Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Are Whites not an Identifiable Group? Ahenakew Crown Prosecutor Sandeep Bains seems to think so (The Anti-White Double Standard)



Are Whites not an Identifiable Group? Ahenakew Crown Prosecutor Sandeep Bains seems to think so (The Anti-White Double Standard)

In today’s politically correct world based on identity politics, it seems that White Canadians are considered second class citizens and not worthy of state protections of even being classed as an identifiable group. In particular, I point to the recent acquittal of David Ahenakew in Saskatoon on the charge of promotion of hate. [See full court decision here]

In that case, Ahenakew unleashed a torrent of anti-White hate, and also made statements about Jewish people. While his comments about White Canadians were quite offensive and outrageous, the Senior Crown Prosecutor in Saskatoon, a Mr. Sandeep Bains, chose to only lay a criminal charge of promotion of “hate” against “people of the Jewish faith”.

Why is that Mr. Sandeep Bains?

Are White Canadians not an identifiable group under Canadian law? Or is it this part of the new nexus of political correctness and anti-White bigotry converging (alas, the Anti-White double standard)

Here is just part of Mr. Ahenakew hateful diatribe against Whitey.

This person called a white person will never stand, stand up for you, for anything. When he first got here, he started to break our people. He started to take everything, he would grab it from us, and then he started to lie and steal from us. That’s why I call them liars and thieves. That’s what we have as neighbours in this country.

According to Mr. Ahenakew, Whites – as a race – are just a bunch of liars and thieves. Ahenakew later in his speech goes on to say that Whites and immigrants are dirty, etc. The deep seeded hatred Mr. Ahenakew has for Whitey goes back a long time.

This sort of logic displayed by Senior Crown Prosecutor Mr. Sandeep Bains, also permeates the halls of the misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (CHRC), who only ever see “haters” as those with White skin. As usual for fanatics, the CHRC has taken it to another level, and institutionalized it’s hatred of White Canadians. In the 30+ year history of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act (the notorious “hate” section) they have dismissed EVERY SINGLE complaint ever received against a person who is not White, and showing their deep seeded racism and hatred, only accepted complaints, where the alleged perpetrator was White. [See the documented proof here] Yes folks, that’s correct, in over THIRTY YEARS, the CHRC has only ever accepted complaints against Whites.

It’s all quite ironic, as it’s the CHRC that browbeats and harasses employers to meet “employment equity” targets and force employers to not discriminate on any prohibited grounds – while at the same time, they themselves discriminate on the basis of race, for over thirty years now!

As more and more information comes to light, It now is becoming clear in today’s hyper-sensitive politically correct world; those that point the fingers and call others racists and haters, are deep down the biggest racists themselves!. David Ahenakew is an example, and the apparatchiks of the CHRC are another.

At the CHRC for instance, if you are White - your “guilty” of promoting “hate” and fined: $4,500 bucks for saying this:

“That drives me nuts, I take photos for the citizenship, passports, pr (permanent residence), visa cards etc. and as I have been told from human resourses that the ears MUST be visable, which means, if your hair covers your ears, it has to be tucked back. I don’t care if it’s a religious thing or not, if you don’t want to follow our rules, even if it is taking off your scarf thing for one lousy picture, then stay out of my effing country!”

Beaumont Decision

If you’re a Montreal Muslim Imam – your NOT-guilty of promoting “hate” for saying this:

“Homosexuals and lesbians should be ‘exterminated in this life’”

"men are superior to women and better than them". In general, "men have a more complete intellect and memory than women"

Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth" and that most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing"

Freedomsite: CHRC: it's OK to say gays should be "beheaded", Jews "spread corruption", Hindus must "be killed"

According to the fanatics at the CHRC, Beaumont is a hater and deserved a fine of $4,500, YET the Montreal Imam’s words don’t “meet the test of hate”. [Letter from CHRC dismissing complaint by Marc Lebuis] Why is that? Because one is a young white woman, and the other is a brown-skinned Muslim?

(Oh, BTW, the CHRC actually wanted a $7,500 fine to be assessed against Beaumont! The Tribunal reduced it to $4,500, because Beaumont was only 21 years old at the time and she produced, as evidence, pay-stubs showing she only earned $10.50 /hour at her job in a retail store. Shamefully, Beaumont was only given 120 days to pay the hefty fine [See full story])

The racism and hate coming from Ahenakew is offensive, inappropriate, racist and hateful, BUT it should never be the subject of a criminal prosecution paid for the taxpayers of Canada. I do not believe that Canada should have *ANY* Criminal or Civil prohibitions against speech that might be considered offensive or hateful. Canada needs to model it’s common law on the First Amendment of the United States of America and not have the immense power of the state limiting speech and thought.

On an interesting side note to our favorite rights maniacs at the misnamed: Canadian “Human Rights” Commission. The Saskatchewan Government has posted the decision in the Ahenakew case on it’s website at: http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/judgments/2009/PC2009/2009skpc10.pdf. This includes multiple references to Jewish people as “running the world” and “a disease” in violation of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, all “Hallmarks of Hate”. And the Human Rights Act refuses to look at “intent”, thus isn’t it reasonable to say that the Saskatchewan government is in fact in violation of the Human Rights Act, and should be fined?

Where are the serial complainants when you need them?

-Marc Lemire

The Freedomsite

Monday, February 23, 2009

PRESS RELEASE: Douglas Christie Intervenes in Section 13 case

___________________________________________________
NEWS  RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 23, 2009

INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LAWYER DOUGLAS CHRISTIE INTERVENES IN ABRAMS/B’NAI BRITH V. RADICALPRESS.COM HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL HEARING

QUESNEL, B.C. – Arthur Topham, Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com, says he received an email from the Victoria, B.C. Law Office of Douglas Christie on Friday, February 20th, 2009 confirming Mr. Christie’s interest in the current Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing process involving the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Topham and his website RadicalPress.com (Complaint No.: 20071016).

In an email letter to Registry Officer Nancy LaFontant and Tribunal member Karen Jensen of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa, Ontario Mr. Christie stated:

“I am general counsel of the Canadian Free Speech League, and as such I am interested in the case of Arthur Topham. I would like the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the free speech issues raised in this case. We were allowed intervention status in the case of Marc Lemire, and it is our desire to assist in the maintenance of a constitutional challenge to the enabling legislation, as well as to participate in the fact-finding that would be the foundation of such an assessment.”

More at:  http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=924

BREAKING: Chief Ahenakew Found Not Guilty of Promoting Hate

Breaking story….

 

 

Ahenakew Found Not Guilty

Cleared on charges of inciting hatred against Jews

"Not Guilty"That's the verdict from a judge in Saskatoon in the second trial of David Ahenakew on chages he incited hatred against Jews.The allegations stem from a speech and interview Ahenakew gave in 2002, when he said Jews caused the second World War, and he compared Jews to a disease.At his first trial, the former head of the Assembly of First Nations was convicted, but it was overturned, and a new trail ordered.

 

 

Judge acquits David Ahenakew of wilfully promoting hate at second ...
The Canadian Press - 5 hours ago
SASKATOON - A Saskatoon judge acquitted David Ahenakew on Monday of wilfully promoting hatred against Jews, but not before chiding the former aboriginal leader for his comments.
Ahenakew Found Not Guilty 980 CJME News Talk Radio
Ahenakew Decision Expected Saskatoonhomepage.ca
United Press International - Canada.com - KBS Radio - The Canadian Press

 

 

all 88 news articles »

 

 

 

 

Friday, February 20, 2009

Conservative MP Blasts the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and "their thought police mentality"


Canadian Human Rights Commission

February 12th, 2009

Sometimes things seem so silly it is almost impossible to believe they are true.

For many years in Cornwall, letter carriers would greet each other with the expression: “Merci Seigneur pour la belle journee” (Thank you Lord for the beautiful day) –a friendly greeting reflecting the francophone culture of the region.

Now both Canada Post management and apparently, the postal workers union, have forbidden the greeting. Why was this greeting forbidden? Someone complained to the Human Rights Commission because others were Thanking the Lord before starting their rounds to deliver mail. Canada Post has cracked down on an innocent greeting.

This leads me to wonder what other greetings could be stopped because of fear of the Human Rights Commission and their thought police mentality.

Merry Christmas would probably have to be banned (people who don’t celebrate Christmas would be hurt), bless you (after a sneeze) could be considered an intrusion into someone’s personal beliefs. Perhaps even Happy Birthday could be banned because it promotes ageism by reminding people of their age.

As ridiculous as my suggestions are, the arbitrary exercise of power by our Human Rights Commissions is a serious matter. People are being harassed over trivial issues. If Canadians cannot exchange simple greetings without incurring the wrath of power hungry bureaucrats, we need to change the human rights legislation. Canada’s Human Rights Commissions do not protect the rights of most Canadians. I for one think if major reforms cannot be accomplished, we need to consider abolishing these parodies of justice.

I’m Brad Trost your Member of Parliament in Saskatoon-Humboldt. You can call my office in Saskatoon at 975-6133 or drop by our two offices to visit: Saskatoon Monday-Friday or Humboldt, Tuesday and Wednesday. I always appreciate your feedback.

http://www.bradtrost.ca/commentary/2009/02/12/canadian-human-rights-commission/


The Fight for Freedom Continues

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the final submissions which we've just finished consumed the most time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spent a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.

My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the System and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

How you can help:

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

PayPal: Send your donation to: admin@stopsection13.com

MoneyBookers: Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com

Every single cent raises goes directly to this case and the legal defence fund.

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Fahrenheit 451: Whips & Pain In, Historical Books Out, At Canada Customs Censors

Fahrenheit 451

Whips & Pain In, Historical Books Out, At Canada Customs Censors

Just in is the latest quarterly list of books banned by our customs censors -- and, incidentally, books seized are burned when the appeal period is over. Each quarter, Canada Customs provides a list of books, dvds, tapes, records and even booklists and pamphlets seized by the thought police. They, then, provide the determination.

Interestingly, the most recent list shows three political or historical works "banned" and a number of clearly pornographic dvds cleared.

The fact is that the thought control police don't care if you go bug-eyed gazing at sadomasochistic porn. You're no threat to the minority-controlled Canadian political order.

However, political books just might make you think. That's the last thing they want. Just shut up, pay your taxes and mouth the latest politically correct platitude, be a good little sheople.

BANNED are:

Books, Serpent's Walk, By Randolph D. Calverhall, Produced By National Vanguard Books, Copyright Year 1991, ISBN: 0-937944-05-X

Prohibited

Books, The Jewish Strategy, By Revilo P. Oliver, Published By Historical Review Press, Copyright Year 2007, ISBN: 978-0-906879-59-7

Prohibited

Books, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Published By Historical Review Press, ISBN: 978-0-9068

Allowed are: (pornographic titles, under “Obscenity”)

DVD: Jenna Loves Pain 2,

DVD: Silky Whip, No. 5, August 1998, By Oh! Great

DVD: The New Bondage Fairies, No. 3, January 1997, By Kondom, Published By Gary Groth & Kim Thompson

DVD: The Original Bondage Fairies, No. 3, January 1999

DVD: Bareback Twink Street #2, Produced By Studio Twinkz

The banning of this edition of The Protocols is particularly pathetic. It is a historical document. It was distributed by Henry Ford for years in the 1920s as a free gift with every car he sold. It purports to be the minutes of a secret gathering of Zionist leaders in the 19th Century. Its critics call it a "forgery", an interesting term as it suggests that there must have been an original. If it's a forgery, then it's fiction -- a story -- and why should be ban fiction? Regardless, people should be able to obtain and read it and judge for themselves. Ironically, it is readily available on the Internet for perusal or downloading.

What Happens to “Banned Books”?

Canada Customs incinerates them!

Yes, that’s correct. The Government of Canada, BURNS BOOKS, which it deems to be “obscenity” or “hate propaganda.”

What is Fahrenheit 451?

The temperature at which books burn….

The NAZIs Burned Books

The Canadian Government BURNS books

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Canada's Gay Press: Repeal Section 13: Take hate clause out of human rights act

Canada’s gay press has again weighed in on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and is demanding that the notorious Section 13, (thought control section) be stripped out of the Act.

 

Freedom of speech certainly bring people from all sides of the political spectrum together to defend basic rights.   From homosexual activists, to Liberals to Conservatives, to “Neo-Nazis”.  Freedom has no political stripe. Freedom has no boundaries and freedom is the bedrock of our civilization.


Homosexuals and lesbians as a group love and cherish freedom.  For without freedom, none of the “political gains” they have received would have ever been possible.   Freedom is the foundation of all rights.   Take away all my rights except for freedom of speech, and I can win them all back.

 

As a leader in the fight against Section 13, I am proud of the nation-wide coalition that has come together, for no other purpose than to defend freedom. 

 

I stand shoulder to shoulder with Jews, Christians, Liberals, Homosexuals, Conservatives, Blacks, poets, writers, bloggers, webmasters, message board owners, Islam bashers, white nationalists, Leftists, Pro-lifers, dingbats, lawyers, moonbats, and morons.

 

I predict that 2009 will usher in a new wave of freedom and the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be stripped of any ability to monitor, censor or control speech.

 

 

 

-Marc Lemire

Webmaster, The Freedomsite.

 

 

 

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Take_hate_clause_out_of_human_rights_act-4337.aspx

 

Take hate clause out of human rights act

LEGAL QUEERIES / Keith Martin is on the right track

Brenda Cossman / Xtra! Magazine / National / Thursday, February 14, 2008


"That's totally offensive?" It's a common enough reaction to reading or seeing or hearing something that you really don't like. It's particularly common when you think the material is racist or sexist or homophobic. And it may well be racist or sexist or homophobic, or even all three. Nothing wrong with saying it.

But, these days, those three little words are sometimes followed by a legal threat. Like a complaint to a human rights commission. And increasingly, it seems, human rights commissions are willing to entertain these complaints. They have the power to do this.

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the promotion of hatred on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation and other grounds.

Provincial human rights codes also have provisions prohibiting speech that promotes hatred or discrimination.

Several complaints have been brought against Maclean's magazine for publishing an article by Mark Steyn entitled "The Future of Islam." The Canadian Islamic Congress argues that the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt, and labels Steyn's article as "flagrantly Islamophobic."

Ezra Levant, the publisher of the Western Standard, has also been hauled before an Alberta human rights commission for having published the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

Back in November the Alberta Human Rights Commission found that the Stephen Boissoin, a Christian pastor, was guilty of promoting hatred against gay folks for publishing an anti-gay letter in a local newspaper.

With all of these brouhahas brewing, MP Keith Martin recently introduced a private member's bill to eliminate the hate speech provisions from the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Unfortunately, the first folks to signal their support of his move were a group of white supremacists.

But, defending free speech in Canada is a dangerous business, producing strange — if not totally offensive — bedfellows.

The very core of the civil libertarian's perspective is this: I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

And so it is with most of the recent free speech controversies. I don't much care for Mark Steyn's view of the world, and I like Ezra Levant's even less. Sometimes, I think they say stuff that is totally offensive, or totally stupid, or totally racist or totally rightwing drivel. But, the very nature of the right to free speech is that they get to say it. Then, the rest of us get to argue with them, denounce their views, call it drivel — basically, joust with words.

But, instead, now folks go racing to human rights commissions and say, "I'm offended."

In the Maclean's case, the complainants did ask the magazine to publish an article by a recognized member of the Muslim community responding to the inflammatory material. The folks at Maclean's refused, with publisher Ken Whyte allegedly saying that he would rather have the magazine go bankrupt.

Well, I guess it was a good start. The complainants tried to fight words with other words. But, here's the twist: we may all have a right to free speech, but no one has a right to be published in the newspaper. A free press means that the folks who own and publish and edit the press get to back those decisions.

They could have gone to another newspaper. And, they did. Their views were published in the Globe and Mail, and reported across the Canadian media.

But, the reason that they captured the media's attention was because of their human rights complaint.

So, ironically, the best way to get your opinions about offensive speech into the paper is to bring a human rights complaint trying to censor the offensive speech. The hate speech provisions create an incentive to bring a complaint, so that you can actually then attract attention to your claim that something is offensive.

Sorry, but this is crazy. Human rights commissions should not be censors. They should not be deciding just what words are too offensive for the Canadian public to hear. Imagine how gay presses might have fared over the years with these kind of laws, since lots of Canadians think that the stuff that gay people say is, well, totally offensive.

I think I'm with Keith Martin. Let's get those provisions out of the human rights codes, and go back to fighting words with words, even if it's hard, and even if the words are, well, offensive.

Brenda Cossman teaches law at University of Toronto.

 

 

 

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to investigate Section 13 and the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission



Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to investigate Section 13 and the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/feb09-09_justice_committee_on_sec13.html

On February 2, 2009, Conservative MP Brian Storseth introduced a motion before Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to investigate the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission and their censorship mandate under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Storseth's motion reads:

Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and whereas the commission operates independently and reports to Parliament, be it resolved that the justice and human rights committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and in particular,

(a) review the mandate and operations of the commission,

(b) review the commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the act,

(c) solicit and consider oral submissions from the chief commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations, and

(d) submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, arising out of the results of the committee's inquiry.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3638016&Langu
age=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2#Int-2575731

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
EVIDENCE (Transcript)
Monday, February 2, 2009

During today's two hour meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the issue was only briefly touched upon, by the Conservative Minister of Justice - Rob Nicholson who said that:

...with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act, I am looking forward to the report that will come from your committee. It is my understanding that Mr. Storseth has tabled a motion on that. Of course you will remember that not long ago we had the Moon report, and I look forward to your conclusions with respect to that.

[Video provided by ParlVU - Fast forward to 29 minutes into clip **]

This is in stark contrast from Minister Rob Nicholson's support of repealing Section 13 at the Conservative Policy Convention in November 2008. The resolution that Mr. Nicholson supported was P-203, which read: "The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act." The Conservative Party passed this resolution with 99% of the delegates, and received wild cheers when the vote passed. [VIDEO: P-203 vote]

YOUTUBE VIDEO: Rob Nicholson votes on p203

(Also see: Stephen Taylor Interviewing Rob Nicholson on Sec13)

The usual boring talking heads appeared on CTV's Power Play later in the evening to enlighten us with their wisdom.

To sum up their positions:

  • Conservatives are walking gently, and not committing either way on the issue. They just want to review it. And when Rob Moore was asked, refused to give a clear answer.
  • Liberals want to keep Section 13, (Except for courageous Liberals like Dr. Keith Martin, and Dan McTeague)
  • NDP want to make Section 13 more "up to date" but absolutely keep the legislation.

Power Play : Monday, Feb. 9. : Ujjal dosanjh, Liberal MP, Rob Moore, parl. sec to justice minister and Joe Comartin, NDP justice critic

It has been part of the Canadian political landscape for over three decades, but it has not been without controversy ever since it appeared. A justice committee has now ordered a policy review of the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which will include a review about hate messages.

[WATCH HERE]

CTV Talking Heads:

AKA: Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest…

Parliament Webcast

Meeting No. 2 JUST - Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Monday, Feb 9, 2009

03:31 PM - 05:24 PM

[Watch HERE]


Also see:

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)


MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, February 2, 2009



Brian Storseth gave notice of the following motion: Whereas concerns have
been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission (the "Commission") and the interpretation and application
of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (the "Act"); and

Whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;

Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make
recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in
particular: a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission; b) review
the Commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act; c)
Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or
written submissions from other interested persons or organizations; d) Submit
a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act
arising out of the results of the Committee’s inquiry.


Marc Lemire's notes on the Standing Committee - Feb 9, 2009

Meeting No. 2 JUST - Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
February 9, 2009 3:30pm to 5:30pm


Committee questioning Hon. Rob Nicholson - Minister of Justice


3:58pm: Question from Real Menard (Bloq) about CHRA - will the government
table any legislation on CHRA or Section 13


4:00PM: ANSWER: ...with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act, I am looking forward to the report that will come from your committee. It is my understanding that Mr. Storseth has made a tabled a motion on that. Of course you will remember that not long ago we had the Moon report, and I look forward to your conclusions with respect to that

MENARD: wants to add social conditions (social status) to CHRA as a means of
discrimination

4:02pm: ANSWER by Nicholson: welcomes any studies or reports or recommendations on this.


5:01PM: END OF QUESTIONING OF NICHOLSON.


** MOTIONS BY MEMBERS **



Brian Storseth's motion on CHRA
5:13PM: MENARD: Put Menards Motion (about adding "Social condition" to human rights legislation) and the motion to review Section 13 by Storseths -- together and reintroduce at a later time

5:14pm: STORSETH: Agree to discuss it with Menard and bring it up at a later meeting


The Fight for Freedom Continues

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the final submissions which we've just finished consumed the most time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spent a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.

My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the System and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

How you can help:

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

PayPal: Send your donation to: admin@stopsection13.com

MoneyBookers: Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com

Every single cent raises goes directly to this case and the legal defence fund.