FREE SPEECH LOST

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 17 June 2009 07:33

* Free Speech Lost* The *Richard Warman v. Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression* libel case is over. It's been nearly six long years -- an ordeal to test our stamina, emotional resources and, of course, our pocketbooks. You have loyally supported me in this battle and I want to give you an accounting and report. The case ended with a terse one-page decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, dated April 23. A three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to hear our appeal against the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal to uphold Madam Justice Monique Metivier's decision entirely in favour of Warman and awarding him $30,000. The Ontario Court of Appeals tacked on another $10,000 in costs. Specifically, the decision of the Supreme Court -- no reasons given -- read: "The application for leave to appeal from the judgement of the Court of Appeal of Ontario Number C48100, dated December 9, 2008, is dismissed with costs." Those costs were $894.60. The buzzer has gone. The third period is over. The score is anti-free speech forces 3, free speechers 0. Barbara Kulaszka advised: "Paul, the case is over. Pay if you can, regroup and move on. Put it behind you." In the meantime, I've taken counsel with some real warriors -- Doug Christie, who was my lawyer through part of this case and fellow teacher and fellow victim of Canada's increasingly politicized legal system, Malcolm Ross. There are others I've consulted but won't name. *The Case at A Glance* In 2002 and 2003, CAFE and I noticed that a number of Sec. 13 (Internet) cases were being filed by one Richard Warman, then an "investigator" for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Among other things, this seemed to be a conflict of interest -- an employee out drumming up business for the Commission by filing complaints. Even more disturbing was a statement he made to the *London Free Press* in September, 2003, speaking of the need to "weed out" the Internet. More recently, Prof. Robert Moon, who was commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do a study of Sec. 13 and recommended its abolition, pointed to the crucial role of Richard Warman is this whole sorry attack on free speech on the Internet: “The human rights tribunal hears very few Section 13 cases either, Moon pointed out. ‘*In the absence of Richard Warman, there really is very little happening under Section 13. You take him away, you’ve got nothing*.’” (*Ottawa Citizen*, June 11, 2009) I'm a student of linguistics and an M.A. in English Language and Literature. To my uneducated eye, Warman's activities seemed like "censorship." Canadian courts disagree. Warman sued over nine postings by CAFE. The impugned remarks were those calling Warman a :"censor", the "high priest of censorship" and "hitman for the politically correct." After numerous motions and delays, the case was heard by Madam Justice Monique Metivier in the Spring of 2007. Her decision was rendered in November of 2007. We were shocked that she failed, in our submission, to properly apply the defence of "fair comment" and awarded the aggrieved Warman $30,000. We immediately appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard December 9, 2008. My lawyer Barbara Kulaszka was treated brusquely, shabbily, I say even rudely by the three judges, who didn't even want to hear from Warman's lawyer, before dismissing the appeal and slapping on another $10,000 costs. In February, Barbara Kulaszka filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Among other grounds, we wanted the SCC to correct the Court of First Instance and the Ontario Court o Appeals for failing to apply the clear definition of "fair comment" that the SCC laid out last June in the Kari Simpson case; essentially, any comment, if it is sincere and somehow based on a fact in the case, constitutes “fair comment.” The SCC held that Mair's denouncing Simpson, a Christian activist who oppose radical homosexual literature in the school, as a Nazi and virtual Klansman on the air was "fair comment." My puny comments about Warman's being a “censor” seemed to pale beside Mair's rant, which the court deemed okay. * Comments* Canada has a highly politicized judiciary. Doug Christie can be called a "perverted monster" for defending Ernst Zundel and that's not libel. Kari Simpson can be compared to George Wallace, the Klan and the Nazis for opposing homosexual indoctrination in the schools. Yet, political pet Richard Warman is in no way a censor for having filed some 25 different Sec. 13 human rights complaints, which, when upheld, as they always have been, see the dissident heavily fined and gagged for life. The clear intended result of Warman’s suing CAFE and me for libel -- and he's sued a host of other critics as well -- was to silence those supporting the victims of his complaints. Of some interest is the fact that the three SCC judges who denied us leave to appeal were two Jewish judges, Fish and Abella, and Ian Binnie. Binnie is not Jewish but, just before he was elevated to the SCC, he was hired by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Ernst Zundel in the Sabina Citron et al. complaint against the Zundelsite (1996-2002). One might have thought these judges would have recused themselves to avoid the appearance of a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the April, 2009 issue of the *Friends of Freedom Newsletter*, Doug Christie observes that we are now in an era of "double standard free speech" in Canada: *"There is an emerging and rational conclusion which is both difficult to escape and disturbing to con template. ... It is a conclusion which I have reluctantly come to after a long series of examples, each of which would not sup port the conclusion, but taken together lead irresistibly to it. ... It is a general theory of law which could be supported by many more examples but the ones chosen are for demonstration only and not by any means exhaustive. It is a theory that can be superficially explained by sociological terms like “in group” behaviour toward “out groups” but it is much more comprehensive and detailed in nature. It is a particular ideology, punishing its critics with the power of the authority given to it by the state. It is the promotion and licensing for otherwise prohibited behaviour of certain “in group” enforcers who are being rewarded for serving the “in group” ideology. It is a wide range of strategies, all condoned by the establishment and enforced by law, courts, police, and human rights complainants which is designed to gradually mold, and eventually control all public expression of social commentary and opinion. Now to the examples. Paul Fromm and Kari Simpson come to mind. They both were involved in civil litigation for defamation. Fromm was a defendant and Simpson was a plaintiff. Richard Warman was Fromm’s plaintiff when Fromm accused Warman of being a censor. Fromm was found liable for defamation. His appeals to both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada were *dismissed,. … Fromm was definitely an “out group” member. He opposes immigration. He ridiculed Richard Warman and human rights laws generally. He supported Ernst Zundel in his human rights hearing. He supported Marc Lemire and many others in human rights hearings. He was a court loser and “out group” member. On the other hand, Richard Warman is a definite “in group” member, a winner, a man respected, even revered, by the leftwing as a Green candidate, a human rights crusader and has successfully prosecuted many for breaches of Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act including many [alleged] racists and anti-semites. He is a respected “in group” member. It is considered defamation when called names even in an opinion honestly held by Paul Fromm. This seems strange. Kari Simpson sued Rafe Mair for calling her names equivalent to racist and anti-Semite and comparing her to Hitler and the worst southern racists. She sued. She lost. She possibly opposes homosexual indoctrination in schools or at least says parents should have a say on such educational matters. She is an “out group” member to the society of homosexual activists who have so much influence in the courts and legislatures of late. She is a court loser." *Where Do We Go From Here?* As Barbara Kulaszka advised: "Move on." I will not give up the struggle for free speech. Indeed, CAFE has been on a whirlwind of activity this Spring -- meetings in Victoria, Vancouver, Mission, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Moncton. We're actively supporting Terry Tremaine, another Warman victim who faces a contempt of court charge also initiated on a complaint by Warman this July. We've sought "interested party" status in the *Harry Abrams v. Arthur Topham * Sec. 13 case. Still there's the matter of the $40,000 judgement plus our legal expenses. CAFE has no money. *I cannot ask you, free speech supporters, to contribute a penny to Richard Warman*. *However, we still have about $7,500 in unpaid legal bills. If you can help one more time, we shall wrap this case up and continue our principled support for free speech -- the right that drives our enemies batty*. For all your encouragement and support in this long battle, my sincere thank you. No Surrender! Paul Fromm

 

2044 DAYS UNDER THE IRON HEEL OF THE CHRC -- BY MARC LEMIRE

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 12 June 2009 06:40

*2044 days under the Iron heel of the CHRC -- by Marc Lemire* *The entire landscape of Section 13 has changed* * * June 30 2009 marks *2,044 days* that I have been under the iron heel of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Amazing as that sounds, *YES*, that’s two thousand and forty-four days! That's almost as long as Canada's involvement in WW II! I am a single-handed stimulus package for the “human rights” industry! For me, the whole thing started on November 24, 2003, when serial Section 13 complainant Richard Warman signed a complaint against me<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal>and a separate but identical complaint against my website, the Freedomsite. Over the intervening 2,044 days, my lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka and I have absolutely crushed the Canadian Human Rights Commission and exposed many of their spying operations<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan18-08_FreeDominion_and_CHRC.html>, tainted investigations and the CHRC's dirty corrupt<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/infiltrators_target_lemire-Motion_filed_for_Bell_Subpoena.html>underbelly. At the beginning of this ordeal, little was known about who Richard Warman was or his motivations. Even less about the secret shadowy world of CHRC investigators like Dean Steacy and their outrageous investigative techniques<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/CHRC_criminal_complaint.html>. The media turned a blind eye to what the CHRC was doing, and by doing so, offered them c*arte blanche* to carry on their devious crusade and inquisition. This whole case was not for the weak at heart. After seeing some of the Zundel CHRC case in action when I was a teenager, I knew what it meant to fight. It was a totally stacked system where no one before me won anything. It meant a huge amount of work and research. Unfortunately, for the CHRC, this case ignited something inside me. *Barbara Kulaszka** – The Gentle Warrior[image: See full size image]<http://www.spock.com/i/KW1HyWyq/Barbara-Kulaszka.jpg> * There is no one in the legal profession that’s works as hard as Barbara Kulaszka does. Just look at the amazing statistics from my case: *26 Tribunal Hearing days* spread across *four cities* (Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa, Oakville) Witnesses: CHRC called *2 witnesses, *Attorney General of Canada called *1 witness, *Marc Lemire responded with *8 witnesses* Over *6,000 pages* submitted by Lemire Over *656 letters* of correspondence Motions filed by Marc Lemire: *25* Pages of transcript so far: *5,977* Binders of evidence by Marc Lemire: *10* I never had any real grasp of how hard a legal case really was. Every letter sent requires time and preparations. Legal Motions are very in-depth and take many hours of research and time. Binders of evidence, which have to be sorted, broken down into tabs, then photocopied (15 copies of each binder!) then three-hole punched, then put into binders. It takes an incredible amount of time, research and knowledge. The costs are just staggering! For just tabs, binders and paper alone, I spend well over $3,000 bucks. Barbara’s hard work has really paid off. So far that CHRC has sent in five different lawyers against me. At the beginning of the hearing, it was someone named Ikram Warsame. She left the case very early on. Then in came Giacomo Vigna. Her did most of the case for the CHRC, then lost his “mental serenity<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/june4-07_CHRC_persecutor_vigna_loses_mental_serenity.html>” and was off the case. Along came Margot Blight<http://www.blgcanada.com/home/our-professionals/B/Blight-Margot>, who now is representing the CHRC. Along the way lawyers Ian Fine<http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/debating-the-chrcs-ian-fine-th.html>, and Phillip Dufresne were also involved. It just shows how mentally tough Barbara Kulaszka really is to have outlasted so many lawyers, who have crumbled under the pressure. Hard work really pays off. 2,044 days later, the impossible has happened. Barbara Kulaszka and I have turned the tables on the Canadian Human Rights Commission<http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html>. The mainstream media woke up<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/11/media-bonanza-editorials-show.html>and to date there has been at least 250 anti-CHRC editorials and articles published. The CHRC has been under multiple investigations (including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/CHRC_criminal_complaint.html>, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner), Dr. Keith Martin<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/06/dr-keith-martins-press-release-on.html>a Member of Parliament has tabled a motion to repeal Section 13 and the Justice Committee at the behest of Conservative MP Rick Dykstra is looking into reviewing the questionable CHRC’s investigative techniques<http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2008/06/standard-mp-wants-review-of-human.html> . All the hard work we have done while in the trenches, it is starting to pay off big-time. All those sleepless nights, the many weekends away from my children to do research, all the access requests filed and the transcripts of cases reviewed and indexed. Barbara Kulaszka has put together the best challenge this law will ever face<http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html>and in the end we will win! *Evidence from Lemire Hearing* · CHRC covertly hijacked a woman’s internet account · CHRC used a variety of pseudonyms online to engage respondents. Including “*Jadewarr*” and “*Odens Revenge*” all without any oversight · CHRC Agent Dean Steacy under cross-examination by Barbara Kulaszka stated: “*Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value… It's not my job to give value to an American concept*.” · There are no guidelines on what they can post online · The CHRC had a policy up until the Federal Court decision in * Lemire* in January of this year, not to disclose to any respondent in a section 13 case that the Commission investigators were communicating under false names with respondents via emails and/or were signing up accounts under false names. *This admission brings into question the legality of each and every section 13 case decided by the Tribunal.* · Police Information has been obtained or given over a dozen times. And all without any formal agreement regarding exchange of information thus no legal authorization to exchange it. (breach of *Privacy Act*) * * * * ** *M**arc Lemire* is a former Canadian Forces Medic<http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=737&bhcp=1>and Toronto area computer expert who runs the Freedomsite ( http://www.freedomsite.org) and was charged by the CHRC in 2003 for alleged violations of Section 13 by mostly unknown parties on an internet message board he ran in 2003. As part of his defence, M r. Lemire is undertaking the most serious constitutional challenge the *Canadian Human Rights Act* have ever undergone. To date there has been 25 hearing days, and Mr. Lemire has called world-renown expert witnesses to challenge every aspect of Internet censorship by the CHRC. * * How you can help: Donate using a credit card online with *PayPal* <https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=10682> ------------------------------ *It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission! *

 

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION (CAFE) APPLIES FOR INTERESTED PARTY STATUS

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 12 June 2009 06:39

Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) Applies for Interested Party Status in the Abrams v RadicalPress.com Complaint Case *June 11, 2009 * *Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) ____________________________________________ * *As Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com I was most pleased and honoured to hear from Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, informing me that he has formally submitted a Notice of Motion to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requesting standing as an Interested Party in the ongoing complaint case involving myself, RadicalPress.com and Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. Paul brings with him a wealth of personal experience in dealing with the notorious Section 13(1) legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and should his organization be granted Intervenor status will undoubtedly be of immense value in highlighting the inequities and injustices which this particular piece of legislation poses to Internet users across Canada and all Canadians concerned about their basic human rights contained within Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantee free expression to all citizens of this great nation. I will be waiting with great anticipation to hear from the Tribunal on Paul’s application. God willing he won’t have to jump through all the hoops that Free Speech lawyer Doug Christie had to. On behalf of myself and all those who are fighting this battle to regain our basic rights I want to thank Paul for his efforts and willingness to participate in this case. Arthur Topham Publisher/Editor RadicalPress.com *————————– Canadian Association for Free Expression Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413 Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 160 Elgin Street 11th Floor, Ottawa, ON., K1A 1J4 *Attention: Nancy Lafontant, Registry Officer* * Fax: 613 995-3484* June 10, 2009 *Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com * *File Number: T1360/9008* Dear Ms Lafontant: I write seeking leave to make a motion to obtain standing as an Interested Party making written and oral submissions in the matter of *Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com* I rely on the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules Of Procedure* (03-05-04): *8(1) Anyone who is not a party, and who wishes to be recognized by the Panel as an interested party in respect of an inquiry, may bring a motion for an order granting interested party status.* CAFE's mandate is to work toward the maximum latitude of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of belief provisions of Sec. 2(b) of the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Founded in 1981, we have published extensively material supportive of these goals, made representations to various levels of government and obtained intervenor or Interested Party status in a number of cases. We are especially concerned about efforts to restrict the Internet, which we see as an inexpensive and accessible medium to persons of modest means who might otherwise be excluded from some of the older more established media. We obtained Interested Party status in the Zundel Internet case (1997-2002), were an active participant, calling witnesses and making submissions. We were equally active in the Micka Internet case (2001). We participated as an "interested party" in more than 30 days of hearings in Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa and Oakville in *Warman v Marc Lemire*. Our perspective and experience may be of assistance to the Tribunal in considering that CAFE, as an "interested party" has appeared as an intervenor in more Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other entity in Canada. Furthermore, Mr. Fromm has extensive experience -- more than any other person -- as an agent in Sec. 13 cases (*Warman v. Glen Bahr and Western Canada for Us; Warman v. Terry Tremaine; Warman v. Jessica Beaumont; Warman v. Ciaan Donnelly; Warman v. Melissa Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance; Warman v. Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance; Canadian Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations v. BCWhitepride.com*) Sincerely yours, Paul Fromm Director * TRIBUNAL NUMBER: T1360/9008 * *CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: HARRY ABRAMS and the LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA COMPLAINANTS and ARTHUR TOPHAM and the **RADICALPRESS.COM* <http://radicalpress.com/>* <** http://RADICALPRESS.COM* <http://radicalpress.com/>*> RESPONDENTS * *Affidavit of Paul Fromm * I, Paul Fromm, of the City of Mississauga, in the Province of Ontario, hereby affirm and say that: 2. I am the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. the applicant herein. 3. The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. is applying for "interested party status" in the matter of the complaint against Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com for posting material, which, it is alleged, "is likely to expose individuals to hatred or contempt" on the basis of race, religion, and national origin contrary to Sec. 13.1 of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*. 4. The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. is a non-profit educational organisation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. It is dedicated to promoting and maximizing the *Charter*guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. 5.The Canadian Association for Free Expression publishes a regular newsletter, the *Free Speech Monitor*, that explores threats to freedom of speech in Canada. CAFE holds frequent meetings on free speech issues across Canada. CAFE makes representations to legislative bodies on matters relating to freedom of speech. 6. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervenor or "interested party" status before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal inquiring into the Internet case against Ernst Zundel. This was a Sec. 13.1 complaint and involved over 50 days of hearings. CAFE participated actively and led five days worth of evidence, involving seven witnesses. 7. CAFE also participated in a number of applications for judicial review of decisions involving this hearing. 8. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervenor status in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a challenge to the constitutionality of Sec. 7(1)(b) of the *B.C. Human Rights Code* in the Berscheid case. 9. As well, in the Autumn of 2000, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervenor status in a constitutional challenge to the same section of the code in the Doug Collins/*North Shore News *case. CAFE was granted the right to cross-examine witnesses, make submissions and introduce evidence. This complaint also raised and relied on the controversial and much disputed Sec. 7(1)(a)(b). 10. In addition, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervenor status in a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing in a complaint against the Town of Oliver and Mayor Linda Larson following their refusal to proclaim Gay Pride Week. 11. In the matter before this tribunal, the Canadian Association for Free Expression intends to support the respondent on the grounds that the complaint interferes with his freedom of speech, a right enshrined in the *Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Furthermore, we can assist the Tribunal by tendering expert witnesses on the Internet. 12. CAFE seeks full participatory rights to make oral and written arguments, to present written evidence, to call witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses. 13. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Zundel case, in granting CAFE's motion for "interested party status", ruled: *"We find that the motion brought by Mr. Fromm, on behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, should be allowed. We are satisfied that. Mr. Fromm will bring a unique perspective to these proceedings and that his organization has demonstrated a credible interest in the significant issue before this tribunal. ... The focus of Mr. Fromm's organization is on the issue of free expression."* 14. In granting the Canadian Association for Free Expression "intervenor status" in the complaint against the town of Oliver, Tribunal member Nitya Iyer noted, February 16, 2000: *"The material brought before me shows it [CAFE] has a demonstrated interest in freedom of expression issues in the context of human rights legislation. I am prepared to accept that its participation may assist the Tribunal in its resolution of the constitutional issues raised in this complaint. I also note that the constitutional issue raised in this complaint has implications before the narrow facts of the present complaint. The interpretation of provisions of the code in light of the Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression is a matter of public interest."* 15. CAFE was also granted "interested party" status in the *Schnell vs.. Micka Canadian Human Rights* complaint (2001) also under Sec.. 13.1 and involving Mr.. Micka's Internet site. In this seven day hearing, CAFE actively cross-examined witnesses, led expert testimony and made submissions to the Tribunal. 16. CAFE sought and obtained "interested party" status in the *Richard Warman v Marc Lemire* case, with particular reference to Mr. Lemire's constitutional challenge 17. CAFE, as an "interested party", has appeared as an intervenor in more Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other entity in Canada. 18. I have extensive experience -- more than any other person -- as an agent in Sec. 13 cases (*Warman v. Glen Bahr and Western Canada for Us; Warman v. Terry Tremaine; Warman v. Jessica Beaumont; Warman v. Ciaan Donnelly; Warman v. Melissa Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance; Warman v. Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance; Canadian Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations v. BCWhitepride.com*). 19. As Sec. 13 jurisprudence develops and evolves some submissions repeatedly made by myself and CAFE seem to have been adopted by the Tribunal. Earlier tribunals ignored the fact that many passages complained of had long since been removed. However, in *Warman v. Jason Ouwendyk* *and the Northern Alliance*, the Member declined to impose any financial penalty noting: *"There is no evidence that the impugned conduct by the Respondents has continued to the present time. Instead it appears to have been discontinued well before the complaint... (para 57)* *In regard to the other remedies sought by Mr. Warman, I have decided not to grant any relief under these provisions." (para. 58) * 20.. I make this affidavit in support of CAFE's application for "interested party" status with rights to full participation in these hearings. ________________________________________________ *Fredrick Paul Fromm Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. * Affirmed before me this 10th day of June, 2009 at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario _____________________________ _______________________ * A Commissioner of oaths in and for the Province of Ontario * * TRIBUNAL NUMBER: T1360/9008* ** *CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL* *BETWEEN:* *HARRY ABRAMS * *and* * the LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA * * COMPLAINANTS * *and* *ARTHUR TOPHAM* *and* * the RADICALPRESS.COM <http://radicalpress.com/> <http://RADICALPRESS.COM<http://radicalpress.com/> > * * RESPONDENTS* *NOTICE OF MOTION * TAKE NOTICE THAT the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc. will make a motion to the Tribunal in writing. THE MOTION is for an order granting interested party status in the proceeding to the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc. with full rights of participation, including the right to call evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make final submissions to the Tribunal. *THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE*: The applicant in a non-profit organization, incorporated in 1981, under the laws of the Province of Ontario. The applicant's mandate is to work toward the maximum latitude of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of belief provisions of s. 2(b) of the *Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Founded in 1981, the applicant has published extensively material supportive of these goals, made representations to various levels of government and obtained interested party status in a number of human rights cases. This proceeding raises important issues regarding the core values of freedom of expression and conscience, and the application of section 13 to the Internet and indeed all private computer networks, including responsibility for messages not written by the respondent on a message board. It raises the issue of the responsibilities and duties of the complainant with respect to message board communications. The applicant brings a unique expertise experience to this proceeding having intervened in more Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other organization and, personally, having acted as an “agent” for more respondents in Sec. 13 cases than any other person in this country. THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion: the affidavit of Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. DATED this 10th day of June, 2009. ________________________________________ *Paul Fromm, Director * *Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc. * *P.O. Box 332, * *Rexdale, ON * *Tel: 905-274-3868 * *Fax: 905-278-2413*