Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 08 October 2009 18:00
*Motion to Adjourn Abrams v. Topham Pending Judicial Review of Lemire*
*Canadian Association for Free Expression
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3
PH: 905-274-3868; FAX 905-278-2413*
October 6, 2009

Nancy LaFontant, Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

By e-mail: [email protected]

Dear Ms. LaFontant:

*Re: Harry Abrams and The League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada
v. Arthur Topham and
Complaint No. : 20071016 Hearing*

The Canadian Association for Free Expression supports the motion made today
by Douglas Christie on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League seeking
adjournment of these proceedings pending the result of the decision, October
1 by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to seek judicial review of the
decision by Member Hadjis in Richard Warman v Marc Lemire, declaring Sec. 13

After the decision in Lemire, the state of the law is murky. the
Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal found Sec. 13 to no longer be remedial. This
decision is being appealed by the Commission.

Two weeks of hearings, as planned, would be an abuse by process of the
rights of the respondents, Mr. Topham and Until the
validity of the law is clarified, procceing with these hearings would be a
waste of the Tribunals time and resources, to say nothing of the respondent
who had indicated that his means are modest.

To proceed with hearings under a law that has been found wanting by the
Tribunal is to inflict serious costs and anxiety on the respondent. While
the Commission may be able to fund itself from the taxpayers pockets,
"interested party" CAFE and Mr. Topham have serious cost issues.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm
DirectorCanadian Free Speech League submits motion to CHR Tribunal to
dismiss the Abrams v. hearing

October 6, 2009
Douglas Christie - Canadian Free Speech League
PO Box 24052
4420 West Saanich Road
Victoria, BC V8Z 7E7
Telephone 250-590-2979 Fax 250-479-3294*
[email protected]
October 6, 2009
Nancy LaFontant, Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

Dear Ms. LaFontant:
Re: Harry Abrams and The League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada
v. Arthur Topham and
Complaint No. : 20071016Hearing

I would like to indicate, on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, that
the decision of Member Hadjis in Lemire is morally binding and legally
persuasive to the argument that the hearing against Mr. Topham should not
proceed. This would be a waste of judicial time and contrary to fundamental
justice. We are of the view, in light of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission’s seeking of judicial review, that the CHRC regards Member
Hadjis’s decision as more than just affecting penalty clauses.

Our view is that this matter should be dealt with by a preliminary motion in
order to avoid unnecessary waste of time and expense in the defence of the
matter and the re-litigation of the constitutional question, which would be
inevitably necessary, if this matter were to proceed.

It is unfair in the extreme, for government-funded entities like the
Commission and well-funded organizations like B’nai Brith to put private
individuals and small-organizations defending free speech to the expense of
a full-blow hearing, when the constitutional validity of the enabling
legislation is impugned by the Tribunal itself. The principle of stare
decisis requires this matter be resolved by a higher authority, if there is
any doubt, and there certainly seems to be doubt in the mind of the
Commission, considering its decision to seek judicial review.
Our view is that this issue of whether to proceed or not needs a separate
hearing as soon as possible. Would the Tribunal please accept this as a
motion on our part, accepting the issue of constitutional validity directly:
That a date be set for argument about constitutional validity and the
existing hearing dates be abandoned.

Yours truly,
Douglas H. Christie
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 02 October 2009 06:44
*Cornering The Market*
"*Jewish organizations have received 84 per cent of the funding announced
under a federal programme that provides security for groups at risk of being
attacked in hate crimes, documents show*. Forty-six of the 55 projects
funded by Ottawa since February 2008 belonged to Jewish community groups,
according to figures provided to The *Canadian Press* by *Public Safety*. Over
the same period, five Muslim organizations have also received funding along
with a Sikh group, a Portuguese group, an aboriginal group and a Hindu
group. Ten Jewish institutions in Montreal - including one targeted in a
firebombing - received the latest funding announced Friday. They will
receive $223,000 from Ottawa to improve their security, *Immigration
Minister Jason Kenney* said. The money covers things like gates, alarm
systems, closed-circuit televisions, digital video recorders, intercoms and
security assessments. ... The $3 million federal pilot programme was
extended in May when another $1 million in grant money was announced."
Press*, August 29, 2009)

BTW, in terms of "equity," Jews, at 373,000, make up just a little over one
per cent of Canada's population. Now, 84% of federal security funding for
the one per cent, um, seems fair to us!

*[This article appears in the September, 2009 issue of the CANADIAN
available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a
cheque or VISA number and expiry date to CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE, P.O.
Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]*
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 02 October 2009 06:44
*Will Rob Nicholson try to save the censorship law?*
By Ezra Levant on September 30, 2009

On September 2, the vice-chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,
Athanasios Hadjis, declared the censorship provision of the Canadian Human
Rights Act illegal. That was quite something, given that Hadjis himself has
brutally enforced that section as recently as two years ago. But declare it
illegal he did. Here's paragraph 295 of his lengthy ruling:

For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire's
freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this
infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
Hadjis is reflecting the growing bi-partisan consensus against both section
13 (the censorship provision) and the CHRC in general. Hadjis is a Liberal,
appointed by Jean Chretien. He is supported by a Conservative appointee,
Edward Lustig, who indicated in his ruling earlier this year that he would
abide by Hadjis's findings here. (Lustig also called out serial CHRC
complainant Richard Warman for his online anti-Semitism, calling it
"disturbing and disappointing."

It's been 28 days since that ruling -- which means there are just two days
left in which a party may make an appeal. I am not an expert in the CHRT's
procedure, but I would imagine that such an appeal could be made by the
CHRC, the Justice Department, Richard Warman or even Marc Lemire, the
It was one thing for the Justice Department to defend the law from an
accusation that it was unconstitutional. That's pretty much standard
operating procedure. But for Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, to
positively appeal such a loss, to revive such an illiberal law, is a whole
different thing. It would be a positive act of censorship, no longer a
passive act of defending the legality of a law on the books. It would make a
lie of Nicholson's own public statement against section 13, namely his
publicly voting against the section at a party policy convention last year.
Nor would it be acceptable for Nicholson to stand down but let his agency,
the CHRC, appeal it -- for the same reasons.
That leaves Warman and Lemire.

Warman, despite attempts to publicly portray himself as a human rights
martyr, has actually had his expenses paid for his CHRC complaints even
since he left their employ. (This is in addition to the tens of thousands of
dollars of tax-free award payments he's won before the CHRT.)
*To be clear: the CHRC has paid for Warman's hotel, travel, meals, parking
and incidentals -- and even a modest daily honorarium -- for him to file
complaints against people. As far as I know, Warman's sweet deal is the only
case in Canada -- no-one else is paid a bounty to drum up complaints for the
*This is relevant because the CHRC might try to finance Warman's appeal,
using tax dollars, just as they have financed his complaints. And, if the
CHRC is forbidden from paying Warman to litigate, it is doubtful that Warman
would actually spend his own money. That's just not his style.

Which leaves us with Lemire. Would he appeal?
I can think of a reason not to: he won, and he's done now.

But I can think of a few reasons for him to indeed appeal. If he appeals --
and I haven't given sufficient thought to the grounds upon which he could
appeal his own acquittal, but I imagine there are a few in a 107-page ruling
-- he would force the matter into a real court, before real judges, who
would surely confirm Hadjis's ruling. (Real courts with real judges tend to
care about the Charter more than kangaroo courts do; and the Supreme Court
of Canada has given strong indications in recent years of the importance to
be given to free speech.)
A real court decision wouldn't just have a "declaration" that section 13 was
illegal. It would likely strike the section out -- thus commanding the
bullies at the CHRC to stop enforcing it. (They are actually continuing with
it, despite the CHRT's ruling. They share Bernie "Burny" Farber's contempt
for Hadjis the the tribunal; they respect him only when he agrees with them;
when he disagrees, they ignore him and mock him as impotent. I think that
says a lot about their character, don't you?)

So a victorious appeal by Lemire would shut down the CHRC for good. And it
would also carry more persuasive weight in other HRC jurisdictions where
censorship is currently being challenged before the courts, such as Alberta
(where a court ruling on the Boissoin appeal is imminent).
I also think a Lemire appeal is a good idea because it will keep the CHRC's
bad behaviour in the news for months or years to come. It will take up time
and money from CHRC lawyers. And, though that is actually our tax money, at
least it won't be used in harassing other Canadians. Jennifer Lynch has
already whined that defending section 13 censorship monopolizes her time and
energy. I think that's great. She's a horrific violator of personal freedom
in Canada, which is why she ought to remain on the defensive, and not left
to her own devices.
*Finally, an appeal would be an interesting political IQ test for Canada's
Official Jews. They suffered an enormous loss of credibility with Hadjis's
ruling. Are they stupid enough to double down on an appeal? Again, if they
are stupid enough to do so -- and with Mark Freiman as the new figurehead
president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, himself a former section 13
prosecutor, they probably are stupid enough to do so -- it will have the
same deleterious effects on them: burn up their time, efforts and money, and
further discredit them in the public eye.
I don't want Rob Nicholson to appeal -- it would be immoral for him to do

I don't want him to allow his agency, the CHRC, to appeal -- it would be a
cowardly attempt by him to avoid the political blame, if he let them do so.
I don't want the CHRC to continue to finance Warman to appeal the ruling
(though I don't much mind if he appeals on his own -- but I'm pretty sure
someone who bills the CHRC for every little expense won't do so on his own.)

But I would like the thing appealed so that it could be trashed with even
greater gusto and authority by the real courts.
And frankly, I wouldn't mind if it went all the way up to the Supreme Court
of Canada, so that Beverley McLachlin, who wrote the dissent in the Taylor
ruling 19 years ago, could have another whack at censorship in Canada, this
time as the Chief Justice, writing for a unanimous court.
None of which should be necessary, of course: Stephen Harper's Conservative
government should stop avoiding this disgrace, and should repeal section 13
immediately, instead of outsourcing their responsibilities to the courts.
*Fire. Them. All.*
*P.S. Here's proof of how malicious the CHRC is -- and how disrespectful
they are of Hadjis, Lustig and the CHRT. They are still prosecuting section
13 cases, even though the law has been declared illegal. They are literally
using a law that is not functional, to censor Canadians in disregard of our
*That's malicious prosecution territory; that's abuse of office territory;
that's piercing the corporate veil and suing Lynch and her mob personally
territory. I have no idea who has given them that legal advice, but if I
were a section 13 victim still being hounded by Lynch, I'd sue her and every
staffer involved personally for illegal conduct. Here's what I mean:*
From: "DANIEL POULIN" <[email protected]>
Date: September 30, 2009 2:00:46 PM PDT (CA)
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <
[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press - Position of the

Dear Tribunal and Parties,

*We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the
parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently
rendered by the Tribunal. *

*It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should
proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case.
Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply

*In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s.
54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the
Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a
penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its
Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits
that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to
determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its
discretion under s. 54(1)(a). *

*Yours truly,*
*Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission

Disgusting. And as a former member of the B'nai Brith Youth Organization and
a former camper at Camp B'nai Brith in Pine Lake, Alberta, I'm embarrassed
that an organization I once loved would be party to such an un-Jewish,
un-Canadian, illiberal prosecution. Jews using the state to bully their
political enemies into silence: are they trying to take the bookburner title
away from Burny and the CJC? Book burners: they've already got the right
initials. I can't think of a more effective way to promote hatred against
Jews than to have Jews as the public face of bullying censorship. All this,
after B'nai Brith itself tasted, first-hand, the unfairness of HRC
censorship complaints at the hands of radical Islam.

Fire. Them. All.

And then Sue. Them. All.
Page 434 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog