Doug Christie on Freedom of Speech in Canada (1991)

Doug Christie on Freedom of Speech in Canada (1991)
Doug ChrArchive]istie Video Memorial Archive]
[Jan 29 1991] (Ottawa, Ontario). Doug Christie speaks about the dangers to freedom of speech in Canada. Doug highlights threats from the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and various Canadian political police forces.
Direct link to YouTube video: http://youtu.be/62P2gYPyGqs

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance
Let’s be quite clear “anti-racists” are anti-White. We are in an all-out war with people who wish to suppress any ideas contrary to their own. No marketplace or ideas for them, free discussion. In their jihad against free speech, nothing is sacred to such people.

 
The sanctity of a man’s will means nothing to people like the well-funded ($125-million war chest)  Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center. They are certainly not suffering from poverty.
.
In an error-riddled article, the National Post (June 28, 2013) reports the latest example of this phenomenon. Beginning  with the headline, the Post manages a serious error or untruth in almost every sentence.
The article is headlined “How a late Canadian coin collector’s $1M estate could be used to revive ‘most dangerous neo-Nazi group in America.” I am reliably informed by sources close to the case that the estate is much more modest, about $250,000, of which the Canadian taxman wants about a third, leaving perhaps $150,000, not chump change but considerably less than the Southern Poverty Law Center alleges with its magic million number.
First sentence: “A U.S. racist group that has been linked to assassinations and bombings is poised to inherit an estate worth as much as $1-million from a late Canadian coin collector, the Southern .Poverty Law Center said Thursday.” The “link to assassinations and bombings” is utterly bogus. The National Alliance was/is an explicitly non-violent group. The Post explains: “The author of The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of a U.S. race war and the apparent inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Mr. Pierce advocated the creation of a whites-only homeland through the eradication of Jews and other races.” National Alliance founder Dr. William Peirce promoted non-violent political education. The Turner Diaries is a novel — that is, fiction — no different in its violence than a Rambo or James Bond story. Timothy McVeigh, the person alleged to have bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, was not a National Alliance member. There is also considerable question as to whether he DID, in fact, commit this act or was merely a patsy.
The Post continues: “Before he died in Saint John, N.B., in 2004, Robert McCorkell bequeathed his assets to the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group that waged a three-decade campaign of racist violence in the United States, the SLPC said. While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement.” The National Alliance was NOT involved in violence. As usual, the catch-all smear “neo-Nazi” is used to muddy the waters. The National Alliance was White Nationalist. They did not emulate National Socialism. They did not wear uniforms. In fact, the only “uniform” Dr. Pierce, who held a  Ph.D. in physics, advocated was conservative dress for the young men and women in the movement to be able to recruit their peers. Dr. Pierce, according to Wikipedia, “was descended from the aristocracy of the Old South, descendant of Thomas H. Watts, the Governor of Alabama and Attorney General of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.”
Then, we’re told by the Post: “While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Alabama-based civil rights group and a top expert on hate and extremist groups.” Hang on a second, if the National Alliance is “now basically defunct” and “has no money at all”, what is there to revive? And Mark Potok may be a senior fellow or an odd  fellow, but the SPLC is NOT a “civil rights group.” Just the opposite: It is actively opposed to freedom of speech.
The meddling U.S. group is now trying to reach into Canada to nullify Robert McCorkell’s bequest to the National Alliance: “The SPLC has hired Ottawa lawyer Pam MacEachern to examine what could be done to stop the Alliance from inheriting Mr. McCorkell’s estate. She found two cases suggesting the bequest might be halted through the courts. ‘At this point we’re really not sure what we’re going to do next, if anything. But certainly we felt it was important that Canadians knew about this in particular,’ Mr. Potok said. ‘It‘s very rare. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all.’” It might be noted that Pam MacEachern represented EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) a militant homosexual lobby group in arguing before the Supreme Court of Canada that the normal traditional definition of marriage (a man and a woman!) was unconstitutional. The judicial revolutionaries on the Court agreed and, so, Canada has same-sex marriage. MacEachern also represented anti-Internet free speech complainer Richard Warman in a lengthy libel suit against Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, alleging that inter alia he had been defamed by being called a “censor.”
And now the man himself, tearing himself away from whatever he does in the bowels of Canada’s Ministry of National Defence: “‘I think it’s possible to challenge the bequest legally,’ said Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and anti-racist activist. He said he hoped either the family or interest groups would step forward to do so.The basis of such a challenge could be that the will goes against public policy as well as Canada’s international legal obligations, which require Ottawa to prevent the financing of groups espousing racial hatred, he said.”
A U.S. source close to the case called the SPLC’s and Warman’s remarks “Orwellian. They seem to want to cancel the Canadian and American legal tradition of respecting a testator’s wishes and intent.” the National Alliance espouses White pride, not hatred. The SPLC-Warman line seems to be that the courts should be able to step in and nullify a will if the bequest goes to an ideology of which they disapprove.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this one.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s hilltop compound in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s
hilltop headquarters in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Brad Love Cannot Even Mail A Father’s Day Card & Now is Banned from Fort McMurray Library

Brad Love Cannot Even Mail A Father’s Day Card & Now is Banned from Fort McMurray Library
Many Canadians like to pat themselves on the back because we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that, among other things, guarantees us freedom of expression. Don’t count on it. If you happen to criticize the homosexual lobby like the intensely religious Bill Whatcott, the  profoundly Christian-hating Supreme Court says that you must keep silent and keep your religious views to yourself.
 
If you’re Brad Love and like to dash off a letter to a public official or phone up a local editor or opinionated rock radio commentator and share your opinions on foreign aid,  crime, Third World immigration — against all three – forget about it. As Brad Love says: “Ezra Levant criticizes Gypsies and crime and that’s okay. If I criticize Gypsies,  they send the police for me.” 
Photo
 Brad Love & Michelle Erstikaitis at recent CAFE meeting in Toronto
On May 13, the RCMP arrested Brad Love and charged him with seven counts of harassment and mailing scurrilous material to local media and politicians. He was released on $2,000 bail and the sort of gag order even North Korea’s baby-faced dictator Kim Jong-On might find excessive. Mr. Love is not to “mail, e-mail or text any person.” That’s right, nobody! He can’t even send his own ailing father a Father’s Day card. Nor is he to communicate in any way “with any public office holder.”
 A further sheet of conditions dropped off by the RCMP last week instructs him not to contact or come within 200 yards of the residences of Fort McMurray Today editor Melissa McIntosh, rock station disk jockey Nic “The Beard” Lindsay or the city’s mayor and members of the city council.
Brad points out that he never sent any material to the mayor. The bail conditions appear to be an effort by police and the state to render him a non-person and to gag him for many months as his trial may be a year or more away.
Mr. Love appeared in Court Monday morning. He informed the judge: “I have a court order with bail conditions that I cannot talk to any public official. Is it even permissible for me to talk to you?”
The judge said it was,
Mr. Love moved that the Crown be instructed to drop the charges as they were “ridiculous” and “frivolous” and many of the people named had not even complained.
The judge indicated that decision was up to the Crown. Mr. Love’s next appearance in June 17. Brad Love noted that there seemed to be an unusual police presence for what was a brief perfunctory hearing.
As he was leaving the hearing, he was approached by a Cuban man who had been watching the proceedings:  “What you are doing is very brave because the government is after you” the Cuban told Mr. Love. “Be careful.”
“This foreigner got it,” Mr. Love reported with some disgust, “It’s many of my fellow White guys who don’t
get it and won’t talk to me.”
Brad Love is a voracious reader and works his way through several books each week. This past weekend he got a big shock. As he headed into the Fort McMurray Public Library, he was confronted by a security guard. “You Brad Love?” the guard challenged him with an arrogant manner. “You’re banned from the library.” Mr. Love was handed a letter advising him he was banned from the library but was given no reason. The Brad banning geniuses  had apparently sent him the banning letter but had mailed it to the wrong address!
“This isn’t a very bookish town,” Mr. Love said. “I am probably their best customer. This is the same place that has a ‘Freedom to Read Week’ poster,” he observed. He can think of no reason he is being banned.
“I’d phone up and ask or protest, but they’d probably say they don’t like my ‘tone’ and call the cops. It seems as if this whole town has 911 on speed dial,” he added.

B’nai Brith’s Annual “Audit” of Anti-Semitic Incidents is Out: If This Was a Real “Audit”, You’d Fire the Auditor’s Ass

ISRAEL FIRSTB’nai Brith’s Annual “Audit” of Anti-Semitic Incidents is Out: If This Was a Real “Audit”, You’d Fire the Auditor’s Ass

For more than 30 years the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith has published what it calls its annual “audit” of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. Always it is the same dreary breathless  hysteria — things are getting worse. and worse. You’d think the blackshirts were back in town, a synagogue being burned in every city and a pogrom going on just right around the corner. Is any of that happening? No! Canada has the most Israel First government ever. Our Prime Minister has insisted that: “Israel’s values are our values. .. An attack an Israel is an attack on Canada.” [We don’t even say that about our friend and neighbour the United States.]

 The executive summary of the report gives the highlights: ” For over 30 years, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada’s annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents has documented harassment, vandalism and violence targeting both individual Jews, and the Jewish community as a whole. This provides a barometer of the levels of racism in this country in general.

KEY FINDINGS

  • In 2012, 1,345 antisemitic incidents were reported to the League, an increase of 3.7% over the 1,297 cases documented in 2011. Over     the past decade, incidents have more than doubled.

 

 

 

* The iincease in Canada in 2012 is still far below the estimated 30% global rise in antisemitic incidents. There was also a decrease in vandalism against Jewish community sites.

 

 

 

  • ·       The 1,345 incidents include 1,013 cases of harassment (75.8% of the total), 319 of vandalism (23.2%), and 13 of violence (1.0%). 

 

 

 

 

    • Vandalism decreased on average     across Canada by 11.9%, with 319 cases in 2012 compared to 362 in 2011. Violence     decreased for the third year running, with 13 cases reported in 2012,     a significant drop from 24 cases in 2010 and 19 in 2011. Harassment     increased by 7.4% from 916 in 2011 to 1,013 in 2012, including 84     threats of violence.

 

 

There were 521 web-based incidents; about half used social media to harass and threaten others. Web postings and emails included anti-Jewish propaganda from extremist groups advocating violence, hate-filled lyrics and imagery, and Holocaust Denial.”

 

 

 

Notice that almost half — 521 of 1,345 “incidents” were on the Internet: “Web postings and emails included anti-Jewish propaganda from extremist groups advocating violence, hate-filled lyrics and imagery, and Holocaust Denial.” Notice, as well, that questioning or challenging the Hollywood version of WW II — “holocaust denial”  — constitutes an “incident.” Notice further that “hate-filled lyrics and imagery” (pictures?) also constitute “incidents.” Interesting, that hostile actions, as opposed to the expression of opinions have decreased.

 

 

 

The “incidents”, one might conclude are crimes, but almost all are not. There were just  “13 cases of violence reported in 2012.” There is no information as to whether even these really occurred or whether anyone was charged or found criminally guilty. It is all pretty thin stuff. Indeed, only one charge is mentioned, although not specifically – the Sec. 319 charge against Arthur Topham and radicalpress.com

 

 

 

Here’s the incredibly broad definition from the Audit’s Appendix  of “harassment” which constitute 1013 or 75% of the “incidents”:

 

 “Harassment refers to written or verbal actions that do not include the use of physical force. … It includes but is not limited to:

 

* verbal slurs, statements of hate and bias, or harassment.” [Now, that’s defining a term by repeating it!]

 

* stereotyping of Jews, like airing on radio talk shows of ‘characteristics of Jews.’ [Yet, a stereotype’ is merely a generalization based on truth and any reasonable person knows most but not ALL members of a group share these characteristics.]

 

* systemic discrimination in the workplace, schools or campuses. [“Systemic discrimination” refers to any uncongenial events where nothing can be proven against an individual,  apparently, like universities holding an Anti-Israeli Apartheid Week.]

 

* hate propaganda and hate mail, via the Internet, telephone or printed material [Again, “hate propaganda” seems to be merely criticism of Jews or Israel, or views the person reporting them doesn’t like.]

 

 

 

 

 

 Jewish groups have been among the most vocal lobbying for open door immigration, as Kevin Macdonald noted in his book The Culture of Critique. They have been strong proponents of “diversity.” Thus, it is somewhat ironic that one of the growing sources of “anti-Semitism” — usually limited to words – is Moslems, one of the many “diverse” groups brought in by the changes in Canada’s immigration policies in 1965: ” When reviewing the types of messaging we see replicated in many of the incidents under review in this Audit, it seems that certain ethnic/religious groups in this country, even those that came generations ago, may have brought the anti-Jewish hatreds of their native lands with them to Canada. Moreover, there are concerns that some Canadians might continue to come into contact with these prejudices locally, even once established in this country, not just through ongoing connections with anti-semitic online sites operating from abroad, but by local influences. In this context, two particular incidents should be highlighted. In British Colombia, a community-based Muslim paper printed conspiracy theories blaming Jews for a range of alleged crimes and refused to withdraw the article even after complaints. In Toronto, anti-Jewish propaganda was found in the curriculum material of a private Muslim school, which was removed but only after complaints were lodged.
Incidents such as these might partly explain the finding in this Audit of an unprecedented increase in incidents by perpetrators self-identifying as Muslims supportive of Islamist anti-Jewish sentiments – up from 16 in 2011 to 87 in 2012. … While perpetrators from a number of different ethnic/religious backgrounds were involved in these incidents, the one finding that stood out alarmingly was the number of incidents by those identifying them-selves as Muslims, which jumped from 16 in 2011 to 87 in 2012. This suggests a most disturbing trend in which anti-Jewish themes appear to be increasingly infiltrating Canadian civil society via quasi-religious or cultural discourse as well politically-based rhetoric. No other ethnic or religious group of perpetrators came anywhere near this number in 2012. “

 

 

 

Even many Jews are skeptical of the ever increasing number of “incidents” B’nai Brith report. Bernie Farber, then a leading light with the rival Canadian Jewish Congress, noted that there could be a 100 per cent increase in “hate literature” if a pamphleteer who last year distributed 1,000 pamphlets got a few more reams of paper and ran off 2,000 copies.

 

 

Here’s a sample of one month’s worth of representative incidents chosen by the Audit:

 

 APRIL Vancouver, BC – A pastor makes anti-semitic comments during his sermon
Montreal, QC – A prolific blogger tells the media that Chassidic Jews “are religious fanatics trying to create their own laws through intimidation”.
Toronto, ON – In Union Station, the busiest bus terminal in Toronto, walls are spray painted with graffiti saying “Jews are like cancer”. V
al Morin, QC – 15 Jewish-owned cottages are vandalized and defaced with swastikas and slogans such as “F–k Juif.”

 

 What does it add up to? Some petty vandalism. And these “incidents” are chosen as the worst for the month!

The Audit seems to find marches or parades promoting “White Pride Worldwide” to be anti-Semitic incidents: “There were 151 incidents in 2012 related to white supremacist activity, similar to the 145 cases reported in 2011. Marches were reported in Vancouver (BC), as well as Edmonton and Calgary (AB), and London (ON), areas where far-right activity has been recorded in past years. Police were active in countering racist activity on the streets of British Columbia and Alberta, which is likely the reason for decreased attendance at such public events.” The last statement is chilling. What does it mean that police “countered? Did that mean harass the organizers? And why should police “counter” political activity. Isn’t it their role to be politically neutral and keep the peace. Also, not to quibble, but what is slanderously called “White supremacist” often means statements about race — White racial pride — and nothing overtly about Jews? One wonders why these 152 “incidents” are even included in the Audit of anti-Semitic incidents.

 

 So, where is all this hyperventilating leading? As usual, B’nai Brith portrays Jews as a “vulnerable minority.” The 2001 census, instead, found they are Canada’s wealthiest ethnic or religious group. They are heavily represented — out of all proportion to their percentage of Canada’s population [ according to the 2011 census, Jews are 315,120 of a population of 33,476,688 or .94% ] in the mass media and they certainly have the ear of the Harper government.
 
The Audit wants the government “to make Holocaust denial a specific hate crime under the Criminal Code.” Thus Canadians would have to buy into self-serving tribal history or face prison. Just what is “holocaust denial” — questioning the numbers killed? questioning the preposterous proposition that this was “the greatest crime in human history” — the alleged 6-million apparently being worse than the 8-10-million Ukrainians deliberately starved to death by Stalin in the holodomor, 1932-1933, The second anti-free speech demand is nearly as sweeping and Stalinist: “Ban membership in hate groups” Who gets to say what a “hate group” is? And, by the way, mightn’t a group labouring so mightily to take away freedom of speech be seen as somewhat hateful?
 
 This poster, captioned “Jews First, Canadians Second” presumably from the Internet was one of the anti-Semitic “incidents” included in B’nai Brith’s annual Audit.

We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!

We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then,  Royal Assent.
Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially,  unconstitutional.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels.
We usually don’t quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? [“Call Susie for a good time — 403 -777-7777” “No, Susie is no fun.”]
However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:
And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there’s nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.
Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we’ll see how things play out.”
The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality — minus the financial penalties — of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government — NDP, Liberal? — might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don’t kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Photo: We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then,  Royal Assent.

Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially,  unconstitutional.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels.

We usually don't quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? ["Call Susie for a good time -- 403 -777-7777" "No, Susie is no fun."]

However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:

"And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there's nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.

 Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we'll see how things play out."

The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality -- minus the financial penalties -- of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government -- NDP, Liberal? -- might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don't kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

To: mailto:h******* 

Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304

 Dear Sir,

I did.

The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given Royal Assent.

Thanks for your concern for free speech.

Yours,

Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut

Here’s to free speech! I deeply regret my old comrade
Doug Christie did not live to see this important victory.
To: mailto:h*******
Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304
 
Dear  Sir,
I did.
The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given  Royal Assent.
Thanks for your concern for free  speech.
Yours,
Dennis Patterson Senator for  Nunavut

FREE SPEECH URGENT — E-MAIL SENATORS IMMEDIATELY, C-304 Is Now Being Debated for Third and Final Reading

FREE SPEECH URGENT — E-MAIL SENATORS IMMEDIATELY, C-304 Is Now Being Debated for Third and Final Reading
Yesterday, June 25, C-304, which had recently received Second Reading in the Senate, was before the Senate Human Rights Committee. Bill C-304 is crucial in regaining some measure of freedom of speech in Canada. Introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons by Alberta MP Brian Storseth last year, it was past by the House of Commons, June 8, 2012. This Bill would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship — truth is no defence, intent is no defence) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which makes criticism of privileged minorities very risky.
Censorship had some pals at the Senate’s Human Rights Committee, including Sen. Munson who subjected Mr. Storseth to some withering questioning.
However, this morning, according to the office of Sen. Robina Jaffer, Bill C-304 was “reported out of committee, without amendment.”
This is good news for freedom of speech.
The final step is now Third and final Reading. I spoke to the office of senior Ontario Senator Robert Runciman this afternoon. Bill C-304 will be debated either later today or tomorrow for Third Reading.
Those of us who have fought Internet censorship since the days of the Zundelsite case, 1996-2002, this is an exciting moment.
We need your help NOW! I don’t mean tonight or tomorrow. Bill C-304 may come up momentarily.
Please e-mail the Senate. The list is enclosed.
Please be brief and to the point.
Urge the Senators to vote for Bill C-304.
I enclose my letter on behalf of CAFE
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

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

 

June 26, 2013

 
Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech — Support Bill C-304 on Third Reading
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 were a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher rates 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?
  
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 tone 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. He 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, do the right thing and vote “aye” to give Third Reading to Bill C-304. 
Respectfully submitted.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
E-MAILS 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.caharbm@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.camaltag@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,

Update in Topham “Hate” Case: Crown Refuses to Particularize Charges Against B.C. Writer

 

Update in Topham “Hate” Case: Crown Refuses to Particularize Charges Against B.C. Writer
 

Dear Reader,
Here is the latest report on my case with Canada’s censorship commissars (B’nai Brith Canada) and the Canadian court system. Please try to pass it along to all concerned with the issue of Freedom of Speech in Canada.
Also, as a special bonus treat for Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the leader of BC’s “Hate Crime Team”, I’m enclosing here a political cartoon featuring Terry’s mugshot and mindset, a grim reminder of where our national police force’s heads are at these days. Please feel free to pass that along to your sources on the net. I know that Terry just loves to have his picture in the media. 🙂
Sincerely
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
_____________________________________

Screen Shot 2012-12-14 at 11.52.30 AM.png
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13
Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a “direct indictment” rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a “preliminary inquiry” in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial. 
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th. 
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be “hatred”.  After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, ” There is no case law anywhere” that says they are bound to do so. 
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism. 
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger (this was not stated but implied in her comments) using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging. 
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their “direct indictment” decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary enquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying. 
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
—-
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 
The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 

 

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