  dilettantes.  This mendacious piece of White bashing reworks  Minister of the Interior Clifford Sifton’s great comment about Ukrainians —  “stalwart peasants in  sheepskin coats” — so that it  seems to refer to the English!  In this stunning misdirection, the author distorts the fact that Sifton was praising and welcoming the Ukrainians.http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/getBriefed/1900/immigrants.aspSee More

Like · · Share
The article then trots out the usual discrimination smear: “Originally, male Chinese labourers were allowed         into Canada to work for low wages in British Columbia’s gold mines and         on the trans-Canada railroad. They sent most of their earnings back to         China to help support their families. Chinese workers will accept lower         wages than white workers.” Yet, the Chinese continued to pour into Canada, despite the low wages. They saw Canada offering desirable advantages and opportunities. Indeed, early Chinese called Canada Gum Shan or “Gold Mountain.” Wikipedia notes:  “British Columbia  came to be referred to as “Gold Mountain” following the discovery of gold in the Fraser Canyon in the 1850s and the spread of Chinese settlers in British Columbia (which they also referred to as “The Colonies of T’ang” i.e. China.” This latter sentence suggests that the European population of British Columbia, then quite sparse, had every reason to fear the Oriental influx.
One sentence — that’s all there is in “Organized Hate” — labels any opposition to the mass Asiatic invasion as “hate” : “The San Francisco-based Asiatic Exclusion League, dedicated to preventing         Asian immigration to America, opens up a number of new chapters in Canadian         cities such as Vancouver. Victoria has its own Anti-Chinese Association.” So, any effort to prevent one’s homeland from being radically changed is “hate.” White suicide is good; efforts to preserve the European character of one’s country are bad, no “hate”! This passage clearly demonstrates the truth that “anti-racism” is a fraud and is really anti-White.
For a more accurate discussion and description of the Asiatic Exclusion League’s activities in British Columbia before World War I, you might consult one of the booklets below.
C-FAR is proud to have published three booklets by the Bob Jarvis about the Komagata Maru and the opposition to mass Asiatic immigration.  You may wish to buy them and order them from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.
__  The Workingman’s Revolt”: The Vancouver Asiatic Exclusion Rally of 1907 by Robert Jarvis. The fascinating story of the broad-based and, indeed, union-led protests against mass, uncontrolled Asiatic immigration to British Columbia. $5.00
___ The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Battle Revisited by Robert Jarvis. The story of an intrepid government undercover agent William Hopkinson, who infiltrated Sikh radicals and developed the information that led the government to expel the Komagata Maru illegals in the summer of 1914. Shortly, afterwards Hopkinson was assassinated by a Sikh terrorist, Mewa Singh, whose portrait still hangs in some Sikh gurdwaras in Vancouver. $5.00
___Harry Stevens: Immigration Reformer, Reconstructionist, Canada Firster by Robert Jarvis. the story of a real Canadian hero and immigration reformer who, as a young MP, helped stir the Dominion Government to expel the shipload of Indian illegals on the Komagata Maru in 1914. $6.00

The Plight of Immigrants

From 1867-1891, Canada was open for business, from an immigrant’s point         of view. There weren’t many restrictions on who could enter the country,         except for a head tax on Chinese immigrants, which was introduced in 1885.         Eastern and Central Canada was the destination of choice, with British         Columbia attracting many people from Asia.

By 1900, Minister of the Interior Clifford Sifton’s immigration policy         is more restrictive.

Immigration is funnelled to the West in order to settle and farm the wide         tracts of Prairie land. The profile of the preferred immigrant is white         and British; as stated by Minister Clifford Sifton, “stalwart         peasants in sheepskin coats”. If British immigrants are not         available, other white immigrants will do. White immigrants from Eastern         Europe are reluctantly accepted in large numbers, but black and Asian         immigration is discouraged. Chinese immigrants are subject to a head tax,         which requires every Chinese immigrant to pay a special $50 tax upon entering         the country. Although relatively few in number – there are only 23,000         Chinese people in Canada in 1900 – arrivals from Asian countries are resented         by the white majority. Originally, male Chinese labourers were allowed         into Canada to work for low wages in British Columbia’s gold mines and         on the trans-Canada railroad. They sent most of their earnings back to         China to help support their families. Chinese workers will accept lower         wages than white workers, and this causes resentment in the white population,         especially when jobs are scarce. The populace generally perceives Chinese         people to be immoral opium addicts. There is no official policy restricting         Blacks from entering Canada, but the unofficial policy is to discourage         it whenever possible. As a result, there are far fewer black immigrants         than there may have been otherwise.

In 1899, Canada admitted 44,543 immigrants. Between 1894 and 1899, 154,613         immigrants came to call Canada home. In the five year period between 1991         and 1996, well over 1,000,000 immigrants will arrive. Between 1896 and         1907, Canada admitted 1.3 million European and American immigrants. Less         than 900 Blacks were included in that number. In fact, the black population         of Canada decreased from 50,000 in 1860 to 17,000 in 1911. In the lumber         industry, Chinese workers are paid only between 25% and 50% of the wages         paid to white labourers for the same work.

Organized Hate

The San Francisco-based Asiatic Exclusion League, dedicated to preventing         Asian immigration to America, opens up a number of new chapters in Canadian         cities such as Vancouver. Victoria has its own Anti-Chinese Association.
 

Free Speech Lawyer Sylvia Stolz Threatened With Prosecution in Switzerland

Posted on by
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

Free Speech Lawyer Sylvia Stolz Threatened With Prosecution in Switzerland

Posted on by

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