Emergency Appeal

Help us make history.
 
                That's the opportunity and the challenge ahead of us. Marc Lemire, who two days ago celebrated his 32nd birthday, is an Internet veteran. He started Canada's first political bulletin board The Freedomsite, in 1996. For a decade, it has been the repository of some of the best dissident writings on hot topics like freedom of speech, immigration, and holocaust scepticism.

                  In 2003, he came under attack by Richard Warman, Ottawa's arch-censor and filer of more than 20 Sec. 13.1 complaints against  dissident views on the Internet. We have just completed two weeks of hearings into this complaint before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal with Quebec lawyer Athanasios Hadjis the Member or judge. Warman's complaint would seem to be in retaliation for material critical of his onslaught on freedom. As the Freedomsite began carrying critical commentary -- most of it mine -- in September, 2003 about Warman's rampage, those of us who were critics came under attack. Marc Lemire was subject of a complaint. So, too were Melissa Guille and the Canadian Heritage Alliance, a website critical of Warman. CAFE and I were sued by Warman for libel. Other dissidents allied with us also faced legal action by Warman.
 
                You wouldn't believe the research that has gone into this case. Our legal team has been meeting monthly for well over 18 months. The research of many people including the painstaking study of Freedomsite computer logs -- 100s of pages -- has proved a gold mine.

              The defence is alleging and, through expert witness Bernard Klatt,  is seeking to prove that Mr. Anti-racism, Richard Warman posted a scabrous slur against a prominent non-White Canadian leader. The exact details must remain confidential a bit longer.

                Warman had been trolling a number of dissident sites like VNN (Vanguard Network News) and Stormfront. He adopted phoney persona and posted racist comments that he himself had to admit were "problematic". "Why?" Marc's incredibly dedicated lawyer Barbara Kulaszka asked him. You can access these sites to spy on Canadians as a mere visitor. Warman admitted that he identified most of his victims from information they themselves freely provided. Why then adopt these persona and write fiery posts, one of which strongly supported some fringe Nazi leader is the U.S. who was the subject of criticism by other activists for embarrassing the movement by parading around in a Hollywood issue Nazi uniform. Was Warman, in fact, trying to lure young and impressionable folks into making comments that he could then complain about, she suggested.
 
                Warman's credibility has never been put under such scrutiny. Even more, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has accepted all his complaints, but rejected at least four made by so-called right-wingers, has known of his devious and questionable  Internet activities and apparently condoned them.
 
                Marc is not only fighting the complaint, but has launched a Constitutional challenge against Sec. 13.1 itself. We seek to get this evil law declared unconstitutional.
 
                Intervening to assist Marc is the Canadian Association for Free Expression  and Doug Christie's Free Speech League. Mr. Christie, one  of this country's most capable cross-examiners, will be challenging Karen Mock, formerly of B'nai Brith, one of the government's two expert witnesses  

                Each day in the hearings, I thrill with the honour of being part of an effort to make and change history -- to reverse one of the choking pieces of politically correct censorship that has been part of the sorry legacy of the last 35 years of steady retreat from free speech in Canada. The camaraderie and dedication  of the dozen or so people who show up every day -- some having driven for an hour and a half -- demonstrates how seriously freedom lovers take this state and minority attack on their rights.
 
                Of course, we're totally out-financed. Arrayed against us is the might of the Government of Canada: Giacomo Vigna, the Commission's lawyer; Richard Warman, when he chooses to show up; and Simon Fothergill, representing the Attorney General of Canada. Also intervening against us are the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Weisenthal Centre. They're worried that this time, the "little man", woefully underfinanced and under-resourced may just take down this abomination of censorship.
 
                With virtually no resources, we are leading three expert witnesses  

                We are already leading evidence of the impact of Sec. 13.1 In its sorry history, all its victims have been White and dissidents on the right of the political spectrum (immigration critics, historical revisionists, those with racial-religious views [Christian Identity],  economic reformers and de-taxers). All but two have been poor. Most have been young. Only three have even been represented by counsel. In contrast, complaints against "anti-racist" sites for racist postings, against the media and the police for racist postings have been rejected by the Commission and not sent to a Tribunal for a hearing . Amazingly, the complainants themselves  have been subject to an investigation.
 
                Oh, yes, and no victim has ever won a Sec. 13.1 case. Alleged rapists, murderers and robbers are frequently found not guilty. Not political; dissidents, never! This is a law that must go.
 
                Two of our experts, but especially Prof Michael. Persinger of Laurentian University, voted one of Ontario's top 10 university lecturers,  will attack the sociological underpinnings of Sec. 13.1 In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a much milder version of Sec. 13.1 -- aimed then only at telephone answering machines and without the huge fines Tribunals can now impose. The acceptance of this state censorship, where truth is no defence, is pure Frankfurt School cultural Marxism -- a sad story of minority suffering that justified gagging dissent. The problem is that this sociology is flawed and bogus. It had little intellectual credibility in 1966 (Cohen Report), less in 1990 and even less today. That will be one of our major arguments.
 
                Here's some of the scary arguments by which the Supreme Court justified censorship in its Taylor decision of 1990. This is the decision that we're going to blow out of the water.

                  "Parliament's concern that the dissemination of hate propaganda is antithetical to the general aim of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not misplaced. The serious harm caused by messages of hatred was identified by the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, commonly known as the Cohen Committee, in 1966. The Cohen Committee noted that individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological distress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct. This intensely painful reaction undoubtedly detracts from an individual's ability to, in the words of s. 2 of the Act, 'make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have'. As well, the Committee observed that hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners, even if subtlely, that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior. The result may be an increase in acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence.
 
                Since the release of the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, numerous other study groups have echoed the Cohen Committee's conclusion that hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society. Affirmation of the Committee's findings may be found in the 1981 Report Arising Out of the Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia by John D. McAlpine, the 1984 report of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, entitled Equality Now!, the Canadian Bar Association's Report of the Special Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred, also released in 1984, and the 1986 Working Paper 50 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, entitled Hate Propaganda. It can thus be concluded that messages of hate propaganda undermine the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contribute to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality. In seeking to prevent the harms caused by hate propaganda, the objective behind s. 13(1) is obviously one of pressing and substantial importance sufficient to warrant some limitation of free speech."
 
                We need your help  

                We need money to pay the travel expenses of our expert witnesses. I've blown out one photocopier already making the 10 copies of every document that is necessary for this case.
 
                We need your help and we need it today. We need a minimum of $20,000 to see this case to the end of the Tribunal hearings -- two more weeks of hearings up to March 2 and, then, probably a few more days of summation.

                  Join us -- Marc Lemire, a brave young computer whiz with a young family, Barbara Kulaszka, Doug Christie and myself in making history and challenging an evil law.

 
                                                                                                                                                Paul Fromm

                                                                                                                                                Director

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__ Yes, I want to help CAFE make history and destroy the Internet censorship law... Here's my donation of _______ to assist CAFE's 2007 programme  of  meetings, court interventions and advertising to defend the victims of censorship.

__ Here is my  special commitment to  help Marc Lemire's Constitutional challenge  ________.

__ Please send me a "Hands of the Internet" tee-shirt. [Black on white]. Sizes:  S, M, L, XL, 2-XL. $20.00

__ Please send me a copy of In Defence of Freedom:  Marc Lemire vs. The Canadian "Human Rights" Enforcers -- book. $10.00

__  Here's my special donation to help  CAFE defend itself against the Warman libel suit.

__ Please renew my subscription for 2007 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______

to my VISA#_______________________________________________

Expiry date: __________

Signature:_______________ __________________________________
 

Name: ____________________________________________________

 

Address: _____________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

E-mail: ____________________________________________________

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3