Wednesday, February 12, 2014

1999 - The Battle of Vancouver - Douglas Christie faces down a mob of rabid loonies [Douglas Christie Memorial Video Archive]

The Doug Christie Video Archive

In memory of Douglas Christie

 

 

 

 

 

#22: 1999 - The Battle of Vancouver - Douglas Christie faces down a mob of rabid loonies

 

[Sept 30, 1999]  The battle of Vancouver - Douglas Christie faces down a mob of rabid loonies determined to shut the meeting down.  Amongst the direct death threats and harassment, the Anti-Racist Action (thugs) set off a fire-alarm trying to shut the meeting down. Several ARA members infiltrate the meeting and continue to wildly scream at Doug and the other speakers.  Right after Doug's speech ends; the ARA break through a police lines and make it to the door of the meeting room, where they pounded on it, almost breaking the security doors off their hinges.  You can see Paul Fromm's speech at this meeting here: http://youtu.be/S7nIAVkLqXI  (One of the best Fromm speeches ever)

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/9e6BsRg5QVY

 

 

 

 

Douglas Christie Video Archive – Weekly Shows

FreedomSite YouTube channel celebrating the life of Douglas Christie

 

Bookmark our channel:

http://www.youtube.com/freedomsite

 

 All videos will be cross-posted to:

 

Doug Christie Memorial Video Archive Shows

 

 

 

#1: Doug Christie Debates Human Rights Hack on the Cherington TV show June 1984

 

Douglas Christie, The battling barrister and freedom of speech advocate demolishes the head of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission, Dr Bhausaheb Ubale on the issue of Freedom of Speech and out of control "human rights" which are being used to silence critics and enforce their "guilty until proven innocent" mantra which forces Canadians to fight against the overwhelming power of the state to apply your rights to freedom.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/7jkrYDHxFNY

 

#12: Doug Christie speaks in Great Britain on the importance of freedom around the world (1995)

 

[1995] Doug Christie speaks in Great Britain on the importance of freedom around the world. Doug Christie was in Britain defending Lady Jane Birdwood who was prosecuted in 1994/1995 for violating the "Public Order Act 1986" for allegedly publishing a pamphlet entitled "The Longest Hatred - An Examination of Anti-Gentilism". (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/hatred.htm)

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/8qlCxaYu0_8

 

#2: Doug Christie on Webster TV show  (Debate on Freedom of Speech & Zundel hearings)

 

A spirited debate between Douglas Christie, a lawyer dedicated to freedom of speech and TV personality Jack Webster. This is part of the Doug Christie Memorial Video Archive

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/L53jLyY1JtU

 

#13: Doug Christie exposes CSIS Agent Grant Bristow and the whitewash "Heritage Front Affair" Report (1995)

 

[Feb 4 1995] Doug Christie exposes CSIS Agent Grant Bristow, who infiltrated the Heritage Front and Reform Party of Canada. The Bristow case showed how the Political powers in Ottawa (Liberal Party of Canada) used spies to attempt to embarrass political parties (Reform Party). The Liberal government then whitewashed the entire affair through Bob Rae and the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) which issued a report called "The Heritage Front Affair". Interesting, Grant Bristow tried to get information on the Imre Finta case from Christie. Bristow even tried to give advice on certain jurors and which ones he should object to. Doug Christie gives the inside story about the David Irving ban in Canada and what happened.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/eB6MvJG4pzw

#3: Doug Christie Speaks about Freedom & Zundel Appeal - Jan 25, 1986

 

Doug Christie Speaks about Zundel Appeal and freedom of speech in the Canadian Court system. This speech was given on Jan 25 1986.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/tyxgNw-rTwI

 

#14: Doug Christie Message to the CLR:  Hammers CSIS, Police, CHRC and other Enemies of Freedom (1997)

 

[October 15, 1997] Doug Christie’s message to the Canadian League of Rights on their 50th anniversary.  During his speech, Doug Christie exposes the Canadian Security “Intelligence” Agency as Canada’s political police and their little corrupt brother, the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.  Doug Christie discusses the firebombing on Ernst Zundel’s house, where CSIS agents claim that the “ARA firebombed Zundel”.  The CSIS agents describe the ARA (Anti-Racist Action) group as “a collection of anarchists, Trotskyites and Stalinists”.  Doug Christie describes how CSIS and other enemies of freedom use tactics of oppression to attack their enemies.  The tactics are three-fold; firstly they isolate the people, then alienate them and finally criminalize them.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/xTjZKtchzlY

#4: Doug Christie Speaks at Open Space in Victoria, BC

Nov 14 1985

 

Doug Christie Speaks about freedom and Canadian censorship at "Open Space", Victoria BC on Nov 14 1985. With an introduction by David McCalden.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/Xomxyhgq9jE

 

#15: Ernst Zundel Meets Doug Christie and Keltie Zubko for first time - 1984

 

(1984) This is a very historically significant video! The video was filmed in Eckville, Alberta prior to the James Keegstra trial for thought crimes. This is the very first time Douglas Christie and Keltie Zubko met Ernst Zundel. Mr. Zundel videotaped the meeting. It is really an eye opener to see how motivated for freedom Doug Christie was in those early years. The James Keegstra case would have been Doug Christie's first controversial case which involved allegations of so-called "hate" speech, under Canada's pernicious criminal "hate speech" prohibition - Section 319 of the Criminal Code. (the Keegstra case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Interestingly, Doug Christie went on to represent Ernst Zundel under a similar thought control law and after a huge legal fight, the notorious "false news" law in Canada was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada and wiped from our law books. This video shows a young Doug Christie with fire in his belly for freedom and willing to stand up to the horde of censors that lined up to get a shot at James Keegstra. This is vintage Doug Christie, Ernst Zundel and Keltie Zubko!

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/yIUzvXM6_A0

#5: Doug Christie Appears before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Malcolm Ross Case - Nov 1 1995      

 

[Nov 1 1995] Doug Christie Appears before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Malcolm Ross Case (representing freedom of speech and religion). Malcolm Ross was a teacher in New Brunswick, but was dismissed from his position after the fanatical Human Rights Commission claimed he created a "poisoned environment" in the school due to his Christian beliefs, which he never taught in the classroom. Doug Christie makes an impassioned plea for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, only to be constantly interrupted by activist Judges, who can hardly conceal their contempt for freedom and religion.

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/um-0RWqu4JE

 

#16: Doug Christie: Free Speech is the Issue! (1997)

 

[October 16, 1997] Doug Christie: Free Speech is the Issue! Doug Christie explains the importance of freedom and why it is so vital for society. Doug also documents the various state-funded and state-sponsored enemies of freedom such as apparatchiks from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, police agencies and so-called "spy" agencies like the Canadian Security "Intelligence" Service (CSIS), whose paid agent - Grant Bristow (now called Nathan Black) bankrolled and setup the Heritage Front.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/7_5tnRFWCiU

 

#6: Doug Christie on Freedom of Speech in Canada (1991)      

 

[Jan 29 1991] (Ottawa, Ontario). Doug Christie speaks about the dangers to freedom of speech in Canada. Doug highlights threats from the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and various Canadian political police forces.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/62P2gYPyGqs

 

#17: Doug Christie at the Sheraton Centre on Book Burning and an Out of Control State Tyranny (1998)

 

[January 23 1998 - Toronto] Canada is living under unprecedented state control, which is reminiscent of the Soviet Union (from alleged "war criminals" being tried in secret hearings to book burning by the Canadian government). Doug explores the kangaroo court process behind Canada's banned book list and how the state actually burns books which are "prohibited" to import into Canada.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/YsVW9w1jO08

#7: Doug Christie on building a secure and free community for freedom minded citizens (1992)     

 

May, 1992: Doug Christie speaks about freedom and how to secure and free and prosperous future in Canada by moving to our own community and leveraging the municipal infrastructure to protect and promote freedom. This would be creating a new community of freedom minded people, organizing under the "Newgate Project". Doug is introduced by legendary freedom activist Eileen Pressler.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/BzvQIC8id_o

 

#18: Douglas Christie comments on the 1998 Controversy about Internet Freedom (Bernard Klatt case) (1998)

 

[March 21, 1998] In 1998, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) in British Columbia was under fire to censor content on his webservers.  The ISP – Fairview Technologies – was run by Bernard Klatt.  Mr. Klatt took a firm stand against Internet censorship, and felt that as an ISP he did not have any expertise to identify what constituted so-called “hate speech” nor does he have any ability to censor dynamic content. (PS: not a single person who posted content on Mr. Klatts webserver was ever charged with criminal “hate” in Canada) As a result of some agitators from Toronto who claimed that Oliver BC was the “hate capital of Canada” there was a huge media blitz. In response Mr. Klatt organized a meeting in Oliver to explain his position and invited several guest speakers to discuss freedom of speech on the Internet. Amongst those invited to speak was Douglas Christie. Unfortunately, Mr. Christie was due in court to defend a client, he was unable to attend, but recorded a short video discussing the importance of freedom of the Internet.  This video is classic Doug Christie and has never been publically shown, because the Toronto agitators managed to get the City of Oliver to cancel the townhall meeting location. This video has a few news clips at the beginning which sets the stage for Doug Christie’s eloquent defence of freedom.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/6oZ-UadJOhk  

#8: Doug Christie on Freedom of Religion in Canada and the Malcolm Ross Case (1995)      

 

[Oct 29, 1995] (Ottawa, Ontario). Douglas Christie speaks about the dangers to freedom of religion in Canada. This speech is about the case of Teacher Malcolm Ross and the Human Rights Inquisition which followed because Mr. Ross wrote a few books on religious topics.  Mr. Ross never brought any of his views into the classroom, but that mattered little to the Human Rights Fanatics that were destined to destroy him.  This speech was given on the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the Malcolm Ross case.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/gUvHeU4Y480

 

#19: Doug Christie exposes the attacks on freedom in Canada from ‘Ritual Defamation’ to Impact Prosecutions

 

[Nov 9 1998 ] Doug Christie exposes the attacks on freedom in Canada. Doug discusses the Presslers case and 'Ritual Defamation', which is a tactic used by the enemies of freedom to destroy their opponents. Ritual Defamation is a time tested method to destroy people. 1: Attack the individual constantly, 2: Attack anyone who defends them, 3: Attack the family breadwinner (so they can not defend themselves).  Doug Christie goes on to discuss the Canadian Security "Intelligence" Service and how the state persecutes peoples.  CSIS "makes McCarthyism look like Mickey Mouse"

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/p_rwb5LVy-8   

#9: Doug Christie Speaks on the loss of Freedom of Thought in Canada (1986)    

 

[Toronto, Feb 22, 1986] One of the most powerful speeches by lawyer Douglas Christie on freedom and the war against freedom of thought and speech. After listening to this speech, you will believe and understand in the value of freedom and as Doug said "you will never never surrender!". Doug touches upon the James Keegstra and Ernst Zundel cases and the fight against the totalitarian regime in Canada, which thanks to the Duschenes Commission (so-called War Crimes commission in Canada) evidence from the Communist Soviet Union would be accepted after demands by Canadian Jewish Groups (B'nai Brith, ADL and others). Paul Fromm introduces Doug Christie.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/WSy3t_OBwpI

 

#20: Doug Christie debates freedom of speech on CBC's "Petrie in Prime" from 1993

 

[1993] Doug Christie debates freedom of speech on the CBC’s “Petrie in Prime”.  Discusses the James Keegstra case and criminalizing of controversial views; and Publisher Ernst Zundel distributing material in Canada and Germany.

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/GAQ_92wqV60  

 

#10: Doug Christie on 5th Column exposing the Fraud of so-called "War Crimes Trials" (1990)

 

[July 1990] Douglas Christie, defense lawyer for Imre Finta in Canada's only war crimes trial, appears on the BBC "5th Column" to discuss the dangers of so-called "War Crimes" Trials.  Christie demolishes the fraud of so-called "War Crimes" Trials - especially the Imre Finta Trial - and exposes how viscous political pressure was applied which lead to a poisoned legal environment where a blood lust for a guilty verdict over-shadowed the facts in the case.  Imre Finta was found not guilty in 1990 by a Jury in Canada after less than 12 hours of deliberation.  (The Canadian Government - drunk on tax-payers money - appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada .. and lost)

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/eG7LFBeoN5s

 

#21: 1991 - Doug Christie on CBCs 'On The Line' - debating Freedom of Speech for Teachers

 

[1991] Should teachers have freedom of speech and can they hold opinions outside of the classroom?  Debate on CBC Newsworld featuring freedom fighter Douglas Christie against Fiona Nelson (Toronto School board Trustee), Thomas Hurka (U of Calgary) and Alan Borovoy (Canadian Civil Liberties Association).  Typical CBC panel debating freedom of speech issues, where it was 3 opposed and the lone supporter of freedom - Doug Christie. 

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/lsi3CT9Pndc

 

#11: Doug Christie Speaks in New Brunswick on the importance of freedom (1988)

 

[Nov 25 1988] Doug Christie Speaks in New Brunswick on the importance of freedom. The power of the state has grown out of control to censor people.  The government now controls and manipulates the media which leads to a limit on freedom of speech.

Receives award from NB Free Speech League

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/ANb3ghF6XEk

 

#22: 1999 - The Battle of Vancouver - Douglas Christie faces down a mob of rabid loonies

 

[Sept 30, 1999]  The battle of Vancouver - Douglas Christie faces down a mob of rabid loonies determined to shut the meeting down.  Amongst the direct death threats and harassment, the Anti-Racist Action (thugs) set off a fire-alarm trying to shut the meeting down. Several ARA members infiltrate the meeting and continue to wildly scream at Doug and the other speakers.  Right after Doug's speech ends; the ARA break through a police lines and make it to the door of the meeting room, where they pounded on it, almost breaking the security doors off their hinges.  You can see Paul Fromm's speech at this meeting here: http://youtu.be/S7nIAVkLqXI  (One of the best Fromm speeches ever)

 

Freedomsite Link | Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/9e6BsRg5QVY

 

 

More on Douglas Christie at: http://www.douglaschristie.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Blogosphere Comments on the Court of Appeals disgraceful decision on Section 13 - Internet Censorship

Comments on the Court of Appeals disgraceful decision on Section 13 - Internet Censorship

 

 

 

Jay Currie sums up the Court of Appeals ruling on Internet censorship in one word:  IDIOTS

 

http://jaycurrie.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/idiots/

 

 

 

Idiots

Even Section 13's penalty section, under which hate propagandists can be fined $10,000, was found by the court to be "a reasonable means of imposing financial accountability for the damage caused by the vilification of targeted groups and of deterring the communication of hate speech in order to decrease discrimination against them."

The penalty section was a key reason the law was once judged unconstitutional, on the grounds that such quasi-criminal punishment invalidates the remedial purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, however, both Section 13 and its penalty provisions are on solid legal footing. national post

S. 13 is a long time dying.

Repealed it has been but the ninnies on the Federal Court of Appeal are happy to pretend that its penalty clause is not a penalty at all. Rather it is "a reasonable means of imposting financial accountability". Ah, got it. Nothing more reasonable than fining someone. For, after all, there is no evidence at all that any financial harm was done to the complainant. What is basis for the assessment then?

Well, the ninnies are more than willing to provide the answer: "deterring the communication of hate speech".

Now, wiser folk than I will think that is not a penalty. Just as they will believe a fine for speeding intended to deter speeding is not a penalty. Because they will be able to discern a difference.

I cannot.

 

 

 

 

Small Dead Animals writes:  Free Marc Lemire!

 

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/free-marc-lemir.html

 

 

Free Marc Lemire!

Joseph Brean;

Like the Norwegian Blue parrot, Section 13 is just resting. Like the Black Knight, its repeal by Parliament is just a flesh wound. Though it has been hoisted on the cross, its supporters may still, like Brian, always look on the bright side of life. Section 13 might be doomed, but it is good law. So sayeth the courts.

--------

 

Be very, very afraid.

Eddie

In a classically liberal culture, where persons are respected and therefore protected from their governments, where citizen-sovereigns do not alienate their rights to believe, reason and communicate with their fellows to their government-manager-servants, Sec 13 would never have been written. Sec 13 and this appeals court ruling represent a triumph of those who would elevate the group over the individual.

How can one's group be more important, more valuable than oneself? From whence does that additional value arise?

Sorry day.

nick

unbelievable that this still has legs - this monstrosity is still bumping around beating on a drum.

johnnyonline

Makes my stomach churn ....

OMMAG

The "Franken-speech" law is resurrected for one final haunting, but I don't think it's Halloween yet.

Why you weenies only 'approved speech' as determined by your betters is really FREE.

POPPYCOCK and BALDERDASH from start to finish...they are afraid of a FREE citizenry!


Cheers

Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Hans

The article points out that the judgment against Lemire "in effect [] prohibits him from violating a law that does not exist anymore, at least as of June", and that "being ordered, on pain of criminal contempt charges, not to violate a law that does not exist is a strange fate". Indeed. Once the law is gone, it can't possibly be violated, so an injunction becomes null and void.

If we had a proper constitution and charter of rights, there would be no more than ONE piece of legislation against "hate speech", if there were any at all. Anything else is double jeopardy, which should be contrary to fundamental legal rights. This includes federal vs. provincial division of powers.

The Supreme Court should have made this ruling in Whatcott at the very least. Instead, it concocts preposterous notions of what Charter rights mean as in the untenable Insite decision of 2011, as it flushes our genuine rights down the toilet. The Charter of Rights should be redesigned from scratch. I've given my own suggestions in this space more than once already.

When leftists who promote hatred against businessmen and the productive in general are held to the same standards as alleged "racists", then maybe we can conclude the "hate speech" laws aren't a transparent attempt to silence non-leftists.

nv53

 

 

 

From the National Post's comment section:

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/02/court-finds-internet-hate-speech-law-section-13-to-be-constitutionally-valid-doesnt-violate-freedom-of-expression/

 

 

Mithras

Mahou Shoujo

cjcraig

hang

Freedom of speech is a universal and inalienable human right. The Federal Court of Appealing made the wrong judgement.

RationalIdeas

Lex

 

PeterLT

Mahou Shoujo

Pavane

We have legislation against libel and slander. We do not need kangaroo courts to punish citizens for freely expressing their opinion, or stating truths.

BeardedClam

Now and then

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court of Appeals rules that Internet Censorship via Section 13 is great!

Court of Appeals rules that Internet Censorship via Section 13 is great!

 

Court rules that (the now repealed) Section 13 is constitutional and even reinstated the penalty provision.   Talk about a merry band of censors!

 

 

On Friday January 31st, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeals found that Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act was constitutional, and that the penalty provision of the “Human Rights” Act was constitutional, and reinstated the penalty provision.  This is yet another step in the 10+ year legal ordeal that I have had to endure, for posting a single article on my website – not written or approved by me – which allegedly offended privileged minorities. (See full Court of Appeals ruling here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca18/2014fca18.html)

 

It was black Friday for freedom of speech on the internet. The courts are now so out of touch that they have upheld – and strengthened – a law which was repealed back in the summer of 2013

 

“Human Rights” in Canada are a bizarre mix between Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of OzThey don’t make any sense; are selectively used against enemies and it’s all based on some imaginary smoke-and-mirrors bogey-man (pay NO attention to that man behind the curtain!).

 

Back in November, 2013, it was pretty clear from the opening of the hearing into Canada’s internet censorship laws that the Court of Appeal had little interest in protecting enshrined rights, such as freedom of speech.  The three judges paraded into court, like they were descendants of Jesus himself, floating to their seats to preside over us little peons

 

One of the judges immediately caught my eye – it was Justice Stratus!  He was the judge which tossed out my request to stay the execution (lifetime speech ban)…  err I mean … Human Rights hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, until after the Court of Appeals ruled. In a snarky judgment, “Justice” Stratus tossed out my motion for a stay based on the irreparable harm that would come if the Tribunal ruled on my case before the Courts did.  According to Justice Stratus, I had to document specific things I wanted to say – before I said them – so that he could determine if I could actually say them.  Boy that’s some view of the Charter protected right to freedom of speech!  (Ice-T has it right… Freedom of Speech; Just watch what you say [or submit it for pre-approval to the CHRC])

 

The hearing proceeded with lawyers from all sides making the case for, and against, Section 13 censorship.  The judges seemed more preoccupied with looking at the clock or at the audience of a dozen or more freedom of speech supporters (as far as I could tell, not a single person appeared in court to support censorship).  But that all changed when the distinctly non-African looking lawyers for the tax-payer funded African-Canadian Legal Clinic (ACLC) made their submissions.  While they were limited to only 10 minutes, the court had no problem allowing them to speak for upwards of 30 minutes.  The ACLC started off by saying that not only is Section 13 (internet censorship law) valid, but that the penalty provisions are really not penalties, but rather administrative remedies. No other party in the entire proceeding believed that the penalty provisions were even close to being constitutional. 

 

A little background is needed here:  The penalty provisions of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act allowed a Tribunal to do the following:

 

  • A lifetime speech ban (Cease and Desist order) on a person.  If disobeyed, could face up to 5 years in prison.
  • A penalty of up to $10,000
  • A penalty of an additional $20,000 if the complainant was specifically named

 

Legal history:   Multiple Tribunal Members (pretend Judges) have openly questioned the penalty provisions and refused to apply them against individuals.  In the Lemire case, Member Hadjis found the Penalty provisions were unconstitutional.  In the Lemire case, the Federal Court of Canada also upheld that the penalty provision was unconstitutional.

 

Every single party in the Lemire Appeal hearing agreed that the Penalty provisions of the CHRA were unconstitutional … except for the ACLC.  Even the Canadian Human Rights Commission has specifically said (on multiple occasions) that the Penalty provisions of the CHRA are unconstitutional and unjustified, and should be stuck out of the law books.

 

Bullsh*t baffles brains?

 

As a legal bystander, I could hardly follow all the spin legalese and baffle-gab of the “African-Canadian” Legal Clinic.  Their submissions were that the Canadian Human Rights Act had penalties in S. 54, but these were not really penalties, but rather something else.  I nicknamed it Penalties/non-“penalties”.   And suddenly the judges were awake and furiously writing down every pearl of wisdom coming their way.  

 

The reason why there was such a fight over the word “penalty” is because, back in the 1990’s the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly upheld the Canadian Human Rights Act because it was exclusively remedial.  It was never meant to punish anyone – that’s the job of the Criminal Code – it was just meant to remediate past indiscretions, using the least amount of coercion possible.  At the time the Supreme Court looked at Section 13, the only remedy available was a Cease and Desist order.  There were no penalties (fines, etc).  That all changed when Parliament added the penalty provision.  So the real fight in the court was over the penalty provision / fines.

 

It is usually up to Parliament to write laws, but screw that… “Human Rights” are at stake!  The Court of Appeal could just ignore the word penalty, and “interpret” it to mean something other than penalty.  Perhaps they could just call it an “administrative remedy” or whatever.  And using that logic, the court REINSTATED the Penalty provision, which multiple Tribunals and even the Federal Court of Canada earlier finding it to be unconstitutional.

 

So what’s this all mean?

 

The Court of Appeal has found that Canada’s internet censorship legislation (Section 13) and the penalty provision (Section 54) are constitutional.  But Parliament has repealed Section 13 & Section 54 in 2013, so it has little actual effect.  The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has so far refused to hear any other cases, so it is unlikely any new Section 13 cases will ever go before it.

 

This ruling was the Justices of the Court showing how out of touch with society they really are.  At best, this was the court trying to show how fanatically they are in favour of speech prohibitions.  In their bizarre world, the court is signaling Parliament that speech prohibitions are A-OK with them, and if some other future government comes in (Liberal or NDP) and enacts something similar to Section 13; the Court would fully support the censorship.  What ever happened to the courts being a bulwark against state control and repression?  Seems like they have become nothing more than black robe; wig wearing; out of touch; pompous rubber stamps for totalitarianism.

 

In my particular case, the CHRC is not seeking a penalty against me anyways, so the fact that the Court reinstated the penalty provision doesn’t personally mean a thing.

 

What’s next for Lemire?

 

With the Court of Appeals decision, I have 60 days to either appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, or return to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing to determine my “punishment”.  The Tribunal could impose a lifetime speech ban on me.

 

How perverse is the Canadian Human Rights Act?  I could face a lifetime speech ban, based on a law which was repealed in 2013!

 

Stay tuned, the battle for freedom continues.

 

 

-Marc Lemire

Freedom Fighter

Webmaster, Freedomsite.org