Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 15 October 2009 09:00
*Number 169 June, 2009*

*Terry Tremaine Could Face Jail*

It's another *Richard Warman* initiated prosecution/persecution of a
Canadian dissident. On July 23, scholar and writer *Terry Tremaine
from *Stormfront*) must appear in court in Regina [Room 1600, (Labour
Relations Board), 1920 Broad St., Regina, SK at 9:30 a.m.]

The charge is contempt of court on a complaint initiated by *Richard Warman*.
The allegation is that Mr. Tremaine posted more material on the*
Internet*after his
*Sec.. 13 (Canadian Human Rights Act*) conviction in 2007. The material,
Warman alleges, violates the gag order or "crease and desist" order as part
of Tremaine's punishment. If found guilty, as* John Ross Taylor* was years
ago or *Tom Winnicki* was, he could go to jail -- another dissident behind
bars in Canada (yes, Canada, not Burma or the Congo). Three hours have been
allotted for the proceedings. Free speech supporters are urged to attend.
The ever busy Warman launched the original human rights complaint against
Mr. Tremaine and later wrote letters to his university that resulted in his
losing his part time lecturer's job. Warman's complaints also sparked a
"hate law" or *Sec. 31*9 of the* Criminal Cod*e charge that goes to
preliminary hearing this Fall, with *Doug Christie* acting for the defence.

*Two Tory Leadership Candidates Call for Abolition of
Ontario Human Rights Commission*

Who would have thought even a year ago that two of the four candidates
seeking the leadership of the *Ontario Progressive Conservative Party *would
unabashedly promise to abolish ( not tinker with or tweak or reform --
* the meddlesome anti-free speech hydra called the *Ontario Human Rights
Commission*. According to press ratings, they are fourth place *Randy
Hillier, MPP*, an Eastern Ontario populist, and contest leader *Tim Hudak,
MPP* from Fort Erie. Both have made it clear that free speech *IS* the

*Randy Hillier's* promotional postcards made his position abundantly clear:
"Eliminate Human Rights Commissions," a headline proclaimed. "Abolish
the *Ontario
Human Rights Commission* and the *Ontario Human Rights Tribunal *which have
shown that they are not concerned with actual human rights such as freedom
of speech or religion." The clear pro freedom stance by candidates Hillier
and Hudak, triggered an attack from the Red Tory faction of the
party*Christine Elliott, MPP
* wife of Federal *Finance Minister Jim Flaherty,* insisted: "I will not
allow our party to be burdened by toxic political policies like scrapping
the *Human Rights Tribunals*.'" (*Globe and Mail,* June 6, 2009) *Frank
Klees*, another Tory wet, fretted: that "the Tories need to reach out to new
Canadians by showing that they care about human rights."

*Free Speech Lost*

The *Richard Warman v. Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free
Speech* libel case is over. It's been nearly six long years -- an ordeal to
test our stamina, emotional resources and, of course, our pocketbooks. You
have loyally supported me in this battle and I want to give you an
accounting and report.

The case ended with a terse one-page decision from the *Supreme Court of
Canada*, dated April 23. A three-member panel of the *Supreme Court of
Canada *decided not to hear our appeal against the decision of the *Ontario
Court of Appeal *to uphold *Madam *

* *

*Justice Monique Metivier's* judgement entirely in favour of Warman and
awarding him $30,000. The *Ontario Court of Appeals* tacked on another
$10,000 in costs. Specifically, the decision of the Supreme

Court -- no reasons given -- read: "The application for leave to appeal from
the judgement of the *Court of Appeal of Ontario Number C48100,* dated
December 9,. 2008, is dismissed with costs." Those costs were $894.60.

The buzzer has gone. The third period is over. The score is anti-free speech
forces 3, free speechers 0. *Barbara Kulaszka* advised: "Paul, the case is
over. Pay if you can, regroup and move on. Put it behind you." In the
meantime, I've taken counsel with some seasoned warriors -- *Doug Christie*,
who was my lawyer through part of this case, and fellow teacher and fellow
victim of Canada's increasingly politicized legal system, *Malcolm Ross*.
There are others I've consulted but won't name.

*The Case at A Glance*

In 2002 and 2003, *CAFE* and I noticed that a number of* Sec. 13
(Internet)*cases were being filed by one
*Richard Warman*, then an "investigator" for the *Canadian Human Rights
Commission*. Among other things, this seemed to be a conflict of interest --
an employee out drumming up business for the Commission by filing
complaints. Even more disturbing was a statement he made to the *London Free
Press* in September, 2003, speaking of the need to "weed out" the *Internet*

I'm a student of linguistics and an M.A. in English Language and Literature.
To my uneducated eye, Warman's activities seemed like "censorship." Canadian
courts disagree. Warman sued over 9 postings by* CAFE.* The impugned remarks
were those calling Warman a "censor", the "high priest of censorship" and
"hitman for the politically correct." After numerous motions and delays, the
case was heard by *Madam Justice Monique Metivier* in the Spring of 2007.
Her decision was rendered in November of 2007. We were shocked that she
failed, in our submission, to properly apply the defence of "fair comment"
and awarded the aggrieved Warman $30,000. We immediately appealed this
decision to the *Ontario** Court of Appeal.* The appeal was heard December
9, 2008. My lawyer *Barbara Kulaszka* was treated brusquely, shabbily, I say
even rudely by the three judges, who didn't even want to hear from Warman's
lawyer, before dismissing the appeal and slapping on another $10,000 costs.
In February, *Barbara Kulaszka *filed an application for leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court. Among other grounds, we wanted the *SCC* to correct the
Court of First Instance and the* Ontario Court o Appeals* for failing to
apply the clear definition of "fair comment" that the *SCC* laid out last
June in the *Kari Simpson* case; essentially, any comment, if it is sincere
and somehow based on a fact in the case, constitutes "fair comment.". The *
SCC* felt that broadcaster *Rafe Mair's* denouncing Simpson, a Christian
activist who oppose radical homosexual literature in the schools, as a Nazi
and virtual Klansman on the air was :"fair comment." My puny comments about
Warman's being a censor seemed to pale beside Mair's rant, which was deemed


Canada has a highly politicized judiciary. *Doug Christie* can be called a
"perverted monster" for defending *Ernst Zundel *and that's not libel. *Kari
Simpson* can be compared to *George Wallace*, the Klan and the Nazis for
opposing homosexual indoctrination in the schools. Yet, political pet *Richard
Warman* is in no way a censor for having filed some 25 different
*Sec. 13*human rights complaints, which, when upheld, as they always
have been, see
the dissident heavily fined and gagged for life. The clear purpose for
Warman suing *CAFE* and me for libel -- and he's sued a host of other
critics as well -- was to silence those supporting the victims of his

Of some interest is the fact that the three *SCC* judges who denied us leave
to appeal were two Jewish judges, Fish and Abella, and *Ian Binnie*. Binnie
is not Jewish but, just before he was elevated to the *SCC*, he was hired by
the *Canadian Human Rights Commission* to prosecute *Ernst Zundel* in
the *Sabina
Citron* et al. complaint against the *Zundelsite* (1996-2002). One might
have thought these judges would have recused themselves to avoid the
appearance of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In the April, 2009 issue of the *Friends of Freedom Newsletter*, *Doug
Christie* observes that we are now in an era of "double standard free
speech" in Canada: "There is an emerging and rational conclusion which is
both difficult to escape and disturbing to contemplate. ... It is a
conclusion which I have reluctantly come to after a long series of examples,
each of which would not support the conclusion, but taken together lead
irresistibly to it. ... It is a general theory of law which could be
supported by many more examples but the ones chosen are for demonstration
only and not by any means exhaustive. It is a theory that can be
superficially explained by sociological terms like 'in group' behaviour
toward 'out groups' but it is much more comprehensive and detailed in
nature. It is a particular ideology, punishing its critics with the power of
the authority given to it by the state. It is the promotion and licensing
for otherwise prohibited behaviour of certain 'in group' enforcers who are
being rewarded for serving the 'in group' ideology. It is a wide range of
strategies, all condoned by the establishment and enforced by law, courts,
police, and human rights complainants which are designed to gradually mold,
and eventually control all public expression of social commentary and

Now to the examples. *Paul Fromm *and *Kari Simpson *come to mind. They both
were involved in civil litigation for defamation. Fromm was a defendant and
Simpson was a plaintiff. *Richard Warman* was Fromm’s plaintiff when Fromm
accused Warman of being a censor. Fromm was found liable for defamation. His
appeals to both the *Ontario Court of Appeal *and the *Supreme Court of
Canada *were dismissed, the latter quite recently. Fromm was definitely an
'out group' member. He opposes immigration. He ridiculed *Richard
Warman*and human rights laws generally. He supported
*Ernst Zundel *in his human rights hearing. He supported *Marc Lemire* and
many others in human rights hearings. He was a court loser and 'out group'
member. On the other hand, *Richard Warman* is a definite 'in group' member,
a winner, a man respected, even revered, by the leftwing as a Green
candidate, a human rights crusader and has successfully prosecuted many for
breaches of *Section 13(1)* of the Human Rights Act including many racists
and anti-semites. He is a respected 'in group' member. It is considered
defamation when called names even in an opinion honestly held by *Paul Fromm
*. This seems strange.* Kari Simpson* sued *Rafe Mair* for calling her names
equivalent to racist and anti-Semite and comparing her to Hitler and the
worst southern racists. She sued. She lost. She opposes homosexual
indoctrination in schools or at least says parents should have a say on such
educational matters. She is an 'out group' member to the society of
homosexual activists who have so much influence in the courts and
legislatures of late. She is a court loser."

*Where Do We Go From Here?*

As* Barbara Kulaszka* advised: "Move on." I will not give up the struggle
for free speech. Indeed, *CAFE* has been on a whirlwind of activity this
Spring -- meetings in Victoria, Vancouver, Mission, Calgary, Edmonton,
Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Moncton. We're actively supporting *Terry
Tremaine,* another Warman victim who faces a contempt of court charge also
initiated on a complaint by Warman this July. We've sought "interested
party" status in the *Harry Abrams v. Arthur Topham Sec. 13* case.

Still there's the matter of the $40,000 judgement plus our legal expenses. *
CAFE* has no money. *I cannot ask you, free speech supporters, to contribute
a penny to Richard Warman*.. *However, we still have about $7,500 in unpaid
legal bills. If you can help one more time, we shall wrap this case up and
continue our principled support for free speech -- the right that drives our
enemies batty.* --* Paul Fromm*

*National Post Editorial Board Blasts Human Rights Commission's Unbalanced
View of Critics*

Monday in Montreal,* Jennifer Lynch*, chief commissioner of the

*Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)*, launched a counterattack against
critics who, over the past couple of years, have suggested the commission is
out of control and should have its power to investigate alleged hate speech
taken away from it. In an address to a conference of other human rights
commissioners, ... Ms. Lynch claimed to welcome debate on the future of
human rights legislation no fewer than five times, then proceeded to dismiss
anyone who questioned the legitimacy of commissions as unworthy of listening

She accused many of her institution's detractors in “the mainstream media”
of clouding the facts about commissions’ roles and tactics in an attempt to
discredit them. “Critics of the human rights system are manipulating and
misrepresenting information to further a new agenda: one that posits that
human rights commissions and tribunals no longer serve a useful purpose.”But
claiming that the commissions have overstepped their original purposes and
outlived their usefulness is a legitimate argument. It is clearly one Ms.
Lynch disagrees with, but she does not get to be the final arbiter of what
is and isn't acceptable in debates about the commissions’ future.

Still, she can be forgiven for believing she is.* **The CHRC acts as
investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech.
Moreover, it gets to decide what constitutes hatefulness in print or the
spoken word. No wonder Ms. Lynch cannot understand why she should have to
tolerate those who advocate the end of human rights commissions. In her
daily working life, she gets to define away those she disagrees with, so why
not in the broader public debate on rights and who should protect them*? She
also claimed that those who accused the* CHR*C and its provincial
counterparts of “chilling” free expression with the prosecutions of writers
such as *Mark Stey*n and *Ezra Levant* were themselves guilty of “reverse
chill.” Harsh criticism of the commissions in the media had discouraged many
of their supporters from coming forward to defend their missions, she said.
Others who were brave enough to speak out had been subjected to withering
personal criticism in opinion pieces and letters to the editor, so much so
that “50% of interviewees for an upcoming book on human rights have stated
that they feel ‘chilled’ about speaking up.” There is a significant
difference, though – one Ms. Lynch seems unwilling to acknowledge – between
criticism and prosecution. It is the difference between name-calling and
sticks and stones.

Harsh criticism may be unpleasant. Those at risk of being subjected to it
may choose to keep their heads down to avoid it. Yet, the decision about
whether or not to endure it is a personal one. And anyone who wishes to
engage in debate over critical public policies – such as the extent of
freedom of speech – must be prepared to weather criticism in return for the
power to influence our laws. *Contrast such criticism, though, with the
chill writers and other public figures feel knowing that if their words
offend any minority favoured by a rights commission, the commissioners may,
on behalf of the complainant (and at taxpayers’ expense) compel testimony,
seize documents, search private offices and impose fines and other
penalties. The CHRC, too, has a frighteningly undemocratic 100% conviction
rate on hate speech cases. Any so-called “reverse chill” could not possibly
hold a candle to such treatment*. Ms. Lynch claims she wants a balanced
debate on commissions’ futures. She could start by giving more balanced
speeches on the issues herself.

(*National Post,* June 1, 2009)
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 15 October 2009 08:58
* *

*Number 171 September, 2009*

* *

*Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine Arrested Again for Posting His Defence*

*REGINA*. August 6, Terry Tremaine (Mathdoktor99 on Stormfront) was
arrested here and charged with "breach of undertaking." The charge refers to
alleged breach of probation conditions. Mr. Tremaine faces a preliminary
hearing in October on *Sec. 319* "hate law" charges. His original bail
conditions set by the *Court of Queen's Bench* denied him all access
to the*Internet
* -- cruel and inhumane punishment, *before* conviction, of course, for a
man having to seek employment, whose specialty was math and computers.

Mr. Tremaine sought and obtained a modification of his bail conditions,
which allowed him, among other things, to research his case. Most of the
postings that are the subject of Canada's notorious censorship law charges
occurred on Stormfront.

*Terry Tremaine's* sin, apparently, is seeking to defend himself. On July
23, he faced a contempt of court hearing on charges brought by the *Canadian
Human Rights Commission*, In 2007, a *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal* found
him guilty of postings on the *Internet *"likely to expose to hatred of
contempt" some of Canada's privileged minorities. Many of these postings
formed part of the manifesto of his national socialist political party.
Defending him at the August, 2006, tribunal in Ottawa, I argued that, in a
democracy, elections, not unelected censorship boards, were the proper way
to judge political parties and ideas. Although earning half the poverty
level, Tremaine was fined $4,000 and slapped with a sweeping "cease and
desist" gag order. The contempt of court charges stemmed from further
postings, which Mr. Tremaine contends did not violate the injunction against
posting the same or similar material.

Mr. Tremaine has written a thoughtful address and argument which he intended
to present to the court, July 23. He posted this eloquent defence on*Stormfront
*, it would appear. However, the next day he learned that the hearing had,
at the last minute, been adjourned *sine die*.

On Monday, August 10, Mr. Tremaine faced a bail hearing. The Crown opposed
bail. The court appointed defence lawyer sought a one week adjournment to
obtain and study previous court documents. So, Mr. Tremaine will remain in
prison for at least another week.

He reports that he's in "maximum security". This gentle scholar and
mathematician is being kept in "C Block." Visitors have to pass a criminal
record check. So far, he's not allowed paper or pencil.

Mr. Tremaine has been hounded and victimized for his political views:

* In 2005, chronic human rights *Internet* complaint filer *Richard
Warman*filed a complaint under
*Sec. 13* of the *Canadian Human Rights Act* about Mr. Tremaine's postings
on the *Internet.*

* Mr. Warman later filed a *Sec. 319* (Criminal Code "hate law") complaint
against Mr. Tremaine. He was raided and the police seized his computer and
books (some of the latter have been returned).

* Mr. Warman complained to the *University** of Saskatchewan* about Mr.
Tremaine's writings (on his own time). Mr. Tremaine lost his job.

* Mr. Tremaine faces a preliminary hearing on the *Sec. 319* charges this
October Mr. Tremaine is unemployed and penniless. He needs

your support for his defence fund to fight the hate law charges this fall.
You can send cheque, money order or cash to:

*Box** 332**,*
*Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3,

You can also send money by e-mailing your VISA number and expiry date. Terry
is a remarkable man putting up an amazing fight.

Here is political prisoner *Terry Tremaine's* address:

*Regina** Correctional Centre,
4040E -- 9th Avenue, North,
Box 617,
Regina, SK, S4P 3Y4.***

*The phone number is (306) -924-9000*


* CSIS Snoops Sniffing Around CAFE*

I'm furious! On July 30, Margaret, a long-time free speech supporter and
friend in Winnipeg, received a call from "Karen", a *CSIS* agent. "Karen"
had seen Margaret's name in the *Winnipeg Free Press* as a spokesman for *
CAFE* during a protest held June 23 outside Family Court TO support the
efforts of a 26-year old Winnipeg mother trying to regain custody of her
children. The children -- a girl 8 and a boy 3 -- were seized by *Manitoba
Child and Family Services* in March of 2008 after the girl came to school
with a swastika painted in magic marker on her wrist. Manitoba Family
Services is seeking permanent custody of the children alleging that the
political views of their parents may cause them emotional harm.

"Karen" wanted to know if Margaret was a member of *CAFE*. What did
*CAFE*stand for? Had she been to other CAFE meetings, etc.? Margaret
was outraged.
She's a middle aged mother and grandmother, angry at the intrusive arm of
the state trying to take away a woman's children as punishment for her
political views. Most people would be scared or intimidated by a visit from
Canada's spooks, but not her. The *CSIS* visit is pure political
intimidation by an agency that now acts as Ottawa's "political police."

Yes, there are threats to national security and *CSIS* should investigate
them. That's their mandate. *The CSIS Act of 1984* clearly defines what is
and is not a threat to national security. A government statement captures
the thrust of the *CSIS Act*. "National security", unlike its meaning in
many banana republics, does not mean opposition to government policies.
Indeed, *"the CSIS Act prohibits the Service from investigating acts of
advocacy, protest or dissent that are conducted lawfully*." *CAFE* is a
lawful advocacy group with a long track record. Founded in 1981, we publish
newsletters, hold meetings, and support the victims of Canada's various
anti-free speech laws. We have intervened and advocated at numerous human
rights hearings. We are dedicated to non-violence. The protest for the
Winnipeg mom was lawful and non-violent.

*CSIS*, by its own mandate, had absolutely no right to investigate *CAFE* or
to question Margaret. It's important to note what does constitute a threat
to national security, as the *Canadian Security Intelligence
Service Backgrounder* (February, 2005) below makes clear:

1*) Espionage* -- spying for a foreign power. [*CSIS,* we hope, keeps an eye
on the numerous agents and techno-thieves working for Red China and the
shadowy Mossad network in Canada.]

2*) Sabotage*.

3) *Foreign Influenced Activities*. -- Um, what about the strident and
well-organized Israeli lobby in Canada, or the Israeli funded visits of
politicians, *Supreme Court* judges and Indian chiefs to Israel, clearly to
influence their opinions ?

4) *Political violence and terrorism*. This especially covers the advocacy
or practice of serious acts of violence (bombing, murder, assassination) in
order to advance one's political or religious views.

*None of these applies to CAFE. Therefore, CAFE's activities should be of
absolutely no concern to CSIS*.

The questioning of Margaret, sadly, is no aberration. Movement activists
have been paid visits for years by *CSIS* agents. Some have been offered
money to spy on others conducting perfectly legal advocacy.

*CSIS* paid *Grant Bristow* a fortune in the early '90s to infiltrate
the *Heritage
Front*, a White nationalist group. His actions provoked and encouraged low
level violence and conflict with the *ARA* (a government agent promoting the
very behaviours it's supposed to be trying to stop.) He was the one who
drew up and shopped around the notorious "hit list" of prominent Jews.

More recently, *CSIS* provided secret testimony at the Ernst Zundel
"security certificate" hearings, 2003-2004. *CSIS* deemed the German-born
pacifist and publisher a "terrorist" and threat to national security,
despite being unable to provide a single scrap of evidence from his much
surveilled and very public life where he ever advocated, practised or
facilitated violence.

It seems that, once again, with the questioning of Margaret, *CSIS* cannot
distinguish between non-violent dissent and threats to national security.
Maybe they should keep a closer eye on the tens of thousands of Tamil
activists who keep pictures of the now defunct Tamil Tiger leader in shrines
in their homes and who, on command from this violent foreign and now banned
in Canada terrorist group, illegally blocked streets and highways in Toronto
in May.

“*The Canadian way of life is founded upon a recognition of the rights and
freedoms of the individual. CSIS carries out its role of protecting that way
of life with respect for those values. To ensure this balanced approach, the
CSIS Act strictly limits the type of activity that may be investigated, the
ways that information can be collected and who may view the information*.
The *Act* provides many controls to ensure adherence to these conditions.

*Information may be gathered, primarily under the authority of section 12 of
the CSIS Act, only about those individuals or organizations suspected of
engaging in one of the following types of activity that threaten the
security of Canada, as cited in section 2. … *The *CSIS Act* prohibits the
Service from investigating acts of advocacy, protest or dissent that are
conducted lawfully*. CSIS* may investigate these types of actions only if
they are carried out in conjunction with one of the four previously
identified types of activity. *CSIS** is especially sensitive in
distinguishing lawful protest and advocacy from potentially subversive
actions*. Even when an investigation is warranted, it is carried out with
careful regard for the civil rights of those whose actions are being
investigated. [*Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Backgrounder*(February, 2005)]

* Christian Candidate Convicted of "Hate"*

The hate law is now used to criminalize opponents in a Federal Election.
And, of course, Popescu is a Christian, the usual target of so-called
anti-"hate" laws." “An unrepentant *David Popescu* was convicted Friday of
promoting hatred for telling a group of high school students in Greater
Sudbury that homosexuals should be executed. Popescu, 61, made the comments
during last year’s federal election campaign in the Sudbury riding, where he
ran as an independent candidate, then repeated them in an interview
broadcast over a Toronto radio station. He was given a suspended sentence
and placed on probation for 18 months. During a one-day trial in Sudbury
court, Popescu argued he was only repeating what was in the bible when he
made the comments. ...

Popescu told the court he was not trying to promote hatred during the
debate. 'I was not targeting homosexuals, but was just trying to give an
honest answer freely’ to a question asked of him during a public debate and
later in the radio interview, said Popescu, who represented himself at the
hearing. *'The law of the land is trying to be used to contradict God's
clear law*.' (*Sudbury** Star*, August 8, 2009)

Muslims are free to promote hatred with carte blanche. Christians are the
targets. Plain and simple. "A Toronto man who had posted messages on the *
Internet* supporting terrorist attacks in Canada and the deportation of Jews
will not face criminal charges, police said yesterday. The *Ontario
Provincial Police* hate crimes and extremism unit had been
investigating *Salman
Hossain* -- whose writings included a call to kill Western soldiers ‘so that
they think twice before entering foreign countries on behalf of their Jew
masters’ -- for willfully promoting hatred toward the Jewish community, but
the case was recently closed.." (*National Post*, June 30, 2009) Whew,
lucky his name was Hossain and not *Brad Love*. The inveterate Toronto
writer of non-violent letters to *MPs* about uncontrolled Third World
immigration and Jamaican crime and hypocritical Zionists, was tossed in jail
for 18 months in 2003.Moslems get a free pass. Christians get the entire
might of the state against them

In the "anti-hate" business: Some are more equal than others

*CAFE Granted "Interested Party" Status to Intervene in Arthur
Topham/Radicalpress Internet Free Speech Case*

*In an August 7 ruling, Tribunal case manager and member **Karen
**CAFÉ** intervenor or “interested party” status in the upcoming tribunal
hearings inquiring into accusations by **B’nai Brith** activist **Harry
Abrams** and **B’nai Brith**, that Quesnel, BC, writer **Arthur Topham’s
Internet** writings were likely to expose” Jews to hatred or contempt. In
this case, **B’nai Brith** seeks to stretch the already elastic censorship
law to make criticism of the citizens of a foreign country (Zionists) to be

*Jensen ruled:”** **I am satisfied that CAFE will bring a unique perspective
and body of experience to the** **issues in this matter; it will add
significantly to the legal position of the parties. The Tribunal kicks off
in Victoria, December 7 and B’nai Brith intends to tender at least four
“expert” witnesses. Another week of hearings is planned for January, 2010.**
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 15 October 2009 08:56
*Number 172 October, 2009*

*Huge Victory Over Internet Censorship in Canada, Sec. 13 Ruled

I was travelling in a remote area far to the West. It was in the wee small
hours of the morning. The sun hadn't yet risen, but my cellphone chirped. I
fumbled and read the message It was September 2 and the long awaited
decision by *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal* member *Athanasios Hadjis* was
due at 9:30 EST. Marc's text message said it all: "I won. *Sec. 13 *struck
down." I leapt out of bed and struggled with a weak* Internet* connection,
but eventually, there it was:

'I have also concluded that* s. 13(1)* in conjunction with *ss. 54(1) and
(1.1) *are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the* Charter,* which guarantees the
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed
by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of
the *Charter*," wrote Athanasios Hadjis.

And further, "I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened *s. 13* of the
*Act* in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS
Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that *s. 13(1)* in
conjunction with *ss. 54(1)* and (1.1) are inconsistent with *s. 2(b)* of
the *Charter*, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression. *The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable
limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration
of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks
Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply
refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against
Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him* (see *Nova
Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin*, 2003 *SCC *54 at paras.

*Marc Lemire's six year struggle was over!* He was the first ever victim to
win a *Sec. 13 (Internet *censorship) case in the Commission's sorry 31 year
history. Hadjis had ruled* Sec. 13* unconstitutional and acquitted Mr.
Lemire on all but one charge and, as the law is unconstitutional, he had
essentially set aside the conviction.

Hadjis ruled very narrowly. Sadly, he did not address the issue of the
Human Rights Commission's* spying on Canadians, the posting by it or
complainants like *Richard Warman* of "racist" and inflammatory messages,
the purloining by Commission employees of an Ottawa woman's wireless *
Internet* access, as one of its black op snooping operations on
*Stormfront*in the
*Jessica Beaumont* case.

Also, Hadjis chose not to accept the devastating expert testimony of *Dr.
Michael Persinger* who eviscerated the psychological justification that the
Canadian human rights establishment and the courts have relied on for over
40 years: namely, that "hate speech" has a crippling effects on minorities,
makes them fearful, makes them doubt themselves, makes them not want to
participate in society and makes them withdraw. Dr. Persinger testified that
the findings of neuropsychology prove that is not how people react. Canada has
been justifying censorship and the limiting of free expression on bunk
science for almost half a century. ""Even if the Cohen Committee's findings
are inaccurate, as Mr. Lemire alleges, it would still not give me cause to
revisit the *Supreme Court's* determinations regarding this phase of the
Oakes analysis, " (para. 240) Hadjis decided. Indeed, Hadjis's ruling was
remarkably conservative and narrow. Essentially, with the adding of
financial penalties in 1998, *Sec. 13 *was no longer remedial. The *SCC*upheld
* Sec.* *13 *because its object and implementation was "remedial." The
Lemire case showed present day operations of *Sec. 13* to be anything
but. *Sec.
13* operates as a punishment by process. In the Lemire case, half of the
impugned passages -- those from a bulletin board -- had been removed even*before
* the complaint was filed. Mr. Lemire, seeking to avoid a long and costly
process, immediately removed the other four postings from his **, once the Warman complaint had been sent to him. If this
process were, indeed, remedial, as we submitted on several occasions, the
process should have ended there. There was nothing further to remediate.
Nevertheless, the cost and the process continued. Early on in the tribunal
hearings, in trying to learn just what passages should be defended, we were
told that the problem was the website "in its entirety." This becomes
important if a "cease and desist" order is issued. The victim must know just
which passages or similar passages he must "cease and desist" from posting.
The answer we were given was that the problem was the website in its
entirety. "Even the name, *thefreedomsite*?" I inquired. It was clear that
the complaint did not have a remedial purpose. *The purpose was the
destruction of the freedomsite and the shutting down of Mr. Lemire*.

