Posted on April 21, 2014 by admin

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

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

April 10, 2014

Malcolm Ross attended the second day of the trial as an observer. Paul Fromm in foreground

Happiness

Happiness may seem a strange topic for me to raise in my report to you. However, on January 27, I was standing in the lobby of the Courthouse in St. John, waiting for John Hughes, lawyer for the McCorkill Estate, and CAFÉ’s lawyer Andy Lodge. The hearing in regards to efforts by powerful forces to hijack the McCorkill will’s bequest to the National Alliance as “contrary to public policy” was over and the decision in the hands of the judge. We were in the middle of a media scrum. With me was former teacher Malcolm Ross and his brother. I saw the lawyers for the four parties seeking to overturn the will walk by.

I wondered whether they were happy. I wondered this because beside me stood a man who deep down is serene and happy. Twenty years ago, Malcolm Ross was removed from the classroom in Moncton because of his political and religious views published in books, booklets and letter-to-the-editor on his own time. A “human rights” (they do not include free speech) tribunal had ruled that Mr. Ross’s very presence, as a conservative, anti-Zionist Christian, created a “poisoned” environment. The person complaining against him was the daughter of a prominent Atlantic Jew. She claimed some students had made anti-Semitic comments to her. Now, she did not attend the school where Malcolm Ross taught. He had not taught her. She had never met him, Nor had he taught the students who allegedly made comments to her.

Neither reason nor common sense mattered. Mr. Ross had poisoned the environment and he was out. The case, argued by Doug Christie, went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supremos even back then were hard core Christian haters. Sure, they agreed, Mr. Ross had the right to his religious views, just not the right to express them and hope to keep his job. The same nine Cultural Marxists would, a decade or so later, dream up the obligation of “reasonable accommodation.” If some Sikh wants to pack his dagger to go to school, despite a zero weapons policy, we must make reasonable accommodations for his peculiarities. But, in this environment of inclusiveness and “reasonable accommodation” there was no room for a Malcolm Ross. All the while, Mr. Ross was reviled in a host of news stories and was even the object of semi-obscene cartoons that mocked his Christian faith.

So, Malcolm Ross, with a young family, was out of a job. It would be understandable if he were bitter or angry. But, he picked himself up, did other work and persevered. His deep Christian faith and belief that what he had written was true and right make him a serene and happy man. Not jumping up and down happy as a person who has just scored a big win in a lottery might be, but profoundly secure and happy.

I too felt elated that what CAFÉ had done with our very costly intervention and the powerful factum (brief) and presentation of our lawyer Andy Lodge would have a good effect. We had come to preserve a man’s right to pass on his estate to a group whose views might be unpopular or politically incorrect. I wondered how the lawyers on the other side felt. On one level, happy, I suppose because they could pocket fat fees from their well-funded backers. But how could they feel about trying to hijack a will and replace a man’s wishes with the politically correct whims of the moment?

The Year Ahead

We are already deep into the McCorkill case. This case MUST be won or meddlers and troublemakers may try to hijack a bequest to any group. We have made a strong case and await the judge’s decision.

I was asked to testify last September at the Warman v Mark and Connie Fournier libel trial. It went dreadfully wrong. The Fourniers and two other bloggers lost and were hit with a judgement of $143,000, which included hefty costs to pay Richard Warman’s legal bills. They are appealing. Canadian libel law is so loosey goosy that a website owner can be made liable for comments posted by anonymous writers on the site. Another libel case involving the Fourniers is now in progress. Marc Lemire reports: “Defamation law in Canada is a glaring example of the archaic state of our laws. This week in an Ottawa courtroom, two Internet bloggers – who both use pseudonyms – are going to state their case before a judge. In one corner is the defendant, an inveterate blogger who uses the pseudonym Peter O’Donnell (AKA Roger Smith) who is being sued for saying that another pseudonym “Dr Dawg” (AKA John Baglow) is “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters”. And caught in the middle are Mark and Connie Fournier who ran a message board called FreeDominion, where one alias apparently defamed another alias in a back and forth message thread.” CAFÉ is beginning to lobby for changes to this law.

CAFÉ continues to publicize Brad Love’s 11-year ordeal and efforts to continue to gag him. I have had articles published in a number of papers about his plight. Canada continues to back and publicize Terry Tremaine’s 10 year battle against Sec. 13 “human rights” (Internet censorship) and Sec. 319 (“hate law”) charges. The Sec. 319 charges were stayed in 2012, thanks to Doug Christie’s heroic efforts. On May 28/29, the last episode in his case will be his appeal against his sentence in a “contempt of court” charge brought against him, as were all the others, by Richard Warman.

And, of course, there is Arthur Topham. As of March 13, he faces a full blown trial on “hate charges” for comments, some of them satirical, on his website Radicalpress.com. He is also threatened with horrific bail conditions, including having to shut down his Radicalpress.com website and to post NOTHING on the Internet. CAFÉ will be helping and advising him at the hearing date, April 9 in Quesnel, British Columbia. The date for the trial has not yet been set.

One of our biggest challenges is to alert more people to the free speech cause – to turn them on to freedom and to make them aware of the very real threats to free speech and free thought in Canada. We have already held meetings in five provinces – New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. this year. Our publicly advertised meeting in St. John attracted a number of new people to the cause.

We are proud of the CAFÉ website that we were able to construct because of your generosity – http://cafe.nfshost.com.

Your Support Pledge

And the well deserved praise “generosity” brings me to my request that you continue to support CAFÉ. None, and I mean none, of this activity is possible without the resources, without your financial support. We had initially budgeted $10,000 for the McCorkill will intervention. The costs have ballooned and now top $30,000. Many years ago, when I was much younger, a pompous old man wagged a finger at me and pronounced: “If it’s about freedom, it should be free.” What a fool!

Those seeking to crush free speech spend large sums of their money and the public money to pursue their goal. Similarly, defending freedom has serious costs – people’s energy, people’s time, people’s courage and, yes, the funding to make the activities possible.

I know, as in the past, I can count on your support and generosity. Please use the enclosed coupon and post paid envelope.

For freedom,

Paul Fromm

Director

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

__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s Spring programme.

__ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill will case.

__ Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______myVISA/Mastercard#________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature:________________________________________________________________________________

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown’s Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com

Posted on April 21, 2014 by admin

Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown’s Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com

It is a sign of how degraded a country we have become that we must hail the fact that a British Columbia Criminal Court judge refused demands by the Crown to impose as a bail condition in new “hate law” charges against publisher and blogger Arthur Topham that he remove ALL content from his website Radicalpress.com and that he not post on ANY website.

In other words, before any trial as to whether the contents of a small portion of Radicalpress.com constituted “wilful promotion of hate” under Canada’s notorious “hate law”, Mr. Topham was to be gagged.

The case for new bail conditions was argued in Quesnel, British Columbia on April 9.

Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston acted as if it had already been established that some of the contents on Radicalpress.com, including a satire of the book Germany Must Perish, was “hate” and that some of Mr. Topham’s recent writings are also “hate”. Her say so was enough to make it so, in her submissions. She said: “There is strong evidence that Mr. Topham continues to promote hatred of people of Jewish origin, in such articles as Salute to Zionism, on his website. The Crown is asking for bail to prevent Mr. Topham from continuing to publish ‘hate’ and compound the same offence while on bail. ” Then, with totally muddled reasoning, she continued: “The mere possibility that Mr. Topham might be successful with one of the defences is not enough to continue to publish ‘hate.'” But, clearly, if the defence were successful, the publications would not be hate. Even she admitted that only a small portion of Radicalpress.com dealt with Jews or Zionism. “There’s other stuff going on there, yes.”

As a precedent, she cited the judgment in the “hate law” case against Bill Noble, who was self represented. He was sentenced to six months in jail for Internet postings and a three year gag preventing him from posting on the Internet or owning a computer or any device like a smart phone capable to accessing the Internet. This pretty piece of Stalinism was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba, but in Canada.

Mr. Topham, although self represented, marched into court with a masterful submission which had been prepared for him and a three-inch thick Book of Authorities.

Photo: Huge Victory for Free Speech in Topham Case: Judge Refuses Crown's Demand that Bail Require Shutdown of Radicalpress.com

It is a sign of how degraded a country we have become that we must hail the fact that a British Columbia Criminal Court judge refused demands by the Crown to impose as a bail condition in new "hate law" charges against publisher and blogger Arthur Topham that he remove ALL content from his website Radicalpress.com and that he not post on ANY website.

In other words, before any trial as to whether the contents of a small portion of Radicalpress.com constituted "wilful promotion of hate" under Canada's notorious "hate law", Mr. Topham was to be gagged.

The case for new bail conditions was argued in Quesnel, British Columbia on April 9.

•Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston acted as if it had already been established that some of the contents on Radicalpress.com, including a satire of the book Germany Must Perish, was "hate" and that some of Mr. Topham's recent writings are also "hate". Her say so was enough to make it so, in her submissions. She said: "There is strong evidence that Mr. Topham continues to promote hatred of people of Jewish origin, in such articles as Salute to Zionism, on his website. The Crown is asking for bail to prevent Mr. Topham from continuing to publish 'hate' and compound the same offence while on bail. " Then, with totally muddled reasoning, she continued: "The mere possibility that Mr. Topham might be successful with one of the defences is not enough to continue to publish 'hate.'" But, clearly, if the defence were successful, the publications would not be hate. Even she admitted that only a small portion of Radicalpress.com dealt with Jews or Zionism. "There's other stuff going on there, yes."

As a precedent, she cited the judgment in the "hate law" case against Bill Noble, who was self represented. He was sentenced to six months in jail for Internet postings and a three year gag preventing him from posting on the Internet or owning a computer or any device like a smart phone capable to accessing the Internet. This pretty piece of Stalinism was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba, but in Canada.

Mr. Topham, although self represented, marched into court with a masterful submission which had been prepared for him and a three-inch thick Book of Authorities.

Mr. Topham's Memorandum argued that penalties were being imposed before an finding of fault. "Even if the order sought was capable of suppressing hate propaganda, it would not be justifiable in this case as it would not minimally impair the Respondent's Charter rights. The conditions sought by the Crown would not merely prohibit the Respondent from publishing hateful material, but would, in fact, prevent him from publishing any material."

A comment Judge Morgan made offered a clue to his decision: "Where the dividing line is between free speech and the limits on speech in society is the crux of this case."

Here are the key paragraphs of the decision refusing to impose a gag order bail condition on the beleaguered Quesnel publisher.

Decision:

[32] Considerations of bail in section 319(2) prosecutions (willfully promoting hatred) are somewhat different from the usual criminal prosecutions. This is because the central issue at trial will not be what occurred , but will be what effect resulted. The publicly communicated statements will have to be established by the Crown to promote ‘hatred’ as the word is defined in Canadian jurisprudence.

[33] The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. The Crown is, in effect, seeking the same remedy pre-trial through a cease and desist bail order. To be successful the court would have to be satisfied that on the test of a balance of probabilities all aspects of Crown’s case will be made out, including that the effect of the communications of concern will meet the threshold of promoting hatred. In effect, the court is being asked to decide the case on the balance of probability standard.

[34] On the other hand, it is an initially forceful consideration when dealing with material that is clearly repugnant and offensive, to ask what harm would result by simply shutting it down until the matter can be decided at trial. One can easily imagine situations where the material is so repugnant and offensive that even solely from the judge’s perspective and without direct evidence of harm, the likely risk of harm will be evident and outweigh a temporary curtailment of Charter rights.

[35] However, court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases.

[36] In the case before me, the material of concern is primarily material written by others and allegedly posted by Mr. Topham on his website. The one document I was referred to that involved a minor amount of originality is entitled ‘Israel Must Perish’ and is based on a document written many years ago by someone else entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. In ‘Israel Must Perish’ the accused is alleged to have replaced all references to ‘Germany’ with ‘Israel’ and all references to ‘Germans’ with ‘Jews’. Mr. Topham has published both versions on his website. Mr. Topham says – and is not contradicted by the Crown – that all of the material of concern is available on other internet sites not controlled by him, including notable sites such as Amazon.com and Archive.org.

[37] There is some evidence that Mr. Topham uses his website to publish other materials that are not alleged to foster hate, and to use it for other reasons, such as providing a voice to other fringe persons or groups. As of late, he has been using his website in an attempt to raise money to pay for a lawyer to defend him against the present charges.

[38] Although I give Crown credit for being open to finding ways to minimally impair Mr. Topham’s rights while at the same time addressing the concern of the publication of the offensive material, I find that in this case, ordering Mr. Topham to shut down his website may well be an over broad prior restraint and that, based on the evidence before me, the effect on reducing any harm caused may well be minimal given the material is primarily not original and is available from other internet sources.

[39] I agree with Ms. Johnston that ordering Mr. Topham to remove from his website any reference to people of Jewish religion or ethnic origin would be like having him pick out pepper. What I foresee from this is any effort to carve a fine balance would very possibly lead to breach related charges arising from confusion and misinterpretation.

[40] The Crown’s goal of stopping Mr. Topham from putting on his website offensive material will of course depend on whether Crown is successful at trial in establishing the offensive material has the effect of promoting hate. If the Crown proves its case, the sentencing judge will be in a much informed position in determining the appropriate breadth of restraint orders and other sanctions.

[41] Although I decline to order as a condition of bail that Mr. Topham stop operating his entire website or to order that he cease and desist from posting any materials referencing people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, I am satisfied that his Undertaking should be amended to include a condition that he not post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants already referred to in condition 2. of his present Undertaking, and that he immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.

R.D. Morgan

Provincial Court Judge

This final condition is odd and one which Mr. Topham may appeal. Under his original bail conditions, he is already not allowed to contact or communicate (except through his lawyer) with the two chronic complainants. Thus, he is not to publish the names of Richard Warman or Harry Abrams on Radicalpress.com or "any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants."

Both these men are long-time antagonists of Mr. Topham. They are players and have repeatedly sought to silence people with whom they disagree or who, in their view, have hateful ideas. Why shouldn't they be named? Allowing for semi secret complaints would seem to undermine the openness of our legal system. Abrams was the original complainant in the case against Radicalpress.com in 2007 under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When the case was adjourned sine die in 2009 and it appeared that the section was about to be repealed by Parliament, Abrams was joined by Warman in 2011 in making complaints to the B.C. "Hate" Squad under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.

No evidence was submitted to the Court of any "harm or intimidation" that had been done to the complainants as a result of their names being mentioned on Radicalpress.com over the seven year life of the efforts to gag the anti-Zionist dissident.

Mr. Topham notes: " I've had to file another application to question the new condition that says I can't have either Warman's or Abrams' name on my website. That would eliminate all the legal documents with their names on them. Rather weird. I can see removing the names from my own articles, commentary, etc. but not court documents."

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Mr. Topham’s Memorandum argued that penalties were being imposed before an finding of fault. “Even if the order sought was capable of suppressing hate propaganda, it would not be justifiable in this case as it would not minimally impair the Respondent’s Charter rights. The conditions sought by the Crown would not merely prohibit the Respondent from publishing hateful material, but would, in fact, prevent him from publishing any material.”

A comment Judge Morgan made offered a clue to his decision: “Where the dividing line is between free speech and the limits on speech in society is the crux of this case.”

