\n
<\/p>\n
Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish; <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n and against a lifetime gag order at the \u201cHuman Rights\u201d Tribunal<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In what has become more and more typical in Canada\u2019s repressive thought control regime, the Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed the stay motion filed by Marc Lemire<\/a>.\u00a0 The stay motion was seeking a short reprieve to allow the court to actually rule on Canada\u2019s draconian shameful internet censorship legislation \u2013 Section 13 of the Canadian \u201cHuman Rights\u201d Act<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you\u2019re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you \u2026 but hey this is CanaDUUH<\/i>.\u00a0 Sentence first, then we\u2019ll see if the laws ok later.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Ruling:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas<\/a> dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression.\u00a0 While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom<\/a><\/i>\u2019s enshrines freedom of expression as a \u201cfundamental right<\/span><\/i>\u201d, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it<\/a>. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as \u201cfreedom of speech is an American concept<\/a><\/i>\u201d.\u00a0 As crazy as that is, that\u2019s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Justice found that \u201cthe appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal<\/i>\u201d\u00a0 Gee,\u00a0 even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS<\/a>* a violation of our freedom of expression.\u00a0 How hard is it to really believe that if the \u201cHuman Rights\u201d Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won\u2019t cause \u201cirreparable harm\u201d. And this is not just a hypothetical \u2026 the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate<\/a>, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders \/ speech bans<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre.\u00a0 The \u201cJustice\u201d that writes that \u201c\u2026there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in\u2026<\/i>\u201d\u00a0 Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate? <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for \u201cPre-Crimes<\/a>\u201d before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada\u2026 where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
![Justice David Stratas<\/a> dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression.\u00a0 While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom<\/a><\/i>\u2019s enshrines freedom of expression as a \u201cfundamental right<\/span><\/i>\u201d, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it<\/a>. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as \u201cfreedom of speech is an American concept<\/a><\/i>\u201d.\u00a0 As crazy as that is, that\u2019s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe Justice found that \u201cthe appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal<\/i>\u201d\u00a0 Gee,\u00a0 even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS<\/a>* a violation of our freedom of expression.\u00a0 How hard is it to really believe that if the \u201cHuman Rights\u201d Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won\u2019t cause \u201cirreparable harm\u201d. And this is not just a hypothetical \u2026 the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate<\/a>, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders \/ speech bans<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre.\u00a0 The \u201cJustice\u201d that writes that \u201c\u2026there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in\u2026<\/i>\u201d\u00a0 Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate? <\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThis is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for \u201cPre-Crimes<\/a>\u201d before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada\u2026 where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\u201cUnder section 13, citizens are subject to lifetime speech bans–not in the Soviet Union, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Canada. Section 13 prosecutes not crimes but pre-crimes, crimes that have not yet taken place. The phrase \u201cpre-crime\u201d, by the way, comes from a dystopian science fiction story written by Philip K. Dick in 1956. Half a century later, in one of the oldest, most stable democratic societies on the planet, we’re living it\u2026<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0Mark Steyn<\/span><\/p>\nTestimony before Parliament<\/a><\/span><\/p>\nOct 5, 2009<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nEven if we were to follow the Judges \u201clogic\u201d, what exactly would\/could Marc Lemire have even put in an affidavit about his future thoughts?\u00a0 It may take up to six months for a ruling on if the law is even legitimate, how does anyone know exactly what they are going to say, weeks or months in advance?\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\nUnlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future.<\/span> The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague<\/a> and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might \u201cexpose\u201d someone to \u201chatred\u201d and\/or \u201ccontempt\u201d. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nTwo-Front – Maximum Disruption Campaign<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAfter nine years of fighting Marc Lemire<\/a>, the CHRC must have realized that he is not going to give up very easily.\u00a0 So they took a page out serial Section 13 complainers handbook; Richard Warman\u2019s \u201cMaximum Disruption<\/i>\u201d<\/a>.\u00a0 The basic strategy of \u201cMaximum Disruption<\/a><\/i>\u201d is to hit your enemies on as many fronts as possible, and that\u2019s exactly what the CHRC has done.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nMarc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals<\/a> where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional.\u00a0 And at the same time, in front of the Canadian \u201cHuman Rights\u201d Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!)<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe CHRC is hoping that Lemire\u2019s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases.\u00a0 This is why we desperately need your help.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\nImpact Persecutions to Silence Thought<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAll of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved<\/a>, reformed or tinkered with.\u00a0 The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: to Silence Thought<\/span>.\u00a0 That\u2019s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them<\/a>, they keep spending and spending.\u00a0 After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial \u201cpolitically incorrect\u201d opinions on the internet?\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s just easier to self-censor yourself<\/a>, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment.\u00a0 And that\u2019s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced.\u00a0 The censors undertake \u2018impact prosecutions<\/a>\u2019 and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\u201cNow what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone’s right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows? All in all it’s much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\nJohn Robson | Ottawa Citizen<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cSelf-censorship? Me? Absolutely!<\/a>\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\nDec 14, 2007<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nTake a look at the Marc Lemire case.\u00a0 This is the 9th<\/sup> year of fighting the censors \u2026 all because he posted a SINGLE<\/i> document on his website, that he didn\u2019t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States.\u00a0 As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document<\/a>, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThat made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the \u201cHuman Rights\u201d Commission \u2013 in their parting \u201cF*ck You\u201d to freedom<\/i> \u2013 continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAs a notable freedom fighter would say: disgusting<\/i>!<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nHere is a copy of the full ruling by the Federal Court:<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nSection 13 is at odds with this country’s entire legal inheritance, stretching back to Magna Carta. Back then, if you recall–in 1215–human rights meant that the king could be restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, Canada’s pseudo-human rights apparatchiks of the commission have entirely inverted that proposition, and human rights now means that the subjects get restrained by the crown in the cause of so-called collective rights that can be regulated only by the state.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span>Mark Steyn<\/span><\/p>\nTestimony before Parliament<\/a><\/span><\/p>\nOct 5, 2009<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish; Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts \u00a0 \u00a0 Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals and against a lifetime … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[66,9,52],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=211"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":214,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211\/revisions\/214"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/public/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5373](\"http:\/\/www.google.ca\/imgres?imgurl=http:\/\/www.lawyersweekly.ca\/images\/Stratas%2520_%2520David%2520poss%2520front%25203229.jpg&imgrefurl=http:\/\/www.lawyersweekly.ca\/index.php%3Fsection%3Darticle%26articleid%3D1795&usg=__l89Vfi8QkzNTcFZrL5dYmZuJ80g=&h=500&w=\"){kind=link}