Political Prisoner Brad Love Charged for Writing to His Own Lawyer
Written by Paul Fromm
Saturday, 30 November 2013 08:19
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:

Political Prisoner Brad Love Charged for Writing to His Own Lawyer

The decade long saga of state persecution of inveterate letter writer
Brad Love reached a new low this week, when he was charged with
writing a letter to his own lawyer

Brad Love called me from prison this morning and reported that, on
November 28, police arrived at the prison in Lindsay where he's being
held pending an appeal of the 18-month sentence he was handed for
breach of probation.

He was charged with violating an Alberta bail undertaking or condition
forbidding him to write, text or e-mail to any person. [Yes, that was
a condition for freedom pending trial in Alberta, not North Korea!] In
July, Brad went back to Court and had the bail conditions amended so
that he could write to anyone, except the parties to whom he was
charged with sending "scurrilous" political material.

Brad Love, letter writer & oil
patch worker in Fort McMurray

"The cops are just bullies," Mr. Love told me. "They arrest the free
speech guy in jail for writing to his own lawyer about free speech.
It's crazy! I told them to check the paper work. I'm allowed to write
to my own lawyer" Peter Lindsay, and, indeed, anyone other than
certain politicians and media people in Fort McMurray."

Further, Mr. Love reported, a fellow inmate who had sent out some
letters for Bad was warned: "You could be getting out of here soon.
You'd better have nothing to do with Brad!"

Mr. Love is scheduled to appear in Court in Lindsay on December 12 to
answer the "breach" charge.

If you would like to give permission to Brad Love to write to you,
call Kevin Nesbit, Deputy Superintendent (Operations) for the prison
and give your name and address and our permission for Brad to send you
letters. The phone number is 705-328-6000 ( tel:705-328-6000 ).

You can write to political prisoner Brad Love, one of our "men behind
the wire" at:

Brad Love [557137416]
541 Highway 36,
Box 4500,
Lindsay, ON.,
K9V 4S6

A date has still not been sent for an appeal against Mr. Love's 2012
conviction and 18-month sentence for breach of probation.

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp287.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgueeugguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
The Battle of Vancouver
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 29 November 2013 05:00
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:

The Battle of Vancouver
Speech by Paul Fromm at 2000 Rally for Journalist Doug Collins (under
attack by human rights commission). The meeting was organized by his
lawyer Doug Christie. It was attacked by several hundred ARA crazies.
The policing was minimal and terrible.


Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp313.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgueesgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 29 November 2013 04:58
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:

Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec.
TORONTO, November 14, 2013. The now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act should be found to be unconstitutional, as well, Marc
Lemire, victim of a 10-year long battle with Richard Warman, argued
this morning. Supported by interveners, the Canadian Association for
Free Expression and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Barbara
Kulaszka, Mr. Lemire’s erstwhile lawyer insisted: The Canadian Human
Rights Act “was a statute designed to help little people against big
government or corporations, but the Act's Sec. 13 has hit little
people having a beer and posting on the Internet.” Three Federal
Court of Appeals judges reserved and retired to mull over their

“The fact Parliament has repealed Sec. 13 should be taken into
account,” Miss Kulaszka argued. Before penalties, now ruled
unconstitutional were added in 1998, and, until Parliament, in 2001,
legislated that Sec. 13 applied to the Internet, this section was
largely unused. Interestingly, she added, "it has been used primarily
by one man (Richard Warman), a White male, not the minorities" it was
said to protect."

In almost every case, "Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights
Commission had joint submissions and always wanted penalties" assessed
against the victims. In Mr. Lemire's case, they originally sought a
$7,500 penalty."

Sec. 13, she argued, "is an anomaly within the Canadian Human Rights
Act." Most complaints under other sections of the Act result in
settlements. "Until the Lemire case, there was a 100 per cent
conviction under Sec. 13." The Act, she added, "was designed to help
little people against government or Crown corporations. However, Sec.
13 hits little people having a beer and posting their ideas on the

Mr. Warman, she reminded the three judges hearing the appeal, never
contacted Mr. Lemire about the Freedomsite message board that he
complained about. By the time Mr. Lemire was served with the
complaint, the message board had already been taken down. "The message
board was taken down in early 2004. The complaint came in March 2004,"
but proceeded nonetheless.

Mr. Lemire took down all six specific articles in the Warman
complaint. "I wrote to the Commission and said all the impugned
articles had been removed, but I received no reply," Miss Kulaszka
recalled. "Instead they started hunting for more material."

The Internet, she explained, "is very different from a telephone
answering machine." Telephone messages were the original target of
Sec. 13. "Accusations of 'hate' carry incredible stigma. It is not the
equivalent in the public eye of the accusation your business failed to
provide a ramp for the handicapped," she added.

"The Internet is loved by the people but feared by the courts. Maybe,
it's generational. The Internet is empowering and people can talk
back. Perhaps, Karen Mock testifying for the League for Human Rights
of B'nai Brith in this matter put it best when she said education was
the best way to fight 'hate.'"

Sec. 13 should be ruled unconstitutional so that "ordinary people can
self publish on the Internet, argue back and forth, and not have to
have a lawyer present," she concluded.

Barclay Johnson, a Victoria lawyer, representing the Canadian
Association for Free Expression, reminded the appeals judges that, in
their ruling on Keegstra and Taylor (which upheld the old version of
Sec. 13), "the Supreme Court of Canada did not have the benefit of
expert scientific evidence" that was led in the Lemire case "which
discredited the scientific justification for 'hate laws'; namely, the
supposed dire effects on minorities of so-called "hate propaganda."

CAFE's lawyer Barclay Johnson of Victoria

The Court relied on Frederick Kaufman's "basically Freudian analysis.
His report had formed part of the Cohen Report on Hate Propaganda." In
this case, the defence led the expert evidence of Dr. Michael
Persinger who exposed "the inaccurate methodology of Kaufmann.
Persinger said:'I don't use terms like 'hate'. I use the tem 'aversive
stimuli. 'Hate' is a subjective term or label. The term 'hate' is
arbitrary and highly subjective. Persinger's evidence was not
available to the Supreme Court in reaching their recent decision in
Whatcott. The psychological field has changed," Mr. Johnson added. The
Court had relied on what we now know to be junk science.

Mr. Lemire's Freedomsite "was not a public communication. Someone had
to go looking for it. Mr. Warman wasn't just walking down the street
and saw the Freedomsite. In Crooks and Newton, the Supreme Court found
that people using a hyperlink are involved in a private conversation.
Hyperlinks are like a reference to material. They indicate that
something exists," he explained, "but you have to make the choice to
go and call it up. Mr. Warman went looking for evidence of 'hate'.
That method of getting information is private. In this case, Mr.
Warman was going to websites in order to be offended," he added. "Mr.
Warman did not go to a Canadian website but to one {the Freedomsite]
hosted in the U.S."

Concluding, Mr. Johnson said, "for Mr. Lemire to be responsible for
everything uploaded to a website outside the country is unfair."

Predicting the outcome of the appeal is perilous but the three
presiding justices seemed to perk up when the two very pale lawyers --
are there no Negro attrorneys? -- speaking on behalf of the African
Canadian Legal Clinic extolled the importance of penalties (which
Judge Mosley had ruled unconstitutional).

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp313.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgueuygguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>
Page 22 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog