For reasons known only to themselves, the National Post gives one Avi Abraham Benlolo a large weekly column. For years, he headed the Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. Several years ago, he parted ways with the Wiesenthalers and started is own Abraham Global Peace Initiative. Hard to know about global peace, but he constantly calls for more repression here in Canada to silence critics of Israel. He columns have to topics: anti-semitism is getting worse by the minute and we need more repression here in Canada.
Ironically, on July 4, freedom day in the U.S.A., Benlolo, a shrill bore, said he’s been working on a “white paper” and outlined the restrictions he’d longs to place on Canadians.
“One of the greatest concerns is deterrence. Hate groups and extremists feel emboldened, often because they believe they can act with impunity. This must change. Deterrence theory offers a clear path forward: offenders must know they will be caught swiftly. In other words, the response must be immediate and the severity must be strong and unambiguous, with meaningful penalties that reflect the seriousness of these crimes.
In order for this to succeed, first, we must reform how hate crimes are prosecuted. In Canada, charges require the consent of the Attorney General — a political hurdle that delays justice. That requirement should be removed, allowing police to lay charges based on evidence and the courts to determine outcomes.
Second, existing hate crime laws must be applied consistently as the law of the land. Canada already prohibits hate speech, incitement to genocide, and the promotion of violence, but enforcement appears to be timid and selective. These laws must be used fully and without hesitation.
Canada has long had units to combat organized crime — this is no less urgent. Hate groups are becoming more coordinated and violent against Jewish citizens.[[What about the anti-White hatred and contempt for our traditions preached by the federal government and many education outlets?] Law enforcement must be equally coordinated in its response.
Fourth, I’m proposing a new national security strategy — S.N.A.P.: Share, Notify, Act, Protect. It calls for improved intelligence sharing across agencies, real-time alerts for Jewish communities, swift legal action, and visible protection of high-risk institutions. This model moves us from a reactive stance to a proactive one.
Fifth, we must modernize protest laws. Inspired by recent U.K. reforms, Canada should adopt clear rules: require and enforce advance notice of protest marches; place limits on time, location, and methods; prevent seriously disruptive protests; and restrict demonstrations near Jewish events.[Once again, we see his ethnic narcisism: It’s all about US
!] Issue immediate and heavy fines. These measures preserve freedom of expression while safeguarding public order and safety.
Sixth, legal definitions must be updated to reflect modern threats. Online radicalization, glorification of terror, and hate propaganda must be addressed with new legislation, including reinstating Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act curtailing hate online and digitally.
Canada also rightly recognizes that free speech has limits — especially when it infringes on the safety and rights of others. Pro-Hamas groups may have the right to protest peacefully, but they are not free to block Jewish Canadians from attending events or entering synagogues. They are not free to harass, intimidate, or chant genocidal slogans. This is not free speech — it is hate speech. And under Canadian law, it is not protected.
A Powerful Open Letter to Pierre Poilievre on Free Speech — Hope He Takes it to Heart
Dear Pierre,
I hope you are keeping well. The rights of Canadians to freely hold and express beliefs are being eroded at an alarming speed under the Trudeau government. Some of its recent decisions even require that Canadians renounce their most deeply held moral convictions and express opinions they disagree with.
In 2018, the Liberal government denied summer job funding to organizations, including charities, that would not sign an attestation supporting abortion. It also passed bill C-16 as part of a trend to force Canadians to express support for the existence of various gender identities beyond the biological categories of male and female, and to use pronouns demanded by those who identify with these other genders.
In addition to these assaults on conscience, the government launched a series of regulatory attacks on free speech on the internet and is pressuring social media companies, which are already censoring speech that isn’t politically correct, to crack down even more. It is also considering bringing back Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This hate speech provision was repealed by the Conservative government in 2013 because it was being used arbitrarily to censor statements that offended some people on the internet.
In what appears to be a first step towards restricting our right to criticize some religions, it adopted M-103, a motion that condemns religious discrimination but only specifically mentions one religion, Islam, and without defining the term “islamophobia.”
Finally, on university campuses, a growing number of faculty and administrators—those who should be fighting for open debate of controversial ideas—have become aggressive advocates for censorship.
History and social scientific research show that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, when maximally protected, advance the intellectual life of a nation, foster greater ideological diversity and societal understanding, and nurture other freedoms necessary for a successful democracy.
This is why Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees citizens freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
What some people find politically incorrect, offensive or even hateful cannot serve as the legal basis for discrimination and censorship. Canadians should be able to enjoy maximum freedom of conscience and expression as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter.
As the presumed front runner in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, as well as an individual who claims to support individual liberty and personal freedom, I believe that you should commit to publicly supporting the following policies:
Restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression which explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups or persons based on protected criteria such as religion, race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation.
Repeal any existing legislation or regulation curtailing free speech on the internet and prevent the reinstatement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Repeal C-16, M-103, C-10, and C-36. Ensure that Canadians can exercise their freedom of conscience to its fullest extent as it is intended under the Charter and are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions.
Repeal Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Withhold federal funding from any post-secondary institution shown to be violating the freedom of expression of its students or faculty.
The Liberals plan to release a new bill targeting online hate speech before the House of Commons breaks for the Summer.
According to the National Post, Justice Minister David Lametti plans to table a bill that will “amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).”
It is not immediately clear if the legislation will include regulation of internet content or only cover types of hate speech which the government consulted on last year.
The proposal comes as the Liberals try to pass the controversial internet regulation bill, C-10, which has been attacked for limiting free speech online.
Speaking at the Banff World Media Festival, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault hinted at the forthcoming legislation, going so far as to admit the bill will be divisive.
“Now, this is going to be controversial. People think that C-10 was controversial. Wait till we table this legislation,” he said. https://www.youtube.com/embed/pXtqCRpelxw?feature=oembed
Lametti’s bill has the potential of reviving an extremely controversial former law — Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Section 13 was heavily criticized for going beyond hate speech, effectively prohibiting speech online that was perceived as offensive. At the time, the section was widely condemned by civil rights groups.
Section 13 was repealed in 2013 thanks to a private member bill from a Conservative MP, but Lametti’s parliamentary secretary, Arif Virani, confirmed that the Liberals are examining the section to see if any of it should be returned to. https://www.youtube.com/embed/h0RY7403WoU?feature=oembed
True North fellow and free speech expert Lindsay Shepherd says government hate speech laws inevitably end up censoring legitimate free speech which some find offensive, adding that social media platforms already censor dissenting opinions.
“It all goes back to this: we don’t want the government defining online hate, because it will inevitably cast too wide of a net. We know that a Reddit forum for gender critical feminism was banned. A pro-life news site called LifeSiteNews had their YouTube channel banned. Rebel News was kicked off of PayPal,” she said.
“This shows us that if the views you’re expressing fall outside the liberal-progressive orthodoxy, you can and will be shut out — and with a return of section 13 or some other similar online hate speech law, Canadians who express non-politically correct opinions could potentially face fines or legal trouble.”
In 2019, Shepherd testified at the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on regulation of hate speech online. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bgk6gC_nG7o?feature=oembed
We’re asking readers, like you, to make a contribution in support of True North’s fact-based, independent journalism.
Unlike the mainstream media, True North isn’t getting a government bailout. Instead, we depend on the generosity of Canadians like you.
How can a media outlet be trusted to remain neutral and fair if they’re beneficiaries of a government handout? We don’t think they can.
This is why independent media in Canada is more important than ever. If you’re able, please make a tax-deductible donation to True North today. Thank you so much.
Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13
Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was inserted at the last minute, in 1977, on the request of Jewish lobby groups and the then-Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, to “get” one man, John Ross Taylor who was using a telephone answering machine with a recorded message to spread his views. This was in the late 1970s, before today’s Internet technology. Sec. 13 stated: “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” These privileged groups included race, religion, sexual orientation or identity. Mr. Taylor and a number of others using telephone answering machines to spread their views were slapped with “cease and desist orders.” These had the force of a court order.
