"Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" -- Why it's Important to Take A Stand
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 22 December 2012 06:01
"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

Paul Fromm
Dear Ayesha:

Thanks for the sentiments, but I am a Christian, like most Canadians, and I
celebrate CHRISTMAS!!!!!

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 .*

*Ayesha Ahmed
* Marketing Manager

One stop-shop for web solutions

* Call*: +1-905-405-8786
*Visit*: www.solsnet.com
*Like*: facebook.com/solsnet
*Follow*: 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

One stop-shop for web solutions

* Call*: +1-905-405-8786
*Visit*: www.solsnet.com
*Like*: facebook.com/solsnet
*Follow*: twitter.com/solsnet
Carpay: Redford should restore right to free expression
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 22 December 2012 04:31
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

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*


Carpay: Redford should restore right to free expression

By John Carpay, Calgary Herald November 30, 2012


- Story
- Photos ( 1 )

[image: Carpay: Redford should restore right to free expression]

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

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

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

Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for
Constitutional Freedoms. www.jccf.ca

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Carpay
CHRC: Gag Lemire Now – Who cares whether or not Section 13 is constitutional?
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 21 December 2012 07:07
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:

CHRC: Gag Lemire Now – Who cares whether or not Section 13 is

Fanatical CHRC wants to impose a lifetime speech ban against Marc
Lemire and refuses to wait for
Court of Appeals toeven rule on the constitutionality of the internet
censorship law


The fanatical and discredited Canadian Human Rights Commission (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal ) is demanding that a lifetime speech
ban be placed on internet webmaster Marc Lemire – and they are
refusing to even allow the Federal Court of Appeals to make a ruling (
) on the Constitutionality of Canada’s shameful internet censorship
legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (
http://www.stopsection13.com/ ).

The utter arrogance and obsession with censorship that infests all
those who staff the Canadian Human Rights Commission is shocking to
many Canadians. Is it any wonder that its senior investigators
consider freedom of speech to be "an American concept (
http://ezralevant.com/2008/09/chrc-legal-brief-steacy-was-ri.html )?"

But even in the face of their censorship empire (Section 13) crumbling
around them ( http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html ), the
censors insist on remaining aboard a sinking ship."

Over the past few years, Canadians of all political stripes have
roundly condemned ( http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html )
the fanatical and outrageous behavior (
) of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their “nazi fetishist
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1LR_QCIs&feature=youtu.be )”
investigators. Front page articles in the National Post denounced the
CHRC. Editorials ( http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html )
from every (
)major (
)mainstream (
)newspaper (
)have called for the CHRC to get out of the thought control business.
The House of Commons has voted to repeal Section 13 (
http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html ) of the Canadian Human
Rights Act and that bill is now before the Senate (
) of Canada. In the Lemire case, the handpicked Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal was so disgusted over how the CHRC was conducting itself that
a Senior Tribunal member not only found that Section 13 was
unconstitutional (
http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html ), but that
it was also an affront to the guarantees of freedom of speech in our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms

As is typical for the elitist CHRC censors, they simply brushed aside
all legitimate criticism. They responded by once again screwing
Canadian taxpayers by hiring the super expensive public relations firm
( http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/11/13/16126101.html )
Hill & Knowlton for a whopping $170,000! This was a futile and an
expensive attempt to reverse the tide of public opinion that was
turning against them. But a leopard never changes its spots as the
CHRC continued with its devious ways (
), including spying and trying to entrap (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/mar26-08_hearing_wrapup.html ) Marc

So desperate was the CHRC to repair the damage that had been done to
its image that it hand picked an expert to write a review of Section
13. After collecting a hefty sum of money, the reviewer turned on them
by recommending that Section 13 be repealed (
)! The only people supporting the CHRC's draconian thought control
regime were those who were directly paid and/or living off the 'human
rights teat.'

Knowing that their days of harassing and abusing Internet writers,
bloggers and message board owners are numbered, the CHRC censors knew
that the only thing they can do now, is to grind many people through
the systems as possible, before their house of cards comes crashing

But they have a big problem, and that problems name is Marc Lemire (
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal )!

Because of his nine year legal battle with the CHRC (
http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html ), and the
fact that all human rights cases have been stopped (
) pending a final determination in his case, the CHRC can't pull out
its Coup de grace, and issue lifetime speech bans on all those

Not only do they demand that a lifetime free speech ban be applied on
Marc Lemire, but they don't even have the decency to wait for the
Federal Court of Appeals to rule (
) whether Section 13 is even constitutional.

The CHRC has refused to agree to a stay of an earlier decision of the
Federal Court – which is currently under appeal to the Federal Court
of Appeals. As crazy as that sounds, the CHRC is pushing for the
punishment against Lemire even before the Federal Court of Appeals can
even examine the case.

Because of the CHRC’s refusal; this now opens up a costly two-front
battle that Lemire has to face. While before the Federal Court of
Appeals, he also has to fight a case before the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal simultaneously.

Merry Christmas from Lemire: Motion to Stay

As an early Christmas present to the censors, Marc Lemire has filed a
240 page motion to the Federal Court of Appeals requesting a stay of
the earlier Federal Court ruling so that the CHRC cannot issue a
lifetime speech ban against Lemire.

Here is a copy of the motion filed with the Federal Court of Appeals
on December 11th, 2012, written by Marc Lemire’s courageous and
brilliant lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka.

1.The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, in a decision dated September 2,
2009, held that the applicant had contravened s. 13 of the Canadian
Human RightsAct by posting an article entitled AIDS Secrets on his
website, the Freedomsite. However, the Tribunal also concluded that s.
13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) were inconsistent with
s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guaranteed the freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and expression in that these provisions were not a
reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a
formal declaration of invalidity was not a remedy available to the
Tribunal, it refused to apply the provisions for the purposes of the
complaint against the applicant and did not issue any remedial order
against him. [CHRT Decision, para. 307 at Motion Record, page 116]

2.The respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission filed a judicial
review application which was allowed by Mr. Justice Mosley of the
Federal Court on October 2, 2012. He upheld the constitutionality of
section 13 by severing the penalty provisions of the Act which he
declared unconstitutional. [Warman v. Lemire, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1233
at Motion Record, pp. 119-187]

3.The Federal Court held that the application for judicial review was
granted and the following judgment granted:

1. The application for judicial review is granted and the matter is
remitted to
the Tribunal to;
a. issue a declaration that the publication of the article "AIDS
by the respondent Marc Lemire constituted a breach of s 13 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act ; and
b. for determination of whether a remedy for the breach is to be
imposed under ss. 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Act;
2. It is declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian
Human Rights
Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution
1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.
3. The respondent Richard Warman is awarded costs for the preparation
his record and his out of pocket disbursements for attendance at the
hearing against the respondent Marc Lemire.
[Judgment of the Federal Court, at Motion Record, p. 187]

4.The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal from the decision of Mr.
Justice Mosley on the following grounds:
(a)Mr. Justice Mosley erred in applying the doctrine of severance in
upholding s. 13 and ss. 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Canadian Human Rights
(b)Mr. Justice Mosley erred in basing his decision on a misreading of
the Canadian Human Rights Act as it existed at the time s. 13 was
upheld as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Supreme Court of
Canada in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R.
892; this misreading of the Act informed the reasons given by Mr.
Justice Mosley and led him into further error in upholding the
constitutionality of s. 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Canadian Human
Rights Act;
(c)Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act; the Tribunal
was entitled to examine the real and factual context in which s. 13
and s. 54 existed in determining whether the provisions remained a
reasonable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1
of the Charter, including the manner in which complaints were
prosecuted and the practical operation of the statutory scheme. The
decision of the Tribunal that this evidence showed that ss. 13 and 54
were no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of expression was
(d)The extension in 2001 in the Anti- Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, c. 41
of the application of s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act from
telephone answering machines, as considered in Taylor, to computer
networks, including the Internet, has rendered s. 13 an unreasonable
and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of
s. 1 of the Charter;
(e)The allegation of “hatred” in s. 13 of the Act imports moral
blameworthiness and stigma which renders the provision an unreasonable
and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression pursuant to s. 1 of
the Charter;
(f)The words “hatred” and “contempt” in s. 13 are vague,
overbroad and highly subjective, rendering the provision an
unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within
the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;
(g)There is no rational, non-arbitrary or fair connection between s.
13 and the objectives of the Canadian Human Rights Act, rendering the
provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of
expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;
(h)Mr. Justice Mosley erred in challenging and reversing findings of
fact made by the Tribunal to which he owed deference;
(i)Mr. Justice Mosley erred in failing to respect and defer to
Parliament’s repeal of s. 13 and s. 54(1) and (1.1) in Bill C-304,
which passed the House of Commons on June 6, 2012 to protect freedom
of expression.

5.The article which the Tribunal found contravened section 13 was
voluntarily removed from the Freedomsite by the applicant on April 9,
2004, some two weeks after he received notice of the complaint from
the Commission.

6.Only 8 persons from Canada viewed the article, a number which would
include the applicant, the complainant Richard Warman and the
investigators at the respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission.

7.The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has adjourned two pending cases
before it under section 13 on a sine die basis, until final
determination of this case.

8.In Canadian Jewish Congress v. Makow, [2010] C.H.R.D. No. 13 the
Tribunal held:

8 I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and have concluded
that it would be appropriate and would properly serve the interests of
justice if this matter was adjourned. While the Supreme Court of
Canada has ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor,1990 3
S.C.R. 892 (
) that s. 13 (1) of the CHRA is constitutional, the application now
before the Federal Court seeks to bring clarity to this issue in view
of the distinct factual and legal context giving rise to this
Tribunal's decision in Warman v. Lemire. Clearly Member Hadjis'
decision goes beyond the consideration alone of the penalty provisions
in s. 54 of the CHRA, as he chose not to "read out" the penalty
provisions and preserve s. 13 of the CHRA. It is now up to the Federal
Court to determine the operability of s. 13 of the CHRA. This will
achieve the clarity that the Commission has indicated and that I agree
is desirable in order to allow the Tribunal to be able to determine
this and other cases brought under s. 13 of the CHRA.

9 For these reasons I hereby adjourn these proceedings sine die
pending the final outcome in the Warman v. Lemire case.

9.A similar ruling was made in Abrams v. Topham, [2010] C.H.R.D. No.


10.This Court is granted the jurisdiction to impose a stay of
proceedings pursuant to Rule 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Rules
which provides:

50. (1) The Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court may, in its
discretion, stay proceedings in any cause or matter
(b) where for any other reason it is in the interest of justice that
the proceedings be stayed.

11.In RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General),[1994] 1 S.C.R.
311 (
), the Supreme Court of Canada set out a three-part test for
determining whether a stay should be granted: (1) Whether there is a
serious question to be tried; (2) Whether the applicant would suffer
irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and (3) Whether the
balance of convenience is in favour of granting the stay.

(a)Serious question to be tried

12.It is submitted that the case raises a serious issue to be tried,
namely, the constitutionality of section 13 and ss. 54(1)(a) and (b)
of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

13.The Notice of Appeal raises serious issues with respect to the
effect on freedom of speech of section 13, including whether the
doctrine of severance was correctly applied by Mr. Justice Mosley and
whether section 13 is still a justifiable limitation on Charter rights
to free speech under s. 2(b) given its legislative extension in 2001
to the Internet and other computer mediated networks.

(b)Irreparable harm

14.If the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, it can no longer
issue a penalty order as the provisions authorizing such an order have
been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court. However, it can
issue a cease and desist order against the applicant which is in
effect for his lifetime and is a direct violation of his freedom of
speech. The order, once made, would remain in effect notwithstanding
any subsequent finding in this case that section 13 is

15.No damages can compensate the applicant for the loss of his right
to free speech under such a cease and desist order.

(c)Balance of convenience

16.The article “AIDS Secrets” was voluntarily removed by the
applicant in April of 2004 in an effort to settle the complaint, some
two weeks after he received notice of the complaint. His remedial
actions were ignored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the
complainant, who instead began a search for other material with which
to sustain the complaint. None of those other communications were
found to be a violation of the Act.

17.The public interest is not damaged by a stay of the order of Mr.
Justice Mosley since the article found to contravene section 13 is not
on the applicant’s website and has not been for almost nine years.
Only 8 persons from Canada looked at the article and probably all of
those persons were those involved in the complaint, including the
complainant, investigators from the Canadian Human Rights Commission
and the applicant himself.

18.There are presently only two cases pending before the Tribunal,
that of Makow and Topham, supra. Both cases have been adjourned sine
die by the Tribunal pending final resolution of the Lemire case in
order to obtain clarification of the law. This has been a well-founded
caution since the penalty provisions of section 13 were declared

19.In the meantime, the House of Commons repealed section 13 and its
remedial provisions in section 54 by Bill C-304 on June 6, 2012 to
protect freedom of speech. The Bill is now at second reading before
the Senate. The House of Commons recognized the threat section 13
posed to the freedoms of Canadians and passed a bill to repeal the
law. This factor must play an important role in determining the
balance of convenience in granting a stay.

Order Requested

20.The applicant requests:

(a)an order staying the judgment of Mr. Justice Mosley in Canadian
Human Rights Commission v. Lemire, T-1640-09 pending final
determination of the herein appeal;
(b)Costs of the motion.

Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of
this disgusting though control legislation? 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. Nothing ever
comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is
a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our
right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to
come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful
law expunged from our legal books.

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!

Marc Lemire
762 Upper James St
Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario
L9C 3A2

Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.freedomsite.org ( http://www.freedomsite.org/
)http://www.StopSection13.com ( http://www.stopsection13.com/ )
Twitter: @marc_lemire ( http://twitter.com/marc_lemire )

YouTube - Videos from this email

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp264.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqghwmgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Page 126 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog