Jim and Diane Present – Jim Speaks with PAUL FROMM CONCERNING THE JAMES SEARS CASE as well as Life In Canada, July 6, 2021
Jim talks with Canadian Activist Paul Fromm about the case: paul@paulfromm.com
http://cafe.nfshost.com/
Send letters:
Dr. James Sears, Political Prisoner,
Toronto South Detention Center,
160 Horner Ave,
Toronto, ON
M8Z 0C2
CANADA
********************************************
Lawyer who lodged complaint in 2016 says result ‘ludicrous both in terms of the delay and outcome’
BY Aidan Macnab 05 Jan 2021
The Law Society of Ontario will take no further action against a lawyer who advertised in the pro-Nazi, Holocaust-denying and misogynist tabloid Your Ward News.
The lawyer, David Faed, participated in a Regulatory Meeting with the Law Society’s Proceedings Authorization Committee in November. The committee announced in December that while placement of the ad was not in the public interest and inconsistent with the professionalism standards under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the regulatory issue had been addressed and no further action would be taken.
In 2019, the editor and publisher of Your Ward News were convicted of wilful promotion of hatred against Jews and Women, contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.
Back in 2016, Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Richard Warman brought the complaint against Faed. Warman argued his association with the publication violated a number of sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including s. 6.3.1-1: that lawyers have a “special responsibility to respect the requirements of human rights laws” and “honour the obligation not to discriminate.”
Warman says Faed’s matter should not have taken so long to conclude and that the misconduct was “self-evident.”
“This is ludicrous both in terms of the delay and outcome,” he says. “… Whether a lawyer should advertise in a neo-Nazi tabloid that openly promotes hatred of women and Jews should not have been a difficult question.”
“This investigation by the Law Society of Ontario has been a failure from start to finish… There is no way under the sun, that an investigation of that nature should take four and a half years.”
Law Times contacted Faed, but he declined to comment for this article.
Your Ward News was operated by editor James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine, who were found guilty of wilful promotion of hatred by Justice Richard Blouin of the Ontario Court of Justice. The publication was found to have contained the glorification of Nazism and Adolph Hitler, Holocaust denial, the demonization of Jewish people and of women and the celebration and promotion of rape. In 2016 Canada Post stopped distributing Your Ward News after Warman filed a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
At the Regulatory Meeting, Faed told the Law Society he had not read Your Ward News, was unaware of the nature of its content and that he does not share “any hateful views that may have been espoused by the publisher or editor.” The Law Society added that Faed had withdrawn the ad three years ago and was “unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.”
But despite Faed’s explanation to the Law Society, Warman says Faed continued advertising into 2017, after Warman had contacted him and explained his concerns with the publication’s content. He adds that Sears and St. Germaine were required under their release conditions to stop publishing – they were arrested in 2017 – so Faed cannot be credited for no longer advertising with them.
“This idea that somehow of his own good graces, Mr. Faed stopped the advertising in Your Ward News is simply – I don’t believe that’s a credible explanation,” says Warman.
Faed’s ads also included a disclaimer stating: “Independent. I am not involved with the New Constitution Party of Canada,” which Faed believed would “distance himself” from the contents of the publication, said the Law Society.
According to its website, the New Constitution Party of Canada is “an all-inclusive federal party based on Libertarian doctrine, Christian values, and National Socialist ideology.” The party, which is led by Sears, “incorporates the intellect of Dr. Ron Paul, the heart of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and the soul of Jesus Christ, into one powerful political Chimera that will crush the Marxist beast.”
Sears is representing himself on appeal. He seeks to have his conviction overturned on the basis his former lawyer was incompetent, partly for refusing to call a witness who would have testified that gas chambers were not used against Jews in the Holocaust.
04 Jan 2021
While Canada has clear legal definitions of what does and does not constitute hate speech, enforcement is lacking. In the cases when known peddlers are actually brought before a judge, the trials are delayed, extended, and lack consequences. It’s time to bring back section 13. Posted on December 30, 2020
Elizabeth Simons
Canadian Anti-Hate Network
We need to do away with the myth that hate and racism aren’t issues in Canada, especially online. We produce hate speech and internationally recognized hate figures at a disproportionately high rate — in many measures we’re worse than the United States on a per capita basis.
As it stands now, we do not have the legal tools needed to reverse this trend.
On 4Chan, we represent almost 6% of posts made to the worst message board on the site, and earlier this year UK based think tank Institute for Strategic Dialogue identified 6,600 online channels where Canadians posted hateful content.
Before we begin, let’s quickly debunk the central bad faith argument against our hate speech laws. “Hate” is not impossible to define or undefined — the Supreme Court has clearly defined it and endorsed a guide to determining what is and isn’t criminal hate speech. Our laws have been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court as Charter consistent.
The laws strike a good balance between freedom of expression and criminalizing what is dangerous hate speech. Unfortunately, they aren’t enforced and they don’t have sharp enough teeth to be a deterrent. The very worst actors continue spreading hate largely with impunity.
Police services across Canada are the main roadblock. A few do take it seriously and act, but most are reluctant in the extreme to investigate hate-related charges against individuals — whether that’s hate speech, continuous harassment, and even death threats. Sometimes, overwhelming community pressure on the police works — but shouldn’t be necessary.
Even if the law is applied correctly, it’s not strong enough to be a deterrent. Some hatemongers make a mockery of it and use the opportunity to grandstand.
James Sears, the discredited former medical doctor who served as editor for Toronto-based Your Ward News, was sentenced to the maximum one year in prison in 2019 for promoting hatred against women and Jews. The crown proceeded with the charge as a summary offence.
Ontario Justice Richard Blouin wished he could hand down more, saying at the time “It is impossible, in my view, to conclude that Mr. Sears … should receive a sentence of any less than 18 months in jail.”
Sears hasn’t seen a day in jail yet. He was allowed to stay out, pending his argument that his lawyer misrepresented him by not giving him an opportunity to deny the holocaust and call notorious antisemites as “expert witnesses.” He regrets nothing.
Hate vlogger Kevin Johnston was initially charged with a single count of wilful promotion of hatred in 2017. Johnston has still not been tried. In 2019 he lost a $2.5 million judgment to Toronto philanthropist Mohamad Fakih for his role in racially motivated defamation against Fakih in which he repeatedly accused him of being a terrorist.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Jane Ferguson called Johnston’s attacks on Fakih “hate speech at its worst.”
Travis Patron, leader of the overtly neo-Nazi federal Canadian Nationalist Party, has been “under investigation” by the RCMP for over a year for a video in which he claimed Jews are a “parasitic tribe” and called for their expulsion from Canada. Patron continues to make antisemitic posts and flyers and do photo ops giving the Nazi salute.
It’s an open and shut case. What could possibly make it take this long to lay charges?
In 2018, a warrant was issued for Gabriel Sohier Chaput, aka Zeiger — called one of the most prominent neo-Nazis in North America, and writer with The Daily Stormer, a white supremacist website — for spreading hatred. Having been on the run for two years, in August 2020 Chaput reappeared and is awaiting trial in Montreal.
Chaput is one of the ideological leaders of the newest generation of neo-Nazi terrorists — his hands are soaked in blood. It’s a travesty that the most he’s likely to get is a year. It’s uncertain whether he will even spend it in prison, given the pandemic.
Neo-Nazi Paul Fromm was under investigation by the Hamilton Police Service for posting the manifesto of the Christchurch killer, titled “The Great Replacement” — a nod to the white supremacist conspiracy theory that white people are being replaced — in full on his website in 2019. Fromm had stated, “[The shooter’s] analysis of the crisis we face is cogent.”*
They decided not to charge him.
British Columbia’s Arthur Topham, convicted in 2015 of one count of communicating online statements that wilfully promoted hatred against Jews, and again in 2017, had been sentenced to a six month conditional sentence, two years probation, a curfew, and was banned from posting online.
In early 2020, Topham was again before the courts for breaching his probation order and spreading online hate.
Some of these people just won’t stop — not as things are.
Our hate speech law, s. 319 (2), is crafted to balance freedom of expression while criminalizing the worst hate speech. Unfortunately, it’s not a deterrent for the most vitriolic offenders because the police won’t enforce it, and some hate mongers laugh off the consequences.
It feels like we’re banging our heads against the wall filing criminal complaints.
Before 2014, members of the public could file a hate speech complaint under s.13. Credible complaints went to the Human Rights Tribunal, and a panel of judges could order hatemongers to stop. It was relatively fast, gave communities the power to defend themselves legally, and it worked. It gave us direct access to justice
If they refused to stop, they were in violation of a standing court order and were relatively quickly thrown in jail. Eventually, most of them learned their lesson.
Earlier this month we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.
Every single anti-racist and human rights group we know of wants it back.
Bring it back.
Follow Elizabeth Simons on Twitter @esimons_
_____* This viciously anti-free speech group utterly distorts my posting of the Christchurch Manifesto. Yes, I said his analysis of the dire position of Europeans, betrayed internally and being replaced by an elite-organized Third World invasion_was correct. BUT, and this is a huge BUT, I added that his solution — shooting up two mosques and killing 31 people was NOT the solution._________________________________________
Former Political Prisoners & Thought Criminals Dr. James Sears & Leroy St. Germaine Seek Postponement of Appeal for Time to Prepare Constitutional Challenge
TORONTO, November 4, 2020. Tomorrow former political prisoners Dr. James Sears, editor, and Leroy St. Germaine, publisher of the satirical tabloid YOUR WAR NEWS, will appear in a phone conference before Mr.Justice Peter Cavanaugh to seek an adjournment of their appeal scheduled for November 10. They seek the adjournment to properly prepare a constitutional challenge to an interlocutory decision by Justice Ackhtar,, October 8, granting a Crown request that the Appeal, originally scheduled for October 13-15 be held by video Zoom rather that in person.
The appelants were granted time until November 10 to prepare their presentation and exhibits to fit the video format. The Appeal is against both their conviction and sentence (the maximum one year) of charges of “wilfully promoting hate” against two privileged minorities – women and Jews — contrary to Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’snotorious hate law.
Dr. Sears and Mr. St. Germaine need more time to prepare and file Constitutional challenge and advise the 10 provincial and two territorial Attorneys-General. Dr. Sears told CAFE that the Constitutional challenge focuses on the order that the Appeal be conducted by Zoom. There will be witnesses in the Appeal — lawyer Dean Embry and Dr.Sears, among them. The Zoom venue does not allow the judge to gauge facial clues and interaction to assess credibility of witnesses, as a live hearing would do. “The Zoom ruling denies us a fair trial,” as guaranteed under Sec. 7 of the Charter which guarantees natural justice, he said.
1. The Appellant consented to appear at a case management conference
before Justice Akhtar at 4:30 PM on Friday October 9th. He was informed of
the conference only a few hours before it was scheduled to commence.
Furthermore, it was scheduled only one half of a business hour before an
October 13th appeal hearing scheduled months in advance was to commence.
2. Just prior to the conference, Mr. Bernstein forwarded The Appellant a
copy of an anti-facemask flyer without any context as to why it was
relevant to the case management conference. During the case management
conference Mr. Bernstein claimed to Justice Akhtar that he had never seen
the flyer before. However, at the end of an October 13th appearance before
His Honour, he admitted to having had it in his possession for 3 months,
as it had been forwarded to him by Mr. McCuaig on instruction of The
Appellant on July 9th.
3. The October 9th case management conference lasted approx. 30 minutes
and moved lightning fast. Since it was scheduled to be a case management
conference, The Appellant was under the impression that it was just a
casual, off-the-record discussion of the logistics of the trial. During
this case management conference, Justice Akhtar was honourable enough to
admit that he made an error in scheduling the trial; that he had meant to
schedule it as an in-person hearing as agreed upon by all participants,
but instead it was scheduled to proceed by ZOOM.
4. During this case management conference, Mr. Bernstein brought up the
anti-facemask flyer, claimed his life was in danger being in the same room
as The Appellant and/or The Appellant’s supporters, and requested that the
mode of the appeal hearing be changed to one to be held by ZOOM. Mr.
Bernstein was the only participant who had concern about appearing in
person, so The Appellant spontaneously consented to Mr. Bernstein
appearing by ZOOM whilst everyone else would appear in person.
5. Justice Akhtar made the erroneous assumption that The Appellant could
not enter the courthouse without wearing a mask. That is simply not true,
as the Ontario Human Rights Codes clearly provides exemptions for a number
of reasons.
6. The Chief Justice of the Superior Court has set strict practice
guidelines, one being that all self-represented appellants must appear in
person.
7. The Appellant was given no notice before the case management conference
before Justice Akhtar, that he would be arguing a motion to change the
months-ago agreed-upon method by which the appeal would be heard.
Therefore, The Appellant did not have time to review case law and case
studies in order to argue against the motion. During this snap, surprise
motion hearing, The Appellant was told by lawyers participating in the
conference that the case law was not in his favour; and Justice Akhtar
accepted these declarations as gospel. The Appellant vehemently objected.
Nonetheless, supposedly an order to hold the appeal by ZOOM arose out of
this hearing (and there is a reason why The Appellant employs the term
“supposedly”).
8. The Appellant has never been served with a copy of this supposed order.
9. The Appellant has never been served with written reasons for this
supposed order.
10. Upon attempting to order transcripts for this snap, surprise motion
hearing, the transcription company replied “The courthouse is saying they
sent the recording in error for October 9th, 2020. It was a case
management hearing and therefore cannot be transcribed without a court
order.” Therefore, this order, if it exists at all, is not reviewable,
which is clearly unconstitutional. The Appellant asserts that as such, the
order is not enforceable.
11. The Appellant spent approx. 2 weeks after October 13th trying to
figure out how to present evidence for his appeal hearing, by ZOOM instead
of in-person, including how to present documentation to Mr. Embry during
cross-examination on his affidavit. Hearing preparation has been extremely
frustrating; appearing by video will surely hinder The Appellant’s ability
to argue his case.
12. Furthermore, The Appellant has been extremely troubled by the October
9th ambush. Intrusive thoughts of this egregious abuse of process have
made it difficult for him to concentrate on preparing for his
involuntarily ZOOM hearing. So for his own peace of mind The Appellant
took a break from preparing his appeal strategy and decided to confirm
that the lawyers at the case management conference were not being
disingenuous or incompetent in claiming that the case law surrounding
involuntary ZOOM hearings was clearly stacked against him.
13. After a few days of deep research, The Appellant was disturbed to
discover that he had been misled; it appears that no case law exists where
any participant can be forced to proceed by video; case law merely
establishes where judges can order voluntary remote appearances for
participants over the objections of other participants who will appear in
person. Furthermore, upon reviewing Parliamentary debate transcripts, it
is clear that the law which expanded the auspices of remote appearances
was never meant to apply to situations such as the one before This
Honourable Court.
14. In addition to reviewing case law surrounding the constitutionality of
forcing him to proceed by ZOOM, The Appellant reviewed procedural case law
in order to establish which court to apply to for relief arising out of
the abusive interlocutory order; an order which was argued with no notice,
in clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The key case in
that regards appears to be Regina v Johnson out of the Appeals Court of
Ontario. To sum up, according to Johnson, The Appellant must ask the trial
judge (or in this case, the appeals judge at the level of court out of
which the interlocutory order arose) to hear the Charter case. In other
words, application to a superior court for prerogative writ or Charter
relief in the course of criminal proceedings must establish that
extraordinary circumstances exist such that interests of justice
necessitate immediate granting of relief (that would only apply if His
Honour denies The Appellant’s motion and tries to force him to undergo
video cross-examination on November 10th). Otherwise, issues arising in
the context of criminal prosecution should ordinarily be dealt with within
the established trial and appeal process; in this case, within the
Superior Court.
15. Because time is of the essence, The Appellant prepared a very rough
Form 1 which Mr. McCuaig was kind enough to serve upon the Crown on
October 30th, asking for an urgent hearing before His Honour. The Crown
built upon the abuse of process by claiming that the motion was not being
brought in the right court, even though The Appellant can clearly read
English and has become pretty good at understanding case law. The Crown
made this determination so quickly that they clearly had not referenced
the necessary case law. The further building upon the already established
pattern of abuses of process, The Crown actually had the audacity to
inform Mr. McCauig by email that they were never served, even though their
email denying service, in and of itself, provided evidence of service!
Nine months after being sentenced to the maximum — one year in prison — for writing satire and violating Canada’s notorious “hate law (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) YOUR WARD NEWS editor Dr. James Sears has had his bail conditions amended. Nine months of labour brought to good doctor, less totalitarian conditions. Pending appeal of his conviction and sentence, he was originally effectively gagged, forbidden to speak to the press or to make any public statements.
On June 3, a Toronto judge revised these conditions. He may now speak publicly and speak to the press but he must not ascribe negative characteristics to Jews or women by dint of their membership in these groups. [Making privileged groups immune to serious criticism has always been the goal of mischievously named “anti-hate” laws.]
Dr. Sears’ sole condition now is”Do not make any public statement, or make publicly available, directly or indirectly, any statement or material, ascribing negative qualities or behaviour to women or Jews by their membership in either identifiable
group”
SEARS’/ST. GERMAINE APPEAL DATE POSTPONED
The appeal against both the conviction and savage sentence of one year in prison (the maximum) for YOUR WARD NEWS Editor Dr. James Sears and one year’s house arrest for publisher Leroy St. Germaine had been set for tomorrow in Toronto. The editor and publisher of the satirical tabloid had been convicted by a humorless judge under Canada’s notorious “hate” law, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, for wilfully promoting hatred against privileged groups, in this case, Jews and women.
Because of the Coronavirus pandemic scare, the appeal has been postponed, likely until June. Free speech supporters will pack the court when the appeal date is reset.
The Courage of Leroy St. Germaine & the Arrogance of the Censors
Catch the arrogant free speech enemy Bernie Farber say: “You can’t come here and promote hate.” Leroy St. Germaine is Metis. His family has been here for hundreds of years. In contrast,Farber’s father was among the horde of refugees this compassionate country let in after WW II.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co
JAILING PEOPLE FOR HATE SPEECH IS WRONG
by Marcus Gee
This month a Toronto judge ordered two men to be deprived of their freedom
over words and pictures they published in a paper – and no one said boo.
Not the press, which mostly confined itself to reporting the bare facts of
the case. Certainly not any of the political parties, even though their
existence depends on the right to speak freely and sharply.
James Sears and LeRoy St. Germaine were found guilty earlier this year of
promoting hatred. The judge said their local publication, Your Ward News,
“consistently dehumanized Jews and women.” So, when it came time for
sentencing, he threw the book at them. Mr. Sears, the editor, is to serve
a year in jail, though he is free now while he appeals. Mr. St. Germaine,
the publisher, gets 12 months of house arrest. He says he will appeal,
too.
None of the usual guardians of free speech seemed to find this even a
little troubling. Judging from the thunderous silence that greeted the
sentences, they consider it perfectly acceptable that this dubious pair
should lose their liberty for what they put in their nasty little paper.
After all, who could feel sorry for people who published such vile things?
But you don’t have to sympathize with Mr. Sears and Mr. St. Germaine to be
worried about sending them away. Free speech is under attack all over,
from both the right and the left. The notion that fringe voices should be
silenced rather than countered or simply ignored is gaining force. To see
a Canadian court embrace that view is alarming. Except in the case of
direct incitement to violence, democracies shouldn’t jail people for
things they write or say. That is a move from an autocrat’s playbook.
It is only too easy for governments to argue that those who oppose or
criticize them are fomenting unrest or spreading hate. Right now in China,
authorities are labelling Hong Kong’s protesters as dangerous radicals who
despise the motherland. When North America was in the grip of a Red Scare,
those with left-wing views were considered subversive. If they said the
capitalism system was corrupt and must be overthrown, they were
encouraging the populace to stage a violent insurrection. We look back at
the suppression of the left then as a gross overreaction, even hysteria.
In fraught times, the tendency to crack down on radicals, crackpots and
dissenters grows. With a bilious ranter in the White House and poisonous
populism on the rise around the world, these are fraught times indeed. The
prosecutor in the Your Ward News case said that the Crown intends to
enforce the laws against promoting hate with renewed vigilance because “in
today’s current climate … it’s become of greater concern.”
But using the criminal law to crack down on troublesome and even obnoxious
views is the wrong response. It hands governments a cudgel they can easily
misuse. It gives cranks and trolls the spotlight they crave. Mr. Sears and
Mr. St. Germaine seem delighted by all the attention. Mr. St. Germaine
said his partner emerged from court with “fresh handcuff marks still on
his wrists in the same spots where Jesus was wounded when he was nailed to
the cross.”
Worst of all, it threatens the free and unrestrained exchange of ideas
that helps societies progress. The great advantage that democracies have
over other forms of governments is that they can work through conflicts by
discussion and argument instead of violence. A system where views are
aired and tested is simply better at sorting out problems. That system is
truly safe only when all views, even the most odious ones, are allowed to
circulate.
That doesn’t mean we are helpless in the face of hate. One way to fight
the haters is to argue back, denouncing their slurs and combatting their
falsehoods. Another is to turn away. If you find Your Ward News
despicable, consign it to the trash. Deny the trolls their martyrdom. Just
don’t chuck them in jail. Do that and we are all in trouble.