Alphabet Soup of Human Rights Abuses by Canadian Government
The political witch-hunt and state sponsored terror campaign against Canadian blogger and founder of Best Gore Mark Marek, which culminated in the ongoing reprisal lawsuit and the threat of further lawsuits brought against him, has been laced with one violation of his human rights after another. Although necessary in a democracy, Canadian legislation inhibits independent investigation and dissemination of information of public interest, leading to restrictions that impair the individual right of expression as well as the societal right to receive information. After all, it was Canada that spent 10 years persecuting Ernst Zündel – just to silence him for inspiring the masses to think for themselves.
Direct legal pressure exerted upon Mark Marek stifles the dissemination of information, but the fact that the authorities also resort to systematic human rights violations suggest that Canada is looking beyond just stifling free speech. Perhaps as far as to crush it completely.
Let’s take a closer look at the alphabet of human rights abuses Mark Marek has suffered in the clutches of the Canadian government for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and his duty as an investigative journalist to inform the public about the results of his research.
Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live
What do you do when you can’t rely on your own country for protection and fair treatment, because it’s your own country that is set on destroying you?
The international community has long recognized the need for protection of those who face persecution by their home states for political reasons. You would get nowhere asking state institutions for protection if it’s state institutions that hunt you. It is for that very reason why the right to seek asylum from prosecution is recognized as a fundamental human right by all international human right treaties.
After arresting Mark following the breach of bail fabrication, Edmonton Police Service Detective Andre Francois and Staff Sgt. Bill Clark harassed, threatened and imprisoned Mark because they had knowledge that while on bail, Mark visited a foreign consulate in Edmonton. More information about the incident can be found HERE.
This was in violation of Mark’s fundamental human rights guaranteed to every Canadian by the international treaties Canada is bound by, namely:
Article 14 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy, in other countries, asylum from persecution
and Article 27 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System:
Every person has the right, in case of pursuit not resulting from ordinary crimes, to seek and receive asylum in foreign territory, in accordance with the laws of each country and with international agreements
This fundamental human right is respected even by countries like China (Chinese authorities recently granted Chen Guangcheng safe passage to leave China and live in the United States of America after he had sought refuge in a US Embassy).
Right to Freedom of Expressions
Mark Marek has been under full prior restraint since July 2013. Prior restraint is a government restriction imposed upon speech and other forms of expression in advance, aimed at preventing publication from taking place all together. Prior restraint is incomparably worse than censorship because it doesn’t even give expressions a chance of materializing. If censorship is burning books, then prior restraint is burning authors to ensure no books are written. If censorship stifles free speech, then prior restraint annihilates it. Prior restraint means none of what the author writes would be considered, as it is based on an underlying assumption that everything the author writes is by default illegal.
Only the pettiest dictators still enforce prior restraint today. In fact, you’d be hard pressed finding instances of prior restraint in countries commonly considered undemocratic. To my knowledge, not even Pakistan, Uganda or Saudi Arabia destroy press freedom as astringently as Canada.
It also must be considered that Mark Marek has not been put under prior restraint by being merely forbidden from publishing on Best Gore. He’s forbidden from publishing all together anywhere on the internet. He’s also banned from possessing a computer, cell phone, or any other telecommunication device and from accessing the internet. That includes a total ban on attending an internet cafe. In other words, Mark has not only been silenced as a journalist, but also prevented from using the means to survive in the 21st century world.
In democratic countries, the right to freedom of expression is not subject to prior censorship, only subject to subsequent imposition of liability. The Inter-American Court interpreted article 13 (2) – Prior Censorship in the American Convention on Human Rights – by establishing that abuse of freedom of information cannot be controlled by preventative measures, but only through the subsequent imposition of sanctions on those who are proven guilty of the abuses by an independent and impartial tribunal. Canada joined the Organization of American States in 1990 and promised to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights in short order. 24 years later, Canada has still not taken this step. Seeing that Canadian authorities like to put journalists under prior censorship, it is understandable why.
Persecuting Mark as a journalist who acted upon his duty to inform the public is a violation of his fundamental human rights contrary to:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
and Article 4 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever
and Section 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
When Mark was arrested following the fabricated breach of bail charge, it was like kidnapping and was carried out with an apparent intention to terrify and dishearten, i.e. to “teach” Mark a lesson and show him who the bosses were.
During the subsequent interrogation, detectives refused to investigate provided evidence and ignored information that proved the arrest was unlawful. Instead, the interrogation focused on intimidation and instilling terror in Mark’s mind. Staff Sgt. Clark reminded Mark repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that he didn’t appreciate Mark’s disclosures that exposed the brutality of police, and made it clear that they would get their way with him no matter what, and that for his audacity to inform the public about the Police’s wrongdoings, that Mark was done for.
Like police, the prosecutors (Julie Roy and Cheryl Schlecker) appear to have really wanted to send a message of their own and ignored the evidence that the arrest was unlawful to ensure that Mark goes to jail. In a bid to keep him illegally in jail for as long as possible, the prosecutors opposed Mark’s release, but voluntarily withdrew their opposition after a threat of mainstream media finding out about Mark’s arbitrary arrest and unlawful imprisonment became too real. Unfortunately, because of the way it works in Canada, both police and prosecutors were able to have an open season on Mark, mistreating him and abusing his rights at will, because all it took for them to do after the illegality of the imprisonment became known, was to say: “Oops, did we get it wrong this time? We so sowwy!”
Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment Mark was subjected to after the smear campaign based on the fabricated breach of bail charge violated Mark’s fundamental human rights contrary to:
Article 9 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile
and Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Imposition of prior restraint is Mark being treated as guilty until proven innocent. He is basically not allowed to publish anything, whether on Best Gore or another website because he is presumed guilty by default. He may not be allowed to publish again unless he has proven his innocence.
To ensure that this doesn’t happen anytime soon, in order to prolong his detrimental state of being on the losing end by being presumed guilty until proven innocent, the authorities are delaying the trial by such dirty tricks as not providing full disclosure (which has still not been provided to this date) or by threatening further charges, but likely putting them off until later in order to make sure Mark remains under prior restraint for as long as possible. Future will show whether the suspicion of the abuse of process by new prosecutor proves right. I suspect it will.
Likewise, Mark’s arbitrary imprisonment after the fabricated breach of bail charge was the authorities presuming him guilty until proven innocent. In that case, it would however be more appropriate to say that he was presumed guilty despite the evidence that he was innocent. Said evidence was ignored, apparently to ensure Mark goes to jail as they imagined it was going to teach him a lesson about who the bosses are.
Having been treated as guilty until proven innocent is in violation of Mark’s fundamental human rights contrary to:
Article 11(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence
and Article 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty
and Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
To really send a “message” that Mark is done for, the authorities launched a massive, international scale smear campaign with an apparent goal to ruin Mark’s life with character assassination. Because Mark has never in his life committed a single crime, not even anything as minor as not wearing a seatbelt, the authorities appear to have used the fact that in Canada the police and prosecutors can get away with almost anything and fabricated a crime to associate Mark with. The impunity they enjoy allowed them to smear Mark as a criminal who committed the crime, and once caught in the lie, they simply said they got it wrong this time, no harm done to them, but Mark’s name would remain smeared.
The smear campaign targeted all media outlets imaginable, but to ensure the damage is as huge as possible, rookie officers were tasked with contacting various establishments, such as hotels, shelters, car rental agencies, travel offices and similar businesses and warned them about Mark to have him blacklisted from their services and to establish Mark’s image as a dangerous perpetrator. More about Edmonton Police Service’s smear campaign against Mark HERE. Previous related smear campaign by Montreal police which was launched in response to Mark exposing their incompetence in mishandling the Luka Magnotta case is HERE.
The smear campaign and targeted character assassination violated Mark’s fundamental human rights contrary to:
Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks
and Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Mark made the arresting officers aware that he suffered painful kidney stones condition and frequent strokes that cause unbearably agonizing pains. After he was locked up in a cold cell with only a steel plate to sit on, the pain announced itself quickly. But after informing an officer in charge that he was experiencing an incredibly painful kidney stroke and needed medical attention, the officer barked back at him implying that Mark was making it up.
Similarly, already anticipating an imminent kidney stroke after his second arrest, Mark once again preemptively informed the officers that he suffered from painful kidney stones condition and having been aware that the holding cells were freezing cold and equipped with only steel plates to sit on, he asked if he could keep the blanket he had been provided due to insufficient clothing earlier. The officer refused to let him keep the blanket, once again condemning Mark to unbearable kidney stone pain.
Both these instances subjected Mark to pain comparable or exceeding medieval torture methods with all means to seek an end to this suffering denied to him. More info about authorities subjecting Mark to cruel and inhuman treatment can be found in the letter to the EPS Professional Standards branch intake officer Albert Lacher.
Refusal of medical attention during a kidney stroke, considered the worst pain a human being can experience, constituted subjection of Mark to cruel and unusual treatment. Letting a person suffer through kidney stone pain is equivalent to torture and is in violation of:
Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
and Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
and Article 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person accused of an offense has the right to be given an impartial and public hearing, and to be tried by courts previously established in accordance with pre-existing laws, and not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment.
Right to Privacy
Regardless of how much the judge wanted to ensure that Mark remains under full prior censorship and unable to access the tools essential for his defense against the charges, because at least one member of the mainstream media was present in the court room (a reporter from the Edmonton Journal), the judge would make the persecution too obvious if she said Mark had no right to defend himself. So as much as she was adamant about not varying Mark’s excessively restrictive bail conditions, if she also openly denied him the ability to defend himself, that could have possibly jeopardize the mission. But to ensure she makes it as impractical, inconvenient and costly, she allowed Mark to access the internet but only for a limited use, only within the office of the lawyer and only under supervision.
Thus, Mark was able to have limited communication with his lawyer and supporters involved in his defense by email. But as the enemy continuously appears to be aware of the defense strategy, and as they appear to have advance knowledge of long term strategies Mark had shared with his supporters, a serious suspicion has arisen that Mark’s email communications, including communications within the “solicitor-client privilege” with his lawyer are unlawfully intercepted and spied on. How we put it to the test and had it confirmed with 100% certainty that all Mark’s incoming and outgoing emails are spied on is explained in more detail HERE.
We’ve been able to find a way to counter much of this unlawful violation of the right to be secure against unreasonable interference with one’s privacy and private correspondence, but the sole knowledge that such blatant violations occur sends a very chilling message about privacy of solicitor-client communications in Canada.
Interference with Mark’s email communications, spying on and hacking into Mark’s accounts are in violation of his human rights contrary to:
Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
and Article 10 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person has the right to the inviolability and transmission of his correspondence.
and Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Right to Life
As reported in the previous section, after months under full prior restraint and being barred from possessing a laptop or cell phone or accessing the internet, Mark had a hearing scheduled with a goal to have his bail conditions varied, because they prevented him from being able to defend himself against the charges, and also made survival in the 21st century world that’s powered by the internet impossible (it is for example impossible to find a room for rent without the internet, as nobody advertises these in print anymore).
The judge made made the impression right from the start that she was aware of Mark’s case and that whatever the argument, she was not likely to vary his conditions. She argued that in the past, there was no such thing as the internet to enable the people to be informed or communicate instantaneously, yet they got by just fine. Apparently, according to this judge, just because something worked when the world was different, it should work just as well now that the world’s happenings move about much faster.
Yes, there was a time when people didn’t have the internet and were able to communicate by snail mail. There was also a time when they communicated by burning pyres, and a time when the furthest the communication got was to the opposite end of their cave. And… surprise – they got by just fine. Their means of communication back then were suitable for the time. They were suitable for the way the world was back then. But that doesn’t mean they are suitable for the way the world is today.
It’s as if I made an argument that I was gonna drive a vehicle without a driver’s license and an insurance, because in the past, people drove without licenses and insurances and got around just fine. That’s how utterly ridiculous and openly biased judges who handled Mark’s case so far were. The judge who ruled over the bail conditions hearing acted like she had made her mind about how she was gonna rule beforehand and whatever arguments were presented by the defense, it was not gonna matter. She only bent a little bit with regard to Mark’s inability to defend himself against the charges, seemingly because if she also objected to that, the bias would have been so obvious, even the mainstream media would notice.
Despite the fact that Mark is not charged with a violent crime, the system treats him as the most dangerous offender in Alberta. His persecution is a direct attack on his life, but it’s done in a sneaky manner – instead of destroying him directly, it’s tailored to make his basic survival impossible to sustain.
For example – Mark has been a webmaster since 2002 and has more than two dozen active websites. Various products and services associated with webmastering need to be regularly renewed or else the webmaster faces serious consequences. Each domain name, for example needs to have its annual registration fee paid for before the expiry date or else it goes back into the open and becomes available for registration by whoever gets it first. Domain names expire in various times throughout the year. If not renewed, the webmaster would lose all the work he put toward them. This loss is irreversible as expired domains snatchers are always on a lookout for domain names with traffic and history. Mark’s prosecutors and judges prevented Mark from being able to renew his expiring services, including domain names, thus conducting a serious attack on his life whereby work he put toward these services was under a threat of being lost for good.
Similarly, all active websites are constantly under a threat of various attacks. Those could result in defacement, redirects to unsafe zones, installation of Trojans, use as zombie botnets or spam disseminators, etc. Hackers are always looking for ways to find vulnerabilities in websites and exploit them. Webmasters must likewise always monitor activity on their servers and counter suspicious behavior or face a very realistic danger of having their website taken over and abused. It’s for the same reason why all software companies have whole teams dedicated to searching for security holes and issuing patches. Just how active and creative hackers are can be seen from how frequently updates for Microsoft Windows operating systems are issued. Mark’s prosecutors and judges prevented Mark from being able to monitor his websites for attacks against them, putting his work at further risk, making it just another methodical attack on his life and well being by proxying the tear apart of his life’s work.
Another example – Mark’s whole family lives overseas. He used to stay in touch by email because phonecalls were not only costly, but also difficult to arrange due to different time zones. By denying Mark the ability to keep his family up to date with how he is, and to deny his ability to hear from persons he trusts, the prosecutors and judges caused both parties emotional distress. It is a direct attack on life and well being of a person that serves no purpose but as a boost to the egos of those executing the acts of torture. To cause emotional distress seems to generate a great deal of personal gratification for the guilty parties.
After 8 months, Mark has still not been given his seized laptop and hard drives. On these devices there is evidence needed for his defense. There is for example email evidence that Mark put the public good before his personal gain and made contact with police on a number of occasions to serve the public interests. His attempts to serve and protect the public were however not met with the like interest from the authorities. Further evidence is in emails received from the members of the public who provided testimonies about how Best Gore has helped save lives of their loved ones, or helped them with their career, or helped them get rid of bad habits that were a time bomb waiting to go off and hurt them or others. Despite repeat requests, to this day, the laptop has not been provided to Mark or his lawyer, depriving him of evidence essential for his defense. This cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to destroy Mark’s life.
We now live in a fast paced world that does business on the internet. By denying Mark access to the internet, the prosecution denied Mark the ability to find accommodation, to find employment, to maintain employment, to stay informed, and to grow with the demands of the growing world. Trying to find a room to rent if you don’t have one nor have anyone who can put you up until you find one is an impossibility. A person denied access to the internet is a person denied the ability to find accommodation. Similarly, while some employers still advertise in traditional media, most jobs involved some form of use of a computer. If you are banned from using a computer, not only do your options for finding a job lessen, your ability to actually become marketable is virtually nil. Worse yet, the computer world is fast changing. It changes faster than books can be printed. Staying up to date with computer technologies, such as web development, or learning new ones requires access to the internet. To be denied internet access is to be denied the opportunity to learn and grow as a person and a member of society.
With regards to the fact that Mark is not accused of a violent crime, as all he’s done was share stories and news of public interest with those who voluntarily elected to read them by accessing the Best Gore website and agreeding with the conditions of use, the fact that the prosecution and judges made it mandatory for Mark to turn himself in to jail before his trial and the preliminary hearing, is further a proof that they enjoy putting their victims in compromising situations so they can solidify their positions of power and boost their egos by humiliating harmless and defenceless men over whom they play Gods.
Put all of these little facts together and you get a very neat picture of the vicious attack on Mark’s life. He’s been deprived of all the means to sustain his life, the means to defend himself against the charges, and of his right to liberty and security of the person by means of malicious prosecution. It is essential to see this attack for what it really is, not for what it masquerades itself as. A tyrant who tells his people that he’s merciful because he could have executed his opponent, but instead he set him free may not be so merciful after all. Cause if you were to look closely and realize that he did set him free, but first he broke his legs and then he dropped him off in the middle of a desert with no water or shelter for 100 miles, then that seemingly merciful act of setting the opponent free is really an act of a psychopath prolonging his victim’s suffering for his own enjoyment.
We find the vicious attacks on Mark’s life and the excessively restrictive conditions imposed upon him so intentionally hurtful, they are in contravention of the principles of fundamental justice and are a severe violation of his human rights contrary to:
Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
and Article 1 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
and Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.