Terry Tremaine’s Contempt of Court Case May Be Headed to the Supreme Court

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 06 March 2012 05:11

*Terry Tremaine’s Contempt of Court Case May Be Headed to the Supreme Court* After two false starts, the *Canadian Human Rights Commission*, egged on by the relentless *Richard Warman*, finally got its contempt of court case into *Federal Court* in November of 2010. There Judge Harrington ruled that, as Mr. Tremaine had not been served with notice of the *Federal Court*order (enforcing the *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal*’s “cease and desist order” (issued in February, 2007) until the summer of 2009, he could not be held in contempt of court for postings in 2007! The chagrined *Canadian Human Rights Commission *appealed to the *Federal Court of Appeal*. The appeal was heard September 19, 2011. The *Federal Court of Appeal* decision, handed down October 26, 2011, noted: “While the respondent had knowledge of the Tribunal’s February 2, 2007 order, he did not have knowledge that the order had been registered with the *Court* until at least March 2009 – when a copy of the certificate was included in the show cause materials. As such, he could not be found guilty of contempt with respect to material posted on the *Internet* before that date As to the material which Mr. Tremaine allowed to remain on the *Internet*after March 2009, the *Federal Court Judge* accepted the respondent’s argument that the order did not make it sufficiently clear that he was to remove this material. In his view, the reference to “material of the type” in the *Tribunal’s* order refers to material that is distinct and separate from the material which was actually found by the *Tribunal* to violate subsection 13(1). Having so found, the *Federal Court Judge* dismissed the application brought by the Commission seeking to have Mr. Tremaine found guilty of contempt.” The *Federal Court of Appeal* issued a split decision. The majority, *Judge Marc Noel* and *Eleanor Dawson* upheld the appeal. “I would allow the appeal,” wrote Judge Noel, “set aside the decision of the *Federal Court Judge* and giving the judgment which he ought to have given, I would find Mr. Tremaine in contempt of the order of the Tribunal for having communicated through the *Internet* prohibited material after February 2, 2007, and would remit the matter to the *Federal Court Judge* for sentencing, the whole with costs in favour of the Commission throughout.” However, *Judge Denis Pelletier* wrote a strong dissent. *Douglas H. Christie*, Mr. Tremaine’s lawyer, is seeking leave to appeal to the *Supreme Court*, leave, we are advised, which is usually given when there is a dissent. Judge Pelletier argued: “In my view, before a person can be found to be in contempt of court as a result of disobeying a tribunal order, that person must have notice that the tribunal order was filed in the *Federal Court*so that they aware that they are disobeying what is now a court order. As I understand my colleague’s reasons, his position is that notice of filing of the tribunal order in the *Federal Court* is not necessary to support a finding of contempt of court. It is enough that the person knowingly and wilfully disobeys a tribunal order. While the filing of the order in Federal Court is a necessary step in the enforcement of the order so as to seize the court with jurisdiction over the matter, notice that the order has been filed is not necessary condition for a finding of contempt of court since it is knowledge of the tribunal order which is material. The difference which underlies our two positions is the nature of the order being enforced. In my view, upon filing with the *Federal Court*, a tribunal order becomes a court order for the purposes of enforcement. My colleague’s position, as I understand it, is that the tribunal order remains a tribunal order, and only a tribunal order, even after it has been filed in the *Federal Court*. Nevertheless, a person who wilfully disobeys a tribunal order is liable to be found in contempt of court. For reasons which I will set out below, I am unable to agree with this position. …As a result, I find that the order which the Commission seeks to enforce against Mr. Tremaine is, as of the date of its filing in the *Federal Court*, an order of the *Federal Court*. …It follows from this that, in the case of Mr. Tremaine, acts committed, or a state of affairs which was allowed to continue, prior to his knowledge that the order of the *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal* had been filed in *Federal Court* cannot support a finding of contempt of Court. The *Federal Court* judge found that Mr. Tremaine was first made aware that the *Tribunal’s* decision had been filed in the *Federal Court* in March 2009. The *Federal Court* judge found that since the postings which formed the basis of the show cause summons were posted prior to that time, Mr. Tremaine could not be found in contempt of court.” Judge Pelletier also endorsed *Terry Tremaine’s* contention that the *Canadian Human Rights Tribunal* order was vague. It is only subsequently that *CHRC*lawyer *Daniel Poulin* has insisted that it meant *Terry Tremaine* must remove *all * his *STORMFRONT* postings under the name *Mathdoktor99* and remove, as well, his website *http://nspcanada.nfshost.com*., which also contains a lot of mainstream and innocuous items. The clear goal of the *CHRC* is to silence *Terry Tremaine*, not just to have him not post any more passages similar to the postings deemed to expose privileged groups to hatred or contempt. Judge Pelletier observed: “The *Federal Court* judge also found that the order was not sufficiently clear to require Mr. Tremaine to remove from the *Internet* the material which had been found by the *Tribunal* to offend *Section 13* of the *CHRA*.” Mr. Tremaine’s defence is that the *Tribunal* order did not require him to remove, or take down from the *Internet* the material which the *Tribunal* found was in contravention of the *CHRA*. As for the subsequent postings, Mr. Tremaine relies on the fact that they were made before the Tribunal order was filed in the *Federal Court*. In my view, the order made here does not contain a clear and unambiguous requirement that Mr. Tremaine remove from the *Internet* the material which the *Tribunal*found to be in violation of *s. 13* of the *CHRA*. In its material parts, the order reads: ‘*Terry Tremaine* …cease the discriminatory practice of communicating material of the type that was found to violate *Section 13(1*) in the present case.’ As the *Federal Cour*t judge pointed out, “material of the type” is not the original material. … ‘It would have been easy enough for the *Tribunal *to order Mr. Tremaine to take down the website which he controlled and to cause to be removed from the *Stormfront* website the offensive material which he had posted there and to stipulate a date by which these things must be done. It did not do so. … I note that no date was specified by which the order was to be complied with. This is consistent with the view that the order dealt with prospective conduct only. As a result, I would dismiss the appeal with costs to Mr. Tremaine.” Despite the fact this case is likely headed to the Supreme Court, the *Canadian Human Rights Commission* is still pressing for a sentencing hearing. “The Commission wants to move forward with sentencing,” Mr. Tremaine told the *Free Speech Monitor*. [Sentence him first and hold the trial later in good *George Orwell* style.] No date has been set for this and *Douglas Christie* is strongly resisting any such legal end-run.

 

Majoring in the Minors: Two Peel Cops Assigned to Track Who Wrote "Nigger" on No Tres

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 05 March 2012 06:34

Majoring in the Minors: Two Peel Cops Assigned to Track Who Wrote "Nigger" on No Trespassing Sign Politically correct policing makes one shake one's head. Apparently, two policemen have been assigned to investigate who used a magic marker to insert the word "nigger" on a "Private Property No Trespassing" sign in Mississauga. "Insp. Steve Dolan, officer-in-charge of the 11 Division Criminal Investigation Bureau, has assigned two officers to the case in hopes of arresting those responsible for writing, in what appears to be black marker, the derogatory term on the Balsam Ave. sign, located near the train tracks.'These types of offences are treated as a high priority within our division.'" (*Mississauga News*, February, 21, 2012) I suffered an incident of theft in 2005 and found Peel Police just too busy to folllow leads I provided in theft of more than $1,200. Likely, they'd be more comfortable acting as grafitti monitors. In its news report of the Case of the Black Magic Marker, the prissy *Mississauga News* couldn't even bring itself to quote the single word that brought two of Peel's sleuths running to investigate what Const. Fiona Thivierge says is usually "classified as hate crime . A resident, one Kezia Mullings, presumably black, told the *Mississauga *News: ""This is something that is definitely staying with me for the rest of my life ... so I had to let it be known that I do not stand for racism." Peel region is rife with youth gangs and drugs but it seems that Peel's political police would rather concern themselves with an act, at worst, of petty vandalism,. Political correctness is a form of madness that scrambles the brain and impairs the judgement of those who are its slaves. Police launch probe into hate crime *Investigation ordered.* Insp. Steve Dolan, officer-in-charge of the 11 Division Criminal Investigation Bureau, has ordered an investigation into racist graffiti on a sign in Clarkson. Racist graffiti left on a "No Trespassing" sign in Clarkson over the weekend is the work of an "anonymous coward," says a high-ranking Peel Regional Police officer who has ordered an investigation into the matter. Insp. Steve Dolan, officer-in-charge of the 11 Division Criminal Investigation Bureau, has assigned two officers to the case in hopes of arresting those responsible for writing, in what appears to be black marker, the derogatory term on the Balsam Ave. sign, located near the train tracks. "These types of offences are treated as a high priority within our division. This type of crime is best described as a form of bullying perpetrated by anonymous cowards upon the surrounding community where the graffiti is viewed," Dolan said. The vandal or vandals targeted a “Private Property No Trespassing” sign, inserting the so-called "N-word" after "No." Several Clarkson residents have called *The News* to express concern. "This is something that is definitely staying with me for the rest of my life ... so I had to let it be known that I do not stand for racism," said Kezia Mullings, who noticed the vandalized sign on her way home from church on Sunday. "Mississauga is my home, but I never thought I would witness something like this in 2012." Cst. Fiona Thivierge said Peel police don't tolerate these types of crimes. "These incidents are classified as hate crime and cause concern for the community," she said. Anyone with information is asked to call police at 905-453-2121, ext. 1133. (*Mississauga News*, February 21, 2012)

 

The Mark Weber Report: Progress In The Battle For Free Speech in Canada

Written by Paul Fromm

Sunday, 04 March 2012 04:42

The Mark Weber Report: Progress In The Battle For Free Speech in Canada<http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120222/the-mark-weber-report-progress-in-the-battle-for-free-speech-in-canada> February 22, 2012 [image: Censorship]<http://reasonradionetwork.com/images/2012/02/Censorship.jpg> Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, joins the IHR director in this look at the battle for free speech in Canada, a struggle with important implications for the US and the western world. Recorded during a speaking tour of three cities in western Canada. The two discuss the Ernst Zundel “Holocaust trials, “Human Rights Commission” hearings, efforts of major Jewish-Zionist groups to suppress freedom, and more, as well as encouraging news in the continuing struggle for free expression on the internet. http://reasonradionetwork.com/category/programs/the-mark-weber-report