The Black Man's Guilt

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 30 November 2012 00:10

Thursday, May 12, 2011 The Black Man's Guilt <http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AK4.jpg> *First published on The Occidental Observer: ** http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/the-black-man’s-guilt/*<http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/the-black-man%E2%80%99s-guilt/> In varying measures, modern Western education, films, and television programmes, not to mention Black activist organisations and academics, burden White folk with guilt for their ancestors’ alleged involvement with slavery. For obvious reasons, this is particularly the case in the United States. The accepted popular notion among far too many is that the White man enslaved the Black man; that *all* Whites did it or were and are still complicit; that *all* Whites grew rich off the scarred backs of African slaves; and that the descendants of White slave masters today have a moral responsibility to atone and compensate for their historical evils. When one looks more deeply into the matter, however, one finds that the opposite is the case. Perhaps an extreme example is shown in the history of the French colony of Saint-Domingue, now known as Haiti, once considered the jewel of the Antilles, which until the revolutionary upheavals that led to its independence in 1804 was the most prosperous European colony in the New World. There is no denying that the economy of Saint-Domingue was founded on slavery: at its peak, its huge plantations, once capable of producing millions upon millions of tonnes of sugar, cotton, and indigo, relied on close to half a million slaves, who laboured for some 30,000 white planters. There is no denying either that, given this vast demographic disproportion, the society of Saint-Domingue, like all societies where there were slaves, was founded on, and indeed necessitated, fear, lest the all-powerful ruling ethnic group lose its authority over its chattels; and that such conditions allowed ignorant and cruel masters in Saint-Domingue to commit abuses, which for the above reason were not adequately censured, despite successive legislation introduced by the home government in France in an effort to deter the worst excess, ensure a minimum of care, and regulate a masters’ behaviour towards his slaves. (See Lothrop Stoddard. *The French Revolution in San Domingo<http://shop.wermodandwermod.com/index.php/books/history/the-french-revolution-in-san-domingo.html> *; Shamley Green: The Palingenesis Project, 2011). *Advertisement* ------------------------------ [image: Greg Johnson - Confessions of a Reluctant Hater]<http://www.swarmstrategies.com/ads/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=27__zoneid=2__cb=1f172bb611__oadest=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.wermodandwermod.com%2Findex.php%2Fconfessions-of-a-reluctant-hater.html%3Fref%3D3> ------------------------------ Yet it must not be forgotten that it was the Whites who also created the conditions for, and indeed legislated and enforced, emancipation; that it was the Whites who decreed that all men are equal under law; that it was the Whites who turned against themselves in the effort to create an egalitarian society and abolish the evil practice of slavery; and that, had it not been for the revolutionary activism of White idealists in Europe, it is quite possible that the Black slaves of Saint-Domingue would have remained slaves. Conditions in the island may have provided fertile soil, but the uprisings of the Blacks and of mulattoes after 1789 were ultimately the result of European, Jacobin propaganda. <http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AK1.jpg> And it must not be forgotten either, that once the Blacks attained independence from their former White masters, they immediately enslaved each other again, and in a much harsher and brutal manner than the Whites had ever done. This was the case even with the mildest and most able of the revolutionary leaders, Toussaint Louverture, who, as a free man of colour in pre-revolutionary Saint-Domingue, already used about a dozen slaves to work a rented farm. This was certainly the case with Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the monster who ordered the extermination of all the remaining Whites in the island after independence, before proclaiming himself ‘Emperor’ of Haiti. And this was also the case with another founding father of the Black republic, Henri Christophe (the self-styled ‘Emperor Henri I’), builder of the Citadel, or fortified castle in the Haitian mountains. Hesketh-Prichard in *Where Black Rules White* (1900) tells the story of how this terrible monument to his pharaoh-like vanity was built: Neither sex nor age was spared; the royal works had to be carried on in spite of exhaustion or death. Whips of cowskin, mercilessly applied by the officers in command, drew forth almost incredible reserves of energy. The mortality was frightful, but Christophe had the whole of the populous north to draw upon, and he used up human lives unsparingly. It took a whole regiment a whole day to drag up a 32-pounder. On another occasion the Emperor watched a long line of a hundred men hauling a cannon upwards to its mountain resting-place. Now and then they paused in their labour, and these frequent stoppages annoyed Christophe; he sent to ask the why and wherefore. The labourers returned for answer that the gun was over much for the strength of a hundred men, and prayed that another hundred men might be provided to help them. Christophe ordered them before him and talked softly with them, and at length told them to fall in and number off. He then directed every fourth man to fall out, and, calling up his guards, had them shot. When it was over, he informed the remaining seventy-five that he was but half-way through his lunch, and he would consider it a favour if they would run the gun up into place before he had finished. The diminished band went back to work, but by the time Christophe’s meal was over the cannon had made but little progress up the mountain side. When he arrived on the scene the seventy-five bore witness with one voice that the thing he required was, for so small a number, impossible. Christophe laughed. “So it seems,” he said, “but I have a remedy. Fall in.” They fell in, and numbered off as before. “Every third man fall out. Guards, shoot these men.” The volley had scarcely died away and the last limb ceased to quiver, when Christophe gave his ultimatum. “Now,” he said to the frightened residue, “I will require every second man to fall out next time. The gun was too heavy for a hundred men, surely fifty will find it light.” The reason for this is simple: *slavery was an anomaly for Whites, but not so for Blacks.* In* The French Revolution in San Domingo<http://shop.wermodandwermod.com/index.php/books/history/the-french-revolution-in-san-domingo.html> **, Lothrop Stoddard <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard>* shows quite conclusively that a White society founded on a slave economy was profoundly dysfunctional. At the same time, history shows that slavery was an ancient and very common practice in Africa, particularly West Africa, the source of all the Blacks in Saint-Domingue up until the last few years before the Revolution. <http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AK5.jpg>In many African societies, including Ghana, Mali, Segou, Songhai, Senegambia, the Ashanti, the Yoruba, the Kanem, about a third of the population were slaves. The proportion rose to half among the Duala of the Cameron, the Igbo, the Kongo, the Kasanje kingdom, and the Chokwe of Angola, as well as in Sierra Leone; and was even higher in places like Zanzibar. In West Africa in the XVIIIth century, at the peak of the slave trade, slaves were captured in raiding expeditions into the interior of the region; the raids were always carried out by African kingdoms against weaker ethnic groups, tribes, and peoples. Among the former were the Yoruba, the Kong Empire, the Kingdoms of Benin, of Fouta Djallon, of Fouta Tooro, of Koya, of Khasso, of Kaabu, and of Dahomey (see *here<http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/slav/hd_slav.htm> *, *here <http://www.histoire-afrique.org/article76.html?artsuite=5>*, *here<http://www.finalcall.com/national/slave_trade10-08-2002.htm> *, and *here <http://www.afbis.com/analysis/slave.htm>*), whose religion, vodoun, later formed the basis for Haïtian Vaudoux. Europeans seldom ventured into the interior of Africa for fear of disease and native resistance. Indeed, missionary explorer David Livingstone, travelling in the 1850s, was one of the first Westerners to explore the interior of central and Southern Africa, and to cross it from Angola to Mozambique, something the Portuguese had attempted repeatedly without success. The motivation for bringing slaves into the New World was economic: plantations were labour-intensive, and both the tropical climate and the hard life made it difficult to attract European labourers. Those who made the Atlantic crossing to places like Saint-Domingue soon became planters themselves, while the Indian population, ill treated by the earliest European colonists, was in rapid decline. Apparently, indentureships failed to satisfy demand. Slaves in Africa came from two main sources. One half came from military conquests by African kingdoms of other<http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AK6.jpg>states or tribes; the other half came from within the enslaving societies themselves—criminals, psychopaths, heretics, the indebted, and those who had fallen out of favour with the rulers. The Khasso and Dahomey kingdoms and the Bambara Empire were heavily dependent on slavery for their economy; the Kingdom of Dahomey (now known as Benin) grew rich on the profits from the sale of slaves to Europeans. Furthermore, a family’s status being a function of the number slaves it owned, wars were launched for the sole purpose of taking captives. War was already endemic in Africa before the time of the transatlantic slave trade, but the economically driven pursuit of slaves subsequently *added impetus<http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KR0oRd5GMGkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fage,+J.D.+A+History+of+Africa&hl=en&ei=cyHITdrHLsea8QPslqn2Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false> * to the violence. So ingrained was slavery in West African society that King Gezo of Dahomey was*moved to say<http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml> * in the 1840s: ‘The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and glory of their wealth . . . the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery . . .’ And when the British parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807, the king of Bonny (in modern Nigeria) was moved to *exclaim<http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml> *, horrified: ‘We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.’ Many of the slaves sold in markets along the West coast of Africa to the Atlantic slave trade were war captives. African kings sold their captives to European slave traders for goods such as cookware, rum, livestock, and seed grain. It is common among those who favour environmentalist explanations of human behaviour to attribute social dysfunction to poverty, stemming, in the case of coloured citizens, from historical injustices resulting from the transatlantic slave trade. And there is in all likelihood some truth to this. Yet at best it is not a total explanation, and at worst it is willfully disingenuous, for it takes into account only the circumstances in the West after the Black man’s arrival, but not those in Africa prior to the advent of the Black man in the West. Considered against the latter, as defined by the nature and character of pre-colonial African societies, the post-independent decline in Haiti’s fortunes, and that of other former European colonies in West Africa, is not at all surprising. It is, in fact, to be expected as the process of returning to normality, however abnormal this normality may look to our Western eyes. The accounts of Christian explorers who ventured into Africa during the XIXth century, including H. F. Flynn, *David Livingstone<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Livingstone>, Francis Galton <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton>, Paul Belloni du Chaillu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Chaillu>, Samuel White Baker<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Baker>, and Georg August Schweinfurth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurth>*, provide impressions with which we can evaluate the original societies of the slaves in Saint-Domingue—societies of the African interior uninfluenced by Arab culture. The work of these explorers, trusted for their accuracy and reliability in reporting, was summarised by John Baker in his book *Race *, in 1974. J. Philippe Rushton reviews Baker’s work in *Race, Evolution, and Behavior<http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf> *: As J. R. Baker . . . describes it, the impression gained is of a poor level of civilization, including naked or near naked appearance, sometimes broken by an amulet or ornament rather than a covering of the genital area; self-mutilation as in filing down the teeth and piercing the ears and lips to admit large ornaments; <http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AK71.gif>poorly developed toilet and sanitary habits; one-story dwellings of simple construction; villages rarely reaching 6 or 7 thousand inhabitants or being interconnected by roadways; no invention of the wheel for pottery or grinding corn or vehicular transport; no written script or recording of historical events; no use of money; no invention of a numbering system, or of a calendar. Some explorers were struck by the absence of administration or code of law. Examples were told of chiefs despotically killing at will for minor breaches of etiquette or even for pleasure . . . . When witchcraft was suspected, hundreds might be slaughtered often with grotesque forms of execution. When slavery was practiced, slave owners were at liberty to kill their slaves. In some cases cannibalism was practiced. Nowhere did there appear to exist any formal religion with sanctified traditions, beliefs about the origin of the word, or ethical codes with sentiments of mercy. The explorers found Africans to be of low intelligence with few words to express abstract thoughts and little interest in intellectual matters. Speke wrote that the Negro thinks only for the moment and prefers to spend the day as lazily as possible. Livingstone wrote that the tribes lacked foresight, thinking it futile to plant date seeds in full knowledge that he would never see fruit . . . Whenever a bright individual did arise, as in one story told to Livingstone about a man who built an irrigation system in his garden to help cultivate potatoes, the idea typically died with its creator . . . The explorers tended to see the hybrid groups as being more intelligent and the darker more Negroid groups as less intelligent . . . However, some tribes were notably accomplished in pottery, iron forging, wood art, and musical instrumentation. <http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AK3.bmp> Accordingly, save in Senegal, the post-colonial history of West Africa, as of that Haiti in the XXth and XXIst centuries, is one of brutal and capricious dictators,*coup d’états*, violence, economic mismanagement, crumbling infrastructure, social unrest, and declining living standards. In Congo, slavery and cannibalism is still practiced, the eaters being the Bantu and the victims the pygmies, whose flesh is deemed to confer magical powers. If the decline has not been even more rapid in some places, it has been due to Western intervention in the form of aid, reconstruction, and financing from the IMF and the World Bank—although such intervention, far from fixing the underlying problem, has only delayed the necessary outcome (complete de-Westernisation) and meanwhile exacerbated the misery to ever-growing millions of people who would otherwise not exist. A balanced view of the history, therefore, indicates that Whites in the West can hardly be held responsible for the woes of Blacks today, either in the West or in Black-run societies. On the contrary, in all cases, Blacks have derived immense benefits from the White man. The latter provided a lucrative market for the Blacks that the stronger Blacks enslaved; furnished better living conditions for the slaves than they would have enjoyed in Africa; improved on those conditions by emancipating those slaves; gave them access to citizenship, jobs, and education; and even gave them advantages over and above the Whites themselves through policies like affirmative action and anti-racist legislation. This far exceeds any benefit that a tiny minority of Whites may have derived from slavery at one point in the distant past—especially if we factor in the economic burden that Blacks have imposed on Whites by virtue of increased violence and criminality, destruction of property, economic assistance, and restrictions to civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and assembly. If Black activists and academics are going to blame Whites for misery in Africa and a troubled existence in America, citing slavery and colonialism as the causes, and if they are going to demand restitution on that basis, then it is fair to judge Blacks according to culturally European criteria, for the rejection of slavery on moral grounds is a European idea, product of a European worldview and sensibility, which they—even if insincerely and for self-serving tactical reasons—have chosen to adopt. After all, Blacks in the Americas have not opted to return to Africa, and either by migrating to the West or by demanding aid and access to Western markets Blacks in Africa have opted for a Western-style industrial society, not a return to pre-colonial conditions. (I would rather they did the later, but never mind.) From this perspective, then, I say it is Black activists and academics who ought to shoulder the burden of historical responsibility, for it is *their*ancestors who did the enslaving—and *their* ancestors who persisted even after having been slaves themselves. What is more, where Europeans conquered and enslaved in Africa, such as in Congo, they did no different than Africans had already been doing to each other since time immemorial. The only difference is that conquest was followed by infrastructure and development and, in sum, to the construction of an European-style society, which was later handed over to them, and the like of which Africans now do not want to do without. They owe us more than we owe them. Of course, this is not to say that the history of European colonialism is without stain: by relying on slaves, the colonial enterprise maximised short-term profits at the expense of the entire future of the White race; it created dysfunctional societies in all of the colonies; and through its efforts to redress inequities, and its failure to thoroughly dismantle the legacy of the colonial system, created the conditions for White racial extinction, both in the former colonies and in traditional White homelands. The latter also set an impossible standard for the Blacks who were left with the West’s futuristic and peculiar legacy. But if we are going to talk about responsibility for past evils, then restitution ought to be directed inwards, not outwards, from Whites to Whites and from Blacks to Blacks, and much more so in the case of the former than of the latter, for the damage was in all cases self-inflicted, and it was in any event the Whites who set themselves on course to extinction.

 

German Dissident Gunter Deckert Heads Back to Prison

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 30 November 2012 00:08

*German Dissident Gunter Deckert Heads Back to Prison* Ernst Zundel once referred to today's Germany as "the vassal state." It's industrious people make it the economic powerhouse and backbone of present day Europe. However, it is a basket case in terms of civil rights. As for freedom of speech, forget about it. Ernst Zundel served every day of a maximum five year sentence under an Orwellian law against "defaming the memory of the dead": a convoluted way of questioning the Hollywood version of World War II which makes Germans demonic villains. Gunter Deckert has gone to prison repeatedly for his inquiring mind. One prison sentence was imposed, not for his own ideas, but for translating at a meting what an English speaking lecturer had said. Mr. Deckert heads back to prison in January. His letter gives you more information and ways to show support. This fellow teacher who has even had his pension reduced as punishment is a brave man. He makes the telling comment: " I do not think that I will be given the “extras” (2/3 release) normal criminals are entitled (!) to ." How Soviet! Indeed,how like Canada, where a Brad Love was unable to obtain bail for writing non-threatening letters to public official about black crime, while real, violent black criminals have little trouble being released back on the streets. Any totalitarian system fears the thought criminal far more than the thug or the gunman or the dope dealer. Paul Fromm Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION Günter Deckert (0049 (0) 6201 – 61329) – [email protected] Pf. 100 245 (D) 69442 Weinheim/B., November 2012 ** ** ** ** Friends, Comrades and Fighters for the TRUTH in WW II History,**** ** ** The time has come! I must soon enter prison to serve my 5-month sentence although my constitutional objection has not yet been decided. - I am supposed to report for jail on January 2nd, 2013. The release date will be June 2nd as I do not think that I will be given the “extras” (2/3 release) normal criminals are entitled (!) to …**** ** ** My prison address: JVA-Zuchthaus**** Herzogenried-Str. 111**** (D) 68169 ****Mannheim******** Fax: 0049 – 621 – 398 280**** E-Mail: [email protected]**** ** ** When writing, PLEASE, do remember that my mail will be “checked”!!! Therefore, please, do not make any reference to the big “H” (Holo…./Shoa) in your letters. Anything else is all right: foreigner problems, asylum-seekers, immigrant criminality, history etc. – If you wish to send photocopies of articles or newspaper clippings, either paste the photocopy or the clipping to the letter or write on the photocopy “Günter / Herr Deckert – this might be of interest to you”. Thus, it is accepted as a letter. I am not allowed to receive loose clippings or flyers/leaflets.**** Please, do not send books, magazines, papers. I will not be handed them.**** ** ** I will attempt to answer letters as soon as I can. – I will also see for comrades to inform via e-mail if it is necessary so that you know what is going on.**** ** ** Contributions / donations can be made as follows: a) Cash may be sent by registered mail to Pf. 100 245 (G.D.), D 69442 Weinheim/B., b) wire transfers to Günter Deckert –IBAN: DE77 6601 0134 3457 54; BIC: PBNKDEFF; Postbank Karlsruhe; note down “Rechtskampf” –Please, indicate the exact sender. **** My wife will let me know, and she will acknowledge receipt by private letter or card. Do not mention the amount of money in the mail to me. The “system” should not be given supporter addresses this way.**** ** ** “What does NOT kill me, does make me stronger! – So, with this in mind, my best comradely greetings and loyalty to our kin and people.**** ** ** I wish everyone a very good year of 2013 full of success and the best health possible****

 

Marc Lemire Appeals outrageous ruling by the Federal Court on Section 13 censorship

Written by Paul Fromm

Thursday, 29 November 2012 03:11

*The Marc Lemire Internet Free Speech Case -- Part 3* *Marc Lemire Appeals outrageous ruling by the Federal Court on Section 13 censorship* ** ** *Judge makes multiple errors and fails to mention he was a key player at DoJ who passed legislation which applied Section 13 to the internet!* ** ** ** ** http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/marc-lemire-appeals-outrageous-ruling.html **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ****NOVEMBER 30, 2012: Cutting through the post-hurricane Sandy’s driving rain, Marc Lemire filed his landmark appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals, challenging the outrageous ruling of Mr. Justice Mosley.**** ** ** This appeal takes the question of the constitutionality of Section 13<http://www.stopsection13.com/>to the Court of Appeals and questions several aspects of the Federal Court Judge’s decision. This Appeal is a damning critique of censorship and thought control which lay at the feet of Section 13 of the *Canadian Human Rights Act* <http://www.stopsection13.com/> –Canada’s shameful and thoroughly discredited <http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html> internet censorship legislation.**** ** ** ** ** *Marc Lemire’s 8+ Year Legal Ordeal* ** ** For those trying to keep track of Marc Lemire’s eight-year legal ordeal, here is a brief rundown on what has happened. In 2003, serial plaintiff Richard Warman filed a Section 13 complaint<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal>against Marc Lemire for postings on a message board he ran, and 1 post on his website – The Freedomsite <http://www.freedomsite.org/>. Lemire removed the entire message board before receiving Warman’s complaint, and removed the single posting as soon as he received the complaint. (posting called “Aids Secrets” – written by an American). Since Lemire removed the material, that should have been the end of the case – Since the Canadian Human Rights Act is a completely remedial piece of legislation<http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2010/06/section-13-series-sword-not-shield.html>(IE: not meant to punish anyone) **** ** ** Well, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had different idea of what “remedial” means, and the CHRC went on a fishing expedition to try to find anything else to prosecute Lemire with. The CHRC found a few documents, and Warman submitted a website he claimed Lemire ran. When Warman submitted the website, he also asked the CHRC to hide this from Lemire– which the CHRC promptly did. In the interim, CHRC staffers signed up on message boards such as Stormfront,org and attempted to engage (entrap?!) Lemire in conversation, using an alias known as“Jadewarr”<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Sept8-07_CHRC_and_Police.html> .**** ** ** Notwithstanding the fact that Lemire remediated everything, the CHRC pushed on, and a Tribunal was setup to investigate Lemire and all the absurd claims being made against him. As part of his defence, Lemire questioned the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dec13-05_writeup-on-case.html> .**** ** ** After an over 30 day – multi-year proceeding, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal throw out almost the entire case against Lemire<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/09/statement-by-marc-lemire-on-tribunals.html>. Hundreds of postings, websites and other material was put forward by the CHRC. The Tribunal ruled against every single alleged “hate”message Lemire was accused of one, except for one. The Tribunal also found that Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was unconstitutional<http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0> .**** ** ** The censors were not happy with that, and in 2009 (yes three years ago!!) the CHRC appealed to the Federal Court of Canada<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/10/breaking-chrc-appeals-lemire-decision.html>seeking a judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.**** ** ** With the constitutionality of Section 13 in question, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal stopped all enforcement of Section 13<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/05/breaking-canadian-human-rights-tribunal.html>and put on hold the cases which were before it (Arthur Topham, Henry Makow, etc) until a final decision in the Lemire case. Also while waiting for the Federal Court to rule, the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-304<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/06/video-final-vote-on-bill-c-304-in.html>, which repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Ac<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/09/bill-c-304-act-to-amend-canadian-human.html>t. (Currently at Second reading in the Senate of Canada<http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5124394> )**** ** ** In early October, 2012, the Federal Court – after taking three years – finally ruled<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/10/breaking-federal-court-rules-in-lemire.html>. The court found that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act was just fine but the penalty provision of the law was unconstitutional. Therefore the Federal Court stuck down Section 54 of the Human Rights Act, but left Section 13 intact<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/10/ezra-levant-and-chris-schafer-discuss.html> .**** ** ** That’s where we are now. If I chose not to appeal, the other cases which were halted awaiting a final decision in my case would be activated, and the victims would have been dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and in some other cases, the Federal Court.**** ** ** ** ** *Federal Court Ruling by Mosley* ** ** The ruling by Liberal Appointee – Justice Richard Mosley is at times totally inept and at other times vicious and revolting. On the inept side, the Judge could not even get the correct date of the Tribunal’s decision. In his decision, he claimed the decision date was “September 9, 2009”, when in fact, the Tribunal ruled on September 2, 2009<http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0> .**** ** ** The Judge totally confuses the history of Section 13 and how the penalty provisions were adopted. And his confusion of the law was then used as reasons to justify Section 13 at a later point. *Unbelievable*!**** ** ** Mosley overturned finding of fact which the Tribunal made with respect to mediation. And he totally gets it’s all wrong<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/10/mediation-in-lemire-case-federal-court.html>, and comes to a wrong conclusion. He simply heard the submissions of one party, and refused to look at the entire history of all the mediation in this case. **** ** ** On the vicious side, Mosley looked at the historical amendments to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and found no issue with applying it to the internet. When it was first passed in the late 1970’s<http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html>, Section 13 only applied to the limited aspects of a telephone answering machine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf98773p8zw>. Then in 2001, under the guise of the “Anti-Terrorism Act”, Section 13 was applied to the entire internet and to interconnected computer networks.**** ** ** *And guess who was a key decision maker and “point man” for the “Anti-Terrorism Act”? The same Act, which we say has made Section 13 unconstitutional? The one and only; Justice Richard Mosley.* ** ** In 2001, Justice Richard Mosley was the associate deputy minister for criminal law at the Department of Justice. During his time as deputy minister, he was the “point man” for the“Anti-Terrorism Act”<http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070322_203100_5508>. Mosley defended the legislation multiple times, including at multiple press conferences <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2001/11/15/antiterror_011115.html>and even before Parliament<http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/sm36-e/01evb-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=90>. As Macleans reported<http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070322_203100_5508> “*Even so, speaking at a press briefing around the same time, Mosley didn't hesitate to dismiss<http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/11/15/antiterror_011115.html>concerns raised by reporters that the new law could violate civil liberties **.*”**** ** ** One of the main arguments against Section 13’s constitutionality is that is now applies to the most interactive and inclusive medium the world has ever known – the Internet. This is a key part of the Lemire Constitutional Challenge <http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/motions/20100215-FC_Factum.pdf>. And also expertly argued by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/federal_court/CCLA-Written_representations_of_CCLA.pdf>, the BC Civil Liberties Association<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/federal_court/20100225-BCCLA%20_complete.pdf>, and the Canadian Free Speech League<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/06/canadian-free-speech-league-file-to.html> .**** ** ** Is it really any wonder that Judge Mosley completely ignored all our submissions with his crappy one line answer: “*As found by the Tribunal at para 231 of the decision, the conclusion in Taylor on rational connection to the legislative objective still applies. I am of the same view.*” Afterall; the application of Section 13 to the Internet was part of *HIS*legislation. *HE*defended it to the media and in front of a Parliament sub-committee. And it was Mosley that so quickly dismissed concerns about civil liberties over the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act.**** ** ** Considering that Judge Mosley was a critical player and the“front man” for the 2001 amendments to Section 13 – *isn’t it fair to claim a reasonable apprehension of bias<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_apprehension_of_bias> *? And that Mosley should not sit in judgment over the very legislation that *HE* was so closely associated with, defended, justified and sold to Canadians?**** ** ** In Canada, justice must be transparent and be seen to be transparent. It is bloody ridiculous that a Judge would sit on his high horse, and BERATE MY LAWYER<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/12/canadian-human-rights-commission-are.html>, during the hearing, yet not say a word about how he was closely associated with part of the very law which we were challenging! Only in *Absurdistan<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdistan> *does this stuff happen!**** ** ** ** ** *Lemire Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals* ** ** **** ** ** ** ** THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court dated October 2, 2012 in which he allowed the application by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dated September 2, 2009 [2009 CHRT 26] in the matter of a complaint by Richard Warman against Marc Lemire under section 13 of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (“Canadian Human Rights Act”).**** ** ** THE APPELLANT ASKS that:**** ** ** **a)**The appeal is allowed and the decision of the Federal Court set aside; **** **b)**This Honourable Court declare that sections 13 and 54 (1) and (1.1) of the *Canadian Human* *Rights Act *are a violation of subsections 2 (b) of the *Canadian Charter of* *Rights and Freedoms *, are not saved by section 1 thereof, and as such, are of no force or effect pursuant to sections 24 (1) and 52(1) of the *Constitution Act,*1982; **** **c)**An order dismissing the complaint against the appellant by Richard Warman under s. 13 of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*;**** **d)**An order staying the judgment of Mr. Justice Mosley until the final determination of this appeal;**** **e)**An order for costs to the appellant of this appeal and below;**** **f)**Such further and other order as this Honourable Court may make.**** ** ** THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: **** **1.**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 Act*; **** **2.**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*;**** **3.**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 correct;**** **4.**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*;**** **5.**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*;**** **6.**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*;**** **7.**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;**** **8.**Mr. Justice Mosley erred in challenging and reversing findings of fact made by the Tribunal to which he owed deference;**** ** ** **9.**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;