Canadian Association for Free Expression

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 04 February 2013 19:43

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://ymlp271.net/zcvmDW -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Association for Free Expression Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820 ( tel:905-566-4820 ) Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech -- Pass Bill 304 Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member's Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was vague -- communicating views "likely to expose" designated or privileged groups to "hatred or contempt." No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. "Contempt" would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers wer a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher incidents of lung cancer would be "likely" to expose them to "contempt" is not hatred. Truth would not matter. Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to "shut down" through "maximum disruption" those with an ideology he opposed. Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a "representative" for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse BY process. The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead "hate" investigator was questioned during the Warman v. Marc Lemire Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: "None," he responded, "freedom of expression is an American idea." Oh, really? In our submission, the House of Commons was wise to repeal Sec. 13. We understand that it is now in the process of second reading in the Red Chamber. We urge that it receive speedy consent. It has now been eight months since it was passed in the House of Commons. There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 ("hate law") of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime "cease and desist" order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is "similar"? Although he tried to tome down his language, he was eventually found guilty of "contempt of court" for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal's order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months! Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society. The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. The was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights -- not allowed to talk to the foreign media -- for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag! In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada. We urge you to do likewise and pass this piece of legislation as expeditiously as possible. Respectfully submitted. Paul Fromm Director E-mail addresses of Canadian Senators [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], , , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]., [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp271.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgwmhgguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech -- Pass Bill 304

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 04 February 2013 19:31

*Canadian Association for Free Expression* *Box** 332**,* *Rexdale**, Ontario, M9W 5L3* *Ph: 905-56-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820* *Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director* ** *Memo to the Senate of Canada: Please Protect Internet Free Speech -- Pass Bill 304* Last June, the House of Commons passed a private Member's Bill, Bill C-304 which repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Sec. 13 had been a vague and much abused form of Internet censorship, making an offence out of views expressed over the Internet that were not criminal. Truth was not a defence. Intent was not a defence. The wording was vague -- communicating views "likely to expose" designated or privileged groups to "hatred or contempt." No harm had to be proven. In fact, it was not necessary to prove that anyone other than the complainant had ever even seen the post in question. "Contempt" would capture any negative criticism. For instance, if smokers wer a protected group, Internet comments stating smokers had bad breath and were damaging their skin and had higher incidents of lung cancer would be "likely" to expose them to "contempt" is not hatred. Truth would not matter. Until the Marc Lemire decision in 2009, Sec. 13 had a 100% conviction rate. That alone should have set off alarm bells. People are frequently charged with murder or robbery or fraud and acquitted. However, there were virtually no defences under Sec. 13. Worse, most of the prosecutions were driven by a chronic complainer with an admitted political agenda. This man worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission during some of the time he was filing complaints. He has now moved over to the Department of National Defence. He admitted in a talk to Anti-Racist Action, a Toronto group with a history of violence, that he was seeking to "shut down" through "maximum disruption" those with an ideology he opposed. Most of the victims of Sec. 13 complaints were poor and obscure people, unable to afford a lawyer. On behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, I acted as a "representative" for half a dozen of these people. I saw lives and reputations ruined. The long drawn-out proceedings were an abuse *BY *process. The investigators and prosecutors for the Canadian Human Rights Commission acted more like a political police than officials steeped in our tradition of fairness. When the lead "hate" investigator was questioned during the *Warman v. Marc Lemire* Tribunal, he was asked what weight he gave to freedom of expression when he was examining a website: "None," he responded, "freedom of expression is an American idea." Oh, really? In our submission, the House of Commons was wise to repeal Sec. 13. We understand that it is now in the process of second reading in the Red Chamber. We urge that it receive speedy consent. It has now been eight months since it was passed in the House of Commons. There is an urgency here. Canadians continue to suffer. Terry Tremaine, a former lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan, was charged under Sec. 13 and found guilty. He was then charged for much of the same material under Sec. 319 ("hate law") of the Criminal Code. Last fall, a Regina judge dismissed the case. However, Mr. Tremaine had been hit with a lifetime "cease and desist" order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal forbidding him from posting the same or similar comments to the ones at issue at the Tribunal. But what is "similar"? Although he tried to tome down his language, he was eventually found guilty of "contempt of court" for not removing the original posts, although the Tribunal's order, as worded, had not required this. Subject to an appeal, he may soon head off to jail for up to six months! Jail for expressing non-violent opinions on a website in another country? Such repression and micro-managing of opinion are unacceptable in a free society. The Canadian press and many MPs rightly criticize restrictions on free speech in other countries. The case of Chinese architect, artist and dissident Wei Wei comes to mind. The was jailed briefly and then stripped of his political rights -- not allowed to talk to the foreign media -- for a year. Many Canadians rightly voiced their concern. Yet, Sec. 13 puts its victims under a lifetime gag! In passing Bill C-304, the House of Commons went a long way to securing Internet freedom in Canada. We urge you to do likewise and pass this piece of legislation as expeditiously as possible. Respectfully submitted. Paul Fromm Director [image: Photo: See story below.] <https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=138091463023769&set=a.102988609867388.7682.100004687473766&type=1&relevant_count=1> *E-mail addresses of Canadian Senators* [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], , , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]., [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], **

 

Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish -- Lemire has to fight on two

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 04 February 2013 06:26

*Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish -- * *Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts* <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e0q6Hljg1ak/UQipqzbmKYI/AAAAAAAABCc/ASWv11yNY2U/s1600/image001-719335.jpg> *Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals * *and against a lifetime gag order at the “Human Rights” Tribunal* In what has become more and more typical in Canada’s repressive thought control regime, the Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed the stay motion filed by Marc Lemire<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/12/chrc-gag-lemire-now-who-cares-whether.html>. The stay motion was seeking a short reprieve to allow the court to actually rule on Canada’s draconian shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act <http://www.stopsection13.com/>. To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you’re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you … but hey this is *CanaDUUH*. Sentence first, then we’ll see if the laws ok later. *The Ruling:* In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas<http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/images/Stratas%2520_%2520David%2520poss%2520front%25203229.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php%3Fsection%3Darticle%26articleid%3D1795&usg=__l89Vfi8QkzNTcFZrL5dYmZuJ80g=&h=500&w=>dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression. While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the *Charter of Rights of Freedom<http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/OurCountryOurParliament/html_booklet/canadian-charter-rights-and-freedoms-e.html> *’s enshrines freedom of expression as a “*fundamental right*”, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it<http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-2-b.html>. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as “ *freedom of speech is an American concept<http://ezralevant.com/2008/09/chrc-legal-brief-steacy-was-ri.html> *”. As crazy as that is, that’s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka. The Justice found that “*the appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal*” Gee, even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS<http://canlii.ca/t/1fsp1>* a violation of our freedom of expression. How hard is it to really believe that if the “Human Rights” Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won’t cause “irreparable harm”. And this is not just a hypothetical … the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Every_Decision_on_Sec_13_cases-past_and_active.pdf>, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders / speech bans<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Every_Decision_on_Sec_13_cases-past_and_active.pdf> . The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre. The “Justice” that writes that “*…there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in…*” Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate? This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for “Pre-Crimes<http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4124876#Int-2877789>” before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada… where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it? *“Under section 13, citizens are subject to lifetime speech bans--not in the Soviet Union, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Canada. Section 13 prosecutes not crimes but pre-crimes, crimes that have not yet taken place. The phrase “pre-crime”, by the way, comes from a dystopian science fiction story written by Philip K. Dick in 1956. Half a century later, in one of the oldest, most stable democratic societies on the planet, we're living it…”* Mark Steyn Testimony before Parliament<http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4124876#Int-2877789> Oct 5, 2009 Even if we were to follow the Judges “logic”, what exactly would/could Marc Lemire have even put in an affidavit about his future thoughts? It may take up to six months for a ruling on if the law is even legitimate, how does anyone know exactly what they are going to say, weeks or months in advance? Unlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future. The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/03/section-13-vague-prohibition-is-all.html>and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might “expose” someone to “hatred” and/or “contempt”. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future. <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fBFN8iAPltE/UQipsKNd2ZI/AAAAAAAABDE/NV9I3glmNK8/s1600/image003-724858.gif> *Two-Front - Maximum Disruption Campaign* After nine years of fighting Marc Lemire <http://www.freedomsite.org/legal>, the CHRC must have realized that he is not going to give up very easily. So they took a page out serial Section 13 complainers handbook; Richard Warman’s “*Maximum Disruption*”<http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=705&lg=_e&isruling=0#1004440>. The basic strategy of “*Maximum Disruption<http://www.steynonline.com/images/stories/warman%20maximum%20disruption.pdf> *” is to hit your enemies on as many fronts as possible, and that’s exactly what the CHRC has done. Marc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals<http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html>where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional. And at the same time, in front of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!) The CHRC is hoping that Lemire’s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases. *This is why we desperately need your help.* *<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tfDDiOTDLNg/UQipsnPe6II/AAAAAAAABDU/lHIHBGNcKmM/s1600/image004-726823.jpg> * *Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought* All of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved<http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2009/01/catholic-insight-repeal-section-13-of.html>, reformed or tinkered with. The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it. The end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: *to Silence Thought*. That’s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them <http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html>, they keep spending and spending. After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial “politically incorrect” opinions on the internet? It’s just easier to self-censor yourself<http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=d7b2b0d2-dd29-411a-bebb-f9971a62721f>, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment. And that’s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced. The censors undertake ‘impact prosecutions <http://www.freedomsite.org/legal>’ and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary. *“Now what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone's right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows? All in all it's much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers.”* John Robson | Ottawa Citizen *“Self-censorship? Me? Absolutely!<http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=d7b2b0d2-dd29-411a-bebb-f9971a62721f> ”* Dec 14, 2007 Take a look at the Marc Lemire case. This is the 9th year of fighting the censors … all because he posted a *SINGLE* document on his website, that he didn’t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States. As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/09/statement-by-marc-lemire-on-tribunals.html>, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again. That made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the “Human Rights” Commission – *in their parting “F*ck You” to freedom* – continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire.