|
Monthly Archives: July 2018
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association Calls on Ontario Attorney General to Revoke Consent for ‘Hate’ Charges Against Dr. Sears & Leroy St. Germaine (YOUR WARD NEWS); Kevin J. Johnston & Bill Whatcott
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association Calls on Ontario Attorney General to Revoke Consent for ‘Hate’ Charges Against Dr. Sears & Leroy St. Germaine (YOUR WARD NEWS); Kevin J. Johnston & Bill Whatcott
http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-Ontario-Mulroney.pdf
Media Release:
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has sent a letter to Ontario’s new
Attorney General Caroline Mulroney, re: Criminal code censorship prosecutions in Ontario.
The letter is available at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/
By Email
July 24, 2018
Hon. Caroline Mulroney
Attorney General of Ontario
Ontario, Canada
Dear Attorney General Mulroney:
Re: Criminal Code censorship prosecutions in Ontario
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) advocates for civil and human rights, including the fundamental human right of individual expression, opinion and belief.
We write to ask you to refrain during your mandate from consenting to any prosecutions based on the censorship provisions of the Criminal Code, because the said provisions categorically violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “Covenant”) ratified by Canada in 1976.
The impugned sections of the Criminal Code are:
LIBEL
· S. 296 – Blasphemous libel
· Ss. 297 to 317 – Defamatory libel
HATE PROPAGANDA
· S. 318 – Advocating genocide
· S. 319 – Public incitement of hatred / Wilful promotion of hatred
· Ss. 320 to 320.1 – Warrant of seizure
Our point is not that expression cannot be criminal. For example: ss. 22 and 464 of the Criminal Code, which apply to valid provisions of the Criminal Code.
Our point is that Canada and the provinces are obligated under international law not to enact and use laws that violate fundamental human rights.
The “blasphemous libel” (s. 296) and “defamatory libel” (ss. 297 to 317) provisions are squarely contrary to international law,[1] and opposite to all the relevant joint statements of international rapporteurs on human rights.[2],[3],[4] In particular, the said provisions prescribe imprisonment, whereas international law expressly disallows imprisonment as a penalty for any type of defamation, whether characterized as “criminal” or not.[5]
Section 296 will be repealed by Bill C-51 (referred to committee on Senate second reading). The defamatory libel” sections (ss. 297 to 317) are maintained, except that “published” cannot mean solely to the person who is defamed (s. 299(c)).
The “advocating genocide” provision of the Criminal Code (s. 318), is noncompliant with the Covenant because it does not prescribe an onus on the state to establish a “direct and immediate connection” to an actual “threat”:[6]
When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.
A valid law prohibiting advocating genocide is required to prescribe that the “advocating” must be credible and causally connected to a palpable threat.
The “public incitement of hatred / wilful promotion of hatred” provisions (s. 319) violate the Covenant because no actual harm to any specific person needs to be proven by the state; nor is the issue incitement of a crime, but rather incitement of “hatred” (an emotion which is not in itself a crime) in unspecified persons at large.
The court is asked to subjectively hypothesize an induced “hatred” at large. The state need only wave the magic wand of “hatred”, subjectively inferred from the impugned expression itself, to imprison an individual for up to two years.
These are victimless crimes of hypothetically inducing emotions transmitted into the ether of society, which hypothetically cause unspecified harm to unspecified persons. No evidence of any kind is needed beyond the impugned expression itself and the context of the expression.
The Supreme Court itself determined this statutory interpretation of prosecutions pursuant to ss. 319(1) and 319(2):[7]
“The offence does not require proof that the communication caused actual hatred. … The risk of hatred caused by hate propaganda is very real. This is the harm that justifies prosecuting individuals under this section [319] of the Criminal Code. In the Media Case, the ICTR said that ‘[t]he denigration of persons on the basis of their ethnic identity or other group membership in and of itself, as well as in its other consequences, can be an irreversible harm’.” [Emphasis added]
The proverbial slippery slope has now led us beyond this victimless crime — in which any effect or harm from the expression need not be proven and cannot be tested — to a place where “holocaust denial” is argued to automatically generate the said hatred at large. On the contrary, the Covenant holds the state to an entirely different standard:[8]
Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events.
The impugned Criminal Code provisions include overt “book burning” clauses (ss. 319(4), 320 and 320.1) for recorded materials that are subjectively hypothesized to induce “hatred” in the reader, listener or viewer.
Canada has an obligation to remove these laws,[9] an obligation that it appears to be largely disregarding despite our calls starting in February 2016.
All prosecutions pursuant to the impugned provisions are fundamentally unjust towards the individual, extraordinarily wasteful of public resources, and harmful to democracy itself.
The “hate propaganda” prosecutions are structurally political because they are made at the discretion of the Attorney General (ss. 318(3), 319(6) and 320(7)). They have a potential to be used as propaganda and societal manipulation, much as witch trials were used in the Reformation in competing for “religious market share” between Catholics and Protestants.[10] Those who seek censorship of a particular negative view are often partisans of a particular political party or ideology or may have a special interest they wish to advance. Reactions to views one finds repugnant are emotional vectors that can align, consolidate, increase or strengthen partisan affiliation when the issue is predictably mediatized through a controversial trial.
In addition, we ask you to retract the Attorney General’s consent for all the ongoing such prosecutions, which were consented to by the previous Attorney General despite our requests.
We know of three current such prosecutions being pursued in Ontario:
- Kevin Johnston – for expressed negative opinions about Muslims
- James Sears – for expressed negative opinions about women and Jews
- Bill Whatcott – for expressed negative opinions about gays
Please let us know your responses so that we may report these to our members and to the public.
Yours truly,
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
Cc: Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Attorney General of Canada, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
[1] General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd
session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/
[2] JOINT DECLARATION: Current Challenges to Media Freedom, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, 30 November 2000, <http://www.osce.org/fom/40190
[3] JOINT DECLARATION, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, 10 December 2002, <http://www.osce.org/fom/39838
[4] JOINT DECLARATION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS, AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND ANTI-EXTREMISM LEGISLATION, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the ACHPR (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, 10 December 2008, <http://www.osce.org/fom/35639
[5] General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd
session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/
session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/
[6] See Article 20 of the Covenant; and see General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd session, CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 35
[7] Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 100, 2005 SCC 40 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1l249>, at para. 102
[8] General comment No. 34, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 102nd session, CCPR/C/GC/34, <http://www2.ohchr.org/
[9] General comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, 80th session, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004, <http://www.refworld.org/cgi-
[10] “Witch Trials” by Peter T. Leeson and Jacob W. Russ, The Economic Journal, 2017, DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12498
Contact:
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
Historical Revisionist & Prolific Videographer Jim Rizoli’s Third You Tube Channel Shut Down By Censors
|
Historical Revisionist & Prolific Videographer Jim Rizoli’s Third You Tube Channel Shut Down By Censors Jim Rizoli(right) interviews Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, July, 2016 After review, we have determined that your account activity violated our Community Guidelines, which state that hate speech is not acceptable on our site. “Hate speech” means content that promotes hatred or violence against members of a protected group (race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity). Please be aware that you are prohibited from accessing, possessing, or creating any other YouTube accounts. For more information about account terminations and how our Community Guidelines are enforced, please visit our Help Center. If you would like to appeal the suspension, please submit this form. Please be aware that you are prohibited from accessing, possessing or creating any other YouTube accounts. For more information about account terminations and how our Community Guidelines are enforced, please visit our Helper Center. If you would like to appeal the suspension, please submit this form. |
Firsthand Reports of THE SCHAEFER SIBLINGS’ TRIAL IN MUNICH, DAY 5, July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018.
:
left to right: Attorney for Alfred, RA Frank Miksche; Alfred Schaefer; attorney for Monika, RA Wolfram Nahrath; TBR correspondent Michèle, Lady Renouf
Firsthand Reports of THE SCHAEFER SIBLINGS’ TRIAL IN MUNICH, DAY 5, July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018.
PREAMBLE
A “Judicial Industry”? – terrorising free speech?
Are we seeing the emergence of a “Judicial Industry”, asks one reader of these firsthand Court reports?
It is true that the Schaefer siblings’ trial was scheduled to commence on the same day as the judgment in the big trial of the “National Socialist Underground” (NSU) “terror trial” – a long-running Process of seven years’ duration concerning the murder of nine immigrants (mainly Turks) and one policewoman – first believed to have been killed by ethnic-minority gangsters, now said to have been victims of a “neo-nazi” conspiracy which somehow escaped the attention of numerous state agents close to the alleged “terrorists”. (Incidentally, one of the defence lawyers involved in the NSU case, RA Wolfram Nahrath, is also the lawyer for Monika Schaefer.)
On Day 1, July 2nd, on my way to the courthouse, I stopped to ask a technician sitting in one of the many media vans, lining the street alongside the Courthouse, whether they were there to cover the Schaefer trial? Turns out, all those TV vans were there to cover the great media scandal of the NSU, interestingly timed, as in the UK, where the big scandal of the “Right-wing terrorist” conspiracy trial was playing out.
One might say, the Jeremy Bedford-Turner trial for “racial incitement” (carrying a custodial sentence of potentially seven years, like the Schaefers’ potential five years) was underway at a parallel period when a series of trials, leading to the present trial for “conspiracy to murder” a Member of Parliament was underway in the U.K.. Perhaps is there a certain attempt to conflate the idea of actual murder cases with “thought-crime” cases in which there is no crime but only a Prosecution argument to make out an “aggression” case out of rendering simple opinion as equally culpable to actual crimes? Yet as Alfred Schaefer well exclaimed to the Munich court judge – and similarly one might say as did Jez Turner to the London court judge – “there is a difference between warning and threatening”.
As I happen to know both these two defendants, I can say that – while each has a tendency to use naturally excitable rhetoric at demos and in videos – that is again quite different to “aggression” and “incitement” to commit an actual crime. Both men are of proven “exemplary character” as evidenced in their civic-minded actions in performance of their duties towards their communities and spirited defence of free opinion and open debate. Each is convivial, neither debate-hateful nor malicious towards criticism, and both are conscientious intellectually in their separate endeavours to inform the public of issues in the interests of public-need-to-know, as warnings to “the Powers That should not Be” (to quote Jez)! Neither man has given cause for any corruption charges or any dishonesty in their dealings. In both cases, only the fear of “political-correctness” could lead a jury to judge otherwise. A great pity that jurists have no chance for a secret final ballot to overcome the pressure of peer and political fear.
I experienced firsthand what a difference this secret vote can make to the behaviour of a jurist. In London’s top private club, the Reform Club on Pall Mall, two internal ‘trials’ were held to adjudicate if I, as a long-standing member, by inviting to the Clubhouse the pariahed British historian David Irving, had offended the “sensitivities” of the “jewish cabal” within the Clubhouse and owed them an apology. The pariahing of Irving was in consequence of his lost civil action in London’s High Court against Professor Deborah Lipstadt. This case in 2000 was the subject of the 2016 Hollywood movie “Denial”. Incidentally, my unintimidatable presence on Irving’s otherwise empty courtroom bench – “your kamakaze leap” asked Professor Art Butz, “into historical Revisionism?”(!) – is factually depicted in the movie, for I did attend daily throughout the several months of that revelatary civil trial (a rare fact, actually) in that thoroughly mis-depicting movie. The point I am making is this: When the head of MORI Polls, the admirable American, Professor Robert Worcester, acted as my McKenzie’s friend in my defence at the Club, he asked, naturally, that the 12 Club ‘jurors’ be permitted a secret vote. They then voted for no expulsion. But later on, when the same charge was re-run, and my new McKenzie’s friend failed to ask for the jurors to be permitted a secret vote, in casting their open votes those same ‘ urors’ called for my expulsion. Thus, proving my point that under peer and politically-correct pressure jurors are left subject to the “terror” or call it “heresy” vote. (The ‘judge’ in charge of the Club’s expulsion proceedings on each occasion being a Jewish lady lawyer!) Many in the London courtroom public gallery, following the persuasive defence by Jez’s barrister Adrian Davies, felt that had the jurors voted in a secret ballot, they might well have acquitted the non-aggressive Jez of “malicious incitement”. Yet in an open ballot those jurors would certainly fear exposing themselves to the many personal and professional dangers involved in revealing “politically-incorrect” opinions.
A great pity is that German law has had no jury system since 1924, when juries were abolished supposedly as a money-saving measure, at a time when the German economy was under great pressure due to the onerous reparations payments imposed at the end of the First World War. (Interestingly, as these trials are occuring in Munich, for a very short time from 1948 to 1950 this city and the rest of Bavaria reintroduced jury trials, but they were scrapped again once the Federal Republic of Germany was established.)
Relatedly, as mentioned earlier in these reports, I witnessed that Munich citzens do feel a terror of attending the Schaefer siblings’ trial. Having to show their passports for entry to the public gallery makes them fearful of being placed on a watch list for simply showing their “anti-semitic” or “ Nationalist tending” curiosity in such political issues.
Day 5 of the trial, Thursday July 12.
The morning session was farcical! It had to be recessed until 13.30.
This late start was because the Court had failed to inform the Stadelheim Prison that Alfred had to appear in court that day! They were only told about it after Alfred did not show up in the morning when all other actors in the proceedings had duly arrived on time at 09.15, including Monika.
It was just the kind of slack incompetence that Alfred draws on when saying his opponents keep making “own goals”, for when eventually he was brought to the court not until the afternoon, he declared: “Had you let me sleep at home instead of prison I’d have arrived perfectly on time!” – (as per his estimation of the competence of conduct in his preferred era under Deutsches Reich discipline!).
In the afternoon Alfred’s video “Brainwashing 9/11 Part 1“, was shown. Since it has no German version, an official interpreter had made a translation and this German text was read simultaneously during regular pauses while the video was being screened. Frau Schaefer told me the translations were good and fair.
Alfred was asked by the judge, how he had reacted after he had “found out about 9/11”? Alfred said, that at first he had sleepless nights, then he started doing a lot of investigation and research. He reached the conclusion that we are in big trouble, like noticing your house is on fire yet the people inside the house do not notice or dare to deal with its disquiet, disturbance, or danger. So he felt the obligation to warn and awaken everybody.
He knew that life would be more comfortable in the short-term if he would not care about it. But this was not an option for him, even if it meant, as indeed it does, his being, right now, in jail even during the remainder of his own trial.
Alfred explained that his video-viewing audiences at that time were mainly the Americans. So he did not bother translating this video into German. Alfred stressed several times, that his biggest wish is to solve this whole problem peacefully. That is why he feels the duty to do what he is doing, to warn and to inform people. (Indeed, he does use the term “lesson” and performs like a firm but patient school teacher in his videos.)
Alfred said, “what our judicial system is doing now, is wrapping duct tape around a steaming pressure cooker while turning up the heat on and on”.
Another question from the judge was, how did Alfred make the step from “9/11” to the “Holocaust”? Alfred answered that it was the TV interview with Michael Chertoff, which Alfred presents in his video, where Chertoff states that denying the official story of “9/11” is like denying the “Holocaust”.
This led to the conclusion depicted in the video, which seems to be one of the points of the accusation, that Alfred now saw “with the help of Chertoff that the Official “9/11″ story = bullshit, likewise that the official “Holocaust” story = bullshit”.
Alfred also described how he at first started blogging on the internet and encountered the “Hasbara” – (a Hebrew word for “Erklärer”, an explainer, though Israeli sources define it more fully as a propagandist i.e. Hasbara “refers to public-relations efforts to disseminate, abroad, positive information about the State of Israel and its actions”.)
Alfred said a Jewish friend from Palestine told him this when someone had made very obscene and offensive comments under his Blog, instead of reacting in a factual (objective) way and manner.
Alfred‘s final statement on this day was that “many people now are waking up, especially the young people in the USA. Truth is marching on, even if they throw us into jail, for now”.
In the afternoon a German version of Monika’s Video “Entschuldige Mama, …” (Sorry Mum…’) was shown, but was not commented upon, as yet.
“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf
Day 6 of the trial, Friday July 13.
PREAMBLE
Heresy is holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted – Monika’s case is just that. She no longer believes in her own earlier accusation against her mother of having been complicit in what Monika once assumed was a evidentially-backed “crime”. “Denial” is not part of the method of “Holocaust Revisionism” for the method (not being an ideology) only asserts its scientific findings drawn from search into new evidence which comes to light in the course of historical documents being released from archives, new geological technology for examining the alleged crime scene and so on. The Revisionist method is objective and is not balked by “sensitivities” to the investigation of sacred sites and sacred memories. Indeed it is the opposite of the International Guidelines for Teaching the Holocaust in which, on page 11: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers [ie sceptics] or seek to disprove their position through normal hstorical debate and rational argument”. These Teaching Guidelines seek to treat the “Holocaust” in the manner of religious instruction. See BBC World Service link to “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” – an hour-long, worldwide phone-in radio programme in which the two main guests were Jewish history Professor Lipstadt and Bishop Williamson-supporter Lady Renouf, when these Guidelines were aired, though ‘never again’.
As usual in the public gallery there were five persons in the morning, then three by the afternoon. Fewer in the Press gallery.
Concerning the media, I had observed on the day of the release of (the now late) Ernst Zündel from Mannheim Prison that only one single reporter, from the Associated Press, turned up with a single photographer, thus proving how the internationally syndicated Press relies on one story and one take on how that monopolised story will be presented. There seems to have been no story of note about the Schaefer trial in the German media to date. Yet one would think news proprietors would estimate that German citizens would be interested to buy newspapers about this dual siblings’ case with its international aspects. Not least, a general public interest could be expected, bearing on how their country’s laws are seen to be perpetrated on Canadian citizens.
The case against Monika was instigated by the Toronto tentacle of B’nai Brith ( Sons of the Covenant) with the motto: “The Global Voice of the Jewish Community” – an international organisation – “the oldest” it extoles – in Canada. One wonders, as it is “committed to the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and combating antisemitism and bigotry” why it has not (since the existence of the Jewish Entity in Palestine) seen fit to be headquartered in the “State of Israel”?
Strange to onlookers too, is how the prayer “Next year in Jerusalem” (though being one of the oldest prayers), still leads so few Jews literally to go live there, even to help build up the demographic Jewish presence in their second Jewish homeland. At a famous socialite’s garden party in London, I happened to ask, quite cordially, that very question to two very prominent and amusing Jewish personalities – the columnist and Booker Prize-winning novelist Howard Jacobson; and Maureen Lipman, columnist and comedienne (very popular for her “Beatie” role in TV commercial endorsements). Each ran home to file their column items of their accounts at being asked an “anti-semitic question at a garden party”! Had one asked an Australian cordially at said garden party: “still dragging your ball and chain?”, would there be media mileage in exclaiming criminal “anti-Australia” questions were being entertained? Since then, our hostess reluctantly has had to distance herself from ever inviting me again, though she has maintained loyally and generously that such a jolly presence at parties is “life-enhancing”. Our hostess, like for certain Robert Worcester my able McKenzie’s friend did, has likely got her spoonful of social punishment for that! There are many such provable evidences of the terrorising of free opinion. We shall soon see how that pertains to Canadians when visiting Germany nowadays.
In 1875, Canada’s B’nai Brith lodge – global Lodge No. 246 – was established in Toronto, and soon after in Montreal. Its parent company, International B’nai B’rith (which preserves the original hyphen in B’rith), was founded in NYCity in 1843). Interestingly, the “emancipation of Jewry” into the newly unified Germany had only taken place about the same era in 1871.
These international Jewish lodge activities are said to reflect the organization’s (racially-exclusive) commitment to “People Helping People” – fundamentally acting as a “Jewish State within other States” is surely a factual statement. This is a statement made by Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first President, in adherence to the ideology of Judaism though its brethren are scripturally obliged to “disperse among the nations”. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 made provision for both – Herzl’s Jewish State as well as the option to remain a state within states. In two millennia there appears to have been no quest (other than the saying “Next Year in Jerusalem”) for jews en masse to congregate in their entirety in a homeland carved out of unconquered territory, say in Australia or Canada before ‘gentile’ settlers came and did so. The first Jewish Homeland, and now a Jewish Republic of Birobidjan, was only established (by Stalin) in 1928 and remains the first homeland option which did not displace any indigenous people to this day in its peaceful inception. This existence of this peaceful first homeland option is kept very quiet even in the Hebrew language media.
It so happens that in 2000 I undertook a post-graduate academic interest in the “Psychology of Religion” at the University of London’s Heythrop College (a Jesuit college).
Interestingly – given the ‘state within states’ complaint coming from B’nai Brith Canada against Monika – in January 2004, Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association, filed a formal complaint against B’nai Brith Canada under the “discriminatory signs and statements” section of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) accepted the complaint and began an investigation that would last five years. In 2009, the MHRC issued a report that dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence. Not enough is made available about this complaint, but safe to say, only jews are permitted to install “eruvs” (wires on poles around neighbourhoods) and run a “Shomrim” police force (a specifically Jewish “community”/some call it “vigilante” police patrol). This Jewish police force has the same powers as the UK’s genuine police force, as identified by Jez Turner in his recent public-need-to-know trial – and for this he sits punished in a prison cell for the next 12 months. Is this terrorising free opinion the public are entitled to ask?
The formation in the 1930s of a B’nai Brith lodge in Shanghai represented the organization’s entry into the Far East. This international expansion came to a close with the rise of National Socialism. At the beginning of that Nationalist era, there were six B’nai B’rith districts in Europe. Eventually, the NS stopped all B’nai B’rith expansion in Europe.
B’nai B’rith Europe was re-founded in 1948. Their sources inform us that members of the Basel and Zurich lodges and representatives from lodges in France and Holland attended the inaugural meeting. In 2000, the new European B’nai B’rith district merged with the United Kingdom district to become a consolidated B’nai B’rith Europe with active involvement in all institutions of the European Union. By 2005 B’nai B’rith Europe comprised lodges in more than 20 countries including the former Communist Eastern Europe.
In response to what later was conceived as the “Holocaust”, in 1943 B’nai B’rith President Henry Monsky convened a conference in Pittsburgh of all major Jewish organizations to “find a common platform for the presentation of our case before the civilized nations of the world”.
B’nai B’rith was present at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco and their source say it has taken an active role in the world body ever since. In 1947, the organization was granted non-governmental organizational (NGO) status and, for many years, was accorded full-time representation at the United Nations. It is credited with a leading role in the U.N. reversal of its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism (an extraordinary disdain of fact since Zionism relates directly to founding principles of the racially Jewish State!).
B’nai B’rith’s NGO role is not limited to the United Nations and its agencies. B’nai B’rith also has worked extensively with officials in the State Department, in Congress, and in foreign governments to support the efforts of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to combat anti-Semitism. With members in more than 20 Latin American countries, the organization was the first Jewish group to be accorded civil society status at the Organization of American States (OAS).
Up against all this colossal influence and powers, German courts must be deafened by B’nai Brith’s global clamour to stand a chance of hearing the siblings who are trying to get an unarmied citizen’s plea for an unbiased hearing! Their cases call for international eyes and ears.
Trial Session DAY 6, Friday, July 13th.
The session began at 09.45 and the whole day was devoted to viewing first Monika’s then Alfred’s videos.
The entire morning was spent on Monika’s case.
This time Alfred was brought from his prison cell to the court on time!
In the morning the English version of Monika‘s video “Sorry Mom …” was shown and a professionally prepared German translation was read simultaneously by the interpreter in regular pauses during the video.
Monika was asked questions about her video “Sorry Mum I was Wrong About the Holocaust” by the leading Judge.
Why did she make the film? What was her intention in doing so?
Monika read her Statement (Einlassung), which was considered by some in the public gallery as “very impressive”. Some of the public hope a full version of it will be made public.
In the afternoon the video “Dissidenten sprechen Klartext” (Dissidents Speak Out) was shown. This is an Interview Alfred had with the political firebrand Gerhard Ittner (who is himself now locked away in Nuremberg prison). Incidentally, Gerd Ittner was the organiser of the Dresden Commemoration, February 2018, who was permitted to organise the demo yet conditionally disqualified from speaking at it himself because of an earlier conviction for “incitement”. It was at this Commemoration as a visitor that, though an unscheduled speaker, the crowd called for me to speak. That impromptu 10 minutes’ address, after which I was arrested for “incitement”, was used to close down that Commemoration, yet to the “own goal” satisfaction of Alfred! He was one of the scheduled speakers, who gladly said “closing down the demo with Lady Renouf at the microphone meant worldwide mainstream media coverage of an event which otherwise would have gone unnoticed”.
The judge asked Alfred: Why this time in this video he does not differentiate between Jews as a whole and the jewish “Großkapital” (Jewish big business), which he had in his “brainwashing” video, shown the day before? Alfred pointed out that, “if it is okay all the time to blame all Germans for the nazis, why is it that we do not get the same right when referring to the Jews?”. Why the exceptionalism for some generalisations and not for others?
Finally before close of day the video was shown which was filmed by the German police from Alfred‘s speech in Brezenheim – at the Rhine-Meadow (Rheinwiesenlager) Memorial, part of where post-war ca. one million German POW soldiers were herded there to starve to death in those densely crowded, open muddy fields under the orders of the “Allied victor” General Eisenhower who denied Red Cross access). At this atrocity-mourning Commemoration in Brezenheim, Alfred is since accused of having made the “Hitler-Gruß“ (the Hitler greeting) at the close of it. Alfred said he never mentioned Hitler, instead he had shown the “Roman Salute”. It seems appalling to an observer that the “Basic Law” could possibly care more about a greeting gesture than the barbaric murder of post-war soldiers of all stripes. The weight of the scales of justice are off the ‘Richter’ scale in terms of human versus emblem values. Relatives of the Schaefer family were at these barbaic Rhinemeadow open air death ‘camps’. Yet the Law may sooner protect the public from an historic greeting gesture than acknowledge the advance to barbarism exhibited by the post-war “victors” under whose auspices the Basic Law was planned.
Frau Schaefer, Alfred’s wife, asked to have a word with her husband, but the Prosecutor said she, not the Judge, would be the judge of that as it was her job to say yea or nay. Eventually, Elfriede Schaefer was granted 10 minutes to speak with Alfred. She wanted to ask if he had received the clothes she had taken for him to the prison. He had not.
The court session closed quite early at 15.00.
On the matter of UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION (since in the case of Gerd Ittner, in the first instance he had been extradited from another country to face the charges made against him in Germany), one reader asked:
A) “Does Germany claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for all acts that are illegal under German law and committed in other nations or just for issues related to the authenticity of the “Holocaust” narrative?
On the question of jurisdiction:
The Germans do claim “extraterritoriality”, in other words, the right to put people on trial in German courts for “crimes” committed elsewhere in the world. This type of claim of extraterritoriality is not unique to Germany. For example, a few years ago a Spanish judge brought an action against the former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet for alleged crimes committed on Chilean not Spanish soil.
An informal reply comes from an English barrister:
“Most European countries claim universal jurisdiction over their own citizens, whereas common law countries don’t for most crimes. Ironically the idea of universal jurisdiction over nationals came in as part of the nationalist revolutions of the 19th century. It has certainly turned around and bitten nationalists on the butt . . . there is a moral here!
So, if a Frenchman picks an Englishman’s pocket in the streets of NYC, the French courts assert the right to try him, though recognising the right of the state of New York to try him too.
Double jeopardy is avoided by the application of the principle of the Roman law called ne bis in idem, [literally ‘not twice for the same thing’] which means that if our French pickpocket has been tried in New York, the French courts will not try him for a second time, whether the verdict was guilty or not guilty.
So it’s not only Holocaust revisionists.”
A reader’s question B):
” Did some part of what is charged occur in Germany? Or have the Germans declared themselves the cops of the world?”
Concerning your question re the “cops of the world”: ‘safe’(!) to say the pro-Zionist USA hold that chutzpah title (having jettisoned their superior Jeffersonian ideal of “no meddling in other countries”). Due to the technological changes brought about by the Internet, various legal systems have been struggling to work out whether an online posting can be judged to have taken place in any jurisdiction in the world. A similar position has often applied in civil cases, where plaintiffs go ‘shopping’ for a favourable jurisdiction, for example Americans sometimes bring a libel action against British newspapers in a London court while ignoring the same allegations written in American publications. This is because the burden of proof is very different in the UK.
Monika’s attorney adds, “Not all. But especially for denying the “Holocaust” and other so-called political crimes. The best examples would be the cases of the late Gerd Honsik, the late Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz and Dr. Fredrick Töben. They all did not commit anything in Germany.”
On Monday, July 16th 2018 from 09.45 the whole day is scheduled for screening the rest of Alfred’s videos. And an additional day is scheduled for Tuesday July 17th. An extra date in August is to be announced.
“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf
ONTARIO CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION BLASTS MONIKA DETENTION AS ILLEGAL & DEMAND CANADIAN GOV’T ACTION TO FREE MONIKA FROM HER “UNJUST & IMMORAL IMPRISONMENT ” July 16, 2018 By Email Honourable Chrystia Freeland Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada chrystia.freeland@parl.gc.ca Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould Minister of Justice of Canada jody.wilson- raybould@parl.gc.ca Dear Ministers Freeland and Wilson-Raybould: Re: Imprisonment of Canadian Monika Schaefer in Germany for a video expressing a view about the Nazi holocaust The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) advocates for civil and human rights, including the human right of freedom of expression, opinion and belief. The OCLA is concerned about an apparent unwillingness of Canada to come to the aid of a Canadian political prisoner in Germany, who is charged using a German criminal law that does not exist in Canada and that is categorically contrary to international law. Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1976. As you know, General Comments (GC) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) interpret and specify the ICCPR covenant and constitute international law. At paragraph 49 in General Comment No. 34 [CCPR/C/GC/34, 2011] the UNHRC determined: Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Therefore, the German law in issue, which criminalizes negative expression about the historical events of the Nazi holocaust, is a so-called “memory-law” (HRC term) that violates the human right of free expression. It carries a maximum jail sentence of five years. We have reviewed the reason given that Ms. Schaeffer was arrested, charged and detained in Germany when she travelled to that country. It is her -minute video titled “Sorry mom I was wrong about the holocaust”, which she made in Canada about Canada and published from Canada, and which the CBC embedded in its July 15, 2016 article entitled “Hate speech complaint filed against Jasper woman for Holocaust denial video”: https://archive.org/details/SorryMomIWasWrongAboutTheHolocaust_201709 In this way, the CBC participated in a criminal offence under German law (perpetrated in Canada), which is absurd. We ask you both to do everything you can to save Monika Schaefer from her on-going unjust and immoral imprisonment in Germany and that you tell your efforts in this regard publicly. Ms. Schaefer’s trial is in progress. In particular, we ask Canada to appoint a consular observer and direct contact for Ms. Schaefer immediately. Every day that Canada refuses to act or acts ineffectively is a day that Ms. Schaefer spends in a foreign jail. Therefore, we express the required urgency. Please let us know your responses so that we may report these on our website. Yours truly, Joseph Hickey Executive Director Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca 613-252-6148 (c) joseph.hickey@ocla.ca
ONTARIO CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION BLASTS MONIKA DETENTION AS ILLEGAL & DEMAND CANADIAN GOV’T ACTION TO FREE MONIKA FROM HER “UNJUST & IMMORAL IMPRISONMENT
”
July 16, 2018
By Email
Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Canada
Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice
of Canada
jody.wilson-
Dear Ministers Freeland and Wilson-Raybould:
Re: Imprisonment of Canadian Monika Schaefer in Germany for a video expressing a view about the Nazi holocaust
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) advocates for civil and human rights, including the human right of freedom of expression, opinion and belief.
The OCLA is concerned about an apparent unwillingness of Canada to come to the aid of a Canadian political prisoner in Germany, who is charged using a German criminal law that does not exist in Canada and that is categorically contrary to international law.
Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1976. As you know, General Comments (GC) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) interpret and specify the ICCPR covenant and constitute international law.
At paragraph 49 in General Comment No. 34 [CCPR/C/GC/34, 2011] the UNHRC determined:
Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States
parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Therefore, the German law in issue, which criminalizes negative expression about the historical events of the Nazi holocaust, is a so-called “memory-law” (HRC term) that violates the human right of free expression. It carries a maximum jail sentence of five years.
We have reviewed the reason given that Ms. Schaeffer was arrested, charged and detained in Germany when she travelled to that country. It is her -minute video titled “Sorry mom I was wrong about the holocaust”, which she made in Canada about Canada and published from Canada, and which the CBC embedded in its July 15, 2016 article entitled “Hate speech complaint filed against Jasper woman for Holocaust denial video”:
https://archive.org/details/SorryMomIWasWrongAboutTheHolocaust_201709
In this way, the CBC participated in a criminal offence under German law (perpetrated in Canada), which is absurd.
We ask you both to do everything you can to save Monika Schaefer from her on-going unjust and immoral imprisonment in Germany and that you tell your efforts in this regard publicly. Ms. Schaefer’s trial is in progress. In particular, we ask Canada to appoint a consular observer and direct contact for Ms. Schaefer immediately.
Every day that Canada refuses to act or acts ineffectively is a day that Ms. Schaefer spends in a
foreign jail. Therefore, we express the required urgency.
Please let us know your responses so that we may report these on our website.
Yours truly,
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
Day 6 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer’s Trial in Munich
Day 6 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer’s Trial in Munich
On the sixth day of the trial of Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich court, 13th July 2018, Monika Schaefer gave her personal statement. Translation made by R. Edmonds.
Monika Schaefer read out her personal statement, which according to the judge is usually not permitted. But the judge accepted that Monika dos not speak German perfectly, hence he decided to make an exception. Monika related how she became engaged politically and how she felt herself deeply drawn to Green politics. She campaigned many times for political office. That had all continued till she had learnt that Israel’s wars were being justified by false claims. There-upon she left the party. She had learnt very early to think for herself.
She had made the video herself. Once she had made the film and put it in the public domain, she then felt a feeling of relief and felt freed from a heavy burden. She had always held her parents under a general suspicion, but now she knew that there was nothing to reproach them with, because History was quite contrary to what we had been told since 1945. This was this reason why she had apologized to her mother.
As a consequence of the success of the video, she had lost many friendships; and a campaign of ritual defamation commenced against her. For example, in a small newspaper of a town with five thousand inhabitants, readers’ letters started appearing, written by readers from quite other districts, who would not normally read the news-paper. These readers’ letters served the purpose of defaming her. At the beginning, she had to force herself to go to her front-door. However when one deliberately and with conviction breaks such a taboo, because one knows that the official claims regarding the period 1933 -1945 are a shabby lie, then such ritual defamations are easier to bear. Every attempt had been made to intimidate her. For example, she always rides by bicycle, and one day at the traffic lights a car had sped away from her throwing the sand of the street against her. Also attempts had been made to ruin her financially. Not a single student from her locality came any more to take instruction on violin-playing. A regular witch-hunt was organised against her. This witch-hunt had split the community in which she lived. Whilst many had turned away from her, on the other hand, many others whom she did not know had come to her; and they could not understand what was happening. In July 2016 a new local law gave permission for music to be played in the local park close to her. A licence for this was needed, but this licence was refused to her. Finally her brother had made the offer, that it was better to come to Germany, if the situation in Canada should become too dangerous for her.
The judge asked, why she had made a video rather than chosen to write an article. Also he wanted to know why she had given advice as to where information on the subject could be found, for example referring to the video about Ernst Zundel or “Questions about the HC.” Monika replied that she herself had found the sources very helpful in order to understand everything. She wanted to invite everybody to learn more in order to understand what had really taken place in the period of 1933 to 1945. In reply to the question from the judge, why she found the lie so shabby [threadbare, seedy, mean], Monika declared because the intention was that the guilt feelings should continue for ever. The fact that she was in prison proved that. — Richard Edmonds
FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER TO SINGER & ENTERTAINER BARBARA ANN NOWAK
FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER TO SINGER & ENTERTAINER BARBARA ANN NOWAK
(FROM MONIKA SCHAEFER TO BARBARA ANN NOWAK) July 1, 2018
Dear Barbara, thank you, dear sister, for your long and wonderful letter and envelope with Elvis stamps in a heart. I notice details. Well that one would be pretty hard to miss — haha – unless I was a dullard. And if I was a dullard, I guess I wouldn’t be in prison for speaking words.
I must tell you, so you don’t think I’m a slacker, that your letter took exactly 8 weeks and a day to reach me from when it was postmarked! I used to say that the average time for mail one way in and out of prison was about a month but now I would put the average at 6 weeks. Pretty bad eh? It leads to slow conversations. Maybe that’s the equivalent of the slow food movement and I like the slow food movement so maybe the slow conversations are a good thing? Having just reread your letter before responding I’m kind of in free flow here, inspired by you.
Me too, I am totally into organic real food and have always grown veggies wherever I could. I grew up in a family of seven, five children, in a big city, but we were like Urban Farmers. Huge vegetable garden, fruit bushes, some small apple and cherry trees in the yard. The family would go berry picking in the river valley, we could walk there right from our home and pick saskatoon’s, chokecherries, rose hips and I can’t remember what else. We live really near the Storyland Valley Zoo. You should ask Alfred to tell you the story of how he used to talk with the seals. It was funny. Speaking of funny, you can probably imagine this without me telling you, Alfred had us in stitches a lot when we were growing up. (In case that is just a local expression, “in stitches,” that means we laughed a lot. Very fun and funny.
Barbara Ann Nowak “the Queen of Karaoke”
I love the image of you and Dolly singing to the dudes (?). That is just Priceless. Speaking of images, although that was a mental image, yes you can send me a few pictures but not too many. There is a limit of 20 pictures in the cell and I have my limit but when people send me a few more, then I can trade them out and send the excess into storage. So if you sent three or four pictures in a letter nobody gets in a sweat. I wonder what the storage looks like. Stuff keeps getting sent there, that people try to send me and I cannot have. I will need a few wheel barrels or a pickup truck when I leave here. People send stuff and I can’t have it, how sad. It’s pretty strict around here. Oh and you mentioned internet, definitely not! I wonder if people are trying to send me emails. Oh dear, I dread trying to wade through thousands of emails when I get out. I will probably just have to delete all and start over as it will be too overwhelming.
Very interesting that you got persecuted by the doctors for breastfeeding. When I had my daughter, breastfeeding was encouraged but the actual support to do so was not that great. I became a La Leche League leader and did that for a number of years in my town. I learned a lot about the industry of baby food, formula, etc. Boycott of Nestle ever since.
The hot water just got delivered through the little hatch in the door. I feel so special here, getting room service like that! Now I am going to enjoy my cup of coffee, knit and listen to music on the radio for a bit. That is my early morning routine I’ll be back.
An hour later… I love that part of the day. Come to think of it, there are many parts of the day that I really enjoy. So you see, they are not getting me down. I am sure that you would be the same. You wouldn’t waste very many minutes or seconds on self-pity and you would get right to work on becoming creative and using the time well.
On the subject of being well, I want to add that I certainly couldn’t do it alone! Just like you said about the karaoke coming from God, I too feel I am being guided and helped by spirit and that includes all the loving energy thoughts and prayers coming from many many people including yourself. Thank you also for the Bible verses, and the Elvis lyrics. We used to sing the German folk song Muss I Denn, around the campfire when my dad’s best friend came over from Germany and visited us one summer with his wife and two of his many children, they did that twice with different children the second time. He belted out those folk songs and we sang along and just loved it.
Well, my dear, it has been lovely spending part of my morning with you. Let’s do it again sometime, yes? I’ll put the kettle on… We are the birds flying free in this picture.
love
Monika.
CALGARY STAR ON WHATCOTT STREET PREACHING @ CALGARY STAMPEDE
Calgary Star on Whatcott Street Preaching @ Calgary Stampede
1 of 1
Calgary Star on Whatcott Street Preaching @ Calgary Stampede
by Bill Whatcott » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:14 am
Bill Whatcott surrounded by 25 or so supporters as he speaks to a Calgary Police officer moments before being arrested.
Anti-LGBTQ activist appears at Stampede parade two weeks after turning himself in
By MADELINE SMITH
StarMetro Calgary
Fri., July 6, 2018
https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2018/07 … lf-in.html
CALGARY—An anti-LGBTQ activist who turned himself in on a Canada-wide warrant in Calgary two weeks ago appeared Friday with protest signs at the Stampede parade.
William Whatcott surrendered to Calgary police on June 22 for charges of wilful promotion of hatred, which stemmed from accusations of distributing 3,000 pamphlets to attendees at Pride Toronto’s 2016 parade that contained what Toronto police call “hateful” content. At the time of his arrest, he said he regretted nothing and had “absolutely no apologies to make.”
On Friday, Whatcott was equally unapologetic.
“I haven’t changed my mind on very much,” he said.
He said he plans to stay in Calgary for “at least a little while.”
Video and photos on Whatcott’s Facebook page show him holding signs, one that references “homosexuals” and Muslims. In one of the videos, two people confront Whatcott as he says, “We’ve got a right to preach.”
Whatcott said he was in Calgary police custody for one night and spent one further night in the Calgary Remand Centre before he was taken to Toronto, where he was in jail for two days before his bail hearing. He came back to Alberta shortly after his release.
He said the Stampede protest did not violate any of his bail conditions, which include not replicating the pamphlet his hate-related charges stemmed from, informing police of any address changes and staying at least 500 metres away from any Pride parade.
Neither Calgary nor Toronto police could confirm what conditions he had to follow.
Whatcott’s next court date is July 23 in Toronto, but his lawyer Charles Lugosi said Whatcott would likely not have to appear in person until the trial begins.
Lugosi said Toronto-based lawyer Daniel Santoro represented Whatcott at his most recent court appearance.
Free Speech Betrayed: Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern Banned from City Owned Meeting Hall in Auckland
A public talk by two controversial Canadians accused of hate speech has been cancelled after Auckland’s mayor Phil Goff banned them from all council venues.
Canadian conservative and libertarian activist Lauren Southern are planning to visit Auckland next month for talks. Photo: Supplied
Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, who are best known for their far-right alternative views on everything from feminism, gender and immigration to Islam, were set to perform at the Bruce Mason Centre on 3 August.
However, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff tweeted that venues should not be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions and that Ms Southern and Mr Molyneux would not be speaking at any council venues.
Phil Goff
Auckland Live which runs the centre as well as the Auckland Town Hall, Aotea Centre and Civic Centre, tweeted the event had been cancelled because of security concerns.
Auckland Live@AucklandLiveCancellation: Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern Live at Bruce Mason Centre.
For all further enquiries, please contact Axiomatic Events.
The event organiser said the decision was disappointing and a blow for democracy.
David Pellowe from Axoimatic said Mr Goff had the wrong idea about what the pair wanted to talk about.
“He’s misrepresented the purpose of the events as to stir up ethnic and religious tensions. He’s misrepresented them as views that divide rather than unite,” he said.
“It’s very sad for democracy and for debate.”
‘It doesn’t mean that we should ban them’
However, human rights criminal law barrister Craig Tuck said the pair should be allowed to come to New Zealand and talk about their ideas.
“There’s a lot of their sort of talk worldwide at the moment and that’s attracting debate, people are getting educated on the issues and that’s probably a good thing.
“This sort of discussion is alive whether we like it or not.”
Mr Tuck said dangerous ideas were not the same as dangerous people.
“You’ve got people annunciating political and social views but they’re not specifically coming to New Zealand to commit crimes, they’re coming to New Zealand to spread ideas – however hateful they may be.
“They’re undeniably racist but it doesn’t mean that we should ban them.”
He said debate needed to happen in an educated and thoughtful way.
Mr Pellowe said it was too late to try and organise a new venue but they hoped to still host a evening with Ms Southern and Mr Molyneuax for New Zealanders via the internet.
He said those who had purchased tickets for the event at the Bruce Mason Centre would get a full refund.
Earlier this year, Ms Southern was banned from entering the UK on the grounds of her involvement “in the distribution of racist material in Luton”, according to the BBC.
‘She’s just going to insult all of us’
The Islamic community voiced their opposition to the visit last month.
New Zealand Federation of Islam Associations president Hazim Arafeh said it had written letters to the Immigration Minister, Minister for Ethnic Communities and the Human Rights Commission asking for Lauren Southern to be denied entry.
“[She] abuses her right of freedom of speech. She’s just going to give a talk in which she’s just going to insult all of us,” Mr Arafeh said.
“I don’t think insulting Muslims comes under free speech, that’s an abuse of freedom of speech.
“I’m talking on behalf of 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in New Zealand who are going to face a very hard time by all the comments she is going to make.”
A petition with more than 1500 signatures has also been launched on change.org appealing to the Immigration Minister to deny Lauren Southern entry.
However, Ms Southern, who is a journalist, activist and film-maker, said she should be allowed in.
“As soon as there are people who want to shut down free speech and freedom to come and even visit your nation just because of a differing opinion you can tell you’ve got the bug of progressivism,” Ms Southern said.
“The bug of this almost very totalitarian left-wing ideology which will not end well for you.”
She said herself and Mr Molyneux would talk about a range of issues affecting New Zealand.
“Immigration, western culture, the preservation of western culture and largely the infectious liberal or far-left ideologies that are coming and working their way into our media and why they will lead to the economic, social and political fall of our nations.”
Ms Southern said what she had to say was not hate speech.
“[Hate speech] is just a fancy word to describe speech that is unpopular during that day and age,” she said.
“A few hundred years ago, I wouldn’t be able to question the divine rule of whatever god is in my land, I wouldn’t be allowed to be pro-gay or pro-mixed race marriages, today it’s you’re not allowed to be anti-mass migration, you’re not allowed to question crazy LGBTQ politics.”
‘Anti-immigrant, anti-refugees… anti-feminist’
Massey University far-right expert and pro vice chancellor Paul Spoonley said some of what the pair say was considered hate speech.
“Some of the things that Molyneux has said about apartheid being a white survival policy and not a racial supremacist policy and then attacking some of the people who say it is something else … some of the things they say are really quite direct and would be very hateful to a number of communities,” Mr Spoonley said.
“They’re part of a broad coalition of people who at their soft end would be pro-Trump but at the hard end – which I regard both of these being – very white supremacist or believe in the racial superiority of white people, they believe that immigration undermines countries.
“They’re very anti-immigrant, anti-refugees and they’re anti-feminist.”
Mr Spoonley said there was an alt-right community within New Zealand but it was small.
He said banning people entry to New Zealand would need to meet a high threshold and the decision warranted a public discussion.
An Immigration New Zealand spokesperson said they were aware of the two Canadian nationals and was assessing whether any action needed to be taken under the Immigration Act and Immigration Instructions.
Mr Molyneux heads the organisation Freedomain Radio, an online group that was described as a cult.
Mr Molyneux has been contacted for comment.
Late Breaking News — German Armed Cops Re-Arrest Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer at His Home Friday
Late Breaking News — German Armed Cops Re-Arrest Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer at His Home Friday
FRIDAY, July 6, 2018. Today At 2:00 pm, at the home of Alfred Schaefer, he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters regarding his videos which he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom. …Then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my laptop. Then, I went to wash my hands). I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was like a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action!
At first, I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood two armed officers awaiting me. I gave them my passport. They said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw five of them handcuff Alfred. He was taken away with the little packed lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband). Alfred was hauled away about something he had perhaps said perhaps when yesterday ( as he has to do) he had duly turned up at the police station as he must do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now.
His wife advised that her houseguests, should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure. What a business — cat and mouse — but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each took with us our lunch cheese!
“No surrender!”
Michele Lady Renouf