This was entirely consistent with Mr. Warman's objectives as he set them out
in a 2005 speech -- which we submitted into evidence -- to the
communist *Anti-Racist
Action (ARA)* group in Toronto. The title of Mr. Warman's speech was
"Shutting Down the Neo-Nazis by (Almost) Any Means Necessary." In the
speech, he outlined a number of strategies he pursued -- *Sec. 319*, *Sec.
13.1 *complaints and other forms of complaint. Ironically, the Commission
and Mr. Warman limited the grounds of the complaint, only when the defence
proved that some of the passages on the *freedomsite *had been posted by Mr.
Warman himself. It further became apparent that, although Mr. Lemire had
several times sought mediation, Mr. Warman would have none of it. This case
was not about remediation of a discriminatory posting or two but about
punishment of a man who dared to dissent or, as a webmaster, to enable
others to dissent.

At paragraph 289, Mr. Hadjis found: "As I have pointed out several times in
this decision, Mr. Lemire had not only 'amended' his conduct by removing the
impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he
learned of the complaint against him. The process understood by the *Supreme
Court *was not what Mr. Lemire experienced."

As we go to press, we're in a countdown. The *Canadian Human Rights
Commission* has 30 days to appeal or seek "judicial review" of Mr. Hadjis's
decision. The *Canadian Jewish Congress*, which since the 1930s has lobbied
for suppression of free speech in Canada and which intervened against Mr.
Lemire's constitutional challenge, all but ordered the *CHRC *to appeal. A *
CJC* press release on September 2, declared Hadjis to be wrong. ""We
strongly urge th*e Canadian Human Rights Commission* and Mr. Warman to
appeal this decision,"* CJC CEO* *Bernie Farber* said." *Barbara Kulaszka*,
Mr. Lemire's lawyer, advises that, should they not appeal, *Sec. 13* is
dead. Alternately, *Justice Minister Rob Nicholson *could introduce
legislation to repeal* Sec. 13* and put this vile piece of police state
thought control out of its misery. -- *Paul Fromm *

*Positive Comments from Press Across Canada*

"Moreover, it is the first* Section 13* censorship case in the history of
the tribunal in which the quasi-defendant has been quasi-let-off; as well as
the first procedural setback for Warman, who has personally brought most of
the previous cases and personally benefited from several of the judgements.|
-- *David Warren*, (*Ottawa Citizen*, September 4, 2009)

"It is welcome news that an adjudicator of the tribunal has found *Section
13* inconsistent with the freedom of speech guarantee in the *Charter*, but
it remains to be seen if* Parliament* will strike down the
provision.." -- *Catholic
Civil Rights League*, Ottawa, September 3, 2009

"This ruling strengthens the case for *Parliament* to get the *CHRC* out of
the business of policing hate speech by repealing* Section 13* and leaving
the problem of hate speech to the criminal courts. *Section 13* isn't
salvageable. It can be interpreted to cover stereotyping and defaming, as
well as hate-mongering. There's no need to prove intent. The tribunal can
accept evidence that wouldn't stand up in court. And it doesn't have to
establish guilt beyond doubt. It's that bad.... Why? An open, democratic
society should impose as few restrictions as possible on free speech. Hate
crimes should be handled by the courts, not by lesser tribunals". ( *Toronto
** Star*, September 4, 2009)

"This morning a new light shines across Canada."-- *Merv Ritchie (Terrace
Daily*, September 2, 2009)

Well, of course, there was a negative comment from *Warren
Kinsella*(sometime legal advisor to the
*Canadian Jewish Congress): * "A HAPPY DAY FOR ANTI-SEMITES AND WHITE
SUPREMACISTS ... yesterday was, that is, with the bizarre ruling that a
crucial anti-hate law was unconstitutional. My view is identical to that of
the *Canadian Jewish Congress*. It needs to be appealed. ... If Harper lets
the decision stand, he risks alienating the minority communities that are
the target of hate. If he says he wants the law to stay, his overwhelmingly
white, Anglo SoCon base gets mad at him. In the meantime, however, the
neo-Nazis and their ilk are delighted. They should be."

*Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine, Out of Jail, but Totally Gagged*

*REGINA*. Political prisoner *Terry Tremaine* was granted bail, Friday,
August 28, here, but is now hobbled with restrictions more in keeping with
tyrannies like Burma or Red China. Arrested August 6 for "breach of
undertaking" (breach of bail conditions), Mr. Tremaine, a former lecturer in
math and computer science at the *University of Saskatchewan*, had spent 15
days in jail for posting his defence on the *Internet. *Mr. Tremaine's
alleged offence was posting* *on the *Internet* on *Stormfront*, July 22,
the statement of defence he planned to deliver to a contempt of court
hearing in *Federal Court* the next day. Attending court, July 23, Mr.
Tremaine and *CAFE'*s *Director Paul Fromm* learned that the hearing, at the
request of the* Crown*, had been adjourned *sine die*; that is,
indefinitely. It took nearly 10 days for Mr. Tremaine's lawyer *Gene
Jacobson* to obtain the transcripts of Mr. Tremaine's several bail hearings
before the *Court of Queen's Bench* -- incredible when the court is only a
few blocks away. On August 27, the Crown argued strenuously for continued
incarceration of political prisoner *Terry Tremaine*. The judge reserved his
decision. When the hearing resumed on Friday, the judge said: "It is not my
role to judge Mr. Tremaine's political views. The two questions before me
are: is he likely to appear for his trial and is he likely to reoffend?" The
judge noted that the 61 year old scholar had no criminal record, and was,
therefore, likely to show up for his trial, The* Crown* charged that Mr.
Tremaine was "cavalier" in his attitude to his previous bail conditions. The
judge seemed to take Mr. Tremaine's side: He noted that Mr. Tremaine "had
made the effort to go to the *Court of Queen's Bench* to seek an amendment
to his bail conditions and had, thus, acted responsibly." He went on to note
that "multiple amendments had created an ambiguity in Mr. Tremaine's bail
conditions" -- he'd been permitted to use the *Internet* for his defence in
his case. That was the reason, said the judge, that the *Crown* had now
charged Mr. Tremaine again. So,, to remove any ambiguity, the judge decided
to shackle Mr. Tremaine entirely. He is not to possess a computer, or use
one or access the Internet in a library or *Internet *cafe.

These conditions will hobble Mr. Tremaine's preparation for his preliminary
hearing in October on "hate law" *(Sec. 319)* charges about his
*Internet*postings. The charge followed a complaint by arch complainer
*Richard Warman*, whose complaints also led to *Sec. 13* of the *Canadian
Human Rights Act* charges against Mr. Tremaine and to the loss of his job at
the* University of Saskatchewan*. "Mr. Tremaine is almost condemned to
unemployment as many jobs are advertised online and applications received
online,*" Paul Fromm* exploded, when informed of the Court's Soviet gag
order. *Douglas H. Christie*, Mr. Tremaine's lawyer in the upcoming (October
19-21) preliminary hearing, fumed: "The system says: 'You're free, but
you're not allowed to breathe.'"

*Former Political Prisoner Brad Love -- More Punishment by Judicial

* REXDALE. August 31, 2009*. "The courts have just effectively fined me
$1,000 in travel expenses. This is shit," fumed former political prisoner *Brad
Love* in an exclusive interview with *CAFE *today from Fort McMurray. On
March 19, Mr. Love was arrested and slapped in handcuffs after addressing a
meeting of the *Canadian Association for Free Expression* in Toronto. The
maximum impact takedown with a reporter and photographer from the *Globe and
Mail* in tow, was accomplished by eight burly Toronto detectives to arrest
the unarmed bricklayer political letter writer. Apparently, the Metro cops
had no trouble dragging themselves away from dealing or not dealing with out
of control Jamaican gangbangers whose gunfire is regularly heard throughout
North Rexdale. "Book him, Danno, six counts of writing non-violent letters
to B'nai Brith and the *York University Student Union*."

Someone up top, unable to deal with out of control immigrant crime, has
decided to target Mr. Love for frequently criticizing just such crime. His
letters, it was charged, violated his parole conditions for, get this,
writing other political letters. [No, you're not reading a story about Burma
or Red China.] When he was finally granted bail, Mr. Love's sister-in-law
had been forced to put up the entire equity of her home, $110,000, as bail.
Mr. Love's lawyer, *Peter Lindsay*, was dumbfounded, explaining that he's
seen people charged with murder, yes MURDER, not writing letters, get out on
$100,000 bail. While Mr. Love has two jobs in Alberta. his bail conditions
required him to reside with his brother, work in Ontario, write no letters
to anyone without their express permission, and, like a bad little boy, be
in by 10:00 p.m. He went back to Court and had the bail conditions amended.
He had to post a further $22,000 cash -- not surety or promise. Having paid
this extortion, he was allowed to return to Alberta and his job, still, of
course under the letter writing prohibition gag order. In 2003, Mr. Love was
sentenced to 18 months in jail under Canada's infamous "hate law" for having
written non-violent letters to approximately 20 politicians and the
thin-skinned police chief of York Region,* Armand LeBarg*e, who initiated
the charges, after Mr. Love wrote him a letter twitting him for spending
$750,000 on a mobile command centre, when some of the major crime problems
in York Region are grow-ops run by Vietnamese criminals and drug pushing by
other poorly screened immigrant groups. Mr. Love's trial for his letter
writing "breach of probation" is set for May 3-4, 2010. *However, he was
informed by the law office of Peter Lindsay, his lawyer, that he must return
to Toronto in person, February 9, to confirm his trial date and, that,
despite the fact that he has a lawyer, empowered to represent him*. So, Mr.
Love must pay to fly back to Ontario and take time off work to agree in
person to a date he and his lawyer have already agreed to. "This truly is
abuse by process and punishment by process at the hands of a highly
politicized judicial system," commented *Paul Fromm,* Director of the *Canadian
Association for Free Expression*.
Page 432 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog