Dr. Dawg licks his wounds: Court rules that defamation of Ottawa blogger was ‘fair comment’

Dr. Dawg licks his wounds: Court rules that defamation of Ottawa blogger was ‘fair comment’

ANDREW DUFFY, OTTAWA CITIZEN

March 4, 2015

BaglowDrDawg

A Superior Court judge has ruled that although Ottawa blogger Dr. Dawg was defamed on a conservative message board, the hurtful words fell within the bounds of fair comment in the rough and tumble blogosphere.

“Political debate in the Internet blogosphere can be, and often is, rude, aggressive, sarcastic, hyperbolic, insulting caustic and/or vulgar. It is not for the faint of heart,” Madam Justice Heidi Polowin noted in dismissing the legal claim.

The decision is among the first to establish the legal boundaries in Canada’s blogosphere, where the battle between left and right often devolves into flame wars.

The ruling concludes that the political blogosphere must be governed by existing laws, but it also recognizes that the Internet is a place of strongly worded opinion and hyperbole, where fair comment should be given a broad interpretation.

Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, an intervener in the case, said the ruling does not significantly depart from the established principles of defamation law. Although no new legal exceptions have been carved out for political blogs, she said, it does acknowledge that “the way expression happens in some of these forums is different.”

In her ruling, Polowin found that John Baglow, an Ottawa blogger known as Dr. Dawg, had been defamed by an August 2010 chat room post that referred to him as “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters.”

The statement was made on the Free Dominion website by Roger Smith, of Burnaby, B.C., in the course of an acrimonious debate about federal politics and the treatment of Canadian Omar Khadr, then a Guantanamo inmate.

In finding the words to be defamatory, Polowin rejected the argument of Free Dominion’s founders, Mark and Connie Fournier, who said they should not be held legally responsible for the messages that other people post on an open Internet platform. That position was supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which argued that holding website administrators liable for the content of message board postings would impair the free exchange of ideas on the Internet.

Polowin, however, said defamation law must balance two fundamental values: the worth of an individual’s reputation and freedom of expression. “To adopt the position of the defendants would leave potential plaintiffs with little ability to correct reputational damage and would impair that delicate balance,” she wrote.

The Fourniers also argued that the statement was not defamatory in the context of the political blogosphere, where profanity, insults and invective run wild. But Polowin rejected the notion that the Internet is too unruly to be governed by conventional defamation law.

“Implicit in their submissions is that based on the rough and tumble nature of these media platforms there would be little, if anything, that would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable reader. However, there is nothing in the law of defamation to suggest that that is the case.”

Polowin concluded that Baglow’s reputation was damaged by the suggestion that he was a Taliban supporter. The judge, however, accepted the Fourniers’ argument that the defamatory words could be defended as fair comment in the blogosphere.

Fair comment can be used as a defence when the words at issue are based on fact and honestly expressed on a matter of public interest.

Baglow argued that Smith’s words were expressed, not as comment, but as a statement of fact. Polowin, however, said the impugned words appeared in the course a political diatribe. “The post itself was rambling, if not incoherent, touching on a number of different topics. It was in essence a rant, with Mr. Smith giving his views and opinions on any number of issues, none too clearly.”

The judge said Smith was commenting on a matter of public interest — the Khadr case — and honestly held the belief that anyone who supported the teenager, an enemy combatant in Afghanistan, supported the Taliban.

Polowin decided against awarding costs to either side in the bitterly fought case.

Baglow, a left-wing political blogger and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, called the ruling a split decision. “If one has to lose a lawsuit, this is probably the way to lose it,” he said.

Baglow said the judge found that he was defamed and endorsed many of the principles for which he was fighting. “The fact the blogosphere is not a place where rules are suspended — that the same law applies to them as to any other media — I think that’s a good thing to establish,” he said. “It means it’s not the wild west out there.”

Connie Fournier, a computer programmer who lives in Kingston, said she was pleased with the outcome of the case. “I hope people will calm down when it comes to trying to sue each other over things said online,” she said. “Because you are not going to change the culture: The culture is what it is.”

Online commenters, Fournier said, are likely to write things they would not say in person since “they’re sitting at their computers, they’re uninhibited — and they’re probably having a beer while they do it.”

Neither side has any plan to appeal the judgment.

——-

Source: 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/dr-dawg-licks-his-wounds-court-rules-that-defamation-of-ottawa-blogger-was-fair-comment

KARMA: Ezra Levant, Zionism & the Politics of Deception by Arthur Topham

KarmaEzra 1000 copy

KARMA: Ezra Levant, Zionism & the Politics of Deception

by

Arthur Topham

“What goes around comes around”

~ modern-day English expression to describe the Buddhist Law of Karma

The recent November 27, 2014 guilty ruling by Justice Wendy Matheson in the defamation lawsuit against Sun News Network’s Zionist Jew propagandist Ezra Levant by Khurrum Awan a Muslim Canadian lawyer came for many as a surprise and a grave disappointment.

What this reflects for those caught up in the deceptive rhetoric of Ezra Levant and his background support network of international Jewry (and those not), is that there are within that sector of people paying attention to Canadian and global politics, two schools of thought when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech or expression; one that sees Levant as the leading spokesperson for freedom of speech and another which views his actions or behaviour as that of the proverbial Trojan Horse – interposed within the Jew media monopoly in order to serve the needs, not of Canada, but of the Israeli agenda which, ultimately, means the ideology of Zionism.

EzraLrg copy 5

One aspect of the case which emerged and that played a crucial role in determining to what extent Levant had defamed Khurrum Awan, was the perennial ploy of the Jews and their monopoly media cartel to fling the accusation “anti-Semitic” at anyone who so much as brushes up against their holy of holiest shrines, the state of Israel and its atheistic Zionist ideology. Anything that could possibly relate to that issue, no matter how tangential in nature, should it be deemed critical in any way of the assumed supremacist and racist nature of the Jews-only state, automatically ensures that the author of said critique will be subjected to this self-chosen epithet in order to demean and vilify the writer or speaker and thus render him or her persona non grata in the eyes of the general public and unworthy of further respect or attention.

This method of dealing with Zion’s critics has a long and infamous history; one that for the most part has worked extremely well over the past century and longer to silence and discredit opponents of the Jewish conspiracy for global hegemony. This is why the ruling in Awan/Levant libel case has suddenly and so succinctly delineated the possibility that such success may be on the wain, a very real, shocking and threatening thought for those who have been so adept at flashing that card and automatically expecting to trump any argument presented by the non-Jewish or gentile critic no matter how legitimate, logical or truthful.

This same reaction to Justice Matheson’s ruling could easily be compared with the former controversial sec. 13 Canadian Human Rights Code legislation that was the subject of heated debate for many years until it was finally repealed by the Harper government in 2012 when his handlers (the Jewish lobbyists) realized that such a specious law was in fact a double-edged sword that could be, and was being used against not only the gentile population of critics of Zion but also the Jews themselves.

That said, in the case of myself, another longstanding victim of Levant’s similar bellicose and libellous accusations of being “anti-Semitic”, the ruling came more as a pleasant surprise and along with that sense of satisfaction the hope for a possible turnaround of a decades-long systemic pattern of legal misfeasance on the part of Canada’s judiciary when it comes to finding anyone of Zionist Jew persuasion guilty of a crime (other than that of child porn which is fairly common).

Screen Shot 2013-01-27 at 3.38.53 PM copy

The reaction by the Zionist media was expected and throughout their news networks and affiliated blogs the feigned cries of outrage were heard resounding across the msm and over the internet. Why this should come as such a shock to Canadians merely illustrates the power of the Zionist press and its tv media to instil their version of “political reality” into the minds of unwary readers and viewers.

Why decent, thoughtful people should be overly upset by the fact that Levant was found guilty of defamation is, in itself, disconcerting given his years of promoting the Zionist agenda of spreading lies and hatred about the Muslim people at the behest of his Zionist controllers who continually feed his fragmented ego and fill his purse with scheckles; an agenda designed to build up a much greater and lethal game plan of inciting the whole of Western nations into a frenzied, unfounded and pathologic hatred of Muslim nations as the pretext for endless, imperialist wars against the people of the Middle East.

For those who haven’t figured out what Zionism is yet (other than the Zionist’s version), coming to terms with Judge Matheson’s decision will be difficult to understand and accept and it’s only through a greater understanding of who Ezra Levant really is that one can begin to fathom the depth of deception that the Canadian public has been subjected to over the past seventy years of media and judicial transgression that has left our nation bereft of any reliable and truthful reference point from which to reasonably and intellectually access what’s going on in our world of politics and law.

EzraLevant 1 copy 8

I’ve been following Levant’s meteoric rise to fame and misfortune ever since 2007 when I became embroiled in the sec. 13 drama after B’nai Brith Canada (a Jews-only secret masonic organization) filed a complaint against myself and my website  in November of 2007 with the Canadian Human Rights Commission seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by  Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act claiming that, to wit: The premise of this complaint is a contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as  Radicalpress.com  contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.

It would be advisable for readers to take special note of the last three words in that complaint as they illustrate in no uncertain terms what the Jewish lobby here in Canada wants to establish as law – NO CRITICISM OF ISRAEL! Their same modus operandi is now in play in my current Sec. 319(2) criminal charge of promoting “Hate Propaganda” toward “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin“.

EzraFF1000 copy

There is so much more to be said about Ezra Levant and the reasons why he’s been elevated to the status that he now holds in Canada’s media and how it ties in with the Harper government, the racist state of Israel and the global pursuits of Zionist juggernaut that wants control of everything from our personal data to the final say in every law and decision ranging from the local to highest branches of international governance on the planet.

I will leave readers with a list of my own critiques of this Zionist stooge who the msm has employed for years to voice the agenda of Israel under the guise of freedom of speech in Canada. Maybe after reading further those still in awe of this Zionist double agent for Israel will come to see him for what he truly is, a traitor to Canada just like his co-conspirator Stephen Harper.

~*~

Further articles on Ezra Levant by Arthur Topham:

Zion’s New Crusaders: Ezra Levant – Muslim Hunting Jew – Rallies Canada’s Zionist Christians in Support of Israel by Arthur Topham July 28, 2014

THE PROFIT EZRA LEVANT: Saviour of the Christians. By Arthur Topham June 20th, 2014

Fighting for Zion and the Freedom to Brainwash Canadians with Ezra Levant by the Radical Press Parody Dept. February 22, 2014

Why I Ought to Sue Ezra Levant November 11, 2012

I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM! – Ezra Levant on The Source Nov. 8, 2012 November 9, 2012

B’nai Brith Canada: Still Beating the ‘anti-Semitic’, ‘Hate’ Drum November 9, 2012

Zionist Jew Media Campaign to Smear Radical Press November 7, 2012

National(Zionist)Post:Preemptive Hit Smear on Radical Press November 12, 2012

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater By Arthur Topham April 27th, 2009

SMEAR JOB!!! : The Zionist Media’s Mendacious Battle to Control Canada’s Election Agenda By Arthur Topham Sept 29, 2008

The Biggest Threat to Canadian Jewry is Zionism By Arthur Topham August 25, 2008

Free Speech for Jews: A Critique of Ezra Levant’s “Jews for free speech” article By Arthur Topham July 4, 2008

Free Speech in Canada: A Review of the ongoing Lemire, Levant & Steyn cases By Arthur Topham May 18, 2008

How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law by Ezra Levant Commentary by Arthur Topham March 13, 2008

Comments on Ezra Levant’s article “What can be done?” By Arthur Topham January 18, 2008

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 22

Screen Shot 2014-05-02 at 9.28.03 PM

notice4RP

 

RPEdNew400 copy

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update #22

September 30th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It has been close to five months (May 7th, 2014) since I last posted a Legal Update on my Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” CCC charge that commenced back on May 16th, 2012. This is the greatest span of time since I began writing these records where I haven’t had to report on my case but it was a long overdue and necessary break from the onerous, ongoing reality that we know as the legal process here in Canada. The wheels of justice do indeed move at a snail’s pace.

Back in April of this year I was fortunate to have had B.C. Provincial Court Judge, the Honourable Judge Morgan, decide against agreeing to the Crown’s application to impose stringent bail conditions on me which would, in effect, have prohibited any further publishing on RadicalPress.com or any other internet site until after the completion of the upcoming trial in B.C. Supreme Court.

My case having then shifted from the provincial court to the B.C. Supreme Court I returned to Supreme Court on Monday, April 28th, 2014 in order to fix a date for trial. It was then that Crown asked me whether or not I was once again going to apply for a Rowbotham application which is a process that would have, if successful, enabled me to have the case stayed until the Attorney General’s office provided me with legal counsel.

I advised the court that I was planning on reapplying for said application (having done so prior to the preliminary inquiry when it was first refused by the court) and it was at that point that Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston suggested that I be given until September 29th, 2014 to refile all the necessary paperwork and return on the 29th to set a further date for a hearing on the matter.

Given that I had more than sufficient time to reapply I decided to take some time off from all the legal work and focus on regenerating the family garden which  had fallen into neglect over the years due to all the past eight years of legal wranglings with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and now the criminal court of Canada. Apart from our gardens there were numerous other maintenance projects awaiting redress on our 5 acre plot that also require urgent attention.

Nearing the end of June I was beginning to get ahead of the game and began preparing to start the process of applying a second time for a new Rowbotham application. Then, in the beginning of July all hell broke loose in Gaza as the Israeli government once again began beating their war drums and commenced with yet another murderous bombing campaign against the helpless, entrapped Palestinian people slaughtering thousands of innocents and crippling and maiming thousands more as well as destroying much of Gaza’s infrastructure. It was the worse case of unjustified lethal aggression against the Palestinian people to have ever occurred and as a result all of my thoughts about working on another Rowbotham application came to a screeching halt as I decided that covering this gross act of genocide by the Zionist forces against the people of Gaza was much more important than spending endless hours on preparing documents that I intuitively knew would be rejected a second time.

The mainstream media (msm) being dominated by the Zionists there was nothing else left to counter all of their lies and disinformation but to focus on constant efforts to disseminate the truth about what was really going on with respect to Israel’s illegal, immoral, unjust and depraved slaughter of defenceless children and adults in Gaza. Being a part of the alternative news media it became my first and foremost duty to try and provide internet readers with a more balanced perspective on the war. In the process of doing so the months of July and August were consumed and when a lasting truce was finally signed with Hamas there was little time left to begin again on the Rowbotham application.

I contacted Keith Evans, counsel for the BC Attorney General’s office on August 22nd, 2014 alerting him to the fact that I wished to resume the process but instead I received a reply from a Freya Zaltz, Barrister and Solicitor, Constitutional and Administrative Law Group, Minister of Justice / Legal Services Branch who informed me that, “Given that it is already August 22, it’s highly unlikely that a new Rowbotham application could be resolved by September 29, 2014.”

Given this information I then decided to forego applying for the Rowbotham application and replied to Ms. Zaltz on September 2nd, 2014 informing her:

With respect to your comment that “it’s highly unlikely that a new Robotham application could be resolved by September 29, 2014″ I would add, by way of explanation, that the delay in applying was due to the unfortunate actions of the state of Israel and their war on Gaza that began in early July and consumed most of that month plus August.
As my professional responsibilities to my readership at RadicalPress.com required ongoing coverage of this event in order to counter the Zionist media propaganda here in Canada I had to make a decision as to where my priorities would be focussed. My decision was to place Gaza at the forefront, over and above all other considerations. Given the nature of my case and the spurious charges which were brought on by the Zionist Jew lobby B’nai Brith Canada and then approved by your office in November of 2012 I’m sure you can understand why I deemed my actions to be of greater importance than to focus on my own personal circumstances. Had Israel not attacked Gaza when it did I would, in all likelihood, have met the obligations set.
As such, seeing that the application deadline cannot be completed by my next appearance on September 29, 2014, I will forego proceeding with it and let Crown Counsel in Quesnel know of my decision.
That aspect of the case having been terminated I then awaited the court appearance on September 29th, 2014 designed to “fix a date” for the upcoming trial in BC Supreme Court and also to possibly set a hearing date for the former Rowbotham application.
ATCourt Sept29:14
My dear wife Shastah accompanying me as we appeared at the Quesnel courthouse at 10:00 am on Monday, September 29th, 2014. The Supreme Court Justice appeared on video from somewhere and the proceedings were recorded as per normal. Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston began by notifying the judge that we were there to set a date for trial and then proceeded to name a couple of time slots when she would be available. Both dates fell in the year 2015. The first suggested date was too early for me given that I am planning  a number of pre-trial Charter applications which will most likely require at least four days of court time to address. That proposed date was in the late spring of 2015. The second date (covering a two week time period) was to commence on October 26th, 2015 and run until November 6th, 2015.

After Crown made her dates known to the judge and I had the opportunity to speak I informed the judge that I would prefer the latter period and then explained to him why I felt I couldn’t be prepared in time to meet the early date. I began by stating that the issues surrounding the case were very complex from the standpoint of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and at the same time also informed the court that I was in consultation with a lawyer from the lower mainland of the province who would be preparing extensive written legal arguments that they would be unable to complete prior to at least March of 2015. As well, I informed the court that my legal counsel would also not be free to appear in Quesnel until at least May of the same year.

Crown Counsel Johnston appeared pleased with the knowledge that I was in consultation with legal counsel and told the court that she had no problem with setting the trial date for October 26th of 2015. She also told the judge that the 10-day schedule trial could possibly be shortened by the fact were I to have legal representation.

The trial date thus being set Crown then asked the judge to set another date for a pre-trial conference with my counsel. That date was set for March 23rd, 2015.

I was very pleased with the outcome as now I will have the time to prepare all the important documents relevant to the case and also have the time to organize an ongoing legal defense fund in order to cover the costs of procuring legal counsel to represent me during both the pre-trial applications and, if needs be, the trial itself. That was all that took place and within a matter of about fifteen minutes my wife and I left the courtroom.

•••• 88 ••••

 The other important notice regarding my case concerns the recent  and rather startling news that the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has taken it upon themselves to come out publicly in favour of me as well as challenging Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws Sections 319 to 320, calling for their complete and final repeal.

When I first heard of this I was absolutely overwhelmed with a sense of instant relief and thankfulness. After eight long years of battling with the Jewish lobby (B’nai Brith Canada) who were instrumental in laying both the sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint against myself and RadicalPress.com back in 2007 plus the current sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Propaganda” complaint in 2011 that resulted in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012, the fact that a well-recognized and prestigious mainstream public civil liberties organization such as the OCLA was backing up my right to freedom of expression, petitioning BC’s Attorney General, the Hon. Suzanne Alton to retract her consent to the spurious charges, and tackling the final stronghold of the forces of Orwellian internet “freedom of speech” repression, i.e. Sections 318 to 320 of the Canada’s Criminal Code, was almost beyond belief.

This sudden turn of events has been a game changer and is comparable to having a D-9 Caterpillar appear on the legal/media playing field in my favour to level off what’s been a definite bumpy, one-sided, stacked deck of silence and collusion in favour of the Zionist lobby, their mainstream media cartel and the courts. As such, on behalf of my wife and myself, I wish to publicly express my deepest sense of gratitude to the OCLA for having come to this important and prescient decision; one that is bound to affect all Canadians and, should their campaign prove successful, ensure that the future of Canada’s media, both msm and alternative, will remain free and open and democratic and not subject to political interference from any special interest groups.

I would like at this point to add the latest statement on this matter from OCLA which was sent out by Joseph Hickey, Executive Director, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA):

OCLA_logo_only_250

Dear OCLA Supporter,

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a “Hate Propaganda” section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

 

Yours truly,

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

In closing I would ask all readers to assist both the OCLA and myself in achieving the highest number of signatures and comments on the OCLA petition to Hon. Suzanne Alton as humanly possible and to pass this information on to as many other people and blogsites and news sites as possible. The OCLA has taken a courageous and valiant step forward in our battle to retain our Charter rights to Freedom of Expression. It may be our last chance to change this draconian legislation using peaceful, lawful means. Please take advantage of this opportunity for the sake of all Canadians both present and of future generations.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

 *******

My court battle has now moved to an actual trial by judge and jury in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In doing so it places a far greater emphasis on my having to obtain legal counsel and/or advice from legal counsellors, which ultimately requires funding. 

The trial will be a major battle in the upcoming legal war to rid Canada of all the Section 318 to 320 “Hate Propaganda” legislation now in the Canadian Criminal Code. The outcome of this trial will, in all likelihood, determine whether or not Canadians will retain their right to publish the truth on the Internet about any and all injustices that may befall our country. 

I DO NEED YOUR HELP NOW MORE THAN EVER!!!  

Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

My PayPal button is on my website at http://www.RadicalPress.com

If you can’t send a donation via PayPal please consider sending one through Canada Post to:

Arthur Topham

4633 Barkerville Highway

Quesnel, B.C. Canada

V2J 6T8

Remember that every bit helps (all of us).

Thank you.

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

The Radical Press

 

Letter to Editor of the National Post from Sharon Maclise

Let2EditorHdr600 copy

Re: Going to court with a hatemonger; (2014-02-21); Alan Borovoy

What a disappointment that the National Post has decided to publish Alan Borovoy taking a self-serving swipe at the late, distinguished Doug Christie, now that he is dead and will not have a chance to defend himself.  I wonder if this newspaper ever invited Christie to tell his side of this story?  Not very likely.

AlanBorovoy 300

Mr. Borovoy has been spending considerable time and effort lately trying to rehabilitate his legacy.  His commitment to free speech is a sham, exemplified by the influence he used to push the then Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau to establish the first Canadian Human Rights Commission back in 1977.   His desire to present himself as a great defender of free speech is breathtakingly disingenuous given the cancerous growth of these deeply flawed and generally reviled extra-legal whipping chambers that he so vigorously championed at the time.  Borovoy has protested that he “never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech”.  How convenient and surprising, given that many critics of his creation, true civil libertarians, tried valiantly to point this out to him at the time.  Surely an intellect like Borovoy could not have missed the implication of what the end result would be when politically appointed commissars could simply do an ideological end-run around the law to punish people whose opinions they wanted to silence. Certainly, the man he vilifies, Doug Christie, could understand a simple concept like that.

DougC Attorney

But Borovoy was scratching a personal itch back then and feigning blindness to the long term effects on Canada’s free speech protections was a requirement of the cause.  Like many Canadian Jews of the day, he wanted to use Canada as an example to the rest of the free world of how to get around the rule of law to punish anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.  An appointed Commission was faster and more effective without the costly inconvenience and delay of a court challenge.   A kangaroo court is what he wanted and that is what he gave us.  Now he wants to do a clean-up job on his legacy by writing a book attacking a dead man and touting himself as the great civil libertarian.  He hopes we have forgotten that the most lasting gift he has left us are the hateful Human Rights Commissions that he inspired.

Sharon Maclise
Edmonton, AB
skymac@telus.net

Marc Lemire Case: the latest attack on Freedom of Speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Marc Lemire Case: the latest attack on Freedom of Speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

By

Christopher di Armani 

http://christopherdiarmani.com/8968/big-brother/marc-lemire-case-latest-attack-freedom-speech-canadian-human-rights-commission/

I had a long conversation with Marc Lemire on Wednesday evening, December 19, 2012.

For those not familiar with his name, Marc Lemire is the one and only man to ever win a case against the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Until Lemire was hauled before this Kangaroo Court the Canadian Human Rights Commission had a 100% conviction rate.

It’s really not that hard when the Truth is no defense and the “judge” can disallow any evidence you present without justifying that action.

Anyway, there was a development in his case this week that does not bode well for the Rights and Freedoms of ALL Canadians. Marc Lemire just happens to be the person being terrorised in this particular manner today.

It is important to remember a few things about Marc Lemire’s case.

1. As soon as Marc Lemire was made aware of the complaints against him, he removed the “offending material” from his website.

2. Despite the “offending material” being removed from the internet, the CHRC refused to drop the case against Mr. Lemire.

3. Repeated attempts by Marc Lemire and his lawyer Barbara Kulaszka at mediation with the CHRC was refused. This wasn’t about “remediation” as the law says, but about silencing individuals with whom the CHRC disagrees.

4. Marc Lemire was found “guilty” of a single infraction. That infraction was for a post on his website that he did NOT create, and contained an article written by an American author. Marc Lemire had nothing to do with the “offending” post, other than to host the website it was on.

5. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Marc Lemire’s case admitted that Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is unconstitutional.

6. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Marc Lemire’s case refused to administer the penalty against him because they knew it was unconstitutional.

7. The Canadian Parliament has already repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is waiting for the Canadian Senate to pass it as well, which will happen early this coming year, and then Section 13 will be repealed.

8. Despite all these facts, the boneheads at the CHRC are now pushing for a lifetime BAN on Marc Lemire’s Freedom of Speech while they still can.

They’re desperate to implement their ban on Marc Lemire while this atrocious law is still on the books.

Once Lemire is stripped of his Freedom of Speech by a federal court order, it won’t matter if Section 13 is repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The lifetime ban will still apply.

That is wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

Marc Lemire is now battling for his (and OUR) Right to Freedom of Speech on two fronts.

First, at the Federal Court of Appeals, where he is appealing the finding of Justice Mosley. Mosley found that Section 13 was constitutional, but that Section 54 (the penalty clause) was not.

It’s an absurd decision and one that Marc Lemire is fighting to overturn with his appeal. Lemire has also filed a 240 page motion to the Federal Court of Appeals requesting a stay of the earlier Federal Court ruling so the CHRC cannot issue a lifetime speech ban against him.

Second, at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where Lemire will fight the proposed lifetime ban.

If Freedom of Speech is important to you, then please give generously to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defense Fund. He desperately needs your help as he fights for the Right to Freedom of Speech for ALL Canadians.

You can donate with your check via Canada Post, payable to:

Marc Lemire
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defence Fund
762 Upper James St, Suite 384
Hamilton, ON  L9C 3A2

If you would prefer to give online, please send your donation via PayPal.

Anyone giving $50 or more to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defense Fund will receive a digital copy of Lemire’s book Dismantling Tyranny.

 

Remember… The choice is Free Speech or Approved Speech.  If Marc Lemire loses this case, Canadians will forever be subjected to “Approved Speech” by minions of The State.

That’s not the kind of Canada I want to live in, and I hope you feel the same.  Support Marc Lemire’s fight for OUR Right to Freedom of Speech without government intervention.

————————-

You can see the article online at:  http://christopherdiarmani.com/8968/big-brother/marc-lemire-case-latest-attack-freedom-speech-canadian-human-rights-commission/