Written by Paul Fromm
Wednesday, 10 July 2013 00:19
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

Free Dominion Update

Hey, there!
I'm emailing you with a Free Dominion legal update.

Section 13 is dead, but Richard Warman is still going!
As most of you are certainly aware, the notorious internet censorship
provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been repealed! We are
ecstatic about this, of course!

The job, however, is not quite finished. Richard Warman, who was
almost the only person in Canada to use Section 13 against internet
speech, is still suing everyone who talks about his activities. He has
sued or threatened to sue well over 60 times when people have written
about him. He has sued us 4 times, and he recently threatened to sue
us again because we merely deleted a comment someone else made about
him instead of issuing him an apology for someone else's words, too. I
was also notified a couple of nights ago that he has launched a new
action against another blogger.

We are never going to be free of the results of Section 13 until this
lawfare is stopped.

We are going to stop it!
On September 9th, we will be going to court in Ottawa for three weeks
to present all of our evidence to a jury. This will be the first jury
to have the opportunity to look at Richard Warman's reputation and
actions, and we strongly believe they will dismiss his defamation
case. With this precedent, we can put an end to all of the pointless
litigation that is currently awaiting trial.

We need help!

The September case involves several "John Doe" defendents, witnesses
and lawyers that will all need to be housed and fed for three weeks.
We have booked accomodations with kitchens so that they can keep their
costs to a minimum by staying for free and cooking their meals. We
also have enormous legal fees and other expenses to get this done.

For that reason, we have launched two simultaneous campaigns. We have
launched an Indiegogo Fundraiser (
) and we are having a Fundraiser BBQ (
) in Ottawa on July 21st. If you could help us by donating, attending
our BBQ, or simply passing this information along to as many people as
you can, we would be extremely grateful.

We know that some of you have already helped, and, to you, we simply
say thank you so much.

The Fourniers, Connie & Mark, Recipients of the 2009
George Orwell Free Speech Award, Victoria, October, 2009.

We promise you that will will continue to fight this fight until
people are not only free from internet censorship, but they are free
to talk about it. Richard Warman is on a losing streak. On September
9th, we intend to put an end to the bullying and intimidation for


Connie Fournier
Free Dominion

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp241.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgqyjgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Section 13 Repeal - What does it mean for Victims of Section 13?
Written by Paul Fromm
Tuesday, 09 July 2013 05:13
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

Section 13 Repeal - What does it mean for Victims of Section 13?
Last week, the Senate of Canada passed Bill C-304, which repealed
Section 13 (
) and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 (
http://www.stopsection13.com/ ) was Canada’s shameful censorship
legislation, which made it an offence to "likely" "expose" privileged
groups to "hatred and/or contempt." There are NO defences under
Section 13! Even truth and intent are considered irrelevant to a
finding of discrimination. The law was enacted in 1977 (
http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )and in the
intervening years, not a single person who has been hauled up on
Section 13 charges has ever been acquitted - a 100% conviction rate (
). Section 13 has been used and abused (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/charts_on_section13.html ) since its
inception. Bill C-304 has a one year implementation period written
into it, so in effect, Section 13 will technically be gone in June,
2014. It is unlikely that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will
accept and approve any new Section 13 complaints at this point, but
who knows, it’s really hard to know what fanatics will do. The
CHRC’s main stumbling block is the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
which ruled in the Lemire case, that Section 13 was unconstitutional (
), and has since stopped all Section 13 cases “Sine Die” (
). It’s pretty clear the Tribunal does not want to be a willing
participant in the Human Rights Commission’s fanatical restriction
of freedom of speech, or have any part in the CHRC’s spying and
harassing of Canadians. As odd as this may sound, in the judicial
system, it was actually the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which
sounded the alarm over Section 13 and the CHRC’s apparatchiks’
handling of cases, and their steadfast refusal to mediate any
complaints (which flies in the face of any remedial piece of

Section 13 was never meant to punish and persecute people, but the
fanatics at the CHRC just couldn’t resist grinding poor and
defenseless people (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/charts_on_section13.html ) into the
ground with protracted and expensive litigation (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/charts_on_section13.html ). So what
happens now? At it currently stands, there will most likely never be
another new Section 13 case in Canada, but for those currently in the
system; it’s a totally different story. Bloggers can now rest
easy; that the “Nazi fetishists (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1LR_QCIs&feature=youtu.be )” of
the CHRC will not be logging into their websites,dressing up as Nazis
and spying on them (
). Message Board owners can breathe a little bit freer now and not
have to worry about busy body “hate finder G]general’s (
)” looking to cash in on the latest “witch”. The chill that
Section 13 placed over all internet communications (
) is now gone. But for those of us who are caught up in the Section
13 ‘torture rack ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Zq-BghzP8 )’,
it might still be a while until we can throw off the yoke of
censorship. The process is still the punishment (
), and the CHRC is going to take out their anger and revenge on us.
As of today, all other Section 13 cases have been stopped pending a
decision in my case (
). But with being the last standing Section 13 victim (
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=149902 ), the
CHRC is going to open up both barrels on me! Canadian law is quite a
confusing thing. There is a big difference between a repeal of a law,
and the court finding a law “unconstitutional”. Of course my
entire 10 year legal ordeal against the CHRC (
http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html ) has been
for the latter. To find Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
an unconstitutional abridgement of the Charter of Rights (
), and of my freedom of expression. I spent some 6+ years fighting (
) for my freedom before the CHRC and the Human Rights Tribunal. On
September 2, 2009, the Tribunal acquitted me of the hundreds of
“hate speech” charges leveled against me, and also found that
Section 13 was unconstitutional (
). This ruling wasappealed by the CHRC (
) to the Federal Court, which partly sided with the CHRC. The court
ruled with me, that the fine provisions were unconstitutional (Section
54), but that Section 13 was just fine.

That ruling is currently under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals
), with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others (
) supporting my position. Just to give a better explanation between a
repeal of a law, and the finding that a law is unconstitutional.
(Keep in mind, I am not a lawyer) My impression is that the
Parliament can repeal any law. That does not mean that the law was an
unjustifiable infringement on any Canadians. But rather, when a law
is found to be unconstitutional, it is the court saying that this law
was wrong from the start, and is an unjustifiable infringement. The
main difference is, when a law is repealed, no future cases can be
brought. But if a law is found unconstitutional, then no cases should
have EVER been brought. It may open up an option for individuals to
sue the government for wrong doing (
), as well it demonstrates that no person should have even been
convicted under the law. In effect, the law is flawed, and the court
is correcting this flaw by striking down the law (
http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/OJEN_Oakes.pdf ).
Those are big differences, and especially important for those who are
currently before the CHRC’s Section 13 Thought Inquisition (
). When a law is repealed, it applies going forward. But Canadian
law is so screwy that anyone who was previously charged, they have to
fight under the previously enforced rules. So basically, the law was
“constitutional and in force” when the complaint was filed against
me in 2003, so that’s the version of the law I am fighting. Move
over ‘Alice in Wonderland’ there is a whole new world where the
rabbit hole never ends ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHte24GGHD4 ).

So in other words, I am now fighting at the Federal Court of Appeals
), on the constitutionality of Section 13, which has now been
repealed. WTF! How much crazier can it get? But it’s no laughing
matter. I am fighting against a lifetime speech ban, which if I ever
violated, could result in me going to jail for up to 5 years (
). (Several others in the past have been sentenced to up to 1 year in
jail for violating a lifetime speech ban, so this is no joke) The
heart of my appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals (
) is that Section 13 is unconstitutional on dozens of grounds. That
it is an unjustified limitation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and not saved by Section 1 of the Charter. That’s really the crux
of the case – Section 1 of the Charter. And as part of a review of
my Section 1 arguments, the Court has to look at the will and wishes
of the Parliament of Canada (pressing and substantial need (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Oakes )). And this is where the
repeal of Section 13 is going to immensely help me. How can anyone
say that Section 13 is a minimal impairment to freedom and “pressing
and substantial” in Canada, when the Parliament of Canada has spoken
so clearly and repealed Section 13. My case is the last hurrah for the
CHRC censors (
). There won’t be any new cases, so if they want to leave with a
bang (and fanatics always seem to (
)!) they are going to pull out all stops to beat me at the Federal
Court of Appeals.

In their eyes, if Section 13 has not have been found unconstitutional
they can blame those evil “Conservatives” for repealing the law
(once again refusing to accept any responsibility for the issues
surrounding Section 13) The CHRC has already spent (
) hundreds of thousands of tax-payers money to fight against me over
the past 10 years. I would not be surprised in the number was
actually in the millions. The CHRC are using a high priced lawyer (
) (actually lawyers) from one of downtown Toronto’s expensive law
firms. In order to try to manipulate public opinion, the CHRC spent
hundreds of thousands with the astronomical priced Hill and Knowlton
public relations firm (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/CHRC_Hill-and-Knowlton-Advice/ ), to
do damage control on the Section 13 file (
). Gee, that was money well spent! After all, it seems like the
censors just see the gullible tax-paying sheeple as an endless pit of
CA$H, which they can use to harass and silence those “ignorant”
Canadians who just don’t get with their “programme”. (Pogrom (
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pogrom )?) “Why Marc
Lemire Must Challenge Constitutionality of a Law That May Be
Repealed” Please have a look at my video on “Why Marc Lemire
Must Challenge Constitutionality of a Law That May Be Repealed (
http://youtu.be/PVNaZzj6wD4 )” YouTube:
http://youtu.be/PVNaZzj6wD4 ( http://youtu.be/PVNaZzj6wD4 )

1. If Marc Lemire simply accepts the Federal Court ruling of Justice
Richard Mosley then Lemire faces a lifetime Free Speech Ban for the
“crime” of posting a document that contains the very same
information and statistics the Canadian Blood Services used to ban
homosexual men from giving blood.
2. Even if Section 13 is repealed by the Senate it makes no difference
to Marc Lemire’s case, nor to the cases of dozens of other Canadians
already charged and convicted under this oppressive law. As absurd as
it sounds, Marc Lemire could face a lifetime ban on his Right to
Freedom of Speech under a law that no longer exists.Should he refuse
to abide by the lifetime Free Speech ban he could go to prison.
The maximum penalty for contempt of a Tribunal decision is 5 years in
prison. The maximum penalty for a conviction of criminal “hate
speech” under Section 319 of the Criminal Code: Two years.
In the entire history of the Canadian Human Rights Commission not a
single person has ever been sent to prison for violating an Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal ruling…
Except for those convicted of “thought crimes” under Section 13…

If Marc Lemire wants to retain his Right to Freedom of Speech and let
me assure you, he does, then he has no choice but to challenge both
the Constitutionality of Section 13 as well as appeal Justice
Mosley’s horribly flawed and biased Federal Court decision.
3. It is critical for Freedom of Speech that Section 13 be denounced
as an affront to our Charter Right to Freedom of Speech and that the
Federal Court of Appeals strikes it down as unconstitutional. Why? It
will mean the dozens of cases prosecuted under this law over the past
33 years were unconstitutional prosecutions. More importantly, it will
mean the penalties imposed by those unconstitutional convictions are
also unconstitutional.
4. If Section 13 is declared unconstitutional, as any unbiased judge
must clearly see, then those people suffering under lifetime Freedom
of Speech bans could appeal to the court to have those bans removed.
If the law is simply repealed (removed from the books) then there is
no avenue in Canadian law for those individuals to regain their Right
to Freedom of Speech.
5. There are multiple cases currently “on hold” because of Marc
Lemire’s case, his Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and his
Federal Court Appeal of Justice Mosley’s decision.
These cases are at both the Tribunal and Federal Court level.
All of the cases currently “on hold” will move forward the second
there is a final decision in Lemire’s case.
6. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body that said itself that
Section 13 was unconstitutional, stopped all Section 13 cases pending
the outcome of Marc Lemire’s case.
“… I have also concluded that Section 13(1) in conjunction with
Sections 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with Section 2(b) of the
Charter [of Rights and Freedoms], which guarantees the freedom of
thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by
these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of
Section 1 of the Charter.”
— Athanasios D. Hadjis’ Decision in Warman v. Lemire
7. Repeal of the law does not address all corruption and the
inappropriate administration of Section 13. We need a court to examine
the spying, lying and conniving of the CHRC and rule that they were
out of control in both Marc Lemire’s case and in many other cases.
The stated aims of the Canadian Human Rights Act are remedial, not
punitive. The object of the Act is to “correct discriminatory
behaviour” not punish.

* Is it “remedial” to refuse any and all attempts at mediation?
Is it “remedial” to refuse any and all attempts at mediation?
* Is it “remedial” to refuse to communicate with the subject of a
Human Rights Act complaint?
* Is it “remedial” to continue prosecuting a man 8 years after
all “offending” documents were removed from the Internet?

No, it is not.
If you despise government bodies telling you what you can and cannot
say on the Internet…
If you despise law written for telephone answering machines being
applied to all of your internet communications on any internet
If you believe Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates
your Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech…
Then please contribute generously (
http://readthis.rightsandfreedoms.org/stop-section-13/tid-cgdablog )
to Marc Lemire’s Free Speech Legal Defense Fund so he can continue
his appeal and Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act.

Now that Section 13 has been repealed by Parliament, the CHRC is going
to go after me with both guns blazing. Can I count on you to support
the cause of freedom? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have
demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish
against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought
the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights"
Commission's racket. I cannot carry on this important fight alone.
Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. Please
support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act. Marc Lemire is the only person to beat the
CHRC ( http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html ) in
it's 33 year history!
http://www.stopsection13.com/support.html(Interac Money Transfers,
Donate Online, and online store) Donate via PayPal by clicking here:
[here (
)] Marc Lemire762 Upper James StSuite 384Hamilton, OntarioL9C 3A2
Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.freedomsite.org |
http://www.StopSection13.com Twitter: @marc_lemire (
http://twitter.com/marc_lemire )

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp207.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgqyegguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Confederate & Canadian
Written by Paul Fromm
Monday, 08 July 2013 06:51
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:


For 15 years I have attended Council of Conservative Citizens
meetings and on numerous occasions, we have stood and with an open
hand outstretched pledged our allegiance to the Confederate States of

A Canadian Confederate? Weird? Not really. A new book by John Boyko
Blood and Daring: How Canada Fought the American Civil War and Forged
a Nation makes the point that there was considerable support for the
Confederate cause. Canada, then a British colony, was, like the Mother
Country officially neutral. However, Britain leaned toward the South.

Little known and perhaps long suppressed facts are the following:

1. While Canada was strongly anti-slavery -- Gov. John Graves Simcoe
had banned slavery in Upper Canada in 1794 -- there was widespread
support for the Confederacy. "The reporting and editorial stances of
84 Canadian papers revealed themselves to be obviously pro-South, with
only 33 pro-North and eight neutral. A report of the Confederate
victory in the war’s first battle elicited a spontaneous cheer in
Canada’s legislature.|"

2. Quebecois sympathized, as a beleaguered people in a sea of English
speakers, with the distinct South threatened by the commerce and
politics of the North.

3. Many Irishmen sympathized with the Southern rebels.

4. Many Canadians served in the armies of the South (and the North)

5. Many Canadians feared the belligerence and Manifest Destiny
expansionism, views prevalent in the North and Abraham Lincoln's

6. Many Canadians saw the War of Yankee Aggression as being less about
slavery and more about states rights and resistance to Big Brother

Paul Fromm
Canadian, Confederate and Proud




A new book by John Boyko reveals that a surprisingly high number of
Canadians supported the Southern secessionists during the U.S. Civil
No one can fully understand Canada without appreciating that the U.S.
Civil War was an essential factor in our own country’s birth. Canada
was intricately involved in the war’s cause

Wikimedia CommonsRuined buildings at the riverside in Richmond,
Virginia, capital of the Confederacy which fell to General Ulysses
Grant's Union Army on 2 April 1865.


Shortly after the U.S. Civil War began in April 1861, Britain declared
itself neutral. The Canadian and Maritime governments dutifully echoed
that official line and informed their citizens that it was against the
law to support North or South, and for individuals to join in the
fight. One would expect that Canadians and Maritimers would abide by
their government’s wishes and that public opinion would
overwhelmingly support the North. After all, they were by and large
law-abiding folks, loyal to Britain and nearly unanimous in their
abhorrence of slavery, which had been banned in British North America
a generation earlier. Further, Canadians and Maritimers were
geographically closer to the North and for years thousands more had
travelled to those Northern states for work than to the distant South.
Business people enjoyed more commerce with Northern than Southern
industry. Canadians travelling to Britain often went by way of New
York and Boston. Despite such familiarity, however, public and popular
opinion of the North and South was divided, volatile and
multi-dimensional. It was coloured by class, ethnicity, religion,
ideology and region.
Quebec Priests often equated Southerners with the Québécois — a
beleaguered minority, fighting to preserve a unique way of life
Many factors led Canadians to sympathize with the Confederacy. In
Canada East, the Catholic Church enjoyed enormous power, but
considered itself under attack by popular democratic ideas on the
separation of church and state. In this fight, American republicanism
was anathema. Montreal’s Gazette called America the most
“immoral” country in the world. The destruction of the United
States through civil war and the Confederacy itself was, consequently,
seen as a good thing by the Church hierarchy. Priests often equated
Southerners with the Québécois — a beleaguered minority, fighting
to preserve a unique way of life threatened by a more politically and
economically powerful enemy with no shared cultural values.
In New Brunswick, Fredericton was home to a Protestant majority that
was unmoved by anti-Catholic threats. Its physical location in the
centre of the province left it somewhat isolated. That it was the
capital perhaps made its people more sympathetic to the exhortations
of the government and the lieutenant-governor, who were resolutely
neutral. The city’s New Brunswick Reporter was staunchly pro-North
throughout the war.
In June 1862, hundreds of folks gathered in Saint Johns to enjoy a
boisterous parade celebrating a Confederate victory. Confederate flags
flew, and a band played ‘Dixie’
However, a few miles southeast, on the Fundy Bay, lay the much
different Saint John. It was a blatantly pro-South city that
recognized the potential of winning business for its port if the
United States permanently split. Its Irish-Catholic majority
empathized with Southern nationalism and with fighting a distant
government. Confederate ships were encouraged to use its harbour, and
its spies and recruiters made to feel at home in the city’s hotels
and bars. Many rich Southerners who had for years summered nearby
moved their families to the fine cottages to escape the ravages of
war. They were openly welcomed in the city. In June 1862, hundreds of
folks gathered to enjoy a large and boisterous parade celebrating a
Confederate victory. Confederate flags flew and a band played
“Dixie.” A Maine sea captain was roughed up by the crowd as police
watched but did nothing. A similar parade was held in the border town
of St. Andrews.
A major factor that shaped, shifted and divided Canadian and Maritime
public opinion was Lincoln’s attitude toward that most irrepressible
subject: slavery. Abolitionist Canadians and Maritimers suffered
widespread disappointment when Lincoln said in his 1861 inaugural
address that he would not immediately emancipate American slaves. Even
Toronto’s pro-North Globe reflected disillusion in an editorial:
“At first the sympathies of the British people were unmistakably
with the North. They imagined that Mr. Lincoln had determined to wage
a war against slavery, and in heart and soul they were with him.”
The Emancipation Proclamation that followed in September 1862 came
after the opinions of many had hardened against the president.
Another factor that gave rise to Confederate sympathies was the
unmistakable anti-Canadian and anti-British sentiment that swept up
from the North. Lincoln had appointed notorious anglophobe and enemy
of Canada, William Seward, to his cabinet. Seward had issued numerous
threats of annexation before and during the war, and then a crisis
involving the taking of Confederate agents from a British ship called
the Trent nearly brought war. Many Northern newspapers published
damning stories and editorials that openly promoted a hatred of Canada
and Canadians, while frequently advocating invasion. Many of the anti-
Canadian rants were reprinted in Canadian papers.
The divided sympathies within Canada and the Maritimes were evident in
its newspapers and public debates. The Toronto Leader was pro-South,
while the Toronto Globe was pro-North. The Montreal Gazette was
pro-South, while the Montreal Witness was pro-North. The reporting and
editorial stances of 84 Canadian papers revealed themselves to be
obviously pro-South, with only 33 pro-North and eight neutral. A
report of the Confederate victory in the war’s first battle elicited
a spontaneous cheer in Canada’s legislature.
In the face of political authorities demanding neutrality and
nonparticipation in the war, and despite the complexity of public
opinion and the widespread sympathy for the South, many young
Canadians and Maritimers left home to fight. Those who did fought
overwhelmingly in Union ranks. A letter home from a young man
stationed in the trenches facing the Confederate capital of Richmond,
Virginia, in 1864 spoke with surprise of how many of his
French-speaking countrymen he had met: “You have no idea … of the
number of Canadians who are in different army corp. They may be
counted not in the hundreds but in the thousands.”
The service of so many Canadians in America’s duelling armies
further split Canadian and Maritime public opinion. It also divided
communities and, as in America, fractured families. Nova Scotia’s
Norman Wade, for instance, enlisted to serve on Union ships enforcing
the blockade. In letters home he told of the many compatriots he had
encountered and the divided loyalties they suffered together. In
November 1861, he wrote to his sister: “A schooner was seen working
in towards the mouth of the river … the Captain told me to pitch a
shot across her course … she proved to be a schooner from Lunenburg,
Nova Scotia … some of our officers had the joke on me for firing on
my own countrymen.”
(National Post, July 5, 2013)
Excerpted from Blood and Daring: How Canada Fought the American Civil
War and Forged a Nation. Copyright © 2013 John Boyko. Published by
Knopf Canada, a division of Random House of Canada Limited.

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp317.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgqyugguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
<< Start < Prev 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next > End >>
Page 64 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog