Carpay: Redford should restore right to free expression

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:18

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: http://ymlp279.net/zsuO0n -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CARPAY: REDFORD SHOULD RESTORE RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION IT'S LONG OVERDUE, BUT NOW FINALLY A CALL FOR THE REPEAL ON SOME PROVINCIAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION THAT GAGS FREE SPEECH. IN BC, ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN, RELIGIOUS CRITICS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA HAVE BEEN BRUTALIZED BY A PROCESS WHERE TRUTH AND FACT ARE NO DEFENCE. FINALLY, A VOICE IS RAISED CALLING FOR THE REPEAL OF SUCH PROVISIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CODES. In fact, considering some of the bizarre rulings of these commissions, a strong case can be made for abolishing these minority-favouring, Majority suppressing "human rights" acts altogether. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION CARPAY: REDFORD SHOULD RESTORE RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION BY JOHN CARPAY, CALGARY HERALD NOVEMBER 30, 2012 ( HTTP://PINTEREST.COM/PIN/CREATE/BUTTON/?URL=HTTP%3A%2F%2FWWW.CALGARYHERALD.COM%2FOPINION%2FOP-ED%2FCARPAY%2BREDFORD%2BSHOULD%2BRESTORE%2BRIGHT%2BFREE%2BEXPRESSION%2F7636589%2FSTORY.HTML&MEDIA=HTTP%3A%2F%2FWWW.CALGARYHERALD.COM%2F6506143.BIN%3FSIZE%3D620X400S&DESCRIPTION=CARPAY%3A%20REDFORD%20SHOULD%20RESTORE%20RIGHT%20TO%20FREE%20EXPRESSION ) COMMENT 0 * STORY * PHOTOS ( 1 ) JOHN CARPAY PHOTOGRAPH BY: COURTESY When it comes to protecting freedom of expression, not all Canadian human rights laws are created equal. With the federal government having repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Alberta’s remains one of only three provincial human rights statues in Canada that undercuts free expression. Democracy does not work when citizens lack the freedom to debate ideas and policies. Free expression serves not only the cause of expression itself, but also the causes of those who advocate change in our wider social, political and economic environment. And the right to free expression means nothing — absolutely nothing — if it applies only to speech that most people want to hear. Often, the very point of free expression is to make us feel uncomfortable. By making “discriminatory” publications illegal, human rights laws in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan subvert free public discourse about issues such as immigration, criminal justice, sexual morality, foreign policy, polygamy, social assistance and aboriginal policy. These issues often require making references to ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender. Because these are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the act, one can break the law simply by publicly espousing an opinion on school curriculum, eligibility for social assistance, foreign policy in the Middle East, or trade with China. The potential violations are limitless. Indeed, this is already happening. In Alberta, public discourse has resulted in proceedings being taken against Stephen Boissoin (for a letter to the editor regarding the school curriculum), Bishop Fred Henry (for stating his church’s teaching on marriage) and Ezra Levant (for publishing Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a magazine). In B.C., proceedings were brought against Maclean’s magazine (for publishing excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone) and comedian Guy Earle (for responding to hecklers during his standup routine). In Saskatchewan, William Whatcott was ordered to pay $17,500 to four complainants whose feelings were “hurt” by flyers he distributed. (This case was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision is forthcoming). These individuals, among others, have been forced to spend thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars to defend against human rights complaints that were filed purely in respect of the honest expression of their opinion. Not only are people subject to prosecution for stating their honest opinion, they are also subject to prosecution for stating what is objectively true. Truth, like fair comment, is an absolute defence to a lawsuit for defamation. The checks and balances inherent in common law provide fairness between plaintiffs and defendants, but are excluded from human rights legislation. Advocating genocide and counselling a criminal offence are already prohibited by the Criminal Code. Causing actual harm is answerable under the laws of defamation and negligence. To prosecute for “insults” or “hurt feelings,” however, casts a chill on every citizen’s freedom to express opinions on issues important to them. Some argue that restricting freedom of expression is a necessary price to pay for ending discrimination. But 11 Canadian jurisdictions prove this is not so. The federal government, all provinces east of Saskatchewan, as well as the three territories, show us that it is not necessary to undermine the citizen’s free speech rights in order to legislate against discrimination in employment, housing and services. For example, Nunavut, Ontario and Manitoba indicate that discriminatory signs, notices and publications are prohibited only in relation to employment, housing, facilities, goods, services, contracts and other areas where the legislation seeks to address actual discrimination. This means that it’s illegal for an employer or landlord to run an ad saying “women need not apply,” but there are no restrictions on the contents of a controversial letter to the editor or an unpopular pamphlet. Alison Redford recognized the problem in 2011, when she first ran for premier. She promised to restore free expression to citizens by repealing Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act. She has yet to keep her promise to Albertans. Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. www.jccf.ca ( http://www.jccf.ca/ ) © Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Carpay+Redford+should+restore+right+free+expression/7636589/story.html#ixzz2FkLPWKmN _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp279.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqghyugguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:09

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: http://ymlp279.net/z0e6Lm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur Topham in "Hate" Case ... Radical Press Legal Update #7 Yesterday’s Bail Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel Court house. The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the name of M. Church who heard the application. Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case. According to Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently, somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure. After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3 weeks after the fact . The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012 and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6 where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated. When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact with the two knaves (Warman and Abrams) who laid the alleged complaint to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my seized firearms. At the same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on the day I got out of jail. Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday. After running through that time line Crown then began their argument for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any of my other websites that were owned by me. Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had gleaned from another website called FreeDominion.ca. Those statements were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it was confidential. Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the National Post and that was the big reason, according to Jennifer Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it. At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this charade. The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the disclosure document and a short 15 recess would be called so that he and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh bail conditions on me. It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and needed every minute for his arguments. Court resumed and Johnston began her argument that I had been publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012 (legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus possibly endangering their safety! [Can you believe it! Armed police afraid of a now unarmed, Internet dissident and blogger. In politically correct Canada, the oppressors always cry that they are so afraid of the victims. -- Paul Fromm] This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present his arguments. The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication. Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of consideration. He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do flew in the face any and all statutes currently within the Canadian legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code. To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered as a reasonable argument. During Crown’s argument Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point regarding Crown’s argument. One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown's arguments and this went on until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5 p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes. While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a “Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this point) for further clarification come early January and then after that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision. So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair well. For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax a bit and enjoy the Christmas season. ——– NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges was $1,500.00 return and given my minimal monthly pension it's virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses. As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works. Arthur Topham 4633 Barkerville Highway Quesnel, B.C. Canada V2J 6T8 To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com/ ( http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radicalpress.com%2F&h=VAQEa7zj_&s=1 ) or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com/ ( http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesnelcariboosentinel.com%2F&h=3AQGoPP3d&s=1 ) The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Sincerely, Arthur Topham Pub/Ed The Radical PressSee More _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp279.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqghysgguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

"Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" -- Why it's Important to Take A Stand

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:07

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: http://ymlp279.net/zcayJ0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" -- Why it's Important to Take A Stand Today, I received this offensive "Happy Holidays" greeting from a business I don't even know. Many of you, like me, are offended by cowardly, conformist politically correct businesses that just can't gag out "Merry Christmas", but must insult the Christian or European Majority with the empty "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings." Unless you're a snow lover, the cold and snowy Christmas time is not a season to celebrate and Christmas is often fun but hectic and not much of a holiday. I believe it's important to take a stand and protest at the insulting "Happy Holidays" greeting that rejects and denigrates the OUR traditions supposedly to mollify newcomers who chose to come to an overwhelmingly Christian and European continent. Here is the evolution of my exchange with Ayesha Ahmed of Solsnet. I urge you to speak up to businesses and politicians and DEMAND respect for OUR traditions. Paul Fromm Director CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE Dear Ayesha: Thanks for the sentiments, but I am a Christian, like most Canadians, and I celebrateCHRISTMAS!!!!! Paul Fromm yesha Ahmed 3:55 PM (8 hours ago) to me Hi Paul, Wish you a Happy Christmas than May you be blessed with all the happiness. Basically there are alot of contacts who belong to different religion thats why i wished everyone in general. I hope you did not mind that . Regards, Ayesha Ayesha Ahmed Marketing Manager SOLSNET.COM One stop-shop for web solutions Call: +1-905-405-8786 ( tel:%2B1-905-405-8786 ) Visit: www.solsnet.com ( http://www.solsnet.com/ ) Like: facebook.com/solsnet ( http://facebook.com/solsnet ) Follow: twitter.com/solsnet ( http://twitter.com/solsnet ) Thank you, Ayesha. However, in contrast to a lot of multicultural propaganda, the vast majority of Canadians are Christians and celebrate Christmas or are secular and celebrate it as a folk feast. Inclusiveness should not involve excluding the Majority. BTW, Happy New Year. Paul Fromm Ayesha Ahmed Marketing Manager SOLSNET.COM One stop-shop for web solutions Call: +1-905-405-8786 ( tel:%2B1-905-405-8786 ) Visit: www.solsnet.com Like: facebook.com/solsnet ( http://facebook.com/solsnet ) Follow: twitter.com/solsnet ( http://twitter.com/solsnet ) _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp279.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqghqygguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider