Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”

Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/03/priest-hails-free-speech-warrior-doug.html

VICTORIA. March 15, 2013. “Today we are laying a saint to rest,” proclaimed Fr. Lucien Larre, who said the funeral Mass this foggy morning for Doug Christie, Canada’s foremost free speech lawyer.” He fought for what was right,” said Order of Canada winner and psychologist Fr. Larre, “no matter the threats to his life or the number of times his office windows were broken. He stood tall.”

freespeechDC photo 544508_158106374355611_1592170738_n_zpsbd994e3b.jpg  Freethewest photo 1699_158106487688933_975421100_n_zps900bd4be.jpg

Twice in three days, Canadians have buried a taller than life man, known for his cowboy boots and black hat. Folks crowded a Peterborough hockey arena, March 13, to say farewell to Country and Western icon Stompin’ Tom Connors, the boy from Skinner’s Cove, PEI, who gave us songs like  Sudbury Saturday Night, Bud the Spud, My Stompin’  Grounds, that celebrated Canada.

Doug's hat photo image003-1_zpsd7637d4a.jpg

Piper photo 392910_158105857688996_1793515029_n_zpsecd75e71.jpg

St. Andrews photo image004-1_zpsd27f6fba.jpg

Doug's coffin photo image005-1_zps6452c103.jpg

Today in Victoria, a Western Canadian who struggled for more than 30 years to uphold another Canadian value, freedom of speech, even for people vilified by the press for their unpopular views, was buried. Doug Christie, a proud Scotsman, would have smiled as a lean piper piped his casket into a crowded St. Andrew’s Cathedral in downtown Victoria. A large bouquet of vivid red roses and Mr. Christie’s black Australian outback hat graced the top of the casket.

Fr. Larre hailed Doug Christie as “a real Westerner, a man with ideals and aspirations as high as the Rockies. He stood for a better Canada, a freer Canada,” the priest told the packed cathedral made up of mourners who had been Mr. Christie’s family, friends, clients, neighbours, and, in several cases, the beneficiaries of his kindness.

Priest photo ScreenShot2013-03-21at103723PM_zpse578abb9.png

The Battling Barrister ” had the ideals our soldiers died for — for freedom — but we do not have certain freedoms, like freedom of speech, in Canada today,” said Fr. Larre, who returned his Order of Canada honour  in protest when the same honour was bestowed some years ago on mass abortionist Henry Morgenthaler. “What mattered to Doug Christie is a man’s right to speak. He believed people have the right to go to court whether they can afford it or not,” he added.

In a stirring eulogy to his father, Caderyn Christie, a second year law student, shared memories of a complex man — the battling lawyer so well known to the public, the politician, the devoted father, the private man with a wicked sense of fun and humour.

“A man like my dad was not meant to die in a hospital bed but on a battlefield with a sword and shield,” he said. And Doug Christie very nearly did die in the battle ground of the courtroom. For days during a three week trial in Victoria, Mr. Christie had been in mounting pain, fighting nausea and sleeplessness, but refusing painkillers lest they dull his wits. Finally, on Thursday, February 21, he was too ill to finish his summation and was rushed to hospital and diagnosed with advanced terminal liver cancer.

One of Doug Christie’s heroes was Confederate General Robert E. Lee whose portrait hung in his office. Lee advised: “Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less.”

Doug Christie took this to heart and was driven by a sense of duty.

Caderyn revealed that Doug often recalled growing up in Winnipeg and that there was always food on the table but just enough. Doug paid his way through the University of Winnipeg working on the railway and as a lifeguard at Banff Hot Springs. For a while he lived in a top floor garret that was scorching in the summer and leaked snow and rain in the frigid Winnipeg winter. Other part-time work paid Doug’s way through law school at the University of British Columbia. Doug’s single-minded goal was to practise law.

He was part way through articling for a Victoria firm when an accidental error in judgement angered a prominent client and the law firm let Doug go. He was in near despair seeing his career stymied before it even began, his son recalled. Then, a single practitioner in Victoria, Barney Russ, gave the Winnipeg law student a break and took him on as an articling student. Nine months later, Doug was called to the bar and began a 42-year career in law.

Years later,  Doug Christie visited Barney Russ who was also dying of cancer. Doug asked what he could ever do to thank or repay Mr. Russ for having given him a chance. “Pass it on,” he gasped with laboured breathing.

That had become a driving force in Doug’s life, his son recalled: “He chose to defend people who would otherwise be unrepresented and he paid dearly in his personal and professional life.” Although he had struggled hard to become a lawyer and succeeded, “he was very frugal with himself.”

Caderyn Christie said his father was “profoundly kind to his children. He was also a proud Scotsman and taught us kids how to pull the nails out of a 2′ x 4″ and reuse them.” And, yet, Doug would treat a man who was a regular panhandler at the church doors to a lunch once a month. He didn’t just toss him a looney as he walked by.

Caderyn  concluded his eulogy with words that left many an eye wet: “Robert Louis Stevenson said: ‘A leader is one who keeps his fears to himself and shows his courage to others.’ That was my father. He lived fully, he lived freely and laughed every chance he got.”

Doug's boots photo 487423_158106564355592_1963557092_n_zpsce9a0745.jpg

In his closing remarks, commenting on Doug Christie’s ever present cowboy boots, celebrant priest Fr. Larre quoted a line from Country and Western singer George Jones song Who’s Going to Fill Those Shoes? “We must get together for free speech and try to fill those shoes,” he urged.

Paul Fromm

FreeSpeechWarriors photo 45507_158102487689333_367660645_n_zps3dc1a573.jpg

Leaders of Canada’s free speech movement at the reception at Doug Christie’s funeral in Victoria, BC., March 15, 2013: Dave “The Unlicensed Man” Lindsay; Paul Fromm, Director Canadian Association for Free Expression; expert witness on Internet and computer technology, Bernard Klatt; and Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite, the only victim to win under Canada’s notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship).

Cross-posted to:

·       http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/03/priest-hails-free-speech-warrior-doug.html
·       http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2013/03/priest-hails-free-speech-warrior-doug.html

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that Sec. 13 “Hate Law” is Unconstitutional


Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that Sec. 13 “Hate Law” is Unconstitutional

September 2, 2009
RadicalNewsNetwork

Dear Radical Reader,

Prior to my comments I first want to take the time to say thank you to Mr. Marc Lemire, the man who has been at the forefront of the battle for Internet Freedom in Canada over the past six years. Persevering and remaining steadfast in his convictions through thick and thin and suffering endless slings and arrows of accusative epithets and accusations of every conceivable nature. Along with him was his steadfast and cool lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and his comrades in arms Mr. Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) and of course Canada’s and the world’s No. 1 Freedom of Speech fighting lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie all pictured together in their famous INTERNET FREEDOM DEFENCE TEAM photo below. Every freedom loving Canadian who values their basic right to express themselves on paper or on the Internet owes this magnificent and dedicated crew of conscientious, responsible citizens a debt of gratitude.


In terms of Canada’s struggle to retain its Constitutional rights as contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, September 2, 2009, may go down in Canadian history as the day that the citizens who believe in freedom of speech finally managed to throw a monkey-wrench into the gears of the Zionist Censorship Juggernaut that has been rolling relentlessly over our rights and freedoms for the past half a century.

At 9:30 EST the Decision in the long-awaited section 13 “hate crimes” complaint Warman v. Lemire finally appeared on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s website http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0 . The gist of the ruling by Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis respecting the manner in which this controversial law was used in the six year long trial of Marc Lemire for allegedly posting “hate” materials is contained in my Motion to the Tribunal (see below) which I sent off today after receiving word of the Decision.

But lest readers jump to the conclusion that this means the end of this draconian law designed to silence any and all criticism of Israel or political Zionism please be advised that while it is truly a decisive victory in terms of the battle being waged to rid this country of sec. 13(1) it doesn’t automatically mean that the war itself has been won.

[Read more...]

CAFE Granted “Interested Party” Status to Intervene in Arthur Topham/Radicalpress Internet Free Speech Case

PFrommOceanLg
PAUL FROMM – CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION (CAFE)
_________________________________________________________________________

August 10, 2009

[Editor's Note: RadicalPress.com is extremely pleased to announce the positive decision by Tribunal chairperson Karen Jensen to grant Interested Party status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Direct Paul Fromm and I have been working together on issues for close to a decade now after first meeting online while I was printing my hard copy edition called The Radical.

Mr. Fromm's many years of experience in battling the good fight to retain freedom of speech and expression for all Canadians makes his participation in this present struggle with B'nai Brith Canada over the Section 13(1) issue one of vital importance. As Paul states in his application one of his goals is to focus on this unusual position by the Complainants of trying to make citizens of foreign countries (i.e. Israel) a part of those protected by Canada's "hate speech" laws. This is one issue that readers will know is of major concern to many Canadians who have been following this latest Show Trial regarding Freedom of Speech on the Internet in Canada.

And so, from RadicalPress.com and all those supporting the abolition of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a hearty welcome to the show Paul!]

——————–

CAFE Granted “Interested Party” Status to Intervene in Arthur Topham/Radicalpress Internet Free Speech Case

Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

HARRY ABRAMS AND

THE LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA

Complainants

- and -

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

- and -

ARTHUR TOPHAM

RADICALPRESS.COM

Respondents

- and -

CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE

Interested Party

RULING

MEMBER:

Karen Jensen 2009 CHRT 23

2009/08/07

[1] The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) has applied for Interested Party status in the matter of Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of the B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com

[2] 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 s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Founded in 1981, CAFE has published material in support of these goals, made representations to various levels of government and obtained intervenor or Interested Party status in a number of cases.

[3] CAFE is especially concerned about efforts to restrict the Internet, which it sees as an inexpensive and accessible medium to persons of modest means who might otherwise be excluded from some of the older more established media.

[4] CAFE has participated as an Interested Party in a number of Tribunal cases involving s. 13 of the CHRA.

[5] The Respondents Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com support CAFE’s motion. The Commission and the Complainants take no position on this motion.

[6] Section 50 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the Tribunal discretion to grant interested party status. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate how its expertise will be of assistance in the determination of the issues. Interested party status will not be granted if it does not add significantly to the legal positions of the parties representing a similar viewpoint:

Schnellv. Machiavelli and Associates Emprize Inc., [2001] C.H.R.D. No. 14 at para. 6 (C.H.R.T.) (QL); Nkwazi v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2002] C.H.R.D. No. 15 at para. 22 (C.H.R.T.)(QL); Warman v. Lemire 2006 CHRT 8.

[7] In a previous ruling, the Tribunal granted interested party status to the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL) (Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress 2009 CHRT 12). That organization is also interested in matters touching upon freedom of expression.

[8] In his communications dated July 17, 2009, Paul Fromm, on behalf of CAFE, stated that while CFSL and CAFE “share a similar libertarian approach to Charter freedoms, CAFE has had considerably more experience as an “interested party” and agent in s. 13 Tribunals and brings this expertise to these proceedings”. In addition, CAFE has special concerns about an effort by the Complainants to expand even further the list of protected groups. It wishes to present the view that the Complainants are seeking to make criticism of a foreign government (in this case Israel) a  “discriminatory” practice.

[9] Mr. Fromm indicated that CAFE wishes to make written and oral submissions as well as to cross-examine witnesses in this matter.

[10] Without making any comment on the merits or relevance of the issues raised in this motion, I am satisfied that CAFE will bring a unique perspective and body of experience to the issues in this matter; it will add significantly to the legal position of the parties.

[11] Therefore, CAFE’s request for interested party status is granted. CAFE’s representative will have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present oral and written submissions. CAFE should consult with the Respondent and the CFSL to ensure that there is no duplication in their efforts.

“Signed by”

Karen Jensen

OTTAWA, Ontario

August 7, 2009

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL PARTIES OF RECORD

TRIBUNAL FILE: T1360/9008

STYLE OF CAUSE: Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com

RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: August 7, 2009

APPEARANCES:

Marvin Kurz For the Complainants

Daniel Poulin For the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Arthur Topham For himself and Respondent RadicalPress.com

Douglas H. Christie For the Interested Party, Canadian Free Speech League

———–

Paul Fromm can be contacted at: paul@paulfromm.com

Free Speech Setback: Appeals Court Upholds Warman Libel Decision Against Fromm & CAFE

[Editor's Note: This is too disgusting for further words.]

——-
Free Speech Setback: Appeals Court Upholds Warman Libel Decision Against Fromm & CAFE

TORONTO. Tuesday, December 9 was a grim day for free speech and dissent in Canada, especially when it comes to criticizing those actively involved in trying to limit political discussion by dissidents. A three man panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the 2007 decision by Madam Justice Monique Metivier finding Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression guilty of defamation for 9 Internet postings in 2003 calling then Canadian Human Rights Commission employee Richard Warman a “censor.”

The Appeals Court upheld the judge’s findings and added $10,000 in costs for the appeal to the original $30,000 award.

Paul Fromm, a long-time free speech activist and a founder of CAFE back in 1981 called the decision “very disappointing. Have our courts become politicized allowing almost unlimited vilification of the so-called ‘right’ but shielding the left from even the most mild of criticism?” he asked.

The three judges had been snapping and confrontational with Barbara Kulaszka, Mr. Fromm’s attorney. They ignored her reminder that the Supreme Court of Canada in the Karri Simpson case had broadened the definition of “fair comment,” a key defence under Canadian libel law. In their June ruling, the SCC had held that fair comment need only be sincerely believed by the speaker and be a view that a reasonable person could hold based on the facts. It need not, in the normal sense of the word, be fair, or balanced or even just.

In her eloquent address ot the Court, Miss Kulaszka argued that Sec. 13, the Internet censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act had been denounced as censorship by newspapers and columnists across Canada. “Newspapers across this country have called for repeal of Sec. 13 before they get hit by it. Mr. Fromm was the first to sound the alarm. He should be rewarded.

“The issues of free speech on the Internet are huge,” she warned. “Mr. Fromm was responding to Mr. Warman’s actions.”

In a chilling exchange, one of the Appeals Court judges suggested that if “suppressing ‘hate speech’ was in the public interest, wouldn’t strong criticisms of people like Mr. Warman, who was making war on what he called Internet ‘hate’, be contrary to the public interest?”

In appeals, the arguments (or Factum), books of authorities, transcripts and exhibits are filed months before and presumably read by the judges before the hearing. At the hearing, each side highlights its arguments and the judges ask questions and probe the arguments.

Sensing strong hostility to her argument, Miss Kulaszka warned the judges: “Your ruling will set the standard. The Karri Simpson case shows you can say incredibly bad things about the Right and it’s ‘fair comment.’”

“Does the same thing apply to Mr. Fromm and CAFE” she asked. “Can you say critical things about the Left and it’s ‘fair comment’?”

The judges adjourned just before noon. They returned at 2:15. They did not even ask to ear Richard Warman’s lawyer Pam MacEachern but immediately delivered their decision dismissing the appeal. Ignoring most of Miss Kulaszka’s arguments, they stated:

* the statements complained of (by Mr. Warman) were capable of being defamatory;

* with agree that the trial judge found it impossible to distinguish statements of fact from opinion (in CAFE’s postings);

* it is clear that the trial judge’s findings of malice were correct.

Miss Kulaszka was flabbergasted. Most of the 9 impugned postings wre newspaper reports. Above each was a signed “Dear Free Speech Supporter” commentary by Mr. Fromm. The distinction between statements of fact and opinion or commentary was vivid.

Alan Shanoff, a retired lawyer who specialized in libel, wonders whether the Simpson decision would have applied to criticism of the left. Are our courts hopelessly politicized? “The Supreme Court decision involved a radio editorial by Rafe Mair, a well-known British Columbia talk show host. He lambasted a social activist, Kari Simpson, for the position she took opposing any positive portrayal of gay lifestyle in public schools. Mair called Simpson a bigot and said she had ‘placed herself alongside skinheads and the Klu Klux Klan.” He also made references to Hitler when he said: ‘I’m not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any kind of holocaust or violence but neither really — in the speeches, when you think about it and look back — neither did
Hitler.”

Simpson sued Mair and the radio station for defamation, the lowering of her reputation. The Supreme Court’s ruling also clarified the defence of fair comment. Fair comment is the defence that allows defamatory expressions of opinion to be published. I’ve always had a problem with the name of this defence, because of the use of the word “fair.” Many courts have wrongly stated a comment must be fair or a comment must be one a “fair-minded” person could express. I’m sure jurors have also been befuddled by the word “fair.”

First, one might wonder if the Mair decision might have differed had Mair not attacked an easy target. It’s easy to assail someone like Simpson whose anti-gay views are not popular or politically correct. Suppose Mair had attacked a gay supporter? The result should be the same but would it?”

You have to wonder. Mr. Warman would now seem safe from public criticism — a problem facing Ezra Levant, the National Post, National Post editor Jonathan Kay, and a number of conservative bloggers who face libel suits. Mark and Connie Fournier face no fewer than three libel actions  launched by Mr. Warman for comments on the http://www.freedominion website.

So, the court protects Warman from criticisms like “censor.”

What about “perverted monster’? In 1985, after Toronto publisher Ernst Zundel’s first “false news” trial, Vancouver talk show host Gary Bannerman directed a furious commentary tirade at Doug Christie, Mr. Zundel’s lawyer and, among other things, called  him a “perverted monster.” That was okay. That was fair comment said a B.C. Court and the judgment was upheld on November 26, 1990 by the B.C. Court of Appeals. (Christie v. Westcom Radio Group Ltd.)

What about a cartoon depicting a minister sadistically clipping the wings off a fly? Robert Beirman, a freelance cartoonist depicted then Human Resources Minister Bill Vander Zalm doing just that in a June 22, 1978 cartoon. Vander Zalm had advocated cutting benefits to some unemployed recipients in B.C. Then Premier Vander Zalm won in the lower court, but, in February 15, 1980, judgment the B.C. Court of Appeals overturned the decision, thus ruling that suggesting Vander Zalm was acruel sadist was “fair comment.” (Vander Zalm v Times Publishers)

What about calling a Christian author and teacher, Malcolm Ross, who has written religious books critical of Jews, a Nazi, Josef Goebbels and an author of “hate literature?” All of these smears were contained in cartoons by New Brunswick cartoonist John Beutel. In a May 31, 1001 judgment, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal found these lies to be “fair comment.” (Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers’ Association)

“I am presently consulting with our lawyers as to what to do next,” Paul Fromm concludes.
__________________________________________

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

CAFE and I need your help. We are $17,500 behind in our legal bills [to say nothing of the possible $40,000 debt, if this judgement stands.]. Just a few days before the court hearing, I filed a Motion to introduce the Moon decision and the torrent of press editorials supporting repeal of Sec. 13. Another $56 in photocopying and courier costs, plus $127 Court filing fee. [Who said justice is free?]

Please help us with the backing we need for this crucial battle for freedom of speech in        Canada.

Paul Fromm,
Director

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

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

__ Please send me  In Defence of Freedom:  Marc Lemire vs. The Canadian “Human Rights” Enforcers – $10.00

__ Please renew my subscription for 2009 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______ to my VISA#________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________

Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Cafe-list mailing list
Cafe-list@canadafirst.net

http://lists.canadafirst.net/mailman/listinfo/cafe-list

VICTORY AT FEDERAL COURT! “Human Rights” Commission Cries “Uncle”, Reveals Staff Spying on the Internet & Court Awards Costs to Lemire


VICTORY AT FEDERAL COURT!

“Human Rights” Commission Cries “Uncle”, Reveals Staff Spying on the Internet & Court Awards Costs to Lemire

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan16-08_Victory-at-federal-court.html

Legal Documents

Marc Lemire’s Applicant Record (lays out the full challenge)

Letter from CHRC Answering all Section 37 questions (From FreeDominion website, which they received from the Federal Court Registrar)

RULING from the Federal Court of Canada (Jan 15, 2008)

TORONTO, CANADA:- January 15, 2007. Despite an Eastern Ontario snowfall that delayed the appearance of his counsel, Barbara Kulaszka , for an hour and a half. Marc Lemire walked out of Federal Court in Toronto today a happy man. By sheer persistence, he had wrung out of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions some amazing admissions. At least one investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has adopted a false Internet persona and trolled the Internet engaging in conversations with prospective victims. In other words, the CHRC is spying on Canadians, not observing and investigating, but participating and instigating.

After claiming Sec. 37, under the Canada Evidence Act to rule out a number of key questions to Canadian Human Rights Commission employees, the CHRC had effectively shut down some important lines of inquiry. When this claim to not divulge certain information is asserted by the government, the only recourse is to seek judicial review in Federal Court. The information is placed before a judge and he determines whether revealing the information would endanger national security or the life or safety of a person. It might be used to keep confidential the location of someone in the witness protection program. It is seldom used in civil court.

Marc Lemire contended all along that the Commission was hiding behind Sec. 37 to cover up their spying on Canadians. Following his oft repeated motto “No Surrender”, Mr. Lemire had persevered despite numerous Commission submissions and maneuvers made it clear he would go to Court, In a last minute effort to avoid Court, the Commission’s outside lawyer Margot Blight gave in on all points. Suddenly, what had once been information so sensitive it could not be revealed without imperiling the public interest was disclosed.

Among the information sought, protected but now revealed:

* CHRC senior investigator Dean Steacy admitted: “I created the Jadewarr email address on yahoo.ca and the Jadewarr account on Stormfront,” a prominent White Nationalist website.
* Steacy claimed to be “using the Jadewarr account in investigating Sec. 13 complaints.” Interestingly, he engaged Mr. Lemire, whom he was not investigating, in private message exchanges..
* Apparently, he was operating without instructions: “As an investigator I decided how to investigate.”

[Read more...]

Making History: Marc Lemire’s Appeal to the Federal Court of Canada

Making History: Marc Lemire’s Appeal to the Federal Court of Canada

January 15, 2008 – 9:30am. Toronto, Ontario
For the first time ever in history, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is being challenged by Marc Lemire in the Federal Court of Canada for its spying operations, abuses of the law, deception and agent provocateur agenda.

Like some mobster in a U.S. trial who keeps invoking the Fifth Amendment, the CHRC is trying to keep the veil of secrecy wrapped tight around its spying operations on Canadian Internet dissidents. Its tool of choice is Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. This allows government representatives the ability to prevent disclosure (hide) and claim immunity over the disclosure of information that the CHRC alleges to be injurious to Canadian Government security and operations of a Federal agency.

The evidence Marc Lemire is challenging before the Federal Court is explosive and will blow the whole agenda of the CHRC into the open. In a 300 page record, prepared by lead counsel Barbara Kulaszka, the abuse of Section 37 by the Commission was laid out in amazingly clear detail.

Those 300 pages decimate the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s claims and expose the spying operations of Canada’s Thought Control apparatus

Come out and see the top freedom fighters in Canada, Barbara Kulaszka, Douglas Christie, Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire battle the censors.

Federal Court of Canada
January 15, 2008 9:30am
180 Queen Street W
Toronto, Ontario

Case: T-860-07
Marc Lemire Vs. Richard Warman,
Canadian Human Rights Commission
and Attorney General of Canada.

Please help support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Canadian Association for Free Expression,
P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON
M9W 5L3 Canada

———
Visit the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s website:
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com

Please support CAFE in our efforts:
CAFÉ,
Box 332, Rexdale, ON.,
M9W 5L3, Canada

or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date.

EMBATTLED ZUNDEL SEEKS SUPREME COURT HEARING

From: cafe@canadafirst.net
Paul Fromm paul@paulfromm.com
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 02:51:51 -0500


EMBATTLED ZUNDEL SEEKS SUPREME COURT HEARING

Washington, DC (11/28/07)–Embattled dissident Ernst Zundel, currently detained for speech crimes in a German prison, has asked the United States Supreme Court to address the judicial misconduct that led to his deportation from the United States and ultimately from Canada.

Zundel lawyer Bruce Leichty says he filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 14, 2007, in which the Court has been confronted squarely with the denial by U.S. courts of Zundel’s constitutional right to have a habeas corpus court hearing.

“The Supreme Court has long recognized the right of all residents of the United States to be able to challenge acts of the sovereign leading to their detention or deportation, and to present evidence about the illegality of the acts,” says Leichty. “We have documented to the Court that Ernst Zundel did not get that right before or after his deportation, and that the Court of Appeals in Cincinnati shirked its duty to protect the constitutional right of Mr. Zundel.”

Zundel was deported from the United States without a hearing on February 19, 2003, after being taken into custody at his Tennessee home on February 5, 2003 on the pretext of a missed immigration appointment. That charge was later changed to overstaying the terms of his 2000 entry to the U.S., even though Zundel had married a U.S. citizen–ethnic Mennonite author and revisionist website operator Ingrid Rimland–and was awaiting routine processing for permanent residence.

After being forcibly removed from the United States, Zundel spent two years in custody in Canada, where he was branded a national security threat based on an alleged reputation as a white supremacist leader, before being deported to Germany in 2005.

“The Canadian law under which Zundel was labeled a national security threat to Canada has since been declared unconstitutional in the case of another man because it permits the use of secret evidence that the accused cannot confront,” notes Leichty. “Secret evidence was in fact used extensively in the Zundel case in Canada. But the favorable ruling in Canada didn’t happen until after he was already deported to Germany.”
[Read more...]