FREE SPEECH MONITOR, JUNE, 2009

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 *("mathdoktor99" 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 -- but*abolish * 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 issue. *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 okay. *Comments* 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 complaints. 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 opinion. 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 to. 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)

 

FREE SPEECH MONITOR, SEPTEMBER, 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: *CAFE,* *Box** 332**,* *Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.* 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 Jensen**granted **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 “hate.”* *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.** *

 

FREE SPEECH MONITOR, OCTOBER, 2009

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 15 October 2009 08:56

*Number 172 October, 2009* *Huge Victory Over Internet Censorship in Canada, Sec. 13 Ruled Unconstitutional* 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. 26-7). *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 *Canadian 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 * freedomsite.org*, 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 "Process"* * 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*.