B'NAI BRITH DILIGENTLY DISPROVES STEREOTYPE ABOUT CLEVER JEWS, EZRA LEVANT WRITES

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 18 August 2009 07:04

B'nai Brith diligently disproves stereotype about Clever Jews<http://ezralevant.com/2009/08/bnai-brith-diligently-disprove.html>, Ezra Levant Writes By Ezra Levant on August 11, 2009 9:17 PM | The B'nai Brith is diligently disproving a stereotype about Jews. Unfortunately, it's the stereotype rackback that we're smart. Exhibit A: here's their press release<http://www.bnaibrith.ca/prdisplay.php?id=1529>from last week about a nuisance human rights commission complaint, filed by an anti-Israel group. On its own, the press release would be sensible -- it points out that HRC complaints are often bald-faced attempts to legally bully political targets, a tool increasingly used by the unholy alliance of foreign jihadis and their domestic leftist allies. B'nai Brith calls the complaint "frivolous": *...“It is obvious that this maneuver to involve the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is part of a new strategy being employed by those who wish to create a ‘legal chill.’ * * ...“We have recently seen other cases here in Canada which exemplify this new strategy of intimidation through ‘legal chill’: there was an attempt to muzzle Maclean’s magazine, the Western Standard and Ezra Levant were dragged through tribunal hearings, and B’nai Brith Canada, for a period of five years, had to defend itself against a frivolous charge lodged with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. In all of these cases, the charges were either withdrawn or the defendants won, but only after an enormous cost in terms of dollars and human resources. “Serious reform is necessary to ensure the viability of our Human Rights Tribunals and Commissions. Canadians who believe in standing up for human rights should really be concerned that these types of frivolous complaints keep wasting valuable resources that could otherwise be spent fighting genuine human rights violations.”* On its own, there's a lot to agree with there. But there's one small problem: the B'nai Brith only calls HRC censorship complaints "frivolous" when they're not the ones using them. Exhibit B: last spring, B'nai Brith dispatched its Ottawa lobbyist, lawyer Michael Mostyn, to help prosecute Marc Lemire in the censorship complaint brought against him by serial complainant and Stormfront<http://www.stormfront.org/> bigot Richard Warman. B'nai Brith was -- and still is, to this very day -- an intervener against Lemire, along with other Official Jews who prefer to censor rather than debate their political opponents. Here's a copy of the transcript <http://ezralevant.com/T1073-5405%20Warman-Lemire%202008-03-25%20-%20CHRC.pdf>from that hearing; you can see that in addition to the B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center were also intervening against freedom of speech. You can read Mostyn's comments, starting at page 317 on the .pdf, page 5951<http://ezralevant.com/T1073-5405%20Warman-Lemire%202008-03-25%20-%20CHRC.pdf>on the transcript's numbering system. His comments were brief, so I'll reproduce them in full here: MR. MOSTEN: Okay, thank you very 22 much. It's Michael Mosten speaking for B'Nai Brith 23 and, as promised, I'll be very, very brief. 24 Mr. Steacy, you had previously spoken 25 about the complaint driven process and you had said 1 that there are various ways that you intake complaints 2 such as by telephone, other means. 3 So, if I can perhaps phrase it as, 4 small "c" complaints being an informal complaint, 5 something that might be received over a telephone 6 versus a big "C" complaint which would be something 7 going through a formal and approved process, do you 8 consider all of those complaint driven as you were 9 speaking previously? 10 MR. STEACY: Yes, I do. 11 MR. MOSTEN: Okay. Would you agree 12 that it's a common investigative technique to engage in 13 online conversations? 14 MR. STEACY: Yes, it is. 15 MR. MOSTEN: Is it an important and 16 essential investigative tool for you in your role in 17 the Commission to engage in online conversations? 18 MR. STEACY: It was. 19 MR. MOSTEN: Is it fair to say that 20 complaints come in various forms, there are multiple 21 postings on websites, there's all kinds of material 22 online and that these websites and message boards are 23 not blank slates before you would have in the past 24 taken a look at them? 25 MR. STEACY: I would agree with that. 1 MR. MOSTEN: And I put it to you, Mr. 2 Steacy, that to allege that any of these previous 3 Commission cases that there are any fabrication 4 involved with that is ludicrous. 5 Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, those 6 are my questions. (Sorry for not cleaning up the formatting.) There are a few things to say right off the bat. First, Mostyn clearly didn't have a clue what he was doing there. He's B'nai Brith's lobbyist on Parliament Hill, and actually a former Conservative candidate. He's not a life-long censor like Bernie "Burny<http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/jews-and-censorship.html>" Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. His questions were uninformed and foolish, and I think he knew it, which is why he kept them mercifully brief. That's no excuse, of course. But it adds a degree of pitifulness to his appearance. Second, Mostyn was cross-examining Dean Steacy, and he asked a short series of questions, the foolishness of which I'll address in a moment. But what's far more important is what Mostyn did *not *ask Steacy. Steacy is the censorship investigator at the Canadian Human Rights Commission who testifed, under oath, in this very case, that *"freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”. *You can read that for yourself right here, at transcript page 4793<http://richardwarman.com/transcripts/2007-01-Marc_Lemire/May_10_2007.pdf> . This was uninteresting to Mostyn and it obviously did not trouble him enough to motivate him to ask about this stunning renunciation of our Charter of Rights, Bill of Rights and other inheritances of freedom. But perhaps freedom of speech is outside Mostyn's mission statement. Surely anti-Semitism isn't, though. The day that Mostyn was at the hearing, Steacy testified that he (and six other CHRC staff) had memberships in neo-Nazi organizations like Stormfront and Vanguard. Those CHRC staff weren't just passive observers, like anyone can be merely by surfing on over to those sites. They actually signed up as members, and sometimes -- like Steacy himself did -- engage in bigoted conversations. In Steacy's case, he actually wrote to a B.C. white supremacist group, congratulating them on their racism, encouraging them to continue, and offering to help. Mostyn, representing the B'nai Brith which claims to give a damn about anti-Semitism<http://www.bnaibrith.ca/league/lhr-report.htm>, was silent about that. Well, that's not quite true, is it? Mostyn wasn't silent about it. He positively praised it. He called Steacy's online bigotry "an important and essential investigative tool". It wasn't really even a question, but more of a statement -- aimed not to cross-examine Steacy, but aimed at the tribunal chairman, to tell him that B'nai Brith, speaking on behalf of Canada's Jews, approved of Steacy's bigotry. His shocking testimony should be tolerated, ignored, even supported. The B'nai Brith had officially declared that Steacy's piggish behaviour was kosher. So a government bureaucracy tasked with eliminating hate was instead promoting it. So bureaucrats who were supposed to be tamping down bigotry were instead engaged in it. And the B'nai Brith thought this was just fine. A press release condemning it? Are you kidding? The B'nai Brith gave it their seal of approval, their *hechsher<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hechsher> *. The whole case of Warman v. Lemire is tainted with anti-Semitism. Warman himself has been denounced by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for his anti-Semitic comments online, including his comment that Jews in the government are "scum". Classy. You can see the tribunal's condemnation of Warman here<http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/human-rights-tribunal-richard.html>. You won't see it on the B'nai Brith's or CJC's websites, though. They don't give a damn about Warman's vicious anti-Semitic comments. They were intervening in support of him -- and still are today, five months after the tribunal denounced Warman. Exhibit C: in last fall's federal election, the B'nai Brith issued this embarrassing election guide <http://bnaibrith.ca/files/170908.pdf>. Look at the very first cluster of recommendations: the B'nai Brith actually demands that the "Criminal Code should be amended to include Holocaust denial as a hate crime." To date, the concept of "hate crimes" has been bad enough -- grafting a political offence onto existing criminal offences. So someone who hits you is guilty of assault and battery; someone who hits you because you're gay or Jewish or black is guilty of assault and battery and "hate". It treats victims differently based on their "identity", and it starts to criminalize emotions -- for that is what "hate" is. But look at what the B'nai Brith is doing. They don't just want to graft "hate" onto existing crimes. They want hate itself to be a crime. Worse, actually: mere "denial" of a historical fact. One doesn't have to be a "hater" to question or deny the fact of the Holocaust. But B'nai Brith wants the mere disbelief (or even a public musing of disbelief) of that fact to be a crime. Is there any other fact -- scientific, historic or otherwise -- so sacrosanct that we would ever consider criminalizing disbelief in it? Would "denying" the Armenian genocide be a crime? Stalin's mass starvation of the Ukraine? Mao's murder of 50 million of his own countrymen? Would the denial of those historical facts be a "crime", too? How about other facts -- like that the world is round? Or how about theories that aren't quite facts, but that political correctness demands we treat like facts, such as man-made global warming? Seriously: have you ever heard of anything more anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, indeed anti-Jewish than to demand the criminalization of dissent, even stupid dissent? How embarrassing that this is being done in the name of Jews. Just a few lines down, B'nai Brith demands that "symbols used to advance a racist agenda" be "banned". What does banned mean? That there now ought to be pictures that are crimes to depict? I watched Tom Cruise's movie Valkyrie the other day. It is chock full of swastika flags and other Nazi symbols. Should that movie be banned? How about Schindler's List? How about documentaries or textbooks about the Second World War? In the U.K., some politically correct officials have ruled that St. George's cross is a racist symbol. Hell, forget the St. George's part -- some argue that any cross itself is racist. What fools would demand the "banning" of symbols? The answer: fools who are so self-absorbed, so solipsistic, so unimaginative, so cloistered, so supremacist that they can't see five minutes ahead: that the very first "symbol" to be demanded "banned" for "advancing" a "racist agenda" would be the Star of David, that radical Palestinian activists would cite as the symbol of anti-Arab hate. Exhibit D: the Mona Lisa of stupidity is the B'nai Brith's first recommendation for "reform" of Canada's human rights commissions. It's from that same election document <http://bnaibrith.ca/files/170908.pdf>. Let me reproduce it here: *Reform of the human rights commission system is urgently required, including educating commission staff as to the threat the ideologies of Islamism and political Islam pose to human rights in Canada.* Got it? The Jews' enemies shouldn't be allowed to use HRCs. So "political Islam" should be officially deemed a "threat", and HRC staff should explicitly be barred from accepting complaints by political Muslims. But political Jews -- Zionists; philo-Semites; Official Jews -- should be allowed to continue to prosecute their enemies in the HRC system. Just like Michael Mostyn and the B'nai Brith are doing *right now* in the Lemire case, a case that is still before the tribunal. Exhibit E: the five-year, secret HRC complaint against B'nai Brith itself<http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012826.html>. This is the *ne plus ultra *in hypocrisy. The B'nai Brith was abused for five long years by an anonymous Muslim antagonist, and their sole response is that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to be so abusive -- only Jews should be. They don't object to abusive nuisance suits. They just object when other people get to do it. The B'nai Brith is not as obsessed with censorship as the Canadian Jewish Congress. That would be impossible: the new CJC president, Mark Freiman, is actually a former section 13 censorship prosecutor for the CHRC. But the B'nai Brith is a pretty close second. You'd think B'nai Brith would abandon its incoherent, illiberal policy on HRCs out of self-interest -- to appeal to the countless Canadian Jews who are turned off by the CJC's soft fascism, and to demonstrate intellectual coherence with the rest of the B'nai Brith's more conservative policies. Michael Mostyn's embarrassing behaviour at the Lemire hearing -- whether that was on his own volition, or on Frank Dimant's instruction -- shows the B'nai Brith has a lot to learn about the Jewish values of freedom and democratic debate. And the CJC's press release last week condemning "frivolous" HRC complaints by others, while the B'nai Brith continues their frivolous intervention in the ongoing Warman v. Lemire case, is just pure hypocrisy.

 

A VICTIM OF THE JUDICIAL BEAST COMMENTS ON THE TERRY TREMAINE

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 18 August 2009 07:02

*A Victim of the Judicial Beast Comments on the Terry Tremaine* *Having been in maximum security for non-violent expression of my political beliefs, I am sympathetic to Terry Tremaine, yet I am pessimistic about his situation. Let me make it perfectly clear to all-concerned that I do not cleave to the philosophy of the National Socialist party. My father, and my uncles were bloodied wearing the uniform of the Dominion of Canada at war with the Third Reich. Immediately behind the front lines, my mother nursed broken men, from both sides of the battle. My grandfather was gassed at Ypres in WW I. My citizenship has been bought and paid-for in blood, sweat and tears. So, I will not put up with anyone gainsaying my motive as I speak up for one whose right to equal treatment under the law is being trampled. * *I tell people: "if there's one thing you do NOT want to get tangled-up in, it's contempt of court." I've been through four contempt proceedings, one of which I won. I had a ringside seat for the trial of lawyer Jack Cram, whose case is one of the leading cases on that topic. * *As you're finding out, the judiciary has all power when it perceives itself to be affronted. Often, after a dissident does fairly well in court by using the show-trial to expose corruption, especially if he gets some publicity, the Powers-that-Be take off the velvet glove and apply the fist of steel. The rulebook is ditched and we see what totalitarianism looks like. * *Those of us who were brought up to presume the British tradition of liberty under law, laugh at the rank hypocrisy, but the enemies of freedom lack the intellectual honesty to be embarrassed. There is nothing so useless it cannot at least be used as a bad example; on the witness stand in a Human Wrongs hearing in Vancouver (the Jessica Beaumont Internet case in December, 2006), I saw that personality disorder - - miserable humorlessness personified by Richard Warman. My all-time example of the utter perversion of Justice happened in 1994, arising out of the anti-abortion controversy. I made the judge issue a Judicial Notice acknowledging that, in the incident for which I was charged with contempt of an order, I had been trying to stop a crime in progress; that is, a non-therapeutic surgery to execute a little baby / a sex-selection abortion by merely speaking to the father of the unborn girl = then he sent me to jail for 21 days! * *Since Mr Tremaine's illegal speech touches on the topic of "race," it is worth mentioning that the East Indian father of the baby told me that they had had an ultrasound done to determine the child's sex. They were having her destroyed by the abortionists, so he didn’t have to come up with another dowry, since they already had one daughter. How's that for multi-cultural-ism, eh?* *In the subsequent trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, I undid one of the great myths of feminism: that "abortion was decriminalized'" in the Morgue&$$ (mass abortionist Henry Morgenteler) case in 1988. Special Prosecutor Donald Sorochan had the decency to tell the court that he agreed with me, that section 163 (2) ( c ) of the Criminal Code is valid. Later, Denis Murray agreed too. Mr Murray having been the head of the Criminal Justice Branch in British Columbia, his opinion carries all the weight in the world. But the genocide against the White race goes on in the aborturaries as dissident voices are jailed. * *Human nature does not change: the race traitors, religious racketeers and vipers who sat in Moses’ seat in ancient Israel, incarcerated their critics then, and their descendants do it today. * *When they get nervous about a dissident prevailing in the legal game, or getting traction for his ideas in the court of public opinion, the government plays the ‘contempt of court’ card. As repugnant as it is, the ONLY way out of that charge is to go before the court and grovel, so as to "purge the contempt".* *A couple of years later, I stood before 3 Justices and said “I cannot apologize for trying to save the life of that little girl, but I have learned my lesson about contempt of court, and I can promise you I won’t be back,” which satisfied them. I did get to go home rather than serve out the sentence. So my maxim is: “Any day you go to court, then get to go home and sleep in your own bed, is a good day”. As far as the court is concerned, the originating issue of how the Order came about, is irrelevant. You are only wasting your breath referring to it. All that does is confirm to the players in the legal racket that the Contemnor does not understand what's really going on. The Contemnor is not getting out of the coils of the Beast 'til the system feels that the disrepute into which his actions have brought it, has been remedied. I f the Contemnor cannot, in good conscience, do that much, then he will sit there indefinitely. First time I read that bit in the Criminal Code, it dawned on me how things are really done in this country, versus the silly fables we were told in the public fool (school) system. It’s about the power of the Cult of the Black Robe; all the rest is window-dressing* *The glimmer of hope Terry Tremaine has as an argument to defend himself is that proceedings in court are "qualified speech" specially-protected, thus outside the purview of a court to prohibit. The fine point would be whether or not Dr Tremaine had actually filed the material at issue, his proposed defence statement. and whether it had been stamped as received by the Clerk. * *The members of the cult love such questions. Problem is: it will take years for that one to grind its way up the rungs of the ladder of the Justice system. The enemies of free speech will be very happy to let him sit in prison and rot, meanwhile. Thus, he must agree with whatever bail condition the government demands because you simply cannot fight this stuff from inside their Castle* *Gordon S Watson Justice Critic, Party of Citizens *

 

POLITICAL PRISONER TERRY TREMAINE ARRESTED AGAIN FOR POSTING HIS DEFENCE

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 11 August 2009 09:57

*Political Prisoner Terry Tremaine Arrested Again for Posting His Defence* *REGINA*. Last Thursday, 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 politiical parties and ideas. Alhough 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 couort, 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 defecne 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 Corectional Centre, 4040E -- 9th Avenue, North, Box 617, Regina, SK, S4P 3Y4. The phone number is (306) -924-9000 Paul Fromm Director Canadian Association for Free Expression * Terrence Cecil Tremaine accused of breaching condition of release for posting messages on the Internet *By Heather Polischuk, Leader-Post*August 7, 2009 - *Story* - *Photos ( 1 )* REGINA — Terrence Cecil Tremaine, the former University of Saskatchewan lecturer facing a charge of promoting hatred, is back in custody for allegedly breaching a condition of his release that he not post messages on the Internet. Tremaine, 61, is accused of breaching the condition on July 22. The nature of the posting was not mentioned during his Regina Provincial Court appearance on Friday. Crown prosecutor Michael Morris opposed Tremaine's release from custody and the matter was set over until Monday. Morris said the incident is still being investigated by police and that it's possible "more substantive charges" will be laid. Tremaine's release included a condition that he not make postings on the Internet since that is the allegation involved in the promotion of hatred charge — in which he is accused of posting racist comments against Jews on a white supremacist website between Feb. 1, 2004, and Nov. 1, 2007. That charge is expected to be back before the court in the fall. Tremaine has faced sanctions for racist behaviour in the past. He was fined $4,000 by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2007 for making racist postings, a decision that was upheld following a judicial review sought by Tremaine. He is currently awaiting a hearing before the Federal Court on an allegation of contempt in relation to the tribunal's decision. The contempt charge sprang from allegations that Tremaine was continuing to post racist and hateful commentary. He was dismissed from his part-time lecturer position after the U of S became aware in 2005 of the postings. [email protected]