MONTREAL GAZETTE SLAMS INTERNET CENSORSHIP & DEMANDS REPEAL OF SEC. 13

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 02 July 2009 07:22

Montreal Gazette Slams Internet Censorship & Demands Repeal of Sec. 13 Rights commission threatens our liberty The GazettePublished: 21 hours ago The Canadian Human Rights Commission appears to have learned little from its adventures of the last few years. In its latest report to Parliament it stubbornly defends its authority to police the Internet - or any other electronic medium - for opinions that are "likely to" expose people to hatred or contempt. This is, as we have said previously in this space, an unacceptable assault on free speech. With frightening eagerness to rein in Canadians' free expression, the commission finds the authority to restrict honest opinion in Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, a notoriously vague bit of legal writing that forbids transmissions "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." The subjective power of that "likely to" makes everyone vulnerable to bureaucratic whim, malice, or distemper. [image: Email to a friend]Email to a friend[image: Printer friendly]Printer friendly Font: - * - * - * - * [image: AddThis Social Bookmark Button]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php> The section was designed to protect people - especially members of minority groups - from any kind of hateful telecommunication messages. That was later expanded to include the Internet, and as just about every organization of any size has a Web presence now, that means that the commission can police just about everyone, from newspaper columnists to Christian parsons. Ironically, it could even include the commission itself, which published its report on its website, complete with a verbatim citation from a telephone message it had ruled to be hateful. The horror! The report does ask Parliament to define hatred and contempt more clearly, which could be an improvement. But the definition the report favours is the woolly-minded one the Supreme Court read into the Human Rights Act 18 years ago. The Supremes ruled that expressions of "unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny, and vilification" that are "ardent and extreme" are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. In other words, the commissioners are to judge not just the content of questionable transmissions but the mental state of the transmitters. The report does make suitable noises about freedom of expression being a fundamental right and the commission not wanting to limit the rough and tumble of democratic debate. But then it says that every citizen has the right "to be treated with equality, dignity and respect," not just by the state but by everyone - a frighteningly vague notion. The report also asks for an amendment to the act that would allow it to dismiss quickly any complaint it deems trivial or unfounded. That would have saved it the embarrassment of having to rule on complaints against Maclean's magazine columnist Mark Steyn and journalist Ezra Levant. But it would be far better for Parliament simply to repeal Section 13, and leave the question of hate speech to the criminal courts where it belongs - if it belongs anywhere. If a citizen's liberties are to be threatened, that citizen deserves the full protection of the law. The commission likes to cite a Supreme Court decision that ruled its speech-limiting powers constitutional. But that decision was simply permissive, not obligatory. A courageous Parliament would ignore it and rein in the commission. © The Gazette (Montreal) 2009

 

PROTEST TO SUPPORT MOTHER OF CHILDREN SEIZED BECAUSE OF HER WHITE NATIONALIST POLITI

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 23 June 2009 08:27

*Protest to Support Mother of Children Seized Because of Her White Nationalist Politics* Supporters of the Canadian Association for Free Expression will hold a protest outside Family Court [408 York Street]] in Winnipeg tomorrow morning (June 23) at 9:15 to support 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 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. "This case is a scandal," says Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. "I call this state kidnapping of the children of dissidents." "Absent serious physical abuse, parents have the right to have and raise their children. Sadly, this is not the first time people with unpopular religious or political views have had their children taken away from them in this country," Fromm added from CAFE's office in Rexdale, ON. "Because she wanted family services to communicate through her then lawyer, the mother has been denied visiting rights to the children since February," Fromm explained." How can separating emotionally vulnerable children from their natural parents possibly be in the children's best interests? he asks. "The young mother is penniless and can no longer afford legal counsel," Fromm said. "Her supporters provided her with bus fare to return to Winnipeg to fight for custody of her children," he added. CAFE has raised money for and provided advice to the young mother who cannot be named by court order. - ---30-- Contact Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON, M9W 5L3 905-274-3868 905-278-2413 fax

 

MONTREAL PROF. QUITS GREEN PARTY IN PROTEST OVER RIVHARD WARMAN

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 23 June 2009 08:26

*Montreal Prof. Quits Green Party In Protest Over Richard Warman* Dear Elizabeth May, I hereby, and reluctantly, resign from the Green Party of Canada. On the one hand, I admire and support you personally as leader of the Green Party. However, I am a fervent advocate of "...freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;..." I.e., as long as it's not libelous and is "fair comment". In my opinion, in this regard Canada is now governed by a double standard according to "political correctness" and according to which ethnic group one belongs to. Thus, I absolutely can not support a party who presents *Richard Warman* as a candidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warman [excerpt:] ------------------------ Blogger and former magazine publisher Ezra Levant who is being sued by Warman and others for libel has argued that Warman's actions as a plaintiff before the Canadian Human Rights Commissions are tantamount to censorship in the name of human rights.[34][35] Warman is also suing Jonathan Kay and the National Post, the operators of Free Dominion and several bloggers for defamation in relation to comments made about him and his complaints to the Commission. Levant says these "nuisance suit[s]" are part of Warman's "maximum disruption" policy.[36] Maclean's which had been the subject of an unrelated human rights complaint concerning hate speech has reported that "Richard Warman says he's fighting hate. Critics say free speech is the real victim." That article included commentary or allegations that: ...[T]he slam-dunk quality to Warman's Section 13 cases are a cause for worry, symbolizing the drift of human rights commissions into the boggy territory of covert investigation and speech control. Those concerns deepened two weeks ago with revelations that, for a time, Warman was acting both as a complainant and an investigator at the commission. Even after he left in 2004, he seemed to enjoy easy access to commission offices, stopping by to chat with staff or get documents printed. ... Of the fact Warman and investigators were going online undercover, [Keith] Martin says simply: "That's appalling."[37] The CHRT criticized Warman in March 2009 for having posted pseudonymously — using the names Axetogrind and Pogue Mahone — to neo-Nazi sites such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network, as if in agreement with racist and antisemitic messages posted there. In one post, in response to a comment in January 2005 about American neo-Nazi leader Jeff Schoep, Warman wrote, "Keep up the good work Commander Schoep!". The CHRT ruled that Warman's posts, which he initially denied were his, could have precipitated further hate messages from forum members, and that he had undermined his credibility. In his defence, Warman said his posts had helped him identify members of the neo-Nazi movement, and that at the time there was no "road map" for such investigations. "With hindsight, he said, "things might have been done differently today."[38][39] [edit] Political activism Warman ran as a Green Party of Canada candidate in the 1997 federal election in the Windsor West riding, and in the 2000 federal election in Ottawa—Orléans, placing fifth on both occasions.[40] He ran as the Green Party of Ontario candidate in the 1995 Ontario provincial election in Simcoe Centre, placing fifth, and in 1999 in Ottawa West—Nepean, placing fourth.[41][42] ---------------------------------- Yours sincerely, Anthony Hilton Montreal, Québec Anthony Hilton Assoc. Prof. of Psychology (ret.) Concordia University Montreal