Here are the key paragraphs of the decision refusing to impose a gag order bail condition on the beleaguered Quesnel publisher.

Decision:

[32] Considerations of bail in section 319(2) prosecutions (willfully promoting hatred) are somewhat different from the usual criminal prosecutions. This is because the central issue at trial will not be what occurred , but will be what effect resulted. The publicly communicated statements will have to be established by the Crown to promote ‘hatred’ as the word is defined in Canadian jurisprudence.

[33] The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. The Crown is, in effect, seeking the same remedy pre-trial through a cease and desist bail order. To be successful the court would have to be satisfied that on the test of a balance of probabilities all aspects of Crown’s case will be made out, including that the effect of the communications of concern will meet the threshold of promoting hatred. In effect, the court is being asked to decide the case on the balance of probability standard.

[34] On the other hand, it is an initially forceful consideration when dealing with material that is clearly repugnant and offensive, to ask what harm would result by simply shutting it down until the matter can be decided at trial. One can easily imagine situations where the material is so repugnant and offensive that even solely from the judge’s perspective and without direct evidence of harm, the likely risk of harm will be evident and outweigh a temporary curtailment of Charter rights.

[35] However, court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases.

[36] In the case before me, the material of concern is primarily material written by others and allegedly posted by Mr. Topham on his website. The one document I was referred to that involved a minor amount of originality is entitled ‘Israel Must Perish’ and is based on a document written many years ago by someone else entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. In ‘Israel Must Perish’ the accused is alleged to have replaced all references to ‘Germany’ with ‘Israel’ and all references to ‘Germans’ with ‘Jews’. Mr. Topham has published both versions on his website. Mr. Topham says – and is not contradicted by the Crown – that all of the material of concern is available on other internet sites not controlled by him, including notable sites such as Amazon.com and Archive.org.

[37] There is some evidence that Mr. Topham uses his website to publish other materials that are not alleged to foster hate, and to use it for other reasons, such as providing a voice to other fringe persons or groups. As of late, he has been using his website in an attempt to raise money to pay for a lawyer to defend him against the present charges.

[38] Although I give Crown credit for being open to finding ways to minimally impair Mr. Topham’s rights while at the same time addressing the concern of the publication of the offensive material, I find that in this case, ordering Mr. Topham to shut down his website may well be an over broad prior restraint and that, based on the evidence before me, the effect on reducing any harm caused may well be minimal given the material is primarily not original and is available from other internet sources.

[39] I agree with Ms. Johnston that ordering Mr. Topham to remove from his website any reference to people of Jewish religion or ethnic origin would be like having him pick out pepper. What I foresee from this is any effort to carve a fine balance would very possibly lead to breach related charges arising from confusion and misinterpretation.

[40] The Crown’s goal of stopping Mr. Topham from putting on his website offensive material will of course depend on whether Crown is successful at trial in establishing the offensive material has the effect of promoting hate. If the Crown proves its case, the sentencing judge will be in a much informed position in determining the appropriate breadth of restraint orders and other sanctions.

[41] Although I decline to order as a condition of bail that Mr. Topham stop operating his entire website or to order that he cease and desist from posting any materials referencing people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, I am satisfied that his Undertaking should be amended to include a condition that he not post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants already referred to in condition 2. of his present Undertaking, and that he immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.

R.D. Morgan

Provincial Court Judge

This final condition is odd and one which Mr. Topham may appeal. Under his original bail conditions, he is already not allowed to contact or communicate (except through his lawyer) with the two chronic complainants. Thus, he is not to publish the names of Richard Warman or Harry Abrams on Radicalpress.com or “any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.”

Both these men are long-time antagonists of Mr. Topham. They are players and have repeatedly sought to silence people with whom they disagree or who, in their view, have hateful ideas. Why shouldn’t they be named? Allowing for semi secret complaints would seem to undermine the openness of our legal system. Abrams was the original complainant in the case against Radicalpress.com in 2007 under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When the case was adjourned sine die in 2009 and it appeared that the section was about to be repealed by Parliament, Abrams was joined by Warman in 2011 in making complaints to the B.C. “Hate” Squad under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.

No evidence was submitted to the Court of any “harm or intimidation” that had been done to the complainants as a result of their names being mentioned on Radicalpress.com over the seven year life of the efforts to gag the anti-Zionist dissident.

Mr. Topham notes: ” I’ve had to file another application to question the new condition that says I can’t have either Warman’s or Abrams’ name on my website. That would eliminate all the legal documents with their names on them. Rather weird. I can see removing the names from my own articles, commentary, etc. but not court documents.”

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Pro Homosexual Computer Techie Denies Service to Bill Whatcott

Posted on April 10, 2014 by admin

Pro Homosexual Computer Techie Denies Service to Bill Whatcott

Let’s be quite clear about this: the homosexual lobby is among the most powerful in Canada. Egged on by the Christian hating Cultural Marxists on the Supreme Court who last year squelched anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott’s right to testify to traditional Christian views about same sex marriage, supporters of the otherly sexed now seem to have declared open seaosn on traditional Christians.

Mr. Whatcott reports: “My computer crashed at the worst possible time, right before the convention when I need it for so many things…..

Anyways, I headed straight to my usual spot Southeastern Computer Solutions (see picture above) for service; I have patronized them exclusively for 2 years now for my personal needs and I did much there for Weyburn Pro-life as well. Unknown to me, the owner Aaron Rubin was very unhappy with Weyburn Pro-Life’s decision to bring Peter LaBarbera into Weyburn to speak and he took great issue with the fact that I believe homosexuality is a sin.

When I brought my computer to the counter for the technician to look at it, Mr. Rubin came out, looked at me with an unfriendly look and loudly announced “I am pro-gay.” I asked him “what does that have to do with my computer problemcomputer problem?” Well for him plenty I guess, he told me he did not want to do business with either me or Weyburn Pro-Life anymore. As I started to leave, it appeared Aaron wanted to argue about my perceived bigotry. I got quite mad and told him I cared for many homosexuals dying of diseases related to their sexual behaviour and never denied them service, as he was doing to me. We then argued about acceptable denial of services. Aaron (and me for that matter) believed he had a legal right to deny me service for my computer problemcomputer problem. On the other hand Aaron really believes Christians should be forced under the pain of law to violate their consciences and allow homosexuals into their private bed and breakfasts to spend the night sodomizing each other.”

CAFE believes all human rights commissions should be abolished. They are costly anti-Majority mischief makers.

Except in essential services, Canadians businesses, we believe, should be able to discriminate.

However, we note that, while it is open season on Bible believing Christians, under “human rights” laws, Christian businessmen are forced to serve people whose beliefs and practices are abhorrent to them. More than a decade ago, Ontario printer Scott Brockie refused to print material for a homosexual lobby group. He offered to refer them to another printer. But, in high dudgeon they pranced off to the Ontario Human Rights Commission which ruled that the Christian printer was not entitled to his religious views and had to print for the otherly sexed. This was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal which came down four square against Christians and hammered Mr. Brockie with a penalty and costs adding up to $40,000. Canada’s Christian-hating judiciary has made practising Christianity a very costly matter.

LifeSiteNews (April 15, 2004) reported: “TORONTO, April 15, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Christian printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000.00 in 1999 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission because he refused to print blank letterhead and envelopes for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Brockie had printed materials for clients with homosexual inclinations, but would not print materials for the Archives because he believed the Archives further homosexual activity, which is contrary to his religious beliefs. The adjudicator claimed that Brockie was free to express his beliefs in his home or Christian community, but ordered him to provide printing servicesprinting services “to lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit.” The Court of Appeal recently handed down their decision regarding the awarding of costs from Brockie’s time in the Divisional Court. Brockie was initially awarded $25,000 in costs from the Divisional Court, but the Human Rights Commission and the Archives appealed, and the Court of Appeal has reversed that earlier decision and now Brockie is on the hook for $40,000. “There is a point beyond which the conduct of judicial officers will bring the administration of justice into disrepute,” Catholic Civil Rights League spokesperson Sean Murphy said. “That point is passed when a Christian printer is ordered to produce business cards andbusiness cards and letterhead for an organization that promotes pro-paedophilia essays, is fined $5,000.00 for having refused to do so, and is left with $40,000.00 in legal bills for daring to defend himself.”

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Whatcott (and others) under attack, needs prayers

by Bill Whatcott » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:07 am

Dear Friends

Today was a tough day. First of all my computer crashed at the worst possible time, right before the convention when I need it for so many things…..

Anyways, I headed straight to my usual spot Southeastern Computer Solutions (see picture above) for service; I have patronized them exclusively for 2 years now for my personal needs and I did much there for Weyburn Pro-life as well. Unknown to me, the owner Aaron Rubin was very unhappy with Weyburn Pro-Life’s decision to bring Peter LaBarbera into Weyburn to speak and he took great issue with the fact that I believe homosexuality is a sin.

When I brought my computer to the counter for the technician to look at it, Mr. Rubin came out, looked at me with an unfriendly look and loudly announced “I am pro-gay.” I asked him “what does that have to do with my computer problemcomputer problem?” Well for him plenty I guess, he told me he did not want to do business with either me or Weyburn Pro-Life anymore. As I started to leave, it appeared Aaron wanted to argue about my perceived bigotry. I got quite mad and told him I cared for many homosexuals dying of diseases related to their sexual behaviour and never denied them service, as he was doing to me. We then argued about acceptable denial of services. Aaron (and me for that matter) believed he had a legal right to deny me service for my computer problem. On the other hand Aaron really believes Christians should be forced under the pain of law to violate their consciences and allow homosexuals into their private bed and breakfasts to spend the night sodomizing each other.

Aaron’s reasoning was I had no business worrying about what homosexuals do with each other in my private bed and breakfast, but I guess he believes he has the right to worry about my moral and political opinions if one of his technicians is going to work on my computer. As I left, the guy then accused me of being too cowardly to debate him and proclaimed he did more for Canada fighting for freedom in Afghanistan than I ever did in my life standing for my causes. Oh well…….

If you would like to minister to Aaron Rubin and encourage him to be more tolerant of Christians who hold to God’s Word when it comes to how they dealdeal with homosexuality, you can contact him here:

Southeastern Computer Solutions
PHONE:
(306) 842-7603
FAX:
(306) 842-5899
EMAIL:
sales@computersolutions.ca

While I felt bad being denied service at a place I was use to going to, of course I wasn’t going to change my stand on that which I know to be true. Even if one is hated and rejected for standing on God’s word on an important issue, such as homosexuality, that doesn’t mean one backs off from standing for God, especially not to winwin the approval of man.

“Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.”
Mark 8:34, 35

Not too long ago one could call homosexuality a sin and speak on the issue in a public forum in Saskatchewan, with little fear of retribution. Today that is no longer the case. The media hysterically attacks public figures who dare to say anything negative about the homosexual lifestyle. The courts and human rights commissions use the power of the state to punish Christians and use coercion to force them to violate their consciences, if they refuse services that facilitate the sin or speak too forcefully in public on the issue. And yes, now it is possible to even face ridicule and rejection by those who you might think are your friends and acquaintances, as not only tolerance, but the demand for complete acceptance of homosexuality, is becoming a mainstream value.

