What those cops did was against the law, contrary to my Charter
Rights, and even in violation of a recent Supreme Court of Canada
decision that prohibits the police from acting this way.
But as I said, we’re fighting
back.
We have just served the York
Regional Police Service with a lawsuit. You can see
the full lawsuit by visitingStandWithDavid.ca.
Now, we’re definitely not anti-cop here at Rebel News.
Quite the contrary, in fact. But these were cops behaving badly — and
we have to take a stand.
Police officers are sworn to uphold the law. But not even agents of
law enforcement are entitled to break it.
So, we are standing up for ourselves and other law-abiding
journalists and citizens with this claim. And we really need your
help, folks. You see, this is not about the money, but rather, the
principle. Yet it is going to cost us tens of thousands of dollars to
enact justice.
P.S. This is a vital cause when it comes to freedom of speech and
the practice of journalism, something that’s increasingly under attack
in Canada today. And, to make matters worse for the little guy, the
York Regional Police Service has the taxpayer trough at its disposal;
we only have the generosity of you, our cherished viewers. So, if you
can, please click here or visit StandWithDavid.ca to help me out —
I’d truly appreciate it! Thank you.
Free Speech is a great ideal, but not in Canada. Our social justice warrior courts trample on our real rights all the time. A triggered feminist managed to squelch this man’s right to free expression. https://nationalpost.com/news/nova-scotia-court-says-mans-rights-not-infringed-when-grabher-plate-was-revoked
Man’s rights weren’t violated when his ‘Grabher’ plate was revoked, Nova Scotia court says
Lorne Grabher had the plate for nearly 30 years until the province revoked it in 2016 after a woman complained that it promoted hatred toward women
Lorne Grabher displays his personalized licence plate in Dartmouth, N.S. on March 24, 2017.Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press/File
HALIFAX — A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge has dismissed a claim by a man who says the province infringed on his freedom of expression when it revoked a licence plate personalized with his surname — Grabher.
The Nova Scotia plate Lorne Grabher had for nearly 30 years was revoked in 2016 by the province’s Registrar of Motor Vehicles after the agency received a complaint from a woman who said it promoted hatred toward women.
In a 50-page decision released Friday, Justice Darlene Jamieson said there is no constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in a government-owned, personalized licence plate.
The judge said licence plates are not “public spaces” with a history of free expression, adding she doesn’t believe people expect unlimited access to free expression on them. The fact the government has allowed limited access to the space does not make it a public space, she said.
However Jamieson said her ruling should not be taken to imply there is anything wrong with Grabher’s name.
“This decision is not about whether Mr. Grabher’s surname is offensive — it is not,” she wrote. “The decision is not intended in any way to diminish the importance of Mr. Grabher’s surname or the pride that Mr. Grabher and his family take and should take in their name and heritage.”
Jamieson said the registrar recalled the plate because the seven letters “GRABHER” could be interpreted as a socially unacceptable statement without the benefit of further context that license plates can’t provide.
“The primary function of a licence plate is not expression but is identification and regulation of vehicle ownership,” Jamieson wrote. “A licence plate by its very nature is a private government space.”
Jamieson said Grabher failed to establish that the registrar’s decision limited his equality rights and concluded its decision to revoke the plate was justified under provincial motor vehicle regulations.
What is the rationale for giving a bureaucrat the authority to take away the expression of somebody’s last name
Under the regulations, the registrar can refuse to issue personalized licence plates if the proposed combination of characters expresses or implies a word, phrase or idea that could be considered offensive or not in good taste.
The Nova Scotia decision follows one in Manitoba last October when Queen’s Bench Justice Sheldon Lanchberry ruled it was reasonable for Manitoba Public Insurance to revoke a Star Trek fan’s ASIMIL8 plate after receiving a complaint that it was offensive to Indigenous people.
Lanchberry ruled it was reasonable to take back Nick Troller’s plate, because the word is connected to the Indigenous experience and government policies of forced assimilation.
Grabher declined to comment Friday when contacted by The Canadian Press, but his lawyer said the court ruling would be reviewed before deciding on a possible appeal.
“I think that there are a number of problematic aspects to it,” said Jay Cameron of the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
He pointed to part of the Manitoba ruling in which the judge found that in permitting limited expression on personalized plates, the regulator had authorized a new location where free expression is entitled to protection — a finding Jamieson noted and disagreed with in her ruling.
Cameron also noted that Jamieson “basically ignored” the fact that Grabher had been issued the plate for nearly 30 years without objections being raised.
“What is the rationale for giving a bureaucrat the authority to take away the expression of somebody’s last name, when for 27 years it hasn’t caused a problem before?” he asked.
TV Journalist Peter Akman — Latest Victim of Cultural Marxist Thought Police
A simple joke in a tweet with a picture of his Chinese barber got CTV journalist Peter Ackman fired. All he said, beside his barber with a surgical mask was: “Hopefully, ALL I got today was a haircut.” That was enough to trigger the Twitter crazies with howls of “racism”. Of course, he quickly apologized for what, it’s hard to know. But it did no good. Peter Akman no longer has a job. So much for CTV and freedom of speech. Corporate cowardice in defence of basic freedom is corrosive.
Where’s the “racism”? The acknowledged source of Coronavirus is Red China and is tied to an aspect of Chinese culture — the widespread desire for fresh wild meat. the wretched wild animals — bats, monkeys, civet cats, snakes are kept in horrid conditions in markets. cages stacked on top of each other have these terrified, wretched creatures urinating and defecating on each other. These are facts. Yes, yes. many Chinese do not support such practices. Yes, most Chinese do not have the virus, but, thus far, all the 180 acknowledged deaths and almost all those ill from the virus are in China and, of the four cases thus far in Canada, all four are Chinese who recently flew in from Wuhan. There’s no “racism” here, just facts.
It’s time to take Canada back from the cancel culture fanatics and the “anti-racist” (really, anti-White) wrecking crew and the apostles of Minorityitis, who put the tender feelings of privileged minorities above basic Canadian rights like freedom of speech.
At the end of this article, I have included some sample comments from the online Georgia Straight (January 30, 2020) version of this story. Most are really very common sensical about the issue.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
On
January 26, CTV investigative journalist Peter Akman tweeted a photo of
himself standing in front of an Asian man wearing a mask with the
caption “Hopefully ALL I got today was a haircut.”
The
now-deleted tweet was poorly received, quickly amassing dozens of
accusations of anti-Chinese racism and insensitivity in the face of what
has just been declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization.
Akman
quickly apologized, responding to the backlash with a repeated
copy-and-paste of his explanation of the situation. The man in the photo
was apparently a barber in Akman’s city of Toronto and had been
offering masks to patrons.
The
statement was equally condemned by Twitter users, with many accusing
Akman of refusing to acknowledge the racism behind his initial tweet:
It wasnt insensitive. It was straight up racist.— meg fenway (@megfenway) January 26, 2020
It was racist, dude. Say it.— Robin LeBlanc, from work (@TheThirstyWench) January 27, 2020
Today, a source speaking to The Post Millennial provided information that Peter Akman was no longer working with CTV. The journalist’s profile no longer appears on CTV’s W5 Team Bios page, where it did just two days ago, according to the Internet Archive. His CTV profile has also been removed from the website.
Peter
Akman had been an investigative journalist with CTV since 2013 after
leaving CBC in 2006, and had gained some notoriety for reporting live
from international sites such as Afghanistan, Israel, Kuwait, and Libya.
_____________________________________________David ChristieCanada
is going towards being a dictatorship if this is the trend we face.
Funny thing everytime a differnt country steps on there people for
saying something that somebody didnt like. Canada starts yelling. Human
rights, human rights , well people of canada we are looseing ours
everyday with changeing the laws to the point that if you look at
somebody or say anything your going to be in shit by somebody. Or if you
go online and say anything your employer has a right to fire you. Our
country is very broken and at the rate were going we might as well cut
our tongues and blind ourselves so we dont offend anybody..Like · Reply · 1h
Donalda Kyryluk MaunakeaIt was a JOKE! WTF!!! I am sorry I have Chinese relatives that would NOT be offended. This is totally ridiculous.Like · Reply · 1 · 2h
Aki SanWidespread outradge? Yeah, I doubt that. It’s more like a few triggered went on a tweet rampage and the network caved. Sorry to hear this. Canada is going into the dumper real quick with this type of over reaction of trivial shit.Like · Reply · 2 · 2h
David ChristieOmfg
people need ta grow the f__k up. It was a joke cause the guy was
wearing a mask. There is no hope for this world with all the touchy
feely bs that is happening when ya cant say a damn thing anymore. What
the hell happened to the people on this planet???? When the hell did
everybody become a race of wimps…..Like · Reply · 4 · 2h
Kristina SoucyI
think this is over punishing… this is a person’s livelihood that was
taken away over saying something dumb… I would have thought a public
apology would have been more appropriate… people commit suicide over
this… like how is he going to pay his bill’s? And what if he has
children?!? I really think his job was worth wayyyyy more then his
comment. Give him his job back and make him publically apologize or something like that.. smh people are way to sensitive… Steffan IlemanPeter Akman is a great journalist with a sense of humour. We’d be honoured to have him at CanadaChronicle.comUnlike · Reply · 6 · 4h · Edited
Gus BedaywiThis
is getting ridiculous… I hope this increase in sensitivity is not the
new normal, because it’s pathetic. Who remembers the days of the comedy
show “mind your language”…if shown today to the masses it will start a
world war 😃Like · Reply · 5 · 4h
Jennifer GouldI’m
not sure about his tweet being racist or worth losing his job over but I
personally don’t think that this Coronavirus is in any way funny or
something to joke about. God Help us all.Like · Reply · 6h
Julian WrightThe
media has overhyped this strain of flu, just like the global ensueing
climate catastrophe…it is truely pathetic that people (I guess sheeple
would now be the correct monica given the shite the gullible populas
believes) buy into fucking unsubstantiated made up stories. Wake up
people and lighten up too!Like · Reply · 1 · 4h
Mancher DebooIt was just comment. Why are we getting so sensitive about such matters.Like · Reply · 5 · 7h
David KennyI’m
sorry that he felt he had to apologize for what is obviously a joke.
This whole woke culture needs to go back to where it came from…..
irrelevanceLike · Reply · 6 · 7h
Malcolm WrightWhat
the hell? Everyone becoming a whiner. PC Police need to be fired not
the journalist. He apologized, get over it. Last Sunday I attended a
comedy show. A black comedian referred to me (a whitey) as his Niggah.
Did I get offended? No…it was funny. Everyone laughed. Chill.Like · Reply · 4 · 8h · Edited
SteercalamityPeople
need to chill out a bit. Jeeeeesus. That was not racist. Yes the virus
is scary. We need to have fun and get laughs in even during serious
times. More so than ever probably.
I have my first
child on the way. I fear that when he grows up, he will not be allowed
to have an opinion about anything or be able to have a sense of humour. I
hope that the world doesn’t become that bleak.
Ending a persons career over that pic? Shameful and scary.Like · Reply · 6 · 8h Like · Reply · 2 · 9h
Weo WestThis
sensitivity to just about anything that someone does or says is getting
ridiculously out of hand. I have no desire to live in a world that bans
humour, especially black and off the cuff humour. It’s not living if we
keep heading towards a humourless existence. His tweet was funny, along
with the selfie, and if you can’t see the humour in it, then I would
take a long look at yourself in the mirror, because a narcissistic
psychotic is looking back. Errr, sorry, that’s Trump.Like · Reply · 4 · 9h
Lately, the media has give a lot of attention to a group of
people that’s referred to as “social conservatives”.
From my observation, the media classifies social conservatives as
anyone who is any or all of the following: pro-life, pro-parental
rights, pro-free speech, a feminist not in agreement with gender
theory- or a “TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), anyone
who is pro-traditional marriage (but could be OK with gay civil
unions), opposed to legal marijuana, anti-euthanasia, opposed to
gender theory, or for religious liberty.
Whether this term is a applied by the Toronto Star, CBC, the
Toronto Sun or even the National Post, there’s always a certain
sneer or negative connotation with this group.
Why? Why does the media label and dismiss out of hand, anyone
with a difference of opinion from themselves, or Justin Trudeau, or
the Liberals.
Since when has our country’s democracy been flattened so that
there can be no difference of opinion on any issue, especially the
social ones?
Why is is that Liberals speak of diversity as being a strength?
And yet many Conservatives dismiss, what they view, as the
inconvenient diversity of opinion within our party.
Look no further than many of the so-called “leading contenders”
within the CPC leadership race who are as diverse from the Liberals
as a loaf of Wonderbread; every slice is the same- mushy middle,
crusty ends.
The solution for the Conservative party- or Canada- is not to
replace Justin Trudeau with another slice from the loaf.
Us Conservatives need a leader who will embrace true diversity of
opinion and protect our freedoms. It’s called democracy- not a
one-party state.
Louis = Marika, in the next
or the next several months, I will offer commentary and on various
issues as they arise in this leadership. I also commit to you, to
continue meeting with candidates as they reach out to me (several
already have) and ask them important questions on policy, freedom,
and democracy.
Hard questions need to be asked. I intend to ask them.
Facebook Twitter Email Decrease text size Increase text size 2
The holding of this meal, during which was to be given an international prize bearing the name of the revisionist militant, in a Vichy restaurant (Allier), this Saturday, January 25, was banned by municipal decree.
By a decision notified this Friday, January 24, the judge of interim measures of the Administrative Court (TA) of Clermont-Ferrand has just authorized the mayor of Vichy, Frédéric Aguilera, to ban a lunch-conference that was to be held Saturday, January 25, in a hotel of the thermal city, in homage to Robert Faurisson.
During this meal, was to be presented an international prize bearing the name of the French revisionist militant, who died in October 2018. “The defence of crimes against humanity or their contestation are criminal offences that it is the responsibility of the police authority to prevent when it has knowledge of them,” the mayor said in a statement.
He denied the existence of the gas chambers of the Struthof camp : Robert Faurisson tried in Cusset (Allier)
The TA de Clermont has received a request from the instigators of this lunch-conference, under the urgent procedure, for the cancellation of this prohibition order. The applicants considered that the order in question constituted ” a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with freedom of Assembly in a private place “, arguing that neither the “award” nor the “profile of the participants” was “such as to disturb public order, endanger public security” or ” undermine respect for the human person “.
For the court, the risk of infringement
public order is well constituted
After recalling that “respect for the dignity of the human person (was) one of the components of Public Order” and considering that this luncheon, having “been the subject of an advertisement on a website”, the “risks of infringement of human dignity and of remarks likely to constitute criminal offences” did exist, the judge of the interim indicated that the mayor of Vichy had “not committed a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of the fundamental freedom of Assembly”.
The Chosen One was therefore perfectly entitled to ban this lunch, in the name of his police power. The Administrative Court of Clermont-Ferrand ordered the applicants “to pay the municipality of Vichy the sum of € 1,000”.
La tenue de ce repas, au cours duquel devait être remis un prix
international portant le nom du militant révisionniste, dans un
restaurant vichyssois (Allier), ce samedi 25 janvier, a été interdit par
arrêté municipal.
Par une décision notifiée ce vendredi 24 janvier, le juge
des référés du tribunal administratif (TA) de Clermont-Ferrand vient
d’autoriser le maire de Vichy, Frédéric Aguilera, à interdire un
déjeuner-conférence qui devait se tenir le samedi 25 janvier, dans un
hôtel de la cité thermale, en hommage à Robert Faurisson.
Au cours de ce repas, devait être remis un prix international portant le nom du militant révisionniste français, décédé en octobre 2018.
« L’apologie des crimes contre l’humanité ou leur contestation
constituent des infractions pénales qu’il revient à l’autorité de police
de prévenir lorsqu’il en a connaissance », justifie le maire dans un
communiqué.
Le TA de Clermont a été saisi par les instigateurs
de ce déjeuner-conférence, selon la procédure d’urgence, d’une requête
pour annulation de cet arrêté d’interdiction. Les requérants estimaient
que l’arrêté en question portait « une atteinte grave et manifestement
illégale à la liberté de réunion dans un lieu privé », arguant que ni la
« remise d’un prix », ni « le profil des participants » n’étaient « de
nature à troubler l’ordre public, porter atteinte à la sécurité
publique » ou encore de « porter atteinte au respect de la personne
humaine ».
Pour le tribunal, le risque d’atteinte à l’ordre public est bien constitué
Après avoir rappelé que le « respect de la dignité
de la personne humaine (était) une des composantes de l’ordre public »
et estimé que ce déjeuner, ayant « fait l’objet d’une publicité sur un
site internet », les « risques d’atteinte à la dignité humaine et de
propos susceptibles de constituer des infractions pénales » existaient
bel et bien, le juge des référés a indiqué que le maire de Vichy n’avait
« pas commis d’atteinte grave et manifestement illégale à la liberté
fondamentale de réunion ».
L’élu était donc parfaitement en droit d’interdire
ce déjeuner, au nom de son pouvoir de police. Le tribunal administratif
de Clermont-Ferrand a condamné les requérants « à verser à la commune
de Vichy la somme de 1.000 € ».
Greetings and welcome from the Jan27.org committee. We
are made up of scientists, engineers, literary text experts, historical
researchers, free-speech advocates, skeptics, and the just plain
intellectually curious. We invite you to join us!
We
chose January 27 for our day of commemoration because of the ceremonies
taking place on this date at the United Nations in New York City and at
the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Museum in Poland. That commemoration is
named the “International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims
of the Holocaust.”
We
thought it would be a good idea to add our voices to the many that are
being heard in those places, telling their stories of gas chambers,
torture, starvation, and genocide. Our stories are about science, the
laws of physics, technical possibilities and impossibilities, common
sense and the constant lowering of the death tolls. We bring Good News!
For example:
Right
at the very spot that the story of 6 million murdered Jews is being
told today and every day, these plaques tell the real story. Up until
1990, the plaque on the left was in place, in several languages, in
front of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Monument at the Poland memorial,
claiming that four million people were killed here “by nazi murderers”
in the five years between 1940 and 1945.
But
in 1990 (corresponding with the fall of the Soviet Union) the number
was reduced to 1.5 million, with no explanation, and the plaque on the
right replaced the original plaque. That’s 2.5 million less murdered
humans! How could the historians and managers of the memorial site have
been so wrong for 45 years? What made them “re-check” and suddenly
“discover” (rather admit) their error? Only the growing body of
critical, scholarly and scientific writings that demonstrated the
impossibility of four million people being murdered in “gas chambers”
and then cremated to ashes at Birkenau.
The answer to why the 4 million figure was used in the first place is
that it was deemed necessary at the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal as a support
and justification for the fantastic 6 million total number of Jews
“murdered.” Who demanded the 6 million number? You should be able to
answer that yourself.
But
more, the official Auschwitz-Birkenau death number now stands even
lower at 1.1 million. There are holocaust historians in good standing
who have reduced it to 900,000 and even 700,000. How much lower will it
go?
This
is just one example of the many changes in the holocaust story that the
official establishment has been forced to make due to the critical
scrutiny and investigation (at great risk to their own life and liberty)
of those we call Revisionists. The work of Revisionism is ongoing; the
resistance to it is deeply entrenched. Therefore our commemoration
honors the brave Revisionists who have introduced sanity to what began
as a wildly improbable account based entirely on wartime atrocity
propaganda. With this annual commemoration we are …
CALLING FOR A RETURN TO SANITY
* * *
Our first order of business is to honor those holocaust revisionists who are now deceased,
among them many of the very first pioneers who blazed the trail for
those who followed. We list them here in order of the appearance of
their first revisionist work, and we include the persecution they
suffered at the hands of the entrenched “Holocaust” forces. Our esteemed
honorees are:
Maurice Bardèche, France, Nuremberg or the Promised Land (1948); book seized and banned in France, author sentenced to a year in prison.
Paul Rassinier, France, Crossing the Line (1949), second book The Lie of Ulysses
(1950); denounced in the French Natl. Assembly, taken to trial but
acquitted, expelled from the French Socialist Party, the SFIO.
Louis Marshalko, Hungary, The World Conquerors: The Real War Criminals (1958); lived in exile from Soviet-ruled Hungary from 1945 on; was refused entry into the United States.
François Duprat, France. “The Mystery of the Gas Chambers” (1967 article); distributed French edition of Richard Verrall’s Did Six Million Really Die?
(1974), Murdered by an automobile bomb blast that left his wife
crippled; a “Jewish Remembrance Commando” claimed responsibility.
Louis Fitzgibbon, Britain, Katyn (1971) plus 6 other books on Katyn through 1979.
Thies Christophersen, Germany, Die Auschwitz-Lüge /The Auschwitz Lie(1973);
served a year in prison, expelled from his homeland, forced to live in
exile in Denmark (where his home and business were repeatedly attacked),
Belgium, Switzerland and finally Spain until his death in 1997.
Friedrich Paul Berg, USA, Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth within a Myth (1983).
In 1978, led a public demonstration against NBC’s television
mini-series “Holocaust”. Lost his job as an engineer; devoted himself to
the Revisionist cause, writing and speaking mainly on technical topics
related to gassings.
William David McCalden, USA, Nuremberg and Other War Crimes Trials (1978), pen name Richard Harwood; first director of the Institute for Historical Review; attacked and beaten by Irv Rubin and the Jewish Defense League.
Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Germany, The Auschwitz Mythos (1979); dismissed from his position as a Judge with a reduced pension; University of Göttingen withdrew his Doctoral degree.
Robert Faurisson, France, letter published in Le Monde titled “The Problem of the Gas Chambers,” 1978. Key advisor and expert witness in 1985 and 1988 Ernst Zundel “Fake News Trials”
in Toronto, Canada; arranged for Fred Leuchter to personally examine
crematorium II at Birkenau resulting in the ground-breaking Leuchter Report. Wrote detailed critical analysis of Anne Frank Diary.
Continually persecuted by Jewish organizations with numerous court
cases, large fines, ten physical assaults including beaten nearly to
death in 1989.
Bradley R. Smith, USA, Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist (1987), Break his Bones: Private life of a Holocaust Revisionist(2002), and two other books; founded Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) in 1987; published Smith’s Report
monthly newsletter from 1995 until his death in 2016; appeared on
numerous national television and radio programs to defend his views.
Threats and financial pressures forced him to move the CODOH operation
and his family from Southern California to Baja Mexico.
Ernst Zündel, Canada/Germany, published and distributed Did Six Million Really Die?, prosecuted in 1985 and 1988 in the famous Canadian “False News” trials,
his ’88 conviction overturned in 1992. In 1995, his home/business was
firebombed by Jewish terrorists. Two years solitary confinement in
Canadian high-security prison on German warrant, then 5 years
imprisonment in Germany after a trial there. Released March 1, 2010, not
allowed to return to his wife in the USA. Authored Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7 (2004).
Serge Thion, France, Vérité historique ou Vérité politique?/Historical Truth or Political Truth? (The question of the gas chambers)(1980). Une Allumette sur la banquise /A Matchstick on an Ice Flow (1993).
Dismissed from his position as researcher at the National Centre for
Scientific Research, condemned and fined by French Court of Appeal in
2002.
Henri Roques, France, The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein
(1985), first man in the nearly eight-century history of French
universities to have his doctorate “revoked” by government order.
Gerd Honsik, Austria, Freispruch für Hitler?/Acquittal for Hitler?
(1988), writer and poet, given numerous fines and jail sentences in
Austria, fled to Spain until extradited back to Austria on EU-wide
arrest warrants in 2007. In 2009 sentenced to 5 years prison; paroled in
2011 due to age, moved to Hungary until his death in 2018.
Arthur Vogt,
Switzerland, fined 6000DM for lecture on Sept. 1991 in Nuremberg. In
May 1997 fined Sfr20,000 for editing and distributing the
“holocaust-denial” journal Aurora.
Carl O. Nordling, Finland/Sweden, “How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?” (1991)
Roger Garaudy, France, The Founding Myths of Modern Israel (1996); fined $50,000 in France.
Dariusz Ratajczak, Poland, “Tematy niebezpieczne/Dangerous Themes”
(1999); book seized; dismissed from teaching at Opele University;
banned from all Polish universities for three years; forced into menial,
odd jobs. Discovered dead in his car in 2010.
Dr. Robert H. Countess, USA, articles and reviews (2002-2004)
Special appreciation to:
Jürgen Rieger,
Germany. Lawyer who successfully defended Ernst Zündel in 1981 and
later – for this he was attacked and beaten unconscious, left near dead,
his car blown up, his reputation and career ruined.
Doug Christie,
Canada. Lawyer who defended Ernst Zundel in Canada for 20 years
(1985-2005) – for this he was threatened by judges and law societies for
“contempt” and “unprofessional conduct.”
To
these men we owe our gratitude and our commitment to carry on so that
their sacrifices, and those of others still living, will not have been
made in vain. It’s a sad fact that in our societies, it is not
acknowledged that
REVISIONISTS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
* * *
How and Why the UN Resolution Came About
The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism
By Robert Faurisson, 17 November 2005
On
November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of
the 191 nations making up the UN adopted—or let be adopted—an
Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day
of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.
Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.
Historical
revisionism thus sees its existence acknowledged by the whole world, a
fact proving that it has some life in it, but, at the same time, this
decision means that the revisionists find themselves struck with the
reprobation of all the countries of the world.
As for the “State” of the Vatican, which has no seat at the UN, it had, as early as in 1992, declared:
There
is no historical revisionism that can call into question the inhuman
abyss of the Holocaust” («Non c’è revisionismo storico che possa
rimettere in discussione l’abisso disumano dell’Olocausto») (
L’Osservatore Romano, 7 November 1992).
The
history of human societies and religions is rich in prohibitions,
bannings, excommunications but, whereas, up to a recent past, the
victims could, at least in principle, hope to find a refuge outside of
their land or group of origin, here the condemnation is, for the first
time ever, of universal character. It is thus confirmed that historical
revisionism is a phenomenon of exceptional nature and also that the
Jews, yet once more, have been able to obtain exorbitant privileges.
A sleight of hand by the Jews
It
was through a sleight of hand that the Israeli delegation succeeded in
getting this resolution passed. It proceeded in a manner like that of
certain associations which, in France, under cover of a campaign against
paedophilia, have obtained a law prohibiting, on the Internet,
communication relating to paedophilia and … to revisionism!
To
begin, they asked: “Is paedophilia not a horror in itself?” The
response was “yes”. Their second step was to add: “Is paedophilia on the
Internet not to be banned by a specific law?” The response, there
again, was “yes”. As a third step the associations concluded: “Let’s
fight, accordingly, to obtain a law against paedophilia and …
revisionism [which they called ‘negationism’]”.
For
his part, the President of the General Assembly, the Swede Jan
Ellasion, had the deftness on November 1st to ask orally whether anyone
was opposed to the resolution aimed at commemorating the “Holocaust”. No
hands being raised, he declared, without prior recourse to a vote of
any kind, that the resolution was thereby adopted, the text of which
contained in one of its provisions the condemnation of any form of
“Holocaust” revisionism. The draft was approved by the United States in
utter disregard of the guarantees of freedom of opinion provided by the
first amendment to its constitution. And, most remarkably, this Israeli
text was accepted by the Arabo-Moslem countries, including Iran. All
those present approved, or let pass with soft verbal restrictions, a
resolution originating from the Jews that goes so far as to condemn the
right of free research on a historical subject.
The
UN act assumes only a political and not a juridical character. Still,
since it provides that the Secretary General will have to report on the
measures subsequently taken within the framework of the resolution, the
revisionists will have reason to fear consequences for themselves of a
judicial or administrative nature, for instance, as regards border and
airport police, authorisation to enter and stay in certain countries or
the issuing of visas. The resolution will serve morally to justify and
facilitate extradition measures taken against revisionists.
* * *
“What we have come to understand is that the holocaust is the
secret weapon of psychological warfare of the Powers That Be,
which they use to expand and maintain their militaristic empire,
to justify wars and subjugation, to foist their financial, economic
and cultural system upon others against their will.”
French Intellectual Sentenced to 2 Months in Prison For Calling Mass Immigration an “Invasion”
[Free speech in France? Forget about it! The “liberte”, part of the slogan of the French Revolution has been replaced by state censorship and laws promoted by anti-White and anti-free speech minorities. France’s current “hate law”, the Fabius-Gayssot Law of 1990, was named after its two sponsors, Laurent Fabius, a socialist Jew and member of the National Assembly, and Jean-Claude Gayssot, a Communist Party deputy.]
Forced to pay 1800 euros to anti-racism organizations for his crime of opinion.
French intellectual Renaud Camus has been given a 2
month suspended prison sentence for saying that mass immigration into
Europe represents an “invasion.”
Camus will only avoid
jail by paying 1800 euros to two “anti-racist” organizations, SOS
Racisme and the LICRA (International League against Racism and
Anti-Semitism).
The writer, who is the author of Le Grand
Remplacement (The Great Replacement), was charged with “public
incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity,
nationality, race or religion.”
The
conviction stems from a November 2017 speech in Colombey-les-deux
Eglises to the National Council of European Resistance in which Camus
declared, “Immigration has become an invasion.”
“The irreversible colonization is demographic colonization, by
the replacement of the population,” said the author, adding, “The ethnic
substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the
history of our nation since it has existed; as with other people, if
the story continues, it will not be that of France.”
Camus also called for a “national consensus of resistance” to
oppose Islamization in “the struggle for the salvation of our common
civilization, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek-Latin, Judeo-Christian.”
The part of Camus’ speech that specifically garnered the
attention of judges was when he talked about European people being
replaced.
Camus said mass immigration “is the substitution, the tendency to
substitute everything with its emulator, normalized, standardized,
interchangeable: The original with its copy, the authentic with its
imitation, the true with the false, the mothers with surrogate mothers,
the culture with free time and entertainment.”
France suffers Islamic terror attacks on such a routine basis
that it’s barely even an important news story anymore. Many of those
terrorists are radicalized by mosques that escape any police scrutiny,
but Camus must be punished for his crime of opinion.
And there you have it. Free speech is now a crime in France.
I spent a few hours putting together a comprehensive list of all 338 Canadian Members of Parliament E-mail addresses, as well as over 100 Senators (the house of sober second thought), and sent them the following open letter on 2020 January 16. For background to this story, please see my last article from September 2019 here, and within that article are links to earlier articles about this Orwellian saga.
RE: Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) theft of privately owned books at Calgary Airport
Background:
On 24 April 2019 upon my return from the USA to Calgary airport, five books were seized / stolen from me by the Canada Border Services Agency. I had been flagged, and was harassed and detained for three hours.
I wrote three letters, May 3rd, July 2nd, August 12th, 2019 plus an appeal October 18, 2019 to the CBSA, in an effort to get my books back.
Two out of five books were returned to me, and the others were deemed to constitute “hate propaganda”, prohibited under Customs tariff item 9899.00.00 pursuant to section 58 of the Customs Act.
The 3 books which are still in the possession of the CBSA are:
The Commission by Richard Barrett
The Great Impersonation – The Mask of Edom by Pastor Eli James
Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol. 1 by Eli James and Clay Douglas
The explanatory form that was sent to me had the following boxes checked off, indicating what the so-called “offence” was:
Alleging that an identifiable group:
is to blame for serious economic or social problems
manipulates media/trade/finance/politics/government to the detriment of society
is inferior/superior
weakens or threatens society
There was no indication that it mattered or not whether these forbidden allegations were grounded in truth. Truth is not relevant here. It only matters that certain things (the Truth?) are not allowed to be said or read.
Ultimately I was supposed to PROVE that the stolen books were NOT “hate” by providing evidence that they were not hate. The absurdity of the entire debacle reached a level not possible in a sane society. Allow me to quote from my third letter to the CBSA dated August 12, 2019.
First, the deadline for rebuttal is impossible to meet. Your letter, dated July 16, 2019, took 9 days to reach me.[…] Your letter stipulated that you must receive, by mail, my evidence and arguments within 14 days of the date on your letter[…]. If my letter took as long to reach you as yours to reach me, it would already have been too late, and would have allowed a negative amount of time for me to, in your words, ‘submit evidence, regarding the admissibility of the material […]’.
The more serious matter is that the onus of proof is reversed. You say I should provide evidence that these books do not constitute “hate propaganda”. If something does not exist, it is a moot point to prove it does not exist. If it does exist, then the person alleging that it exists should prove that it exists. The onus MUST be on the accuser to prove their accusation. Your logic is false.
The next flaw in your case against me is that you have stolen the evidence! You have taken away […] the books that you deemed offensive. How am I supposed to gather and submit evidence regarding the “admissibility of the material” when you have taken the allegedly-offensive books away from me???
I have not read the books. I do not have copies of these books in my possession. You seized them. Explain to me how I am to gather evidence about an object that you have stolen from me. Would these books not be the very source of “evidence” with which I am supposed to prove that they are NOT something that you allege they are?
As any logical-thinking man or woman can see, it is an impossible situation. It is as sensible as breaking both legs of a runner and then telling him to go win that race. Would that be a fair race? Or is the outcome pre-determined.
I could avail myself of what appears to be the only option remaining, that of litigation against the CBSA. However, it is not worth my time and resources to participate in this game, a totally rigged system, to get my books back. I do not wish to feed the proverbial beast.
It would of course only be done on principle, as the books are worth far less money than the time and resources it would cost to litigate. As for winning, truth and righteousness are on my side, but the entire so-called justice system is so corrupted that my chances of success are about as good as the runner with the two broken legs winning his race.
The Canada Border Services Agency is de facto an arm of the government. It is at best a sign of moral and ethical bankruptcy and at worst it is treachery and treason for you, as so-called government representatives, to engage in such tyranny against the people who you are supposed to be serving. The government no longer serves the people, but is serving an enemy within.
It is interesting to note that the Talmud has not been stipulated as “hate propaganda”, yet this Jewish holy book calls the Gentiles cattle and calls for our total enslavement. This double standard on which books are “permitted”, demonstrates who you are really serving. Your “Act” which prohibits certain books (and thoughts and spoken words) is a modern day book burning.
I challenge every and any one of you government representatives to rectify this situation. Get rid of the “thought and speech laws”. Have my stolen books returned to me.
In the meantime, I can and have replaced the books through other channels. I am sovereign of my domain and can decide what I can and want to read or not.
I am compelled to publicize widely, this Orwellian act of treachery by an agency which represents Canada at our borders. We truly are living in interesting times.
