DIANE KING INTERVIEWS VIDEOGRAPHER JIM RIZOLI

Posted on March 31, 2016 by admin

DIANE KING INTERVIEWS VIDEOGRAPHER JIM RIZOLI

PLEASE PASS THIS ONTO YOUR GROUPS/LISTS

Finally an interview with JIM RIZOLI and his ‘great awakening’ regarding the holocost. It was my honor to allow him this opportunity to express HIS part in THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY REVISIONISTS. Diane King

JIM RIZOLI, Cofounder, producer/interviewer (Fred Leuchter and Assistant, Diane King) of the Series, LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY REVISIONISTS. This also entails seeking out UNSUNG HEROES and German survivors of Allied atrocities – The German Story, The German Way. Hard core historical revisionist, Jim and, his brother, Joe moved from combating the illegal immigrant hordes in their cable shows to dealing with the fundamental and pervading issue of the holocaust. Their immigrant battles led them to the plight of Ernst Zundel in Canada, being prosecuted for having reprinted *Did 6 Million Really Die*! Thus Jim and Joe’s efforts and cable shows also turned toward the issue of the holocaust. That’s when their troubles accelerated. In 2002 – 2003 they began producing numerous (1000s of videos) dealing with many issues and 100s of videos about the holocaust. Consequently, YouTube videos (700) under the name of Jim Rizoli were banned. His name was banned on Facebook. In 2010, their cable shows were suspended. They returned and then were permanently removed in 2014. We are back to provide a venue of/freedom of, telling the story for tried-and-true revisionists and Germans throughout North America, Europe and Australia.

League

Extraordinary

Revisionists

(LOER)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkhr7Ooo_lnt0NLW83Q2ovw

If you are interested in helping us defray costs in this effort,

send a check to:

Jim Rizoli (LOER)

94 Pond St.

Framingham, MA 01702

508-872-7292

Thank You!

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Diane King interview of Revisionist Jim Rizoli

Diane King interview of Revisionist Jim Rizoli

Posted on March 23, 2016 by admin

Support CAFE: HELP FUND MCCORKILL WILL APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820
Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
March 23, 2016

Dear Free Speech Supporter:
It’s nearly five months since last I wrote to you about CAFÉ’s ongoing battle to support free speech in Canada. You must check out our website CAFE | Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity. It is active and diligently maintained, despite frequent attacks to try to penetrate it and corrupt it.

Arthur Topham “Hate Case”: Win One, Lose One & The Important Question is Postponed
When I wrote you last, I was heading to the Arthur Topham and radicalpress.com “hate trial” in Quesnel, B.C. CAFÉ offered support, advice and public relations assistance. Most importantly, I did regular written and video reports on the most important “hate law” trial of this decade. Big thanks to Terry Tremaine for his assistance with the videos. The jury returned on November 12, with a confusing verdict. Arthur was convicted on one count of willfully promoting hate” against a privileged group (in this case, Jews) and acquitted on the other charge. The first referred to a series of books he had linked to or reproduced. Among them was a satire on the horrific genocidal Germany Must Perish by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jew. To highlight this evil work, Arthur copied the original cover and entitled it Israel Must Perish and through the first few chapters replaced Germany and Germans with Israel and Jews. Canadian juries don’t explain themselves, So, it is unclear which of the books they felt promoted hate. Arthur was acquitted on the second count which covered many of his postings and opinions in 2013.

All along, beginning with the late Doug Christie and continuing with Arthur’s present lawyer Barclay Johnson, the defence has sought to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 319 (the notorious “hate law”) of the Criminal Code. The argument is that the context has changed since the Supreme Court upheld the law in Keegstra in 1990. Then, the law was ruled to be a justified restriction on freedom of speech. The context, however, was an Alberta high school teacher with a captive audience of students. The Internet is not a captive audience. Indeed, to see Arthur Topham’s writings or postings, one has to seek him out and make a number of deliberate selections. Will there be witnesses called for this hearing? That remains to be decided. Originally, a date was to be set in late January. That date-to-set-a-date has now been postponed to April 29. In several legal venues in the Terry Tremaine “hate law” case (dismissed for undue delay) and contempt of court cases, Doug Christie tried to argue that the Internet was not communication as defined by the law. Posting to a website is merely the storage of material. He who downloads the material, hence the complainant, initiates the communication. This argumentation was neatly avoided by judges in several venues and has still to be resolved. The case continues.

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court
Good news and bad news. CAFÉ’s chances of winning “leave” or acceptance of the Supreme Court to appeal the appalling decision of Mr. Justice Grant of the Court of Queen’s Bench in New Brunswick and upheld last July by the Court of Appeals of New Brunswick have vastly improved. That’s the good news. CAFÉ’s chances of being granted leave to appeal have improved. That’s the bad news because an appeal in ferociously expensive. Our appeal costs could soar to $60,000 and we are behind in our bills.

The McCorkill case is vital to freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights. Should a court be able to nullify a will or bequest because the recipient’s views are “contrary to public policy”? The late Robert McCorkill of St. John, New Brunswick was a professor of chemistry and left his sizable estate of old coins and rare artefacts to the U.S. White Nationalist group known as the National Alliance.

Professor McCorkill died in 2004. The estate was finally probated in 2013. Then, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a malicious group of U.S. censors who make a profitable business of spying on, exposing and legally harassing those they claim are “haters”, found out and raised a storm. The usual hysterical stuff: the bequest would revive the “Nazi” movement in the U.S. And, yes, there’d be a gas chamber on every other corner. The only problem was that the SPLC had no legal standing in Canada. However, the next thing we knew, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman got into the act and declared that the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” At first, this seemed absurd. However, miraculously Isabel McCorkell [yes, different spelling], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill – she had not attended his funeral or challenged his will during the probate proceedings – surfaced. Interestingly, she lived in Ottawa. She sought and obtained an order to freeze the proceeds until she could make an application to have the will nullified on the grounds that it was … “contrary to public policy.” She was quickly joined in her endeavours by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. At this point, CAFÉ sought and was granted intervener status. This is clearly a vital case on several levels. It is a case defending freedom of speech and freedom of belief. It is also upholding property rights. Should a judge be able to overturn the clear wishes of a testator? Should a person not be able to dispose of his property as he sees fit and not have the views or morals of his beneficiaries scrutinized by a judge?

Last September, CAFÉ sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Only about one in 10 applications for leave are granted. The SCC seeks cases that have a national interest. Surely, some degree of certainty in estate law would constitute such a national interest. That was our argument. However, this argument was greatly strengthened recently by a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals in the Spence case. Rev. Eric Spence was a Jamaican preacher who left all of his $400,000 estate to one daughter, whom he hadn’t seen in 30 years, and left nothing to Verolin, the daughter he’d raised and financed through university, because she’d had a child with a White man. In January, 2015, as we had predicted in our arguments before the Court of Queen’s Bench, the McCorkill decision would be the beginning of a flood of allegations. Verolin successfully had her father’s will nullified. Judge Cory. A Gilmore inveighed against
Spence’s “clearly stated racist principle” and declared that the will “not only offended human sensibilities but also public policy”. She then nullified the will as being “contrary to public policy.” BMO Trust, on behalf of the Spence Estate, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals. In a March 8 decision , the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned, Judge Gilmore’s decision, and reinstated the will’s provisions. This decision is immensely helpful should our case reach the Supreme Court.

And, there’s more. Now, there seems to be a contradiction between the Courts of Appeal in New Brunswick and Ontario; the former was quick to overturn the testator’s wishes as the recipient’s views were “contrary to public policy”; the Ontario court refused to overturn the will even though it did involve a degree of racial discrimination. Acting on behalf of Verolin Spence, Earl A. Cherniak advised Andy Lodge, CAFÉ’s lawyer: “Given the similarities of the issues to be decided on the application for leave to appeal in McCorkill and the issues we intend to raise in the Spence matter, we ask that the Panel considering the application for leave in McCorkill be advised that we will be seeking leave to appeal and will … be bringing a motion to expedite leave.” CAFÉ has agreed that the Spence appeal can be joined to ours, if the Court so wishes. This strengthens our chances of being granted leave.

This Spring will extremely expensive for CAFÉ. The issues of property rights and freedom of speech and belief are crucial. We need your help urgently! A tiny band of generous, loyal people like you have made this crucial battle possible thus far.

My thanks in advance,

Paul Fromm

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

__ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_______________________________________ _____________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:________________________________________ ______________________________

Name:_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Address:__________________________________________ ______________________________________________
__________________________________________________ _____Email___________________________________

Warman’s At It Again: Wants Canada Post to Stop Distributing Your Ward News

Posted on March 23, 2016 by admin

Warman’s At It Again: Wants Canada Post to Stop Distributing Your Ward News

Let’s see, Ontario’s eccentric courts say I can’t refer to Richard Warman as the “high priest of censorship.” So, okay, this meddling lawyer, ensconced doing something or other in the Department of National Defence, doesn’t want Torontonians to be able to receive a community tabloid entitled Your Ward News through the mail. The politically correct long ago ceased debating with those who have a problem with the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism or the self-serving Hollyweird version of WW II. Disagree with them and they want to gag you and shut you down.

Local leftists, including sometime Liberal Party backroom boy Warren Kinsella, have been gunning for Your Ward News for over a year. the Main Street offices of the tabloid have had their windows smashed numerous times by the apostles of “tolerance” and “inclusion”. Then, about a year ago, the critics flipped out and tried to pressure Canada Post not to deliver the satirical tabloid. Some posties from the notoriously leftist Postal Workers Union, which for years has has a significant contingent of Maoists, threatened they would not deliver it. The complain that it is “hate” Even under Canada’s notorious “hate” law, the accused must still be afforded a trial before his writings can be declared hate.

In a healthier society, the critics would be urged to write a letter-to-the-editor, start a paper of their own, or, if they are offended beyond all endurance when Your Ward News arrives in the mail, they can simply toss it into the Blue Box for recycling. However, we live in a mean, Puritanical society assailed by domineering followers of political correctness who want to gag all dissent from their agenda.

So, along comes Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman. Your Ward News is delivered in the eastern part of Toronto. Almost certainly Mr. Warman didn’t find an unwanted copy delivered by the mailman. So, in the normal scheme of things, what’s it to him?

Anyway, he’s taken to letter writing to try to pressure Canada Post into not delivering Your Ward Newsbecause some of its views and irreverence don’t please Warman’s Ottawa sensitivities.

National Observer (March 8, 2016), an online news commentary, reports: “A prominent Ottawa human rights lawyer is after Canada Post to drop distribution of a newsletter that he says contains misogynist, homophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate propaganda.

Richard Warman wrote Public Works Minister Judy Foote and Canada Post president Deepak Chopra in early March to ask for a halt to the postal distribution of a Toronto publication called Your Ward News.
Warman told National Observer that the newsletter was something he was aware of that was floating around the Toronto area.

“It had sort of a bad smell. When I finally had the chance to look at it closely, I was shocked to see the kind of bigotry that was being disseminated through Canada Post.”

In an email response to National Observer Tuesday, Foote said, “I have reviewed some of the material in question and I too find it highly offensive and well outside the norm of Canadian values. I have reached out to my colleagues to determine the best way forward in addressing this issue.

“This includes whether the material constitutes an offense under the Criminal Code.”

Your Ward News claims distribution of 300,000 and a readership of one million within Toronto. Canada Post delivers the publication unwrapped, meaning anyone is able to see the content.

The most recent issue of the quarterly publication (it was previously monthly) shows on its cover a bizarre collage of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surrounded by women in bikinis. Beside him, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne waves a gay pride flag.

Two men are depicted on crosses, one of them clearly meant to be Christ; the other sprays blood on former advisor to Jean Chretien, Warren Kinsella, and in a word balloon says, “See you in hell, Kinsella!”

The entire spectacle is headlined “Marxist Lackeys Attack.”

Inside, the paper contains a number of racist slurs directed mostly against Jews and Muslims. The back page invites people to attend “The 1st Annual Old-Fashioned Toronto Anti-Marxist Book-Burning.”

The purported ad states that among books welcome to be burned are “FemiMarxist garbage by authors like Margaret Atwood; EnviroMarxist Agenda 21 propaganda by scientific sellouts like David Suzuki, etc.” ….

“In his letter, Warman tells Canada Post that he is concerned the Crown corporation’s distribution of the newsletter might constitute a breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act as the agency is “party to the dissemination of discriminatory material to the general public.”

Warman warns the Crown corporation that if it persists in distribution of the paper, “I will pursue the matter accordingly,” and cites, among other things, an example of defamatory libel in the newsletter against Warren and Lisa Kinsella.” …. [Actually, Your Ward News is a tabloid newspaper, not a newsletter.]

“While Warman’s letter is the most recent attempt to have Canada Post stop delivery of Your Ward News, it’s not the first time.
In May 2015, Arthur Potts, the Ontario MPP for Toronto’s Beaches-East York riding sent a letter to Canada Post’s Chopra asking the Crown corporation to reconsider its delivery of the newsletter.

In his letter, Potts noted that Toronto’s Hate Crimes Unit was probing a complaint about the then-current issue of Your Ward News, which featured “several offensive and anti-Semitic articles and caricatures.”

The Toronto Hate Crimes Unit could not be reached for comment. It’s not known whether the paper is still under investigation at this time.

Potts wrote that he was not only deeply concerned by the paper’s content and his constituents’ complaints, but added the fact that Canada Post delivered the paper, despite repeated complaints, “suggests that the Crown corporation may endorse its content.”

Canada Post did not respond to National Observer’s queries. The Crown corporation operates at arm’s-length from the government.

Megan Whitfield, the president of the Toronto Local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, told National Observer that a number of postal workers have complained about having to deliver the publication.

However, Whitfield said Canada Post has threatened to discipline any workers who refuse to carry the newsletter.

“Both on the cover and inside they’ve had some very offensive material,” Whitfield said of the publication. At the very least the Toronto Local wants to see the publication shrink-wrapped in dark plastic so that the contents can’t be seen in the mail.
Of Canada Post, Whitfield said: “They just continue to allow it to go through.”

Ottawa human rights lawyer, Richard Warman. Photo courtesy of Richard Warman

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court

Posted on March 21, 2016 by admin

Hopeful News in the McCorkill Case: Chances Improve of Getting to the Supreme Court

Good news and bad news. CAFÉ’s chances of winning “leave” or acceptance of the Supreme Court to appeal the appalling decision of Mr. Justice Grant of the Court of Queen’s Bench in New Brunswick and upheld last July by the Court of Appeals of New Brunswick have vastly improved. That’s the good news. CAFÉ’s chances of being granted leave to appeal have improved. That’s the bad news because an appeal in ferociously expensive. Our appeal costs could soar to $60,000 and we are behind in our bills.

The McCorkill case is vital to freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights. Should a court be able to nullify a will or bequest because the recipient’s views are “contrary to public policy”? The late Robert McCorkill of St. John, New Brunswick was a professor of chemistry and left his sizable estate of old coins and rare artifacts to the U.S. White Nationalist group known as the National Alliance.

Inline image 1

Some key points from the appeal:

* Proceeding by affidavit flawed: “In support of the application, Verolin filed her own affidavit, together with an affidavit sworn by Imogene Parchment … who had acted as Eric’s occasional caregiver. … Neither Verolin nor Imogene were cross-examined on their affidavits (13). … The application judge erred by embarking on a public policy-based review pf thje impugned terms of Eric’s will and that she further erred by admitting the Extrinsic Evidence entered in this case. It follows tat I would allow the appeal. (113) This finding is most helpful because the entire McCorkill application was heard using only “extrinsic evidence” in the form of affidavits. None of the deponents was cross-examined. CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge succeeded in getting some affidavits struck, but a number of fiery ones filled with accusations against the National Alliance remained as part of the record.

* BMO’s arguments on behalf of the Spence Estate. “BMO Trust … submits that the application judge erred by placing any weight on the Extrinsic Evidence. … BMO Trust argues that the application judge unjustifiably interfered with Eric, testamentary freedom, which allows him to distribute his property as he chooses. … Allowing the application judge’s decision to stand would increase uncertainty is estate law and open the floodgates to litigation in estates matters.” (24-26) This latter argument was also forcefully made by CAFE both before the Court of Queen’s Bench and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal,

* Testamentary Freedom, “A testator;s freedom to distribute [his] property as [he] chooses is a deeply entrenched common law principle.” (30) “he Supreme Court has also recognized the importance of testamentary autonomy, holding that it should not be interfered with lightly, but only in so far as the law requires.” (31)

* The Court noted that the Spence will was a private trust. There were no behaviour actions required of the beneficiary. “Eric’s residual bequest imposes no conditions or stipulations. “The courts have recognized various categories of cases where public policy may be invoked to void a conditional testamentary gift” (like marrying a particular person, celibacy, or membership in a particular church) (55) There were no such conditions in either the Spence will or the McCorkill will.

* There is strong criticism of the reasoning in the McCorkill decision. McCorkill found “this authority extends to cases where the terms of the bequest do not include discriminatory conditions bu evidence is tendered that a testator’s alleged motive is making the bequest offends public policy. I see no support in the established jurisprudence for the acceptance of such an open-ended invitation to enlarge the scope of the public policy doctrine in estates cases.” (58) McCorkill extends the law dangerously. “Prior to McCorkill, public policy based justification for judicial interference with a testator’s freedom to dispose of [his] property had been advanced only in respect of conditional testamentary gifts. In McCorkill, as in this case, the testator’s residual gift was absolute, not conditional.” (62) “However, Professor Ziff [Bruce Ziff, “Welcome to the Newest Unworthy heir”] acknowledges that, even in unworthy heir cases like McCorkill, the invocation of public policy considerations to void an unconditional testamentary bequest may overreach the proper ambit of the public policy doctrine. ‘The more challenging problem with McCorkill is that it may be overbroad.'”

* Neither the Spence nor the McCorkill bequests offend the Charter or provincial human rights acts. “Neither the Ontario Human Rights Code … nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to justify court interference with the testator’s intentions. the Human Rights Code, of course, ensures that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to service,s good and facilities without discrimination based on race … the Charter pertains to state action. Neither reaches testamentary disposition of a private nature.” (74) This would seem to apply to McCorkill, as well.

* this conclusion would seem to be very applicable to McCorkill: “The desire to guard against a testator’s unsavoury or distasteful testamentary dispositions cannot be allowed to overtake testamentary freedom. The need for a robust application of the principle of testamentary freedom is especially impoirtant … in the context of a testator’s central right to choose his or her residual beneficiaries.” (85)

Please send your most generous contribution today.

My thanks, fellow free speech supporter,

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
__________________
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__  Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#____________________________________________________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:______________________________________________________________________

Name:__________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

Lady Michele Renouf — Contrasting Justice: Breivik vs. Mahler

Posted on March 20, 2016 by admin

Lady Michele Renouf — Contrasting Justice: Breivik vs. Mahler

Posted on March 17, 2016 by admin in Anders Breivik, Germany, Horst Mahler, Norway, Palestine// 0 Comments

Psychopathic killer Anders Breivik consults with his lawyer

Ever since I was alerted by Dr Gunther Kümel to the medical plight of imprisoned lawyer, philosopher and German Attorney Horst Mahler – for whom Dr Kümel was the first to institute fundraising to assist his defence and medical requirements – I have long wished to draw the stark contrast between the prison conditions of Norwegian mass-murderer and child killer Anders Breivik, and the incarceration of the brave truth-seeking Horst Mahler.

Breivik’s former salute: a combination of “black power” and Marxism.

The new fey “neo-nazi” Breivik

Breivik’s obscene fey parody of a national socialist salute (the main focus of the world’s media attention) has encouraged malicious commentators to label him a “neo-Nazi” – despite his being a blatant worshipper of criminal Zionist imperialism, who targeted his victims because of their calls (in defence of Palestinian rights) for boycotts of Israeli produce. World Zionism and National Socialism are incompatible ideologies.

Breivik’s victims at a Norwegian youth camp supported the boycott of Israeli produce as part of their campaign for Palestinian rights.

His own pro-Israeli chutzpah insults his victims’ families, alongside all the laws of natural justice, with his complaints about the standards of decoration in his cell. Further issues for the “persecuted” murderer (as noted by world syndicated reports) are that his coffee is sometimes cold and butter insufficient for his bread. The vainglorious butcher Breivik also complains about not having been allowed moisturiser, without which might the fraud lack his camera appeal? Naïve Norwegian liberals insult the taxpaying public with their support of all these consecutive courts of appeal, whereby ultimately The Hague court of human rights must hear sociopathic Breivik’s protest that the Playstation supplied free in his multi-roomed cell is not the very latest version.

Meanwhile Horst Mahler – whose “crimes” involved not murdering children but daring to speak the truth as he saw it about historical and philosophical issues at the core of Germany’s 21^stcentury crisis – is now 80 years old and has consistently been denied all normal rights of appeal.

All mod cons for murderer Breivik

While courts in Norway eagerly provide platforms for Breivik to complain that his computer games are not up to date, Mahler is unable to raise the most fundamental questions relevant to his defence, since the German courts rule that certain evidence cannot be discussed, even if it is supplied by qualified scientists, historians and other academic investigators of the highest calibre.

While Breivik insists on moisturiser, Mahler (following the amputation of his lower left leg) relies on international fundraisers to provide the potential for him to live in his own home – assuming he is ever released.

Horst Mahler remains incarcerated despite life-threatening illness and the amputation of his lower left leg.

And while Breivik – despite his boasted responsibility for horrific murders – can look forward to being released by his mid-50s, Mahler is now 80 and knows that the German establishment is determined that he will never again live as a free man. The question remains – with Horst Mahler subjected to such treatment, how can any European consider himself living in a just society?

Lady Michèle Renouf
London, March 2016

NO JUSTICE FOR DISSIDENT WHATCOTT IN CBC LIBEL APPEAL

Posted on March 20, 2016 by admin

NO JUSTICE FOR DISSIDENT WHATCOTT IN CBC LIBEL APPEAL

Canada’s courts are dominated by judges holding to a Cultural Marxist ideology. In their world, people are divided into “vulnerable minorities” who must be protected from criticism and oppressors. Near the very top of their “vulnerable minority” hit parade are homosexuals and the whole LGBTQ-alphabet soup of the sexually unusual. A strong critic for over 20 years of the homosexual agenda is Bill Whatcott. Beggared, jailed, fined, ruined by a homosexual led boycott of his carpet cleaning business, Mr. Whatcot t is nothing if not a fighter.

He won a libel action against the CBC for their deliberate distortion of his words. Good for him. However, the short-lived victory, was substantially reversed with an additional punishing kick in the kidneys, saddling him with the CBC’s costs.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeals upheld the finding of libel but slashed the $30,000 award to a measly $1,000 and essentially cancelled it by awarding costs against Whatcott. An appeal can run $10,000 – $40,000 easily. So, even in winning, partially, Mr. Whatcott, the real victim, loses.

The decision written by Neal Caldwell concluded: “There is simply no evidence upon which to quantify or begin to assess the level of damages in this case. For this reason, although the Chambers judge’s finding of defamation attracts a presumptive award of damages, the absence of evidence of the effect of the defamation that occurred here limits that to an award of nominal damages only. The appeal is allowed in part. The finding of defamation is not subject to appellate reversal. The judge’s findings with respect to the extent of publication and actual malice are set\ aside, as is the award of aggravated damages. The award of compensatory general damages is reduced to the nominal amount of $1,000. Since the CBC was substantially successful, it shall have its costs in this appeal in the usual manner.”

The Court of Appeals is advancing the novel proposition that it is hard to know how big an audience CBC News has or what influence, if any its stories, have. Thus, so the bowel twister of an argument goes, there is no proof Mr. Whatcott suffered any damage. If the CBC really has such a small audience and so little influence, this is a sad commentary on decades of taxpayer $billion+ annual subsidy for this leftist propaganda agency.

Interestingly, in the CAFE/Fromm’s libel case, where we were sued for defamation by Richard Warman for, among other things, calling him “the high priest of censorship”, the Court gladly awarded $40,000 in damages, even though our words were circulated on relatively obscure websites, not blared over Canada’s national news network. In that case, Judge Monique Metivier seemed convinced that Warman’s reputation had been damaged by our merely uttering these words. It’s flattering but not convincing to believe that our writings are more powerful than the multi-billion dollar foghorn of the CBC. Actually, this is just another case of our leftists courts beating up on a pesky Christian; namely, Bill Whatcott.

The National Post (February 26, 2016) provides more detail to the story: In Saskatchewan, “he province’s top court has significantly cut the amount of money the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has to pay for defaming anti-gay crusader Bill Whatcott. Originally ordered to pay Whatcott $30,000, the CBC is now on the hook for only $1,000 after a partial win before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
“While I find no cogent basis to set aside the finding of defamation, I would nevertheless intervene and reduce the general damages awarded in this matter to a nominal amount,” Justice Neal Caldwell wrote on behalf of the court. ….

The issue dates back to October 2011 when the CBC published a report on The National and its website about a case involving Whatcott that was before the Supreme Court of Canada. It stemmed from a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling regarding Whatcott’s battle with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission over anti-gay pamphlets he distributed in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002.

The CBC report included a pan of one of Whatcott’s pamphlets — but not the one that was at issue in the human rights case. Rather, it was one Whatcott had distributed in Alberta in 2008. The CBC showed the side of the pamphlet with lyrics to a song that Whatcott had modified to read, “Kill the Homosexual.” On the reverse side, which the CBC didn’t show, “Whatcott had purported to disclaim or exculpate himself from liability for its inflammatory content, suggesting that he did not truly advocate the murder of homosexuals,” the decision notes.
(Don Healy / Leader-Post)Bill Whatcott handing out flyers at the University of Regina on March 6, 2013.

Whatcott sued, claiming that CBC’s depiction of the pamphlet would cause viewers to believe he advocated murdering homosexual people.
In January 2015 Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Elson agreed, finding the CBC had misrepresented the pamphlet in its four-minute news segment. He awarded Whatcott $20,000 in general damages and an additional $10,000 in aggravated damages after finding the broadcaster had acted with malice.
The CBC appealed, arguing Elson had made several legal errors.

The mere fact the CBC had published a defamatory news segment does not serve to increase the measure of general damages or to justify an award of aggravated damages.

“While the defamatory nature of the news segment is open to some interpretation, I cannot conclude that the judge’s interpretation of it as defamatory was either unreasonable or borne of an error of law,” wrote Caldwell in a decision made unanimous by Justices Ralph Ottenbreit and Maurice Herauf. Elson had found the CBC’s focus on a single, offensive phrase conveyed the impression Whatcott’s activism was more extreme that it actually was and would “tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.”

However, the court did determine Elson erred in other findings.
Caldwell said the judge had no evidence about the scope of the publication so erred in assessing damages. The court said Whatcott was responsible for making his case, and “it was not for the judge to fill in the gaps with speculation.”

Whatcott had also failed to provide proof of actual malice, and Elson had made inferences based on “scant evidence,” said Caldwell.
“The mere fact the CBC had published a defamatory news segment does not serve to increase the measure of general damages or to justify an award of aggravated damages,” wrote Caldwell.”

Posted on March 12, 2016 by admin

How the Canadian Jewish Congress Created the Canadian Nazi Party to Help Get Their “Hate Law” Passed

14:25

Jews Created the Canadian Nazi Party in 1965 – 1 of 2 HD

25 Feb 2016 16:12

https://youtu.be/-5dZbx41TT4

5:57

Jews Created the Canadian Nazi Party in 1965 – 2 of 2 HD

Vancouver Anti-Racists Pour Urine on Anti-feminist Reporter’s Head

Posted on March 12, 2016 by admin

Vancouver Anti-Racists Pour Urine on Anti-feminist Reporter’s Head

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. It is also a code word for violent and crude. The Vancouver Sun (March 7, 2016) reports that an anti-racist dumped urine on the head of Laurenm Southern, 20, an anti-feminist and reporter for Ezra Levant’s The Rebel. Southern, who is a Libertarian, was reporting on a protest by militant anti-racists and homosexuals/lesbians and the otherly sexed. The protest was to shut down a meeting by a controversial U.S. Libertarian Augustus Sol Invictus, whose meting in Portland had been attacked by anti-racists.

In fact, his cowardly Canadian venue. the Railway Club had already cancelled his appearance

Rebel reporter Lauren Southern had a bottle of urine poured on her at a protest in Vancouver on Friday, March 4, 2016. (YouTube video screenshot)

“Southern, 20, had stepped into a 25-person strong “counter-protest” to a cancelled event that was supposed to be held by Augustus Sol Invictus, a U.S. Senate hopeful running for the Libertarian party on a platform of less government involvement in people’s lives. …

The event was cancelled when Invictus couldn’t make it through customs at the Canadian border, and when the Railway Club, which were supposed to hold the event, was made aware of Invictus’ supposed beliefs, presumably by members of Vancouver’s Antifa group (VANANTIFA), which describes itself as “anti-fascist, anti-racist, all the time.”

Invictus spoke a few days earlier in Portland, where members of Rose City Antifa showed up in force, smashing his car and attacking him and one of his supporters.

Long story short, Southern, who’s never backed down from a good debate, began to question the viewpoints of the Vancouver protesters, largely members of Vancouver’s feminist and LGBTQ communities.

Southern, who also ran as a candidate in 2015 for The Libertarian Party of Canada, … .

The perpetrator of the attack was briefly held at the scene by those in Southern’s camp, but was eventually let go.”

The witty Miss Southern tweeted afterwards: “Unfortunately this is not my fetish. I thought feminists were into consent?”

Westminster Abbey Boots Buddhist Retreat Over Hitler Videos

Posted on March 7, 2016 by admin

Westminster Abbey Boots Buddhist Retreat Over Hitler Videos
Father Mark Dumont is the guestmaster at Westminster Abbey in Mission, BC where about 30 Benedictine Catholic monks live. He is the monk on the right, in the…
Y
OUTUBE.COM

Father Mark Dumont is the guestmaster at Westminster Abbey in Mission, BC where about 30 Benedictine Catholic monks live. He is the monk on the right, in the thumbnail photo.

Brian Ruhe is a Buddhist meditation teacher in Vancouver and he has led his most successful Vipassana Meditation retreats here in the winters of 2013, 2014 and 2105. At the last one Father Mark told Mr. Ruhe that he can’t lead anymore retreats there because of his YouTube videos questioning the Holocaust and the true history of Adolf Hitler and WW II. Brian had an email exchange several times with Father Mark and maybe Father Mark developed some mutual respect for their differences in view and appreciated that Brian Ruhe is not a mean, deluded Nazi. But Father Mark would never change his stance so Ruhe is using this YouTube video to take the truth to the general public.

Here, Paul Fromm is the Director of CAFE the Canadian Association of Freedom of Expression, since 1983. He was visiting Vancouver from Toronto when he gave this talk.

His website: CAFE | Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity

Paul Fromm and Brian Ruhe were both on Red Ice Radio on Feb. 11, 2016 at this link: Red Ice Radio…

Brian Ruhe is a Buddhist activist and occasional troublemaker. Please donate to support these videos and my work by going to my website at www.brianruhe.ca linked on this YouTube channel and click on the PayPal Donate button. Even the smallest donation helps!

To see my diary of what I’m up to please send me a friend request and I’ll accept you on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BrianRuhe . I am available for one-to-one counselling for $25/ half hour by Skype, phone or in person, on any matter. You can connect with me on Skype at: brianaruhe .

My most recent book is “A SHORT WALK ON AN ANCIENT PATH – A Buddhist Exploration of Meditation, Karma and Rebirth”, is available in book or ebook form at Amazon.com at:

http://www.amazon.com/Short-Walk-Anci……

I was a Buddhist monk in Chiangmai, Thailand in 1995 – 1996 and I have been teaching Theravada Buddhism and meditation for 20 years. My first book from 1999, is “Freeing the Buddha,” also at Amazon. I follow the Theravada Buddhist Forest tradition.

__________

https://youtu.be/Ghit57K9JhA

LADY MICHELLE RENOUF’S SPEECH TO “DON’T BAN THE NPD RALLY” IN LONDON, FEB. 27

Posted on March 6, 2016 by admin

LADY MICHELLE RENOUF’S SPEECH TO “DON’T BAN THE NPD RALLY” IN LONDON, FEB. 27

27th February 2016 – RENOUF speech delivered and recorded opposite the German Embassy in London, in defence of the non-banning of the NPD Party.

German Embassy diplomats, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN here today and viewing on the worldwide internet,

The question of the day is: WHY IN THE WORLD DOES GERMANY NEED THE N.P.D.?

I keenly answer, by echoing the NPD’s 3 REASONS, in their own words:

1) DEMOCRACY REQUIRES RIGHT TO BE OFFERED A REAL POLITICAL CHOICE.

2) RIGHT OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

3) RIGHT TO A NATIONAL RACIAL IDENTITY AND CONSEQUENT AUTHENTIC CULTURE – because RACE AND NATIONAL CULTURES sustain the DIVERSE NATIVE BEAUTY OF OUR PLANET.

Briefly an outline:

1) DEMOCRACY … as we understand it, is meant to offer citizens political choices.

The existence of the NPD duly alerts Germans ( and likewise other European countries ) that none uphold democracy while ever nationalist parties are media-sidelined, suffer mendacious reportage without a just re-dress; are criminally infiltrated in order to entrap, sabotage and misrepresent their policies ; and remain under threat of being banned.

To quote from the NPD’s website:
“An open political process and a legally protected process of political opinion-forming (the indispensable foundation of a free democratic order) is threatened by the impending monopolisation of politics, due to the lust for power of well-organised interest groups.

“This is already well under way, though covered up or glossed over by politically biased coverage in the public media of the mass immigration and consequent conflict in Germany – in a ubiquitous process of undermining parliamentary democracy, with Chancellor Merkel transforming Germany into a multiethnic state through the lowering of German borders without even a Cabinet decision, let alone a vote in Parliament. In fact it is not the policy of Merkel’s critics that is “extremist”, but government policy itself that is “extremist”. “
2). The NPD works to alert the German people ( and likewise other nations ) that they have no SOVEREIGNTY under the European Union.

To quote from the NPD website:
“In several places in Germany’s constitution – the “Basic Law” – there is mention of the concept of the German people. The very legitimacy of state power derives from this concept of a German people, with an inherent German ethnicity.

Even a former Constitutional Court judge Udo di Fabio recently pointed out that the government could not go ahead and create a new German people via unlimited immigration, as in that case state power would no longer derive legitimacy from the bottom up – government would be taking on itself the right to alter the size and composition of the nation state, in what a well-known constitutional lawyer Josef Isensee in 1999 (addressing the issue of dual citizenship) called a “constitutional coup from above”).“ – an unidentified “above” governance, at that!

3). NATIONAL IDENTITY:

A country denied its sovereignty is also thereby denied its national right to its racial identity. To quote from the NPD website, in a letter to German police and armed forces from NPD party chairman Frank Franz ( Herr Franz, an able and respectable spokesman, with whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and discussing these issues firsthand), said:

“The police and armed forces fulfil an essential task of great importance in today’s society. Their tasks face drastic transformation in the foreseeable future. A new development is potentially shattering the stability of our community: namely the toleration of a gigantic abuse of our asylum law, which can destroy irretrievably that character of Germany’s population, society and culture. The mass occupation via “asylum” and the risk of infiltration by radical jihadists presents problems which inevitably leave their mark on the everyday work of the police and army.”

Frank Franz wrote:
“This ‘population exchange’ affects us all, as does the termination of our independent statehood by the EU integration process which is intrinsically hostile to sovereignty. Those in government service should be attentive when transitory political developments threaten the fundamentals of the State’s constitution.
[quoting from the Basic Law]Article 20 para 2: All state authority emanates from the people. Articles 56 and 64: the President, Chancellor and Ministers undertake on oath to act “for the benefit of the German people”.

The very integrity and identity of that German People is at stake due to the diminishing of national self-determination and the alienation of the public.
The manner in which political criticism is made into a suspicious activity, represents a violation of human dignity and a sacrifice of free expression.

One must raise the question: to what extent does E.U. asylum policy contravene the stipulations of the Basic Law concerning “the benefit of the German people”? Has it indeed contravened this already?

As there has so far been no comparable historical experience, …this is probably the first time in the history of the Federal Republic that it is conceivable for public servants to have to bear in mind Article 20 Para 4 of the Basic Law, which states that: “if no other remedy is possible, Germans have the right to resist against anyone who seeks to abolish the constitutional order.”
============

As to the ongoing court-case TO BAN the NPD, the website informs that:
“NPD’s lawyer Peter Richter will argue at outset of proceedings on March 1st that the case for banning the party is so tainted by the activities of German spy agencies that there is no legitimate case to be made against the NPD.

“After the failure of a similar banning process 12 years ago – ruled unconstitutional because of the extent of German state spying operations against the party and the role of highly placed state agents – this time the state agencies have claimed that they closed down all agents operating above a certain level in the party.

“But there is absolutely no guarantee that they have complied with this order. The NPD is very dubious about a process that involves legal submissions “in camera”.

“The party will therefore attempt to have the case struck out on legal and constitutional grounds, but is also prepared if necessary to address each of the documents brought in evidence by the state and bring its own motions to introduce defence evidence.”

[ Of course, as I have witnessed first hand in courtrooms in Germany, one is reminded of the ubiquitous film “Dinner for One”, since all Germans laugh to see it screening as a standing joke on their TVs every New Years’. The matriarchal character – like the courtroom judges when asked by lawyers if evidential exhibits may be presented in defence of their “opinion crime” clients – she proclaims “No! It is to be the same procedure every year!”!! ]

IN SUM:

The NPD does VITAL WORK in alerting the Germans – and likewise the world – that NATO and its military bases in all our countries, act not as a deterrent, but makes us targets for Zionist-lead America’s war-mongering which has created all these mutually undesired mass migrations of peoples from other lands to Europe – an unnatural migration which will bring neither peoples their necessary human sense of “ancestral home”. Humans, as with homing pigeons and other creatures on our planet, have a natural instinct for, and comforting group identity with, their ancestral “homeland”. No good can come of denying us what Nature provides in our best group interests.

On today’s news we hear Chancellor Merkel admit that she is “uncertain where the registered migrants are”… much less all the unregistered millions she has unilaterally welcomed, and wishes to invite in their tens of millions into Germany. I have heard from ordinary German citizens, overwhelmed by the colossal migrant invasion upon their towns and villages, that they feel betrayed and abused by Merkel’s tyrannical imposition of her democratic-disdaining, nation-changing policy. Thank goodness that we have the NPD to alert us to the full circumstances and consequences of this devastating onslaught on our Nature.

Long live the NPD for all our sakes in Europe!!