Great News: Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu supports Free Speech and Bill

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 03 November 2011 03:41

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/zSnJJV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great News: Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu supports Free Speech and Bill C-304 (An Act to remove the censorship powers from the fanatical CHRC) http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/11/great-news-toronto-area-conservative-mp.html Earlier today I received a fantastic letter from Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu ( http://www.corneliuchisu.ca/ ) (Pickering-Scarborough) who support Bill C-304, an Act to Protect Freedom of Speech ( http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html ), and strip the censorship powers away from the fanatics of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is very impressive to see a Toronto-area Conservative MP stand-up for Freedom of Speech and seconding Bill C-304 ( http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=5124394&Mode=1 ). Unfortunately, Bill C-304 is a private members bill, and not (yet) a government bill, so it has a limited chance to even pass. According to the Parliament of Canada Website, since 1910 only 235 private members bills have ever passed. (789 private members’ bills were introduced during the last Parliament, and only four received Royal Assent, of which one established the National Holocaust Memorial). But the wind is in the sails for freedom, and numerous Conservative AND Liberal MPs have spoken publically ( http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html ) about freedom of speech and removing the ravenous censorship provision Section 13. (In fact it was Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin who first proposed ( http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/11/liberal-mp-keith-martin-resurrects-bill.html )a motion in the House of Commons to remove Section 13) Here is the letter I received today: Mr. Lemire, Thank you for your letter that you sent to our Ottawa office regarding your request for Mr. Chisu to support C-304. I am pleased to inform you that not only will Mr. Chisu be supporting the bill, but in fact he is a seconder for C-304 as well. Regards, Matthew van Vorstenbos Legislative Assistant Corneliu Chisu, MP Pickering-Scarborough East What is wrong with Section 13 of the CHRA? Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not. Vague concepts such as speech or writing “likely to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure for the extremists at the CHRC. Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a rational to increase the amount of fines! Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence. On September 2, 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in the Lemire case that Section 13 was unconstitutional and in violation of the Charter. In the decision the Tribunal slammed the CHRC for being aggressive and confrontational. In 2008, the CHRC’s own hand-picked expert – Richard Moon of the University of Windsor – wrote a substantial report on Section 13 with his main recommendation being to repeal it. Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society. 1: The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are not fair, and make arbitrary decisions based on who an accused is – rather than on a fair and impartial application of the statute they enforce. High profile victims, such as Macleans Magazine, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are given a free pass, while others, less prominent and lacking the resources to hire legal council are relentlessly prosecuted. Friends of the CHRC are given a free pass to promote hate with impunity, while others are dragged through 8 years of prosecutions. This creates a major chill on freedom of expression since there is no discernable “line” between speech that is prohibited and speech that is “acceptable” to the CHRC. 2: The CHRC pays no heed to constitutionally protected rights such as Freedom of Expression. In place they use imaginary “rights” such as the “right to be free from contempt”. There is no such right in our Charter. Lead investigators at the CHRC have testified that “freedom of speech is an American concept” which does not apply to Canadians. The CHRC only believes in “group” rights, and not the rights of individuals to “speak truth to power”, hence the 100% conviction rate. 3: The CHRC is out of control has recently been under a series of investigations. CHRC investigators have been criminally investigated by the RCMP for the criminal theft of telecommunications services; The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has ruled against the CHRC on multiple occasions. In the meantime, the CHRC continues to apply the law in an arbitrary and capricious manner. 4: In contravention of their mandate or the law, the CHRC has engaged in clandestine spying operations on Canadians, including using neo-Nazi aliases to engage Canadians in conversations. The CHRC has even gone as far as posting questionable material on neo-Nazi internet websites. The CHRC shockingly attempted to claim it would injure “National Security” when information on their neo-Nazi accounts was subpoenaed by the Tribunal. 5: The entire process is paid for by taxpayers on behalf of the complainants. The defendants must pay their costs personally. There is no legal aid and there is no way to claim costs, even if the defendants are found innocent. It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of history. I have made some shocking allegations against the CHRC in this letter, and am more than willing to provide detailed documentation on each and every point I made in this letter. If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. -Marc Lemire Freedom Activist www.freedomsite.org www.stopsection13.com See full post at: · http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/11/great-news-toronto-area-conservative-mp.html or at · http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2011/11/great-news-toronto-area-conservative-mp.html _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp279.net/u.php?id=gmjhqsqgsgbbqgumq Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Great News: Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu supports Free Speech and Bill

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 03 November 2011 03:14

> > ** > > Great News: Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu supports Free > Speech and Bill C-304 **** > > (*An Act to remove the censorship powers from the fanatical CHRC*)**** > > * * > > * > http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/11/great-news-toronto-area-conservative-mp.html > * > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Earlier today I received a fantastic letter from Toronto area Conservative > MP Corneliu Chisu <http://www.corneliuchisu.ca/> (Pickering-Scarborough) > who support Bill C-304, an Act to Protect Freedom of Speech<http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html>, > and strip the censorship powers away from the fanatics of the *Canadian > Human Rights Commission*.**** > > ** ** > > It is very impressive to see a Toronto-area Conservative MP stand-up for > Freedom of Speech and seconding Bill C-304<http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=5124394&Mode=1>. > Unfortunately, Bill C-304 is a private members bill, and not (yet) a > government bill, so it has a limited chance to even pass. According to the > Parliament of Canada Website, since 1910 only 235 private members bills > have ever passed. (789 private members’ bills were introduced during the > last Parliament, and only four received Royal Assent, of which one > established the National Holocaust Memorial). But the wind is in the sails > for freedom, and numerous Conservative AND Liberal MPs have spoken > publically <http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html> about freedom > of speech and removing the ravenous censorship provision Section 13. (In > fact it was Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin who first proposed > <http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/11/liberal-mp-keith-martin-resurrects-bill.html>a > motion in the House of Commons to remove Section 13) **** > > ** ** > > Here is the letter I received today:**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Mr. Lemire,**** > > ** ** > > Thank you for your letter that you sent to our Ottawa office regarding > your request for Mr. Chisu to support C-304. **** > > ** ** > > I am pleased to inform you that not only will Mr. Chisu be supporting the > bill, but in fact he is a seconder for C-304 as well.**** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > ** ** > > Matthew van Vorstenbos**** > > Legislative Assistant **** > > Corneliu Chisu, MP Pickering-Scarborough East**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > * * > > *What is wrong with Section 13 of the CHRA?* > > ** ** > > Sections 13 and 54 of the ***Canadian**** Human Rights Act* are a direct > attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of > Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the *** > Canadian**** Human Rights Commission* to prosecute anyone alleged to have > said or written something “*likely to expose a person or persons to > hatred or contempt*” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.** > ** > > ** ** > > Vague concepts such as speech or writing “*likely to cause hatred or > contempt”* are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of > individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “*hate*” or > any objective means of determining what constitutes “*contempt*”. As a > result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free > taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree > with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “*freedom of speech is > an American concept*” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements > are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard > operating procedure for the extremists at the CHRC.**** > > ** ** > > Commissioners of the ***Canadian****s Human Rights Tribunal*, who are not > judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “*truth”* is not a > defence against prosecution under Section 13. In fact, if you argue the > truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a > rational to increase the amount of fines! *Intent* or *fair comment* are > also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under > Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% > conviction rate since 1978. The ***Canadian**** Human Rights Tribunal*routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules > of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence.**** > > ** ** > > On September 2, 2009 the *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal* found in the * > Lemire* case that Section 13 was unconstitutional and in violation of the > *Charter*. In the decision the Tribunal slammed the CHRC for being > aggressive and confrontational. In 2008, the CHRC’s own hand-picked expert > – Richard Moon of the University of Windsor – wrote a substantial report on > Section 13 with his main recommendation being to repeal it.**** > > ** ** > > Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private > citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for > expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section > 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they > might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment > are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.**** > > ** ** > > *1:* The *Canadian Human Rights Commission* and *Tribunal* are not fair, > and make arbitrary decisions based on who an accused is – rather than on a > fair and impartial application of the statute they enforce. High profile > victims, such as Macleans Magazine, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are given a > free pass, while others, less prominent and lacking the resources to hire > legal council are relentlessly prosecuted. Friends of the CHRC are given a > free pass to promote hate with impunity, while others are dragged through 8 > years of prosecutions. This creates a major chill on freedom of expression > since there is no discernable “line” between speech that is prohibited and > speech that is “acceptable” to the CHRC. **** > > *2:* The CHRC pays no heed to constitutionally protected rights such as > Freedom of Expression. In place they use imaginary “*rights”* such as the > “*right to be free from contempt”*. There is no such right in our *Charter > *. Lead investigators at the CHRC have testified that “*freedom of speech > is an American concept*” which does not apply to **Canadian**s. The CHRC > only believes in “group” rights, and not the rights of individuals to > “speak truth to power”, hence the 100% conviction rate. **** > > *3:* The CHRC is out of control has recently been under a series of > investigations. CHRC investigators have been criminally investigated by the > *RCMP* for the criminal theft of telecommunications services; The *Privacy > Commissioner of Canada* has ruled against the CHRC on multiple occasions. > In the meantime, the CHRC continues to apply the law in an arbitrary and > capricious manner.**** > > *4:* In contravention of their mandate or the law, the CHRC has engaged > in clandestine spying operations on Canadians, including using neo-Nazi > aliases to engage Canadians in conversations. The CHRC has even gone as > far as posting questionable material on neo-Nazi internet websites. The > CHRC shockingly attempted to claim it would injure “*National Security*” > when information on their neo-Nazi accounts was subpoenaed by the * > Tribunal*.**** > > *5:* The entire process is paid for by taxpayers on behalf of the > complainants. The defendants must pay their costs personally. There is no > legal aid and there is no way to claim costs, even if the defendants are > found innocent.**** > > ** ** > > It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off > this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of > history. I have made some shocking allegations against the CHRC in this > letter, and am more than willing to provide detailed documentation on each > and every point I made in this letter. If you would like further > information, please do not hesitate to contact me.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -Marc Lemire**** > > *Freedom Activist* > > www.freedomsite.org**** > > www.stopsection13.com**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *See full post at: * > > **· *** > http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/11/great-news-toronto-area-conservative-mp.htmlor at > * > > **· *** > http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2011/11/great-news-toronto-area-conservative-mp.html > * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >

 

Latest Wave of Gypsy "Refugee" Claimants Floods Pearson Each Night

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 02 November 2011 04:33

*Latest Wave of Gypsy "Refugee" Claimants Floods Pearson Each Night* ? It's been 12 years since some rough and ready young White Nationalists protested outside a cheap Scarborough hotel. Canada was then being swamped by hundreds of Gypsy "refugee" claimants pouring in through Toronto International Airport. The young protesters were peaceful. One of their signs urged: "Honk, if you hate Gypsies." Many supportive drivers honked or gave them the thumbs up sign. This dissent was too much for the Canadian Jewish Congress's Bernie Farber. He demanded that the police charge the protesters with "hate." Since in minority-ridden Canada, the CJC's word was taken as a government's command, the youths were charged some months later and arrested right around Christmas. What a gift! Some were beaten by negroes in prison before getting bail. Years of stress and high costs eventually resulted in the charges of hate being dropped. The largest problem then, however, was the destructive regime imposed by the Supreme Court Singh Decision of 1985. That decision mandated that anyone who could sneak onto Canadian soil and chant the magic mantra, "I'm a refugee" was entitled to a hearing and appeal and, all the while, had ALL the rights of a Canadian citizen, except the right to vote. Thus, in the interminable time it took to hear the "refugee" claim and to deal with an appeal, if the decision was unfavourable to the claimant, the foreigner was entitled to legal aid, welfare, medicare, dental care, language training and job training. No government, Liberal of Conservative, had the commitment to regaining control of our borders by overcoming the meddling policy making Supremos. A tool existed, Sec. 33 of the Constitution, the "notwithstanding" clause. Legislation prefaced by "notwithstanding" the Singh Decision could have been introduced to require that the only way to apply for immigration or "refugee" status in Canada would be to apply and be vetted abroad. Not much has changed. Another wave of Gypsies is flooding in as refugees. The cost is horrific and the government sits hapless sucking their thumbs. "A record 110 claimants arrived at the airport one night last week, creating a challenge for immigration and security personnel working to process them, officers say. ... Entire Roma families, from babies to grandmothers, are getting off flights and claiming refugee protection at Pearson, alleging they’re being persecuted by “skinheads or Neo-Nazis” in their homeland, border officers said. Front-line officers at Pearson said extra staff had to be called in last week when the 110 claimants landed at the airport. Staff worked through the night to process the claimants before they were released to shelters or to the care of family members. Officers said many of the refugee seniors and children suffer from health issues and expressed concern they’re placing a burden on the health-care system." .(*Toronto Sun*, Oct. 31, 2011) No problem. Canadians will happily wait even longer under our already stressed medicare system to accommodate the queue jumpers. Notice, as well, there's no effort to incarcerate or detain those clearly entering Canada as part of an organized effort. The claim of persecution is laughable. In fact, an Eastern European form of affirmative action, gives special housing and job consideration to Gypsies. Also, "immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said Roma don’t have to travel to Canada and can legally seek asylum in any European Union country. 'They don’t have to remain in Canada,' Kurland said. 'They can return to any European country and legally work.' Some CBSA officers said many Roma go underground in Canada rather than be deported to Hungary. Close to 700 refugee cases have been abandoned by Roma in the last three years." The one weapon Canada has is to require visitors from certain countries to obtain a visa. This affords us at least some opportunity to check would be travellers before they arrive here and plunk themselves down to sop up the benefits handed them courtesy of the taxpayers by the Singh Decision. A flood of Mexican "refugees" -- indeed, in recent years democratic Mexico was Canada's major source of refugee claimants! -- and of Czech Gypsies was severely curtailed by imposing a visa requirement. "Hungarian citizens do not require a visa to travel to Canada and Hungary has been a leading source of refugee claimants in recent years, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Some 2,400 Hungarian refugee claimants were referred to the IRB for hearings in 2009. There were 2,300 in 2010 and about 2,500 from January to September of this year. About 23% of the claimants are accepted as refugees. Officials at the Canada Border Services Agency said Tuesday that they are looking into the issue." Looking into the issue? Duh! The minimal short term solution is simple: impose a visa requirement on visitors from Hungary and then, long term, use the "notwithstanding" clause to take back control of our borders. Oh, yes, quite apart from the years of welfare, medicare, dental care, public housing, legal aid etc., there's the processing cost and it's staggering. "It takes at least two years to process refugee claims and each claimant ends up costing taxpayers about $150,000." (*Toronto Star*, April 4, 2011) So, a single 50-Gypsy night at Pearson will cost taxpayers something on the order of $7.5-million. Gee, what's the catch? Stopping this dollar drain might be a first step toward shrinking the deficit that is the Harper government's avowed goal. *Paul Fromm* *Director* *Canada First Immigration Control Committee* *Up to 50 Hungarian Roma are routinely filing refugee claims daily at Pearson airport, putting a strain on airport staff and medical services, according to border services officials. * A record 110 claimants arrived at the airport one night last week, creating a challenge for immigration and security personnel working to process them, officers say. The Hungarian Roma are a stateless ethnic group that considers the name “Gypsy” derogatory. Entire Roma families, from babies to grandmothers, are getting off flights and claiming refugee protection at Pearson, alleging they’re being persecuted by “skinheads or Neo-Nazis” in their homeland, border officers said. Front-line officers at Pearson said extra staff had to be called in last week when the 110 claimants landed at the airport. Staff worked through the night to process the claimants before they were released to shelters or to the care of family members. Officers said many of the refugee seniors and children suffer from health issues and expressed concern they’re placing a burden on the health-care system. Hungarian citizens do not require a visa to travel to Canada and Hungary has been a leading source of refugee claimants in recent years, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Some 2,400 Hungarian refugee claimants were referred to the IRB for hearings in 2009. There were 2,300 in 2010 and about 2,500 from January to September of this year. About 23% of the claimants are accepted as refugees. Officials at the Canada Border Services Agency said Tuesday that they are looking into the issue. Gina Csanyi-Roban, executive director of the Roma Community Centre, said Toronto shelters are full and the newcomers are being housed in other communities. “These people are scared and running for their lives,” Csanyi-Roban said on Tuesday. “Neo-Nazi groups and setting up training camps and committing violence against the Roma.” She also said many are exploited or abused by others when they arrive here. Three families of 13 people, including two grandparents, were scammed of $270 in savings by a taxi driver who took them from the airport to a Kingston Rd. shelter, she said, adding that then driver sped off. “The Canadian government has been silent on the issue,” Csanyi-Roban said. “The problems will still be there even if a visa on Hungary is imposed.” Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said Roma don’t have to travel to Canada and can legally seek asylum in any European Union country. “They don’t have to remain in Canada,” Kurland said. “They can return to any European country and legally work.” Some CBSA officers said many Roma go underground in Canada rather than be deported to Hungary. Close to 700 refugee cases have been abandoned by Roma in the last three years.(*Toronto Sun*, Oct. 31, 2011)