To broadcast the same or “similar” (whatever that is) messages was considered contempt and cold land you in jail. Happy Warrior John Ross Taylor, an honest and guileless man, was twice sentenced to a year in jail, the last time when he was 77 years of age.
By the late 1990s, the Internet had replaced telephone answer machines. Sabina Citron, a bitter enemy of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel, made a complaint against him about the Zundelsite, which was located in the U.S. and run by an American citizen, educator and novelist Ingrid Rimland (who would eventually become Mrs. Zundel). This was a hard fought case, which lasted from 1997 to 2002. CAFE was an intervenor. On the censorship side were a number of Jewish groups. The defence argued, inter alia, that the Internet was not “telephonic communication”, as the section was then worded. Bill C-36, an omnibus anti-terrorism law covering many things was brought in as a response to 9/11. It gave control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and clarified that it did cover the Internet.
Along came Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and bitter enemy of free speech — he had earlier tried to get various venues for British author David Icke cancelled. Warman started filing a flurry of human rights complaints against various nationalist bloggers, historical revisionists and others. For a while he was even working for the Canadian Human Rights Commission , in a way, drumming up business for them.
Most of his victims were poor and few could afford a lawyer. CAFE assisted a number of these victims (Terry Tremaine, Glen Bahr, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, and others, and intervened in the Marc Lemire/Freedomsite case.
We witnessed a massacre. Along the way, it was ruled that truth was no defence, intent was no defence. No harm had to be proved. In one case, we proved that, prior to Warman’s complaint, only one person, anti-free speech offence hunter Richard Warman, had ever clicked on the offending comment. The wording of the Section “likely to expose” is very loose. What is “likely”? No evidence had to be presented that anyone actually saw the comments, believed them and started to hate a privileged minority. Hatred may be hard to define, but what about “contempt”? Contempt is a negative feeling toward a person.
As it turned out, ANY strong criticism of a privileged group, even if true or fair comment, could lower a person’s opinion of that group and, therefore, might “expose them to contempt.” We learned that there was no defence to a charge under Sec. 13. The anti-free speech complainants, the vast majority Warman’s, won in every case but one — a record only surpassed in North Korea. The press paid no attention to this bullzosing of freedom. Often, echoing the complainant they had demonized the victims as “neo-nazis” or “racists” or “White supremacists”.
Eventually, others decided to mimic the success of Jewish groups and Warman, who worked closely with them, to silence their critics. A group of Moslems, angry at Mark Steyn for his book on the Islamicization of Europe, which had been exerpted in Maclean’s made a Sec. 13 complaint against Maclean’s. Finally, the press paid attention and they learned that there basically was no defence to a charge and that the vast majority had been brought by one man.
Soon, religious groups began to pay attention. We had warned Real Women back in 1998 that having we their teeth on historical revisionists and immigration critics, the thought control freaks would move on to others — Christians who opposed abortion or the LGBTQ agenda. A groundswell of opposition arose to Sec. 13. A Conservative Party conference called for its repeal. A Conservative backbencher, Brian Storseth, introduced a private member’s bill repealing Sec. 13, which passed in 2014.
Warman no longer has his favourite toy. The enemies of free speech have smarted ever since. Now, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, on whose board sits Richard Warman and Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a decades-long advocate of censorship. Sadly this frenetically pro-censorship gropup has lucked into government money. Even worse, this summer they were the beneficiary of a $500,000 grant from the Bank of Montreal. [No, corporate Canada is no friend of free speech.]
Thus free speech supporters should be concerned by the following news from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.: “Earlier this month [December] 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.” The problem was views on the Internet dissenting from political correctness.
Government-funded Militant Anti-Free Speech Group, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network Wants Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) Back
Hatemongers Don’t Face Serious Enough Consequences in Canadian Courts
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
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.
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.
_____* 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._________________________________________
Sears’ St. Germaine Appeal Against “Hate Law” Conviction & Sentence Proceeds Under Protest Via Zoom
On Thursday, November 5, Judge Peter Cavanaugh turned down a motion for postponement of the Appeal proceedings as a previous judge had abruptly ordered the Appeal by Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine to proceed by Zoom after the Crown Attorney said his life was a risk in open court as Dr. Sears cannot, for religious and medical reason, wear a mask.
The Appeal is against both the conviction and maximum one year sentence handed handed down in the matter of Sec. 319 “hate law” charges against satirical broadsheet editor Dr. James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine,
In a piece of legal arcana, the judge ruled that the order was not appealable at this stage but could only be challenged at a further appeal.
What Sort of Man Seeks to Have Another Fired, His livelihood Imperilled & He and His Family reduced to Poverty?
Indeed, what sort of man seeks to have another fired, his livelihood imperilled and he and his family reduced to poverty? And all because of the victim’s political beliefs at one time expressed on his own time and on his own time. What sort of driven man would do such a thing? Why, a person who describes himself as an Ottawa-based “human rights lawyer”. That would be federal civil servant Richard Warman. Warman seems to find immense time to try to ruin people with whom he disagrees politically.
In the glory days of Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship), Warman filed nearly 30 complaints. He boasts, in his affidavit seeking a peace bond against Kevin Goudreau, who has never contacted him”,” I have successfully brought 16 human rights complaints against online hate … resulting in permanent cease and desist orders.” Also, many of the victims were fined and two — Terry Tremaine and Thomas Winnicki — ended up spending time in prison because of Mr. Warman’s actions. More recently in attacking anti-Cultural Marxist satirical publication YOUR WARD NEWS, Warman, who lives in Ottawa, contacted Child Protective Services in Toronto, according to testimony at a recent trial, to try to get editor Dr. Sears’ son taken away. [An investigation found that Dr. Sears and his wife were loving parents.]
So, while snowflake Richard Warman whines about being so afraid of his political enemies, he relentlessly seeks to have them destroyed. In a July 16 letter he wrote on behalf of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to Hamilton City Council, Warman who works for the federal government (when does he find time to do all this mischief?) seeks to have Mr. Lemire fired for his political views. Mr. Lemire was the longtime webmaster of the Freedomsite and was the subject of a Warman Sec. 13 complaint which Mr. Lemire partially won.
The letter filled with the false “neo-Nazi” smear, reads as follows: “I am a human rights lawyer in Ottawa and brought the successful human rights complaint against Marc Lemire for online hate (http://canlii.ca/t/1q60s). I have commented in numerous media stories about the recent exposure by Mack Lamoureux of VICE Canada that Marc Lemire is an employee of the City of Hamilton. I note that since the VICE article, various media reports have indicated that Marc Lemire denies any ongoing role in the neo-Nazi[sic] movement, minimizes any prior role despite Federal Court findings to the contrary, and claims that this was all many years in the past and that he is now reformed.
I do not believe this to be true. Marc Lemire openly acknowledges that he is responsible for the website http://www.freedomsite.org/. It took me less than 5-minutes to come up with multiple examples of Holocaust denial material from Marc Lemire’s Freedomsite website that remain available as of right now. Marc Lemire continues to publish to the world columns by Holocaust denier Philip Belgrave and others and at the bottom of the columns readers are invited to submit material to the webmaster (Lemire) for publication. The first article is titled “What is Anti-Semitism?” and states that Jews were not exterminated nor were they the principal sufferers in WWII, links to Ernst Zundel’s
Holocaust denial website calling it a “Detoxification Programme to Cure the Politically Correct of the Hollywood version of the Holocaust”, and links to 3 other Holocaust denial websites – URL link below and pdf version attached: ….
I am confident that if I continued my search, I would find further such hate propaganda. Based on the fact that Holocaust denial material remains available on Marc Lemire’s website, I submit to you that he is not fit to be an employee of the City of Hamilton.”
It might be noted that, even in Canada, questioning the so-called holocaust is not a crime, and, far from being “hate”, is, in fact pursuit of the truth.
The rights of Canadians to freely hold and express beliefs are being eroded at an alarming speed under the Trudeau government. Some of its recent decisions even require that Canadians renounce their most deeply held moral convictions and express opinions they disagree with.
In 2018, the Liberal government denied summer job funding to organizations, including charities, that would not sign an attestation supporting abortion. It also passed bill C-16 as part of a trend to force Canadians to express support for the existence of various gender identities beyond the biological categories of male and female, and to use pronouns demanded by those who identify with these other genders.
In addition to these assaults on conscience, the government launched a series of regulatory attacks on free speech on the internet and is pressuring social media companies, which are already censoring speech that isn’t politically correct, to crack down even more. It is also considering bringing back Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This hate speech provision was repealed by the Conservative government in 2013 because it was being used arbitrarily to censor statements that offended some people on the internet.
In what appears to be a first step towards restricting our right to criticize some religions, it adopted M-103, a motion that condemns religious discrimination but only specifically mentions one religion, Islam, and without defining the term “islamophobia.”
Finally, on university campuses, a growing number of faculty and administrators—those who should be fighting for open debate of controversial ideas—have become aggressive advocates for censorship.
Facts
History and social scientific research show that freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, when maximally protected, advance the intellectual life of a nation, foster greater ideological diversity and societal understanding, and nurture other freedoms necessary for a successful democracy.
This is why Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees citizens freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
Our Plan
What some people find politically incorrect, offensive or even hateful cannot serve as the legal basis for discrimination and censorship. Canadians should be able to enjoy maximum freedom of conscience and expression as guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter.
A People’s Party Government will:
Restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression which explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups or persons based on protected criteria such as religion, race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation.
Repeal any existing legislation or regulation curtailing free speech on the internet and prevent the reinstatement of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Repeal C-16 and M-103.
Ensure that Canadians can exercise their freedom of conscience to its fullest extent as it is intended under the Charter and are not discriminated against because of their moral convictions.
Withhold federal funding from any post-secondary institution shown to be violating the freedom of expression of its students or faculty.
CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;
Website http://cafe.nfshost.com
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
June 21, 2019
Hon. David Lametti,
Minister of Justice,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON.,
K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Lametti:
RE: Please Don’t Reintroduce Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code
I read in the National Post (June 20, 2019) that you are considering “very carefully” a recommendation by the Commons Justice Committee to reintroduce the discredited Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was repealed by Parliament in 2013. Please don’t do it.
Sec. 13 made it a discriminatory practice to repeatedly communicate over the Internet material that is “likely to expose to hatred or contempt” a long list of privileged groups.
I represented a number of the victims of this section at Tribunals. Our organization the Canadian Association for Free Expression participated in a number of other Tribunals including the very complex Warman v Lemire.
In practice, Sec. 13 meant certain groups were virtually immune from criticism. While hatred is a very strong emotion, contempt is merely the result of negative commentary. To take a neutral example, were I to say smokers had bad breath, discoloured teeth, stained fingers, smelled and ran added risks of cancer or strokes, I would not be exposing smokers to hatred. I wouldn’t be asking anyone to hate smokers but I would certainly be creating an unfavourable impression of them, and, thus, exposing them to contempt. Thus, were smokers a privileged groups, I’d risk a conviction under Sec. 13.
As time went on, Tribunal rulings held that it was not necessary to prove that anyone actually felt or expressed hatred or contempt as a result of the impugned posting. In the Lemire case, logs showed that only five people had ever even read one impugned post. Surely a case of de minimis! It also emerged that truth was not a defence, sincerely held religious belief was not a defence nor was opinion or commentary.
Indeed, there actually were no defences, except, perhaps, that the accused person had not posted the controversial material in question. Thus, until the Lemire case, Sec. 13 had a one hundred per cent conviction rate. This would rival the vile legal system of North Korea!
After 2001, when Sec. 13 was amended to specifically include material on the Internet, one individual, Richard Warman, a driven “anti-Nazi” campaigner and sometime employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, made the bulk of the complaints, turning it into an industry and, at times a profitable one too for, should the victim post criticisms of Mr. Warman after he filed a complaint, he would then allege retaliation, which exposed the victim to a punitive fine.
Sec. 13 was only used against people seen to be on the “right” of the political spectrum. No person expressing strident opinions against Christians or Europeans was ever prosecuted.
Much is made of so-called “hate speech” on the Internet. The Internet is not a free for all. Postings expressing extreme hatred can and have been prosecuted under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Those who denounce “hate speech” are using a loaded term to demonize views they don’t like. The accusation of “hate speech” tells you little about the content of the impugned material but does tell you that it is material the accuser hates!
The Internet allows a much greater range of views and commentary and a more free wheeling debate, especially on such volatile issues as immigration, than usually appears in Canada’s fairly controlled press that tends to limit the range of acceptable opinions. Such freedom and the divergent voices being heard are upsetting to people who would like a much more controlled public discourse.
I have seen lives ruined by Sec. 13 — huge fines and life-long “cease and desist orders” that have the force of a Federal Court order. I have seen individuals jailed for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political views.
I urge you to choose freedom. Reject calls for the reintroduction of Sec. 13. Yes, there is some extreme, foolish and insulting material on the Internet. Open discussion and debate tend to isolate and expose such postings. Canada needs more speech and debate not less. Do not bring back Sec. 13.
Tremaine Free; Christian Evangelist Bill Whatcott “A Security Risk”?
VICTORIA, BC. October 18, 2014. This morning I received a call from political prisoner Terry Tremaine who had just been freed from his vindictive 30 day sentence imposed AFTER he had purged his contempt; that is, removed or asked to be removed (by STORMFRONT) several dozen postings that had been complained of by his longtime tormentor Richard Warman.
Mr. Tremaine had commented to me several days before his release for civil contempt against a law that Parliament has repealed (Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act): “Those characters is judges robes were determined to give me a custodial sentence. There is terrible overcrowding in Saskatchewan prisons. They were transferring inmates from the crowded jail in Saskatoon to Regina. This was clearly a punitive, political sentence. They should have given me a suspended sentence or an ankle bracelet.”
Political prisoners are clearly treated more harshly in Canada, expense to the taxpayer be damned.
Meanwhile, activist and evangelist Bill Whatcott wanted to visit Mr. Tremaine in prison, partly in support of free speech and partly as the imperative of his Bibilical duty to comfort the afflicted and visit the imprisoned. Unlike many who talk a lot about religion, Mr. Whatcott actually practices what he proclaims. So, he applied to the prison to visit Mr. Tremaine. Mr. Tremaine duly signed an authorization accepting a visit by Mr. Whatcott.
However, no visit ever took place. “Saskatchewan Corrections turned me down as a ‘security risk’,” Mr. Whatcott told CAFE. “I’m not going to break the guy out. He’s only serving 30 days,” he scoffed. “I am not a drug pusher.”
Authorities regularly invoke “security” to justify bullying and repression. Visitors see the prisoners behind a plexiglass barrier. The notion that the 50ish evangelist would somehow be a danger to Mr. Tremaine or the prison is ludicrous. The “security threat” assertion becomes even more inane when we consider that Mr. Whatcott and I both visisted another political prisoner, Brad Love in Lindsay in May. Ontario’s prisons seemed to have no problem with Mr. Whatcott visiting Mr. Love or another female political prisoner, anti-abortion campaigner Linda Gibbons, then incarcerated in Milton in the Vanier Centre for Women. — Paul Fromm
