Announcement

**Pearson** · 06-27-2013, 01:04 AM

Section 13 Update Part Two - June 26th 2013

SECTION 13 IS HISTORY!!!

http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=8838#post8838
http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...030#post387030
http://previousdissent.com/forums/sh...3310#post33310

http://ymlp.com/zDFsUp

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ll-them-filth/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-prosecutions/

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...guage=e&Mode=1 Bill C-304

http://ymlp.com/zDFsUp

http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/cafe/cafe-new-updates June 27th 2013

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/06/...-has-been.html

Marc Lemire's Legal Challenge of Canadian "Human Rights" Commission
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
BREAKING NEWS: Section 13 has been Repealed! Bill C-304 passed Third Reading in the Senate
BREAKING NEWS:

Section 13 has been Repealed! Bill C-304 passed Third Reading in the Senate

News is just breaking across Twitter that the Senate of Canada has finally passed third-reading on Bill C-304, which is an Act to repeal the censorship provision – Section 13 of the Canadian "Human Rights" Act.

Section 13 makes it an offence to "likely" "expose" privileged groups to "hatred and/or contempt." There are NO defences under Section 13! Even truth and intent are considered irrelevant to a finding of discrimination. The law was enacted in 1977 in order to silence a man named John Ross Taylor for messages he recorded onto his telephone answering machine. In the intervening 32 years, not a single person who has been hauled up on Section 13 charges has ever been acquitted - a 100% conviction rate. Section 13 has been used and abused since its inception.

Here are a few selected Tweets about it:

Brian Storseth ‏@BrianStorsethMP: Thx to Sen. Finley for his work on C-304 his commitment and work on making Canada a freer country, will be his legacy! #cpc2013 #C304

Michelle Rempel, MP ‏@MichelleRempel : Congrats to @BrianStorsethMP, whose PMB (C-304), I have on good authority just passed @senateca on third reading.

Brian Lilley ‏@brianlilley : Just being told Bill C-304 to repeal the dreaded section 13 of the Human Rights Act has been passed. A good step for free speech. #cdnpoli

More information to come tonight as information is posted to the Senate's website.

You can see Brian Storseth's testimony from yesterday Senate committee on Bill C-304 and why Section 13 is such an affront to freedom and liberty.

This is a great day for Freedom!

-Marc Lemire

Webmaster, Freedomsite.org

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...guage=e&Mode=1 Bill C-304

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
46 Elizabeth II, 1997

The House of Commons of Canada

BILL C-304

An Act to amend An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1960, c. 44; 1970-71-72, c. 38; 1985, c. 26; 1992, c. 1
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

1. Paragraph 1(a) of An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is replaced by the following:

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

2. The portion of section 2 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Construction of law
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms recognized and declared in section 1, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

3. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:

Right to enjoy property
2.1 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property.

Right not to be deprived of property without hearing, etc.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), every person has the right not to be deprived of that person's property unless the person

(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and

(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property,

and the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially and is paid within a reasonable amount of time after the person is deprived of the property.

Limitation
(3) The rights set out in this section are guaranteed subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Enforcement of property rights
(4) A person whose rights, as set out in this section, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Exception where express declaration
2.2 (1) Subject to subsection (2), any law of Canada that is inconsistent with section 2.1 is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect unless it is expressly declared in an Act of the Parliament of Canada that the law shall operate notwithstanding section 2.1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Exception where express declaration
(2) Where an Act of Parliament contains a declaration referred to in subsection (1) and that declaration is a declaration that purports to apply generally to laws of Canada or to a class of such laws described in general terms, that declaration is not an express declaration within the meaning of that subsection.

Five year limitation
(3) A declaration referred to in subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

Re-enact-
ment
(4) Parliament may re-enact a declaration referred to in subsection (1).

Five year limitation
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

4. (1) Subsection 5(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Savings
5. (1) Nothing in Part I shall be construed to abrogate or abridge any human right, property right or fundamental freedom not set out therein that may have existed in Canada at the commencement of this Act.

(2) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

``law of Canada'' defined
(2) The expression ``law of Canada'' in Part I means

(a) an Act of the Parliament of Canada enacted before, on or after August 10, 1960 or any order, rule or regulation thereunder, and, for the purposes of section 2.2, includes any act taken pursuant to a power granted by that Act or any order, rule or regulation thereunder that is taken on or after the coming into force of this section; and

(b) any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada on August 10, 1960 that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada, and, for the purposes of section 2.2, includes any act taken pursuant to a power authorized by that law that is taken on or after the coming into force of this section.

5. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:

Amending procedure, etc.
6. The adoption by the House of Commons of any bill introduced in or presented to that House that

(a) contains an express declaration that a law of Canada shall operate notwithstanding section 2.1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights,

(b) proposes to amend or repeal section 2.1, 2.2 or 5 or this section or delegate power to amend or repeal any of those provisions, or

(c) proposes to re-enact a declaration referred to in subsection 2.2(1)

shall require the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.

30 and 31 Vict., c. 3
British North American (BNA) CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867

6. The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding the following after section 49:

Exception
49.1 Notwithstanding section 48 or 49, an Act of the Parliament of Canada may provide that the adoption by the House of Commons of a bill introduced in or presented to that House shall require the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.

Exception
49.2 Notwithstanding section 48 or 49, it shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt a bill that proposes to amend or repeal section 49.1 or this section or delegate power to amend or repeal either of those sections unless at least two-thirds of the members of that House vote to adopt the bill.

TERRY IS FREE! MARC IS FREE! CANADA WILL SOON BE FREE! I am attaching the article as well from the National Post calling for the repeal of Section 13.

Jonathan Kay: Try as it might, the Supreme Court can’t sugar-coat anti-Christian censorship

Ted Jacob / Postmedia News Bill Whatcott (facing at left) protests homosexuality and abortion – all in the same breath – before his court appearance in Calgary Friday March 27, 2009.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott can’t be considered a win for free-speech champions — especially religious conservatives. But nor is it an outright victory for human-rights censors. By reaffirming that human rights commissions cannot punish speech that merely “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” an alleged victim group, the Court struck a measured blow against political correctness. Human rights commissions are on renewed notice that they may target only public expressions of true hatred that create a genuine climate of menace for a targeted group.

A better judgment would have been one that entirely took censorship out of the hands of human-rights commissions — which tend to be staffed by former activists instead of qualified judges; do not respect the ordinary legal rules of due process; and regularly stack the deck in favour of complainants, who (perversely) are offered cash bounties as rewards for their identity-politics grievances ($17,500 in the Whatcott case, for instance). Canada already has a federal hate speech law, after all: Section 319 of the Criminal Code, which is narrowly tailored, and contains safeguards against frivolous prosecutions. To the extent Canada needs any hate-speech censorship regime at all, Section 319 does just fine.

But given the mania for censorship sweeping many other developed nations, especially in Europe, the Supreme Court judgment in Whatcott was far from a worst-case scenario. It signals that political correctness has its limits in Canada. As the Court stated: “Representations belittling a minority group or attacking its dignity through jokes, ridicule or insults may be hurtful and offensive. However … offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a justification for infringing on freedom of expression.”

(In this respect, the Supreme Court’s language echoed that of an important 2012 Alberta Court of Appeal decision, which upheld the right of Red Deer, Alta. pastor Stephen Boissoin to excoriate the “homosexual machine” and “militant homosexual agenda” in the pages of a local newspaper. “Matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum,” properly concluded Mr. Justice Clinton O’Brien in that case. “Freedom of speech does not just protect polite speech.”)

What is the difference between real “hatred,” and speech that is merely “impolite” or which invites “ridicule”? The Supreme Court answers this by show and tell, helpfully reproducing the flyers that William Whatcott, the social conservative and self-described “Christian Trust Activist” at the center of this case, distributed in 2001 and 2002.

In the “hateful” column are flyers D and E (as they were tagged in the Supreme Court’s judgment) — which included one titled “Keep homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s public schools.” In it, Whatcott claims that “homosexuals want to share their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan’s children”; and that “Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.”

Ted Jacob/Postmedia NewsBill Whatcott protests homosexuality and abortion, at the same time.

Whatcott also claimed that “Our acceptance of homosexuality and our toleration of its promotion in our school system will lead to the early death and morbidity of many children. Ultimately, out entire culture will be lost”; and that “Sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire Aids and 3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!”

On the other hand, flyers F and G, which the Supreme Court found did not rise to the level of censorable hate speech, consisted of a photocopied set of casual-sex-encounters classified ads, along with this annotation: “Saskatchewan’s largest gay magazine allows ads for men seeking boys! The ads with men advertising as ‘bottoms’ are men who want to get sodomized. This shouldn’t be legal in Saskatchewan!”

True hate speech, the Court concludes, is “expression that equates the targeted group with groups traditionally reviled in society.” By this standard, flyers D and E are subject to human-rights censorship because they “delegitimiz[e] homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles.” Flyers F and G, on the other hand, don’t go that far.

One of the functions of our Supreme Court is to provide citizens with certainty about what government can prohibit and what it can’t. The Whatcott decision, at the very least, performs this function. Anti-homosexual activists know that materials that oppose homosexuality in general terms will be legally permissible — so long as they do not present gays as agents of civilization-destroying “filth,” or as some sort of deadly bacillus or abomination.

The complication is that millions of Canadians do see homosexual behaviour in exactly those fire-and-brimstone terms, even if the rest of us (myself included) do not. They include not only many religious Christians such as Mr. Whatcott, but also many religious Muslims and Jews. And there is no sugar-coating the fact that — despite its claim to be “balancing” the rights of all concerned — the Court effectively has privileged the protection of gay Canadians over the right of religious Christians to promote what they view as the established, Biblical take on homosexuality.

Moreover, the Court wrongly chose to wipe away any distinction between hating acts associated with homosexuality, and hating homosexuals as people. That distinction may be meaningless for most Canadians. But it is an important distinction in Christian doctrine. Whatcott himself specifically invites gays to “repent” their ways and attain salvation — which suggests, crucially, that he does not regard any person as permanently stained by sin.

Political correctness may not be running amok among Canada’s highest jurists. But it certainly is serving to suppress the views of strict religious conservatives. And it is a shame that the Supreme Court did not use this opportunity to afford citizens such as Mr. Whatcott the same free-speech rights enjoyed by secular Canadians.

National Post

Chris Selley: The futility of hate-speech prosecutions

Earlier this week, Sun News TV commentator Ezra Levant apologized for a vile anti-Roma rant he had delivered on air many months previously. “I must admit that I did more than just attack a crime or immigration-fraud problem,” he wrote. “I attacked a particular group, and painted them all with the same brush.”

Indeed, attacking “a particular group” seemed to be the point of Mr. Levant’s infamous nine-minute Sept. 5, 2012 segment. So it was rather intriguing to see this belated epiphany.

Also this week, Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui broke intriguing news: Gina Csanyi-Robah of Toronto’s Roma Community Centre, who had filed a criminal hate-speech complaint against Mr. Levant, claims that police and Crown attorneys were willing to proceed with charges — but that the provincial Attorney-General’s office nixed it. She claims deputy Attorney-General Patrick Monahan said the case would be “challenging,” and that Mr. Levant would turn the proceedings into “a bit of a circus.”

If this account is true, it speaks to at least three issues surrounding Canada’s hate-speech legislation, both in its Criminal-Code and human-rights-code variants.

First: If Mr. Monahan said what Ms. Csanyi-Robah claims he said, the deputy Attorney-General was right: Assuming Mr. Levant had the means to fight the prosecution, it is reasonable to assume he would have turned the proceedings into a circus. And in the process, he likely would have brought far more negative attention upon the Roma community than it has ever experienced in Canada — not least from Mr. Levant’s blogging-and-tweeting army of zealous fans, who would gleefully repeat his views and likely much worse. (In theory, they could all be prosecuted. But in practice, they likely wouldn’t be.)

Canada is a rare island of peace and tolerance for the Roma. By no means should they feel compelled to sit quietly and suffer Mr. Levant’s slurs. But a quick, forceful, factual response would have been a far better course of action. After all, very few people watch Mr. Levant’s Sun News show (though his choicest tirades do make the rounds on social media). Vastly more Canadians now have been exposed to the rant he now claims to regret thanks to the drawn-out process that followed.

Second: Ms. Csanyi-Robah claims police were stunned at the deputy attorney-general’s reluctance. Perhaps so. But criminal hate-speech prosecutions are in fact quite rare. And even when prosecutions do go forward, punishments are light: Section 319 of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment of up to two years, but even that thin book rarely is thrown.

Donald Andrews and Robert Smith, leaders in the white-supremacist National Party of Canada, were convicted of promoting hatred in 1985. They were sentenced to a relatively whopping 12 and seven months, respectively, which was hacked down to three months and one month on appeal.

And that’s really the pointy end of the stick. At various points along the way, anti-Semitic teacher James Keegstra faced a $5,000 fine. But that eventually became a $3,000 fine, and then just probation and community service. Disgraced former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations David Ahenakew only ever faced a $1,000 fine for his anti-Semitic rant to a reporter — an appropriately low amount, the judge said, so as not to make a “martyr” out of the convicted. At his second trial, Mr. Ahenakew was acquitted. Any martyr status he achieved, he achieved through prosecution.

That brings us to the third issue. The principle of trying hate speech in quasi-judicial human-rights tribunals, upheld by the Supreme Court in the recent Whatcott decision, often is justified on grounds that the threshold for redress, and for sanction, ought to be lower than justifies criminal prosecution. And yet, Canada’s various human rights tribunals are wont to hand out much stiffer financial penalties than the criminal ones mentioned above.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined comedian Guy Earle $15,000, and restaurant owner Sam Ismail, $7,500, in connection with a mid-performance harangue Mr. Earle hurled at some lesbian hecklers in 2008. The Canadian Human Rights Commision awarded $4,000 “for hurt feelings” to a Health Canada employee whose new boss said he “liked visible minorities.” Alberta’s commission fined Reverend Stephen Boissoin $5,000 for an anti-gay letter to the Red Deer Advocate. And Saskatchewan’s famously fined anti-gay pamphleteer Bill Whatcott — he of the recent Supreme Court decision — a whopping $17,500. That’s to say nothing of people like Mr. Levant, who claim to have been left with massive legal bills after their ridiculous cases were eventually dismissed.

There are any number of half-measures that might make this speech-policing mess less incoherent and unfair. But generally speaking, the prosecution of hate speech in this country carries a distinct whiff of futility. The good thing is, forcefully combatting hate speech with true speech is every bit as effective with hate speech laws in place as without. There’s nothing to stop any Canadian from taking that approach. And if notoriety and flamboyance are in fact enough to keep someone like Ezra Levant out of court, that approach may now have become a matter of necessity.

National Post

cselley@nationalpost.com

Andrew Coyne: Why does Canada still have a hate speech law?

Todd Korol / Reuters filesIt isn’t enough that the speech is considered offensive. It must be shown to have caused, or be likely to cause, some demonstrable harm to some identifiable person.

Hardly was there time to celebrate the demise of Section 13, the infamous provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibiting “communication of hate messages,” before we were reminded this was not the only unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech on the books.

Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code, for example, forbidding the “willful” promotion of hatred “against any identifiable group,” is currently getting a workout in a Regina courtroom in the case of Terry Tremaine, a sometime math lecturer and avowed neo-Nazi. While Tremaine will have available to him the sorts of due process rights denied to those hauled before the human rights tribunals — the defence of truth among them — the end result is much the same: the suppression of speech society finds objectionable, for the sole reason that it is objectionable. If convicted, he faces up to two years in jail.

The National Post, in an editorial, made the case that such prosecutions only provide a platform for the promotion of the very ideas that were supposedly so toxic as to require suppression. In the age of the Internet, moreover, only a tiny fraction of such material is ever likely to be caught in the state’s web, raising questions as to what, if anything, is being achieved.

But these are practical arguments. I want to raise a more fundamental objection. Societies that maintain such laws, after all, are making a statement about who and what they are, the sorts of principles they value and why.

I’ll make the customary disclaimer here: freedom of speech is indeed not absolute. But the classical exceptions developed over the centuries — libel, fraud, and so on — typically find justification in the concept of harm. It isn’t enough that the speech is considered offensive. It must be shown to have caused, or be likely to cause, some demonstrable harm to some identifiable person.

This begins from the recognition of what an extraordinary thing it is, in a free society, for the state to stop up people’s mouths. Speech is not merely useful for debating political ideas. It is innate to us as human beings, built into our very thought processes: to prevent us from speaking is the next thing to preventing us from thinking. The burden of proof must therefore be on those who would seek to restrict freedom of speech, and not on those who wish merely to enjoy that freedom. And that burden must be a heavy one.

Is there another kind of harm that would justify its imposition? Hurt feelings, as I’ve said, aren’t enoughHow heavy? In a criminal trial, as everyone knows, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. The state is required to prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What is more, there are no exceptions.

Often the law requires the courts to weigh one principle against another, most famously via the Charter’s “reasonable limits” clause. But in a criminal trial, the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is absolute.

To deprive someone of their freedom of speech is perhaps not so grave a matter as to deprive them of their physical liberty. But it is not that far off. It is defensible in certain limited cases, and only with the most rigorous justification. The harm asserted, therefore, cannot be vague or subjective. It must be of a kind that others can agree is harm. That is why the classical exceptions have tended to focus on individuals, and on the more tangible forms of harm.

Physical injury is an obvious example. And indeed, the ban on hate speech is often justified by invoking the threat of violence. But there are other areas of the Criminal Code to deal with that. For example, Sect 319.1, the section just before the one in dispute, outlaws inciting hatred against an identifiable group “where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” The purpose of 319.2, then, can only be to cover cases where no such breach is likely.

Is there another kind of harm that would justify its imposition? Hurt feelings, as I’ve said, aren’t enough: all sorts of things can cause subjective offense, with no objective basis for distinguishing between them. Attempts have been made to draw an analogy to libel, on the grounds that hate speech amounts to defamation of an entire group. But the broader and more abstract the claim of harm, the harder it is to show.

Probably the strongest case is that recently made by the American legal theorist Jeremy Waldron, in his book The Harm in Hate Speech. Hate speech, he argues, is nothing less than an assault on the dignity of the targeted groups, robbing them of the “implicit assurance” a just society owes to all of its citizens: that they are accepted as members of that society. Without such assurance, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for them to participate fully in the community.

I can see that applying, in a society where such views were dominant. But a handful of neo-Nazis?I can see that applying, in a society where such views were dominant. But a handful of neo-Nazis? How is anyone’s membership in society threatened because somebody, somewhere, has an Adolf Hitler decoder ring? Perhaps it might be argued that it is only the law that prevents the few from becoming the many: that in its absence, hatred would be, not the exception, but the rule.

Yet that is not the experience of free societies. Rather, it is in backward dictatorships that hatred of minorities is most virulent. How, indeed, does the impulse arise to protect vulnerable groups in this way except amid the general climate of tolerance of others that is the very basis of freedom of speech? Is it the ban on hate speech, then, that protects them, or the broader absence of such limits?

Postmedia News

Please see Paul Fromm's comments below:

We Won! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is Repealed!

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Late this afternoon, an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then, Royal Assent.

Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially, unconstitutional.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels.

We usually don't quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? ["Call Susie for a good time -- 403 -777-7777" "No, Susie is no fun."]

However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC, which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:

"And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there's nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.

Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we'll see how things play out."

The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality -- minus the financial penalties -- of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government -- NDP, Liberal? -- might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don't kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Here's to free speech! I deeply regret my old comrade
Doug Christie did not live to see this important victory.

To: mailto:h*******
Subject: Re: Please vote for C-304

Dear Sir,

I did.

The Bill passed today in the Senate and was given Royal Assent.

Thanks for your concern for free speech.

Yours,

Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut

In the memory of our fallen comrade Douglas Christie whom we will always remember. If only he had lived to see this day.

HAIL VICTORY!!

Douglas

Attached Files

**Pearson** · 06-27-2013, 01:48 AM

BREAKING NEWS: Section 13 has been Repealed! Bill C-304 passed Third Reading in the Senate‏

SECTION 13 REPEALED VIA BILL C-304 IN THE SENATE ON JUNE 26TH 2013

http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=8839#post8839

http://www.freedomsite.org/ Freedomsite

http://www.cafe.nfshost.com/ Canadian Assocation for Free Expression

http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/ Canadian Association for Free Expression Archive

http://www.nspcanada.nfshost.com/ National-Socialist Party of Canada

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/06/...-has-been.html

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

It certainly is encouraging news to hear that the Senate has finally passed third-reading on Bill C-304 and put the draconian Big Brother Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act out of its misery once and for all.

My heart goes out to all of those Canadians who have suffered under this Bolshevik-inspired Orwellian piece of legislation planted in the Canadian Human Rights Act by the Zionist Jew lobbies here in Canada in order to censor and silence any deserved criticism of both the rogue state of Israel and its racist, supremacist ideology known as Zionism. Too many Canadians have been forced and coerced over the past quarter century or longer to suffer extreme stress and duress at the hands of those within the "Human Rights" commissions and and tribunals who treated anyone accused of these so-called "hate crimes" with utter distain and dragged them through the equivalent of the Soviet Stalinist "Show Trials" convicting everyone and forcing many to pay exorbitant fines plus imposing bans on their right to express themselves on the Internet and elsewhere.

What we now need to see is some form of restitution paid to all the victims and an apology from the federal and provincial governments for having treated their citizens in such a shabby fashion for so long.

We can only hope and pray that now that this repressive Stalinist law is a dead duck that more Canadians will find the courage and will to speak out about the undue influence that these foreign lobbyist organizations are having on our legal and social structures not to mention our foreign policies and the environment degradation that increases with each passing day.

The only avenue available now for these same control-freak forces who have relied on section 13 to stop open discussion of Israeli war crimes and Zionist involvement within the media, government, banking and corporations will be to charge Canadians under section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, the very same section that Richard Warman and Harry Abrams used in order to have me arrested back on May 16th, 2012 and charged with "willfully promoting hatred against 'people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group'". This will undoubtedly make it a much tougher row for the Zionists to hoe given the stringent conditions now in place in the Criminal Code that allow for various defences, including speaking the TRUTH.

For today though let's raise a cup and give a toast to the Conservative government for having done what neither the Liberals nor the NDP would ever have ventured to do.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
"Digging to the root of the issues since 1998"
_____________________________________

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Marc Lemire" <marc@lemire.com>

Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Section 13 has been Repealed! Bill C-304 passed Third Reading in the Senate

Date: 26 June, 2013 2:53:29 PM PDT

To: "'Marc Lemire'" <marc@lemire.com>

BREAKING NEWS:
Section 13 has been Repealed! Bill C-304 passed Third Reading in the Senate

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/06/...-has-been.html
http://canadianhumanrightscommission...-has-been.html

News is just breaking across Twitter that the Senate of Canada has finally passed third-reading on Bill C-304, which is an Act to repeal the censorship provision – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act.

Section 13 makes it an offence to "likely" "expose" privileged groups to "hatred and/or contempt." There are NO defences under Section 13! Even truth and intent are considered irrelevant to a finding of discrimination. The law was enacted in 1977 in order to silence a man named John Ross Taylor for messages he recorded onto his telephone answering machine. In the intervening 32 years, not a single person who has been hauled up on Section 13 charges has ever been acquitted - a 100% conviction rate. Section 13 has been used and abused since its inception.

Here are a few selected Tweets about it:

Brian Storseth ‏@BrianStorsethMP : Thx to Sen. Finley for his work on C-304 his commitment and work on making Canada a freer country, will be his legacy! #cpc2013 #C304

Michelle Rempel, MP ‏@MichelleRempel : Congrats to @BrianStorsethMP, whose PMB (C-304), I have on good authority just passed @senateca on third reading.

Brian Lilley ‏@brianlilley : Just being told Bill C-304 to repeal the dreaded section 13 of the Human Rights Act has been passed. A good step for free speech. #cdnpoli

More information to come tonight as information is posted to the Senate’s website.

You can see Brian Storseth’s testimony from yesterday Senate committee on Bill C-304 and why Section 13 is such an affront to freedom and liberty

This is a great day for Freedom!

-Marc Lemire
Webmaster, Freedomsite.org

PLEASE NOTE: Now that Section 13 is dead that still leaves me having to carry on with my own Section 319(2) criminal charge laid against me by Richard Warman and Harry Abrams. With the untimely death of my former lawyer Douglas Christie I am all the more in need of financial support in order to carry on the fight to retain my fundamental rights to publish on the Internet.

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn't come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.

Being a 'Senior Citizen' on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I'm left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses.

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don't make the cheque out to "RadicalPress" as that account is no longer available to me.

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, British Columbia (BC) V2J 6T8
CANADA

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.

For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All!

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Publisher / Editor
The Radical Press

HAIL VICTORY!!

Douglas

Attached Files

**Anchorage Activist** · 06-30-2013, 02:43 PM

Due Process Restored In Canada: Section 13 Of Canadian Human Rights Act Repealed, Paul Fromm And Free Speech Advocates Ecstatic

Due Process Restored In Canada: Section 13 Of Canadian Human Rights Act Repealed, Paul Fromm And Free Speech Advocates Ecstatic

http://whitereference.blogspot.com/2...a-section.html
http://previousdissent.com/forums/sh...ed=1#post33311
http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...d=1#post387031
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=8867#post8867

A bit dated, but I just found a positively jubilant email from Canadian white civil rights activist Paul Fromm declaring the end of the infamous Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Originally intended to be a shield to protect civil liberties, its poor wording enabled it to be transformed into a sword used against Canadians who expressed disagreement with diversity and multiculturalism in Canada. A screenshot of the repugnant section is published below:
.

Original still available HERE

.

The repeal does not take effect immediately, but will be phased in over a one year period. But it is only a partial victory; the Montreal Gazette reports that producing and disseminating hate speech still remains a crime in Canada, but regulating it will now fall to the courts instead of human rights tribunals. Under the Criminal Code, spreading hate against identifiable groups can still carry up to a two-year prison sentence. The advantage is that while any butthurt citizen with an ideological axe to grind could lodge a complaint with a tribunal, only the attorney general can approve criminal charges for hate speech. This restores due process.

The text of Fromm's email:
.

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Late this afternoon [June 26th], an ugly piece of tyranny bit the dust. Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. Bill C-304, introduced by the courageous Brian Storseth of Alberta, won approval of the House of Commons in June, 2012. It received Third and final Reading in the Senate today and, then, Royal Assent.

Thanks to all the MPs, Senators and, most of all, the many free speech letter writers across this country. It has been a long fight. Marc Lemire deserves special credit for his ferocious fight which, on September 2, 2009, resulted in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling Sec. 13, essentially, unconstitutional.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels.

We usually don't quote or acknowledge the anonymous smear artists at Anti-Racist Canada. After all, who goes around trying to answer graffiti on a washroom wall? ["Call Susie for a good time -- 403 -777-7777" "No, Susie is no fun."]

However, in their sour report on the partial defeat of censorship, ARC (Anti-Racist Canada), which, we know, has sinister connections in Ottawa observes:
.

"And it is of note that while it is the current government who passed the legislation, there's nothing that says a future government might not reinstate Section 13 given that it had been deemed constitutional both in 1990 and more recently in the Whatcott case.

Time will tell and we are very patient. In the meantime, we'll see how things play out."

.

The Federal Court overturned most of the decision in the Lemire case and upheld the constitutionality -- minus the financial penalties -- of Sec. 13. This ruling is now being appealed to the Federal Court and CAFE is in the thick of the fray as an intervener. Note the threat that a future government -- NDP, Liberal? -- might reintroduce Sec. 13. Don't kid yourself, having read some of the Senate speeches on the repeal of Sec. 13, I can assure you censorship and thought control still have some powerful pals in Ottawa.

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

.

Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth was ecstatic. He said it repealed a flawed piece of legislation, and called Canada’s human rights tribunal “a quasi-judicial, secretive body that takes away your natural rights as a Canadian.” Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) was also pleased, noting that Section 13 had some serious problems from a freedom of expression perspective. She also took a shot at notorious civil rights troll Richard Warman, explaining that there’s not a lot of good evidence that marginalized groups have used the statute to curb discrimination and that a large majority of the tribunal cases were brought by a single individual. The latter was, of course, a reference to Warman, who brought 16 successful Section 13 complaints before the human rights tribunal against those he considered "neo-Nazis" and "white supremacists" since 2001.

Mark Steyn, who had been a victim of Section 13 due to his writings against Islamism and terrorism, said "So victories against the state’s encroachments on free speech are protracted and difficult, but still just about possible. I am honored to have played a small role in a modest victory for liberty in Canada, and I hope my friends in London, ashamed by what their government has done, will take heart."

As for Richard Warman, he expressed disappointment, saying that Section 13 had helped sideline neo-Nazis from the Internet because of its power to obtain cease-and-desist orders from Canada’s human rights tribunal and enforce them through the courts. “Virtually every other Western democracy has these kinds of civil law controls on hate speech,” Warman said. “Now, Canada just moves one large step further out of line from realizing that these kinds of controls are necessary and imperative".
.

Posted by Anchorage Activist at 6:37 PM Saturday, June 29, 2013

Announcement

Section 13 Repeal Update: Senate Holds Hearings on Bill C-304 Storseth's Testimony

Section 13 Repeal Update: Senate Holds Hearings on Bill C-304 Storseth's Testimony

Comment

Comment

Comment