WINNIPEG CAFE SUPPORTER'S ACCOUNT OF CSIS SNOOPING

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 10 August 2009 09:43

* Winnipeg CAFE Supporter's Account of CSIS Snooping* Today’s (July 30) events are still fresh in my mind. When John and I arrived home this afternoon, there was a message for me to call Karen Richards at (204) 954-8128. The call display showed two blocked calls (unknown name, private number). These, I assumed, were from Karen Richards. When I called this number, the message just stated it belonged to Karen Richards, no company name. I thought she must be a creative telemarketer. When she returned my call, she told me her name and I said, “I don’t know you. What do you want?” And we were off to a great start. She then told me she was from CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's domestic spy agency) and wanted to meet with me. Of course, I asked why? She said: “I have a series of questions to ask you such as your ‘thoughts’ on racism, and questions about CAFÉ." The original “thought police” were on the other end of the line. She finally said she was calling about the Winnipeg Free Press article concerning the CAFÉ demonstration. [This June 23 protest was held to support Winnipeg Mom, whose two young children were kidnapped in March, 2008 by Manitoba Child and Family Services because this agency feared the parents White nationalist views might endanger the emotional wellbeing of the children.] I said: “Is this your taxpayer paid job, scanning newspapers for a living?” She said, “Yes We try to keep up with stories of public interest and there had been trouble in Calgary with the ARA.” I said, “That’s Calgary. I live in Winnipeg”. She then said, there had been racist incidents in Winnipeg as well. At this point, she really annoyed me. I asked her when this racism took place here and what happened. You know, she couldn’t answer the question. Anyway, I refused to allow her to come to our home, but did agree to meet with her at our local McDonalds. She couldn’t seem to understand how to spell “Nairn Avenue”. I spelled it out twice for her and she repeated it back both times NY? They need to remove intelligence from their name in her case. She also told me I could bring a lawyer with me to the meeting “if it would make me more comfortable”. Honestly, why in the world would I pay a lawyer to accompany me to see this person? She also wanted to know why I was so upset according to the newspaper article. I told her the main problem was the secret trial where no one could witness how unfair it was, and also the way the media put the couple in Winnipeg on trial and convicted them publicly. She then asked if I “belonged” to CAFÉ. I said, “I belong to no one. I’m my own person, but my husband and I both agree with and support CAFÉ. CAFÉ has been doing good work supporting victims of the Human Rights Commission and people being harassed by people like you and your agency”. At that point, she stated she no longer wanted to meet with me because I was “too angry”. I said, “How do you expect me to react? You are phoning my home and are harassing me. She said she only called twice this week. I said, “We were away on a holiday. Is this illegal?” I asked to speak to her supervisor, and was told SHE wasn’t available. I said, “Fine, what is her name?” She then said “HE. His name is Brad”. I asked for a last name and was told it was Ness. It must have been opposite gender day in their world today. She also said she just arrived in Winnipeg and didn’t know her way around the city. This must be a make-work project for her. I wonder who she’s related to in CSIS. -- Winnipeg Margaret This past week, Margaret called Shelly Glover, MP for St. Boniface. The MP seemed upset at Margaret's story and called CSIS. She was "a big help," Margaret reports. The CSIS supervisor confirmed Margaret's account that she had been approached and the agent had wanted tp meet with her. However, and here the CSIS responds borders on the ludicrous, the agent was only wanting to talk to Margaret to offer her "protection." From whom or what? Canada is a land pervaded by fear and Margaret is a brave woman. When Margaret called Shelly Gordon's office, she spoke first to her assistant Pat. As soon as she mentioned the dread initials, Pat snapped: "Stop, I don't want to hear any more." Amazingly, both the MP and Pat urged Margaret to tell no one about her story and not to mention CSIS.

 

CAFE GRANTED "INTERESTED PARTY" STATUS TO INTERVENE IN ARTHUR TOPHAM/RADICALPRESS IN

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 08 August 2009 08:59

*CAFE Granted "Interested Party" Status to Intervene in Arthur Topham/Radicalpress Internet Free Speech Case* ** *Canadian Human* *Rights Tribunal* ** *BETWEEN:* *HARRY ABRAMS* *THE LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA* *Complainants* *- and -* *CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION* *Commission* *- and -* *ARTHUR TOPHAM* *RADICALPRESS.COM* <http://radicalpress.com/> *Respondents* *- and -* *CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE* *Interested Party* *RULING* *MEMBER: * Karen Jensen 2009 CHRT 23 2009/08/07 *[1] The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) has applied for Interested Party* *status in the matter of * *Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of the B’nai Brith Canada * *v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com* *. * *[2] CAFE’s mandate is to work toward the maximum latitude of the freedom of speech,* *freedom of the press and freedom of belief provisions of s. 2(* *b) of the **Charter of Rights and * *Freedoms* *. Founded in 1981, CAFE has published material in support of these goals, made * *representations to various levels of government and obtained intervenor or Interested Party status* *in a number of cases.* *[3] CAFE is especially concerned about efforts to restrict the Internet, which it sees as an* *inexpensive and accessible medium to persons of modest means who might otherwise be* *excluded from some of the older more established media.* *[4] CAFE has participated as an Interested Party in a number of Tribunal cases involving s. 13* *of the * *CHRA**. * *[5] The Respondents Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com support CAFE’s motion. The* *Commission and the Complainants take no position on this motion.* *[6] Section 50 of the * *Canadian Human Rights Act **gives the Tribunal discretion to grant * *interested party status. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate how its expertise will be of* *assistance in the determination of the issues. Interested party status will not be granted if it does* *not add significantly to the legal positions of the parties representing a similar viewpoint: * *Schnell * *v. Machiavelli and Associates Emprize Inc.* *, [2001] C.H.R.D. No. 14 at para. 6 (C.H.R.T.) (QL);** * *Nkwazi v. Canada (Correctional Service)* *, [2002] C.H.R.D. No. 15 at para. 22 (C.H.R.T.)(QL);** * *Warman v. Lemire * *2006 CHRT 8. * *[7] In a previous ruling, the Tribunal granted interested party status to the Canadian Free* *Speech League (CFSL) (* *Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith v. Arthur** * *2* * Topham and RadicalPress **2009 CHRT 12). That organization is also interested in matters * *touching upon freedom of expression.* *[8] In his communications dated July 17, 2009, Paul Fromm, on behalf of CAFE, stated that* *while CFSL and CAFE “share a similar libertarian approach to Charter freedoms, CAFE has had* *considerably more experience as an “interested party” and agent in s. 13 Tribunals and brings this* *expertise to these proceedings”. In addition, CAFE has special concerns about an effort by the* *Complainants to expand even further the list of protected groups. It wishes to present the view* *that the Complainants are seeking to make criticism of a foreign government (in this case Israel) a* *“discriminatory” practice.* *[9] Mr. Fromm indicated that CAFE wishes to make written and oral submissions as well as to* *cross-examine witnesses in this matter.* *[10] Without making any comment on the merits or relevance of the issues raised in this* *motion, 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.* *[11] Therefore, CAFE’s request for interested party status is granted. CAFE’s representative* *will have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present oral and written submissions. CAFE* *should consult with the Respondent and the CFSL to ensure that there is no duplication in their* *efforts.* *“* *Signed by**” * *Karen Jensen* *OTTAWA, Ontario* *August 7, 2009* *CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL* *PARTIES OF RECORD* *TRIBUNAL FILE: T1360/9008* *STYLE OF CAUSE: Harry Abrams and The League for Human* *Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham* *and RadicalPress.com* *RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: August 7, 2009* *APPEARANCES:* *Marvin Kurz For the Complainants* *Daniel Poulin For the Canadian Human Rights Commission* *Arthur Topham For himself and Respondent RadicalPress.com* *Douglas H. Christie For the Interested Party, Canadian Free Speech* *League* *Paul Fromm For the Canadian Association for Free Expression*

 

CRIME WATCH: SOMETHING FOR THE KIDDIES

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 05 August 2009 06:02

*CRIME WATCH* ** *Something For The Kiddies* ** Farid Noedost, "*an Iranian immigrant is let out of prison and allowed to remain in Canada, despite the fact everyone agrees he is a sexual predator who will hurt young girls. The bureaucracy's reasons are never revealed.* ... The Immigration and Refugee Board has ruled he can remain in Canada because his life might be at risk if he is forcibly repatriated to Iran. ... A confidential report obtained by the *Free Press* implied that Noedost could be at risk because he converted to Christianity while in Stony Mountain Penitentiary for sexual assault, and that he had escaped from prison in Iran for an undisclosed offence. A federal government spokeswoman said she could not discuss the case because officials were obliged to protect Noedost's *privacy rights* … Apostates have been persecuted in Islamic countries, but it's unclear if the penalties are always severe, particularly if the conversion was merely one of convenience. The government will also not disclose the nature of his refugee status or identify the crime for which he was jailed in Iran. It won't say if it sought guidance from the government of Iran, or if such an approach is pointless. It's not known if he could be returned to Iran under new circumstances in the future. Here's what we do know: Noedost arrived in Canada in 1996 as a 20-year-old refugee. He was granted status as a permanent resident, which allowed him to live and work in Canada. Within a few years of arriving, Noedost was involved in *drug trafficking, fraud and other crimes. By 2006, he was molesting young girls* and was eventually convicted for sexual assault and sent to prison. We also know that a judge called him 'despicable' and an ongoing 'danger to girls under 18.' Many sexual predators are eventually released into the community, but Canadians have a right to know more about why this individual, who is not a Canadian citizen, is being protected. *The right to privacy is not absolute and it does not trump all other rights, including the need to know why Canadians are being put at risk." (Winnipeg Free Press, July 4, 2009)* ** * [This article appears in the July, 2009 issue of the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE. Published monthly, the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE is 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.] *