Free Speech Monitor: December, 2006

Historian David Irving Released December 20. Political prisoner David Irving, held in an Austrian jail for the past 13 months, has been released on probation. The Austrian Appeals Court cut his three year sentence for a speech delivered in 1989 questioning some aspects of the Hollywood version of World War II,  to one year (time served) and  two years of probation. "The appeals court in Vienna had heard calls for both a reduction and increase in the three-year sentence. Irving was convicted in February in a case that sparked international debate about the limits of freedom of speech. In 1989, he spoke in Austria denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. … Irving on Wednesday welcomed his release and said he was 'fit and well'. The 68-year-old said he would urge an academic boycott of historians from Germany and Austria until the nations stopped jailing historians. 'I was put in prison for three years for expressing an opinion 17 years ago,' he said. … But his lawyer, Herbert Schaller, said: 'He is free, and he can leave, and he will leave.'"  (BBC News, December 20, 2006) "We're organising his press conference here in central London," Lady Michele Renouf, the British historian's press spokesman told CAFÉ from London this morning. "David Irving is completely free now," she said. "We expect that his release and paperwork will processed and that he may return to London as early as tonight. "One slight glitch, she said, was a heavy fog blanketing much of England. "Would you believe his delay is being delayed by fog? There are no domestic flights in or out of Southern England and few from the continent." Mr. Irving had expressed a strong desire to be home for Christmas. Sounding a sour and vindictive note was Lord Janner. The "vice-president of the World Jewish Congress and president of the Commonwealth Jewish Council, said: 'I am sorry that he did not serve out his full term, and I hope he will remain in Austria and not return to the United Kingdom, where he will not be welcome.'" (BBC News, December 20, 2006) "Mr. Irving's release is the result of more than a year of protests, letters to Austrian authorities, letters to the editor and protests organized by Lady Michele Renouf in London and CAFÉ in Ottawa," said Paul Fromm," Director of the Canadian  Association for Free Expression. "It's a tribute to hundreds of free speech supporters in Canada, America, Europe and Australia who wrote those letters of protest to Austrian authorities and kept up the pressure.  Equally important, I believe, the recent conference in Tehran skewered Western hypocrisy about free speech. Ironically, one of the few places on earth where scholars could meet to question the so-called holocaust account of World War II was Tehran. Despite the West's breast beating about its commitment to human rights, the outspoken Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad pointed out that writers and scholars were in Western prisons for merely questioning aspects of the new state religion of Holocaust." Lady Michele Renouf was a featured speaker at the Tehran Conference and is on the key organizing committee planning a future conference. Does Warman Work for the Rights Commission? VANCOUVER. December 13. A stormy three day Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ended today in Vancouver. The Tribunal presided over by Athanasios Hadjis was investigating a complaint made by perpetual complainer Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman about posts critical of interracial sex, same sex marriage and immigration by 21-year old Jessica Beaumont of Calgary. In the course of cross-examination by Paul Fromm, representing Miss Beaumont who is unable to afford a lawyer, Richard Warman refused to give a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether he still works for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Barbara Kulaszka, lawyer for webmaster Marc Lemire who is also a victim of a Warman complaint and who is launching a constitutional challenge against the Internet censorship portion, Section 13.1, of the Canadian Human Rights Act,  commented on learning of this: "If Mr. Warman works in any capacity for the Commission, either on contract or as an employee, this is obviously something which should have been revealed. ... It bears clearly on the issue of whether this whole proceeding is an abuse of the process by the Commission and the constitutionality of Section 13.1." The hearings started out with considerable tension. Complainant Richard Warman had argued vehemently against postponing the hearing against co-accused Ciaran Donnelly, Miss Beaumont's boyfriend. Mr. Donnelly had had serious knee surgery. Additional complications have developed, including cancer which will require chemotherapy. Mr. Donnelly is lame, in serious pain, is on morphine and cannot sleep at night. Nevertheless, the ghoulish Warman wanted the victim dragged to the hearing and the show trial to continue. At the last minute, after further medical evidence was submitted by Paul Fromm, Mr. Donnelly's hearing was postponed but the Tribunal plunged ahead against the remaining available victim Miss Beaumont. The Tribunal "members" or judges take themselves very seriously. They like to enter hearings from a separate entrance from the public or parties (as in a real court). The facilities at the Vancouver Convention Centre didn't seem to provide this separate entrance. The 9:30 start of proceedings was delayed until a way could be found to route Mr. Hadjis along a back fire corridor for his dramatic entrance. Meanwhile, the defence team went for coffee. They were amazed to find the hearing already in session when they returned at 10:00. A heated exchange ensued between Mr. Fromm on behalf of Jessica Beaumont and Member Hadjis. Fromm wondered, if they were going to start the proceedings without the defence who had been there on time, why not just shoot the victim and get it over with. Fromm's first motion was to permit the late introduction of an expert witness,  Jud Ireland of Vancouver. So arrogant has the Commission become in these Sec. 13.1 cases that they no longer lead expert evidence to try to prove that the postings are "likely to expose" the privileged groups to hatred or contempt. Mr. Ireland who advised Premier Vander Zalm and is a published author and experienced communicator would have testified that Miss Beaumont's postings would not have exposed anyone to hate. Warman and Commission counsel Giacomo Vigna objected that they had not had enough notice. Mr. Fromm answered that he was flabbergasted that Miss Beaumont had been forced to proceed alone and had been certain that the hearings would be postponed until the New Year. In the end, Hadjis refused to allow the defence to present Mr. Ireland. On the stand, Miss Beaumont explained that she was posting her views essentially for other like-minded friends on Stormfront who discussed issues back and forth. Cross-examined by Mr. Vigna, she was asked: "Did you realize you were exposing yourself by posting on the Internet? " The guileless Miss Beaumont replied: "Somebody will always be offended. I'll always be offending someone." Mr. Vigna made it clear that the CHRC is a political police force, seeking to root out dissent. He charged that some of her postings " were fundamentally against multiculturalism and the Canadian Human Rights Act." Then, he asked: "Doesn't it matter which people you might have offended or hurt with your postings? "People's feeling get hurt, no matter what," Miss Beaumont shot back. "My postings were for people who are White and proud." The hearing learned that Richard Warman had directed his tactic of "maximum disruption, shutting down the neo-Nazis by (almost) any means necessary," against Miss Beaumont and Mr. Donnelly. After filing the complaint, he had called the Coquitlam paper The Now, according to Miss Beaumont, and told it they should expose her and Mr. Donnelly as he was in the Ku Klux Klan -- an assertion which is false. Warman was evasive when Mr. Fromm asked him about his praise of the tactic of "outing." Warman claimed the term meant a demonstrations. "Outing" means trying to publicly expose someone and inflame his neighbours against him. Miss Beaumont also revealed that Warman had filed a complaint under Canada's notorious "hate law,"  Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. This complaint led to a July, 2006 police raid on their townhouse, where they were humiliated and put off their property onto the curb in their pyjamas, until neighbours brought them blankets and lawn chairs. Apparently, smugly certain that the case is in the bag, Mr. Warman didn't show up on the last day of the hearing to make his final submissions. He sent them by e-mail. A visibly upset Athanasios Hadjis rebuked Warman and gave the defence a month to respond in writing to Warman's arguments. Paul Fromm argued that Stormfront is a White nationalist website and is clearly so marked as even Richard Warman admitted. It is a discussion group of like-minded people (except for police spies and snoops like Warman.) He argued that, as such, it is private communication and as they are posted only once, the messages are not communicated "repeatedly" as envisioned by the wording of Sec. 13.1. He also argued that the comments were not hate. As well, he added, it was significant that groups like Jews and homosexuals are established and well organized in Vancouver and ought to know whether they are being exposed to "hatred or contempt." Interestingly, it was not a Jewish or homosexual group that made the complaint, nor did representatives of these groups seek to intervene or even attend the hearings. The complaint was made by Richard Warman, a professional complainer with a political agenda, in far off Ottawa. Mr. Fromm urged that the complaint be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.  The decision is not expected for some months. Keep the Students Stupid in Halifax Some Canadian universities have tumbled mightily from the academic ideal -- to be a place where ideas can be discussed and fiercely debated. Too many have become merely propaganda mills for political correctness where dissident ideas are ruthlessly suppressed. It seemed like a good idea: hold a debate on the topic, Racial Diversity: North America's Strength or Weakness. Pit Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a suave spokesman for the Majority, against David Divine, head of Dalhousie University's department of Black Studies. (Duh, just asking, but is there a Department of White Studies?] An item appeared  on Stormfront.org, a White nationalist discussion forum, announcing this  public debate  and urging pro-Majority folks to attend and support Mr. Taylor. All hell broke loose. The politically correct hyperventilated, egged on by  Chris Lambie, a hatchetman reporter for the Halifax Chronicle Herald, and the debate was soon cancelled. "The clash between David Divine, holder of Dal's chair in black Canadian studies, and Jared Taylor of American Renaissance Magazine was called off after the university researched Mr. Taylor's background and his New Century Foundation. 'We are a responsible institution and therefore we have to decide very carefully when we put on presentations that we do not unnecessarily cause offence and compound the difficulties of individuals and communities who have been systematically discriminated against over centuries,' Mr. Divine said Thursday night. 'Therefore, we will not provide a platform to individuals or organizations who espouse hate against particular groups.' Mr. Taylor denied the charge in an interview from his Virginia office. Oh, heavens, espouse hatred? I espouse absolutely no hatred,' he said. 'I will tell you what - I think (Mr. Divine) is afraid I will beat him. I think he will find himself unable to defend racial diversity in any kind of coherent way. And when I produce example after example of the tension and conflict that arises from racial diversity, he will be completely in a corner and with nothing to say.' ...  Instead, Mr. Divine will deliver a lecture on racial diversity and the controversy surrounding the issue." (Halifax Chronicle Herald, December 22, 2006) CBC News (December 22, 2006) reported further: "'It's all about providing a public stage for views which are considered by many Canadians as deeply, deeply offensive," said Divine. Yet, a further reason for the cancellation was the rumour - egads! -- that some "neo-Nazis" (read, anyone who isn't politically correct) might attend: "'And Eastern Canada should receive a good introduction to our philosophy. Please tell friends of this. . . . If we're lucky, Paul Fromm may attend,' [read a posting on Stormfront.] Mr. Fromm is a public supporter of notorious Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. [A lying smear: Ernst Zundel is a holocaust sceptic.] Reached at his office in Virginia on Wednesday night, Mr. Taylor said he is looking forward to the event. But he said he heard from one of the organizers Wednesday that Dal president Tom Traves had decided the event must not take place. 'He had heard that Nazis were threatening to mob the event,' Mr. Taylor said. (Halifax Chronicle Herald, December 21, 2006 So, let's get this straight: A public debate must be cancelled because some privileged group might be offended by one of the speaker's views. The university apparently admits that so shoddy is its research that it didn't really know what Jared Taylor stands for. Oh, yes, because some people who support Mr. Taylor are rumoured to be planning to attend, the university must slam its doors and shut down the debate. A writer posting under the name OdinPatrick on Stormfront  wrote reporter Lambie : "'I stated Stormfront is not a neo-Nazi or white supremacist website, it's a white pride, white nationalist website. I stated Canadians post at Stormfront because we are fed up that discrimination against Whites (employment equity) is legal, but yet people are being jailed for giving their opinion on multiculturalism and immigration.' His response? 'How do you smear someone who abides by the slogan white pride world-wide? Seems like you do a fine job of that all on your lonesome. How do you breathe with so much hate bottled up inside?'"  Mr. Taylor told CAFE that he intends to come to Halifax anyway and deliver his lecture and his side of the debate at a meeting he will organize. However, to add insult to injury, " Jared Taylor might run into some difficulties entering Canada, immigration lawyer Lee Cohen said Friday. 'It can get a little ticklish from a civil libertarian perspective,' Mr. Cohen said. 'But the Canada Border Services Agency and immigration officers at the port of entry have a very wide discretion that they can exercise. And if they think somebody's coming into Canada to spread hatred, then that would be a breach of Canadian law and that would be enough for an officer to refuse him admission to Canada.' Agency spokeswoman Laurie Gillmore of Halifax confirmed that if a Canada Border Services officer believes a person is travelling to this country to preach hatred, it would be grounds to bar his or her entry. 'It's ultimately the officer's decision, and it's based on what is said when they're entering Canada,' Ms. Gillmore said. ... 'The officers are very, very well trained to determine if, for some reason, somebody is inadmissible to the country,' Ms. Gillmore said. (Halifax Chronicle Herald, December 23, 2006) Too bad hatchetman Lambie didn't bother to consult people who know all about Canada Border services. First, Lee Cohen is an outspoken immigration lawyer who has seldom seen an illegal he doesn't  like. As for CBSA officers being " very well trained," they are the same  goonish thought police who have seized copies of Irish Fairy Tales as possible "hate propaganda."