Still God’s Word and empirical truth that homosexuality is wrong remains unchanged:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Romans 1:26-28

Homosexuality does harm children and those of us who are pro-life have a moral obligation to stand with the children, even if it means incurring personal cost to ourselves:

Renn Forsberg is a little boy, but his mother (who is a homosexual activist with public affiliations with numerous homosexual groups) is leading a public campaign to have the boy she adopted legally declared a girl. The picture above was on her Facebook homepageFacebook homepage last week. Sadly, but not surprisingly, no one with power or influence is critically examining the claims made by the homosexual activist mother that Renn always wanted to dress and act like a girl. To my amazement I have even met Christians who are buying into the lie that boys and girls could be the opposite gender from the one God gave them at conception……

“False prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” Matthew 24:24

Mark Regenerus study (the most comprehensive and rigorous study ever conducted) on sodomite parenting:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study … s-research

Anyways, in addition to being discriminated against by our now former computer shop, the Leader Post also called me and rejected Weyburn Pro-Life’s full page ad. You might ask what could be so bad about our ad, that a newspaper would turn down $5,500, rather than run it?

Well nothing really, other than we are advertising speakers the newspaper disagrees with. The Leader Post is a tireless champion of homosexual causes after all. Here is our rejected ad:

Leader Post ad:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFG … sp=sharing

After that news, a good friend of mine posted on my site and alerted me to another Michael Coren segment where he is bashing our speaker Peter LaBarbera and my self. Michael Coren seems to also believe he is capable of reading our hearts and minds as to why we have chosen to take our public stands on abortion and homosexuality:

Michael Coren bashing Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarbera
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat … 6820579001

The side of the house reads “Love thy neighbour, regardless of their creed, nationality and sexuality.”

On the way home I saw this above house. There is no denying the “Weyburn Against Intolerance” group is full of energy and they are quite bold in their efforts to marginalize us. I also noted on our local radio stations the coverage shifted from even handed where both of us got an equal opportunity to express our positions, to now the coverage is heavily slanted to favour the “Weyburn Against Intolerance” side and indeed their spokespeople are the only ones being interviewed now on our local radio.

Anyways, rather than get overly discouraged we should prayerfully carry on. We might as well admit we are weak and not able to fully counter the constant attacks on us by a hostile media and homosexual lobby. It is tough to counter the constantly repeated lies that homosexuals are “born that way” and notwithstanding that Christians are the ones who suffer violence, bullying and discrimination for not accepting the sin of homosexuality, it is nearly impossible to expose the homosexual agenda’s utter lack of tolerance towards dissent and the fact that homosexual activists are anything but “live and let live.” We pro-lifers are weak and the truth is most in the body of Christ are not standing. Therefore in our weakness we must go to the One who is strong:

Mary Stachowicz murdered by a homosexual for calling on him to repent of his sin

“He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”
2 Corinthians 12:9

No, I can’t winwin the media battle and indeed it is conceivable the new Weyburn homosexual lobby group will prevail over the hearts and minds of most people in this culture war.

Still we can stand and speak the truth, secure in the knowledge that our Lord will give us the final victory:

“I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gatesgates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
Matthew 16:18

To this end, I am developing my own little media.

Here is my new book and my very first customer, holding an autographed copy of “Born in a Graveyard.”

If anyone in Regina is interested, I would like to distribute 10,000 flyers advertising my new book and a photocopy of the ad the Leaderpost refused to run, with an explanation of the censorship. I have no doubt my book is an excellent tool to help folks understand how Canadians are frogs in the water and our freedom of concience, speech and religion are rapidly being boiled away.

If there are folks willing to help this project financially or with foot power, I can be reached at:

Bill Whatcott
Po Box 53
Stoughton, SK
Canada
S0G 4T0

Phone: (306) 861-6140

Please note Peter and I are still looking for activists to join us at:

University of Regina, April 14, 1:00 – 4:00 PM
University of Saskatoon, April 15, 1:00 – 4:00 PM

Graphic abortion signs and Biblical and medically accurate information on homosexuality will be available! Also my book will be on display for the students too!

c

“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.”
1 John 2:15-17