Written by Paul Fromm
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 07:33
* Free Speech Lost*

The *Richard Warman v. Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association
for Free Expression* libel case is over. It's been nearly six long years --
an ordeal to test our stamina, emotional resources and, of course, our

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 decision 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

In the meantime, I've taken counsel with some real 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.

More recently, Prof. Robert Moon, who was commissioned by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission to do a study of Sec. 13 and recommended
its abolition, pointed to the crucial role of Richard Warman is this whole
sorry attack on free speech on the Internet: “The human rights tribunal
hears very few Section 13 cases either, Moon pointed out. ‘*In the absence
of Richard Warman, there really is very little happening under Section 13.
You take him away, you’ve got nothing*.’” (*Ottawa Citizen*, June 11, 2009)

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 nine 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 held that Mair's denouncing
Simpson, a Christian activist who oppose radical homosexual literature in
the school, 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 the court 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 intended result of Warman’s 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 con template. ... It is a
conclusion which I have reluctantly come to after a long series of examples,
each of which would not sup port 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 is 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,. … 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 [alleged] 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 possibly 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*.

For all your encouragement and support in this long battle, my
sincere thank you.

No Surrender!

Paul Fromm
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 12 June 2009 06:40
*2044 days under the Iron heel of the CHRC -- by Marc Lemire*

*The entire landscape of Section 13 has changed*

* *

June 30 2009 marks *2,044 days* that I have been under the iron heel of the
Canadian Human Rights Commission. Amazing as that sounds, *YES*, that’s two
thousand and forty-four days! That's almost as long as Canada's involvement
in WW II! I am a single-handed stimulus package for the “human rights”

For me, the whole thing started on November 24, 2003, when serial Section 13
complainant Richard Warman signed a complaint against
me<>and a separate but identical
complaint against my website, the Freedomsite.
Over the intervening 2,044 days, my lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka and I have
absolutely crushed the Canadian Human Rights Commission and exposed many of
their spying operations<>,
tainted investigations and the CHRC's dirty

At the beginning of this ordeal, little was known about who Richard Warman
was or his motivations. Even less about the secret shadowy world of CHRC
investigators like Dean Steacy and their outrageous investigative
The media turned a blind eye to what the CHRC was doing, and by doing so,
offered them c*arte blanche* to carry on their devious crusade and

This whole case was not for the weak at heart. After seeing some of the
Zundel CHRC case in action when I was a teenager, I knew what it meant to
fight. It was a totally stacked system where no one before me won anything.
It meant a huge amount of work and research. Unfortunately, for the CHRC,
this case ignited something inside me.

*Barbara Kulaszka** – The Gentle Warrior[image: See full size

There is no one in the legal profession that’s works as hard as Barbara
Kulaszka does. Just look at the amazing statistics from my case:

*26 Tribunal Hearing days* spread across *four cities* (Toronto,
Mississauga, Ottawa, Oakville)

Witnesses: CHRC called *2 witnesses, *Attorney General of Canada called *1
witness, *Marc Lemire responded with *8 witnesses*

Over *6,000 pages* submitted by Lemire

Over *656 letters* of correspondence

Motions filed by Marc Lemire: *25*

Pages of transcript so far: *5,977*

Binders of evidence by Marc Lemire: *10*

I never had any real grasp of how hard a legal case really was. Every
letter sent requires time and preparations. Legal Motions are very in-depth
and take many hours of research and time. Binders of evidence, which have to
be sorted, broken down into tabs, then photocopied (15 copies of each
binder!) then three-hole punched, then put into binders. It takes an
incredible amount of time, research and knowledge. The costs are just
staggering! For just tabs, binders and paper alone, I spend well over
$3,000 bucks.

Barbara’s hard work has really paid off. So far that CHRC has sent in five
different lawyers against me. At the beginning of the hearing, it was
someone named Ikram Warsame. She left the case very early on. Then in came
Giacomo Vigna. Her did most of the case for the CHRC, then lost his “mental
and was off the case. Along came Margot
who now is representing the CHRC. Along the way lawyers Ian
and Phillip Dufresne were also involved. It just shows how mentally tough
Barbara Kulaszka really is to have outlasted so many lawyers, who have
crumbled under the pressure.

Hard work really pays off.

2,044 days later, the impossible has happened. Barbara Kulaszka and I
have turned
the tables on the Canadian Human Rights
The mainstream media woke
to date there has been at least 250 anti-CHRC editorials and articles
published. The CHRC has been under multiple investigations (including
the Royal
Canadian Mounted
and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner), Dr. Keith
Member of Parliament has tabled a motion to repeal Section 13 and the
Justice Committee at the behest of Conservative MP Rick Dykstra is looking
into reviewing the questionable CHRC’s investigative

All the hard work we have done while in the trenches, it is starting to pay
off big-time. All those sleepless nights, the many weekends away from my
children to do research, all the access requests filed and the transcripts
of cases reviewed and indexed. Barbara Kulaszka has put together the best
challenge this law will ever
face<>and in
the end we will win!

*Evidence from Lemire Hearing*

· CHRC covertly hijacked a woman’s internet account

· CHRC used a variety of pseudonyms online to engage respondents.
Including “*Jadewarr*” and “*Odens Revenge*” all without any oversight

· CHRC Agent Dean Steacy under cross-examination by Barbara Kulaszka
stated: “*Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any
value… It's not my job to give value to an American concept*.”

· There are no guidelines on what they can post online

· The CHRC had a policy up until the Federal Court decision in *
Lemire* in January of this year, not to disclose to any respondent in a
section 13 case that the Commission investigators were communicating under
false names with respondents via emails and/or were signing up accounts
under false names. *This admission brings into question the legality of each
and every section 13 case decided by the Tribunal.*

· Police Information has been obtained or given over a dozen times.
And all without any formal agreement regarding exchange of information thus
no legal authorization to exchange it. (breach of *Privacy Act*)

* *

* *


*M**arc Lemire* is a former Canadian Forces
Toronto area computer expert who runs the Freedomsite ( and was charged by the CHRC in 2003 for alleged
violations of Section 13 by mostly unknown parties on an internet message
board he ran in 2003. As part of his defence, M r. Lemire is undertaking the
most serious constitutional challenge the *Canadian Human Rights Act* have
ever undergone. To date there has been 25 hearing days, and Mr. Lemire has
called world-renown expert witnesses to challenge every aspect of Internet
censorship by the CHRC.

* *

How you can help:

Donate using a credit card online with *PayPal*

*It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights
Commission! *
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 12 June 2009 06:39
Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) Applies for Interested Party
Status in the Abrams v Complaint Case
*June 11, 2009

*Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A.
Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE)
*As Publisher and Editor of I was most pleased and honoured
to hear from Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE, the Canadian Association for Free
Expression, informing me that he has formally submitted a Notice of Motion
to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requesting standing as an Interested
Party in the ongoing complaint case involving myself, and
Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

Paul brings with him a wealth of personal experience in dealing with the
notorious Section 13(1) legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights
Act and should his organization be granted Intervenor status will
undoubtedly be of immense value in highlighting the inequities and
injustices which this particular piece of legislation poses to Internet
users across Canada and all Canadians concerned about their basic human
rights contained within Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
guarantee free expression to all citizens of this great nation.

I will be waiting with great anticipation to hear from the Tribunal on
Paul’s application. God willing he won’t have to jump through all the hoops
that Free Speech lawyer Doug Christie had to.

On behalf of myself and all those who are fighting this battle to regain our
basic rights I want to thank Paul for his efforts and willingness to
participate in this case.

Arthur Topham

Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street
11th Floor,
Ottawa, ON.,
K1A 1J4

*Attention: Nancy Lafontant, Registry Officer* *

Fax: 613 995-3484*

June 10, 2009

*Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v.
Arthur Topham and the
*File Number: T1360/9008*

Dear Ms Lafontant:

I write seeking leave to make a motion to obtain standing as an Interested
Party making written and oral submissions in the matter of *Harry Abrams and
the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the*

I rely on the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Rules Of Procedure* (03-05-04):

*8(1) Anyone who is not a party, and who wishes to be recognized by the
Panel as an interested party in respect of an inquiry, may bring a motion
for an order granting interested party status.*

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 Sec. 2(b)
of the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Founded in 1981, we have published
extensively material supportive of these goals, made representations to
various levels of government and obtained intervenor or Interested Party
status in a number of cases.

We are especially concerned about efforts to restrict the Internet, which we
see as an inexpensive and accessible medium to persons of modest means who
might otherwise be excluded from some of the older more established media.
We obtained Interested Party status in the Zundel Internet case (1997-2002),
were an active participant, calling witnesses and making submissions. We
were equally active in the Micka Internet case (2001). We participated as an
"interested party" in more than 30 days of hearings in Toronto, Mississauga,
Ottawa and Oakville in *Warman v Marc Lemire*.

Our perspective and experience may be of assistance to the Tribunal in
considering that CAFE, as an "interested party" has appeared as an
intervenor in more Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other entity in Canada.
Furthermore, Mr. Fromm has extensive experience -- more than any other
person -- as an agent in Sec. 13 cases (*Warman v. Glen Bahr and Western
Canada for Us; Warman v. Terry Tremaine; Warman v. Jessica Beaumont; Warman
v. Ciaan Donnelly; Warman v. Melissa Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance;
Warman v. Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance; Canadian Centre for
Research-Action on Race Relations v.*)

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm

the **RADICALPRESS.COM* <>* <**

*Affidavit of Paul Fromm *

I, Paul Fromm, of the City of Mississauga, in the Province of Ontario,
hereby affirm and say that:

2. I am the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.
the applicant herein.

3. The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. is applying for
"interested party status" in the matter of the complaint against Arthur
Topham and for posting material, which, it is alleged, "is
likely to expose individuals to hatred or contempt" on the basis of race,
religion, and national origin contrary to Sec. 13.1 of the *Canadian Human
Rights Act*.

4. The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. is a non-profit
educational organisation incorporated under the laws of the Province of
Ontario. It is dedicated to promoting and maximizing the
*Charter*guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and
freedom of

5.The Canadian Association for Free Expression publishes a regular
newsletter, the *Free Speech Monitor*, that explores threats to freedom of
speech in Canada. CAFE holds frequent meetings on free speech issues across
Canada. CAFE makes representations to legislative bodies on matters relating
to freedom of speech.

6. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervenor or
"interested party" status before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
inquiring into the Internet case against Ernst Zundel. This was a Sec. 13.1
complaint and involved over 50 days of hearings. CAFE participated actively
and led five days worth of evidence, involving seven witnesses.

7. CAFE also participated in a number of applications for judicial review of
decisions involving this hearing.

8. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervenor
status in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a challenge to the
constitutionality of Sec. 7(1)(b) of the *B.C. Human Rights Code* in the
Berscheid case.

9. As well, in the Autumn of 2000, the Canadian Association for Free
Expression was granted intervenor status in a constitutional challenge to
the same section of the code in the Doug Collins/*North Shore News *case.
CAFE was granted the right to cross-examine witnesses, make submissions and
introduce evidence. This complaint also raised and relied on the
controversial and much disputed Sec. 7(1)(a)(b).

10. In addition, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted
intervenor status in a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing in a complaint
against the Town of Oliver and Mayor Linda Larson following their refusal to
proclaim Gay Pride Week.

11. In the matter before this tribunal, the Canadian Association for Free
Expression intends to support the respondent on the grounds that the
complaint interferes with his freedom of speech, a right enshrined in
the *Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Furthermore, we can assist the Tribunal by
tendering expert witnesses on the Internet.

12. CAFE seeks full participatory rights to make oral and written arguments,
to present written evidence, to call witnesses and to cross-examine

13. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Zundel case, in granting
CAFE's motion for "interested party status", ruled:

*"We find that the motion brought by Mr. Fromm, on behalf of the Canadian
Association for Free Expression, should be allowed. We are satisfied that.
Mr. Fromm will bring a unique perspective to these proceedings and that his
organization has demonstrated a credible interest in the significant issue
before this tribunal. ... The focus of Mr. Fromm's organization is on the
issue of free expression."*

14. In granting the Canadian Association for Free Expression "intervenor
status" in the complaint against the town of Oliver, Tribunal member Nitya
Iyer noted, February 16, 2000:

*"The material brought before me shows it [CAFE] has a demonstrated
interest in freedom of expression issues in the context of human rights
legislation. I am prepared to accept that its participation may assist the
Tribunal in its resolution of the constitutional issues raised in this
complaint. I also note that the constitutional issue raised in this
complaint has implications before the narrow facts of the present complaint.
The interpretation of provisions of the code in light of the Charter's
guarantee of freedom of expression is a matter of public interest."*

15. CAFE was also granted "interested party" status in the *Schnell vs..
Micka Canadian Human Rights* complaint (2001) also under Sec.. 13.1 and
involving Mr.. Micka's Internet site. In this seven day hearing, CAFE
actively cross-examined witnesses, led expert testimony and made submissions
to the Tribunal.

16. CAFE sought and obtained "interested party" status in the *Richard
Warman v Marc Lemire* case, with particular reference to Mr. Lemire's
constitutional challenge

17. CAFE, as an "interested party", has appeared as an intervenor in more
Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other entity in Canada.

18. I have extensive experience -- more than any other person -- as an
agent in Sec. 13 cases (*Warman v. Glen Bahr and Western Canada for Us;
Warman v. Terry Tremaine; Warman v. Jessica Beaumont; Warman v. Ciaan
Donnelly; Warman v. Melissa Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance; Warman v.
Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance; Canadian Centre for
Research-Action on Race Relations v.*).

19. As Sec. 13 jurisprudence develops and evolves some submissions
repeatedly made by myself and CAFE seem to have been adopted by the
Tribunal. Earlier tribunals ignored the fact that many passages complained
of had long since been removed. However, in *Warman v. Jason Ouwendyk* *and
the Northern Alliance*, the Member declined to impose any financial penalty

*"There is no evidence that the impugned conduct by the Respondents has
continued to the present time. Instead it appears to have been discontinued
well before the complaint... (para 57)*

*In regard to the other remedies sought by Mr. Warman, I have decided not to
grant any relief under these provisions." (para. 58)
20.. I make this affidavit in support of CAFE's application for "interested
party" status with rights to full participation in these hearings.


*Fredrick Paul Fromm
Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.

Affirmed before me this 10th day of June, 2009
at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario

_____________________________ _______________________

* A Commissioner of oaths in and for the Province of Ontario

* TRIBUNAL NUMBER: T1360/9008*


TAKE NOTICE THAT the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc. will
make a motion to the Tribunal in writing.

THE MOTION is for an order granting interested party status in the
proceeding to the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc. with full
rights of participation, including the right to call evidence, cross-examine
witnesses and make final submissions to the Tribunal.


The applicant in a non-profit organization, incorporated in 1981, under the
laws of the Province of Ontario.

The applicant'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 *Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Founded in 1981,
the applicant has published extensively material supportive of these goals,
made representations to various levels of government and obtained interested
party status in a number of human rights cases.

This proceeding raises important issues regarding the core values of freedom
of expression and conscience, and the application of section 13 to the
Internet and indeed all private computer networks, including responsibility
for messages not written by the respondent on a message board. It raises the
issue of the responsibilities and duties of the complainant with respect to
message board communications.

The applicant brings a unique expertise experience to this proceeding having
intervened in more Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other organization and,
personally, having acted as an “agent” for more respondents in Sec. 13 cases
than any other person in this country.

THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion: the
affidavit of Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free

DATED this 10th day of June, 2009.


*Paul Fromm, Director
*Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc.
*P.O. Box 332,
*Rexdale, ON
*Tel: 905-274-3868
*Fax: 905-278-2413*
<< Start < Prev 451 452 453 454 Next > End >>
Page 453 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog