|February 10th, 2008||#1|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Marc Lemire (Canada)
Demolishing the Foundation of Canada's Speech/Thought Control Laws:
Exposing the Psychological lies which built the foundation of Canada's Censorship Laws
762 Upper James
Dr. Michael A. Persinger
Dr. Michael Persinger was born in Jacksonville Florida, and grew up primarily in Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. After attending Carroll College (1963-1964), he was graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1967), selecting Psychology ("Psychochemistry") as a major because it was the interface between the social and physical sciences. He obtained an M.A. (Psychological Psychology) from the University of Tennessee and his Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba (1971). Dr. Persinger is currently a full professor of Biology and Psychology at Laurentian University, where he is the coordinator of the Behavioural Neuroscience Program. During this period he has published more than 200 technical articles in refereed journals, and has written seven books. He integrates the concepts of physics, chemistry, and biology with those of psychology, anthropology, and history in order to show the fundamental patterns of all human experiences. To challenge the basic beliefs of his students, he employs colourful metaphors, data, and the individual application of the scientific method of inquiry. Dr. Persinger emphasizes total dedication to research and teaching that are the inseparable twins of inquiry. Dr. Persinger has appeared on “NOVA”, ABC's “20/20", ABC’s “NightLine,” “60 Minutes” ( Australia ), “That's Incredible,” “48 Hours” (CBS), Unsolved Mysteries, The Discovery Channel, UltraScience, MTV News Special, The Unexplained, CNN News, NBC News, Japanese T.V. among others. In 2007, Dr. Persinger won the prestigious TV Ontario’s Best Lecturer competition as voted by close to 100,000 students across Ontario.
Douglas Christie | Dr. Persinger | Barbara Kulaszka
Dr. Michael Persinger was the third witness called by the Respondent in the matter of Richard Warman V. Marc Lemire. Dr. Persinger testified in Toronto on February 22, 2007 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal ruled Dr. Persinger could give expert opinion evidence on:
ØHow cognitive contemporary neuroscience can support the inference that suppression of some thoughts result in the suppression of a broad range of related chains of thought and extrapolations in human discourse.
ØThe cognitive neuroscientific research that can demonstrate the necessity for maximum freedom of verbal expression for individual and societal flourishing.
ØThe state of psychological research before and after the Kaufman report.
Testimony of Dr. Persinger – February 22/07
Suppression of Speech
MR. CHRISTIE: Could you explain, sir, what cognitive neuroscience has given us by the way of research, either of your own or of other research that you consider credible in the field that supports the influence that restricting or punishing some thoughts result in the suppression of a broader range of thoughts?
DR. PERSINGER: Yes. In general, in terms of the behavioural level, anything that involves punishment or the anticipation of punishment usually produces something known as response generalization effects, in the sense that not only is the response that's punished not likely to occur again, but you affect other unrelated responses and the propensity to respond again.
And the creativity, that is the idea of having new combinations of behaviours, is markedly lessoned in a punitive setting. I'm not saying the person is punished. It's the anticipation of punishment. It may be simply the observation that others are punished.
Now, the first thing that's affected is thought, and, of course, thought indirectly through verbal expression. And when we look at the brain, the areas of the brain that are involved, what we find is that creativity and the ability to integrate new ideas and to adapt involves mostly frontal lobe function.
And that is the first area of the brain that's adversely affected by punishment, specifically the anticipation of punishment.
Effects of speech in the modern world
MR. CHRISTIE: In any of your research have you considered or could you assist us by describing the relationship of a wide variety of options? For example -- and I'm going to, of course, try, if I may, to paraphrase the situation that might exist if one was confronted with the Internet, with millions upon millions upon millions of options of opinion.
In that state, is there any psychological research you are aware of that would assist us to know what is the effect of the selection of a particular point of view on the likelihood that would be adopted or believed?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, in terms of belief systems -- and belief is a powerful phenomenon, we've been studying it for a long time -- usually people will read things which are congruent with their belief systems. But in addition to that, it depends on how much information that is being presented. If people are inundated with lots of information, then what you will find is that they will tend to select concepts or ideas that are congruent with their interests and their beliefs. And what we found is one of the best means of equipping the observer, and this is usually the student, dealing with multiple information is education. To challenge, to teach the person to challenge the contention with data and with rational evaluation.
The effect of Suppression of information
MR. CHRISTIE: What I'm interested is in the concept of the suppression of a broader range of related chains of thought or extrapolation.
How broad a range of thought are we able to determine is affected by the apprehension of punishment? Have we been able to determine how broad a range of thought is thereby affected?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, the experimental data, which is primarily both the human beings and with rodents, suggest it's much broader than people suspect.
For example, let me give you an canine specificity. If, for example, you are training an animal to jump over a stick and it doesn't jump over the stick but it goes under it and you kick it, you punish it. Not only does it punish the behaviour of going under the stick, but the animal may not come to you any more and may show all kinds of behaviours which are typical apprehension of punishment, that's called anxiety, and show what we call conditioned suppression of all other kinds of behaviour, including interactions with other dogs.
This is an example I give in first year psych very often. And what you find with punishment is that not only is the response's punishment affected, but anything related to it: Related thoughts, related combinations, the ability to combine thoughts in new ways. These will also be decreased. They won't be eliminated but they will be decreased.
That's why you find that very often if we're talking about creativity in the classroom, and creativity in research, it's very important to have an open, non-punitive -- not even a hint of punitive environment in order to allow creativity to continue.
The obscurely of “Hate laws” and knowing the line
MR. CHRISTIE: So if I draw a line about verbal communication but it's very obscure -- it could be here, it could there, it could be dislike -- but if it goes over into intense dislike then I've reached the line. What affect would that have on anxiety when I don't know where that line is?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, there is nothing more enhancing for anxiety. There's nothing more facilatory to anxiety than ambiguity. Ambiguity makes anxiety even worse, and it interferes with creativity even worse.
So simply anxiety itself and the anticipation of something as small as a reprimand from a dean, is sufficient to often eliminate entire topics of discussion which can be quite fruitful for the developing mind.
MR. CHRISTIE: In regard to societal flourishing, what does that got to do with cognitive neuroscience today?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, we're living from a species point of view, in certainly more challenging times. And in order to be adaptive we have to use all of our potential in terms of brain function, and that requires maximum creativity, maximum adaptability and maximum freedom of expression, because freedom of expression gives ideas to others. It allows you to adapt. It allows us to put new ideas together and old ideas together in different ways.
So the freedom of expression, and indeed allowing our frontal lobes to do what they do best, is essential for us to flourish as a society, and the more complex the problems become, which they are, the most verbal expression, free expression has to take place. Because the first thing that suffers with anxiety and verbal suppression, verbal repression, is you lose your ability to solve complex problems.
Kaufmann and alleged "psychological distress"
and the unscientific propaganda term “hate”
MR. CHRISTIE: There was one paragraph which I'm told was incomprehensible to someone, Dr. Mock actually, and I want to go to it. That was page 8, and perhaps we could put it in other words so that it might be more readily understood. And that paragraph began with the words the "Concordance Concept". Quote:
"Psychological distress is so
vague that it is meaningless."
Where were you quoting the word "psychological distress" from?
DR. PERSINGER: The components of the [Cohen] report. Dr. Kaufman.
It's like the word phlogiston in the days of [old] Before chemistry came along, people were asked why things burned. Things burned because they contained phlogiston. Because the concept of atoms and oxygen and combustible reactions are not known.
And we no longer use that term because it's not useful because we now realize that matter is made up of atoms, not fire, earth, air and water.
The term psychological distress is so vague it's very much like phlogiston. It can be defined by anyone depending upon how they define it, and it's so unbelievably subjective that it has no value except as a catch-all term for a vague concept.
MR. CHRISTIE: Now, in neuropsychological, do you use the term hate?
DR. PERSINGER: We don't use the term hate. We use the term aversive stimuli. Hate is a subjective experience and is just simply one of the many labels that people apply to aversive experiences.
So we study aversive experiences very, very significantly and frequently including looking at the correlates of brain function. But the term hate is simply one of the many labels that can be applied to an aversive experience.
MR. CHRISTIE: Why wouldn't you use the term hate in any of your research?
DR. PERSINGER: Primarily because it's arbitrary. Secondly, because it's highly subjective, and third very difficult to quantify because it's a term that's used so indiscriminantly that you really can't use it effectively. The term aversive stimulus also is not as pejorative. In other words, it doesn't have connotations.
MR. CHRISTIE: That's correct. If I could use a specific example, hoping not to offend anyone if I were to say, I saw a message somewhere that said, all scots are mean, bitter, vicious, dower, penny-pinching, overly aggressive individuals. But I had the option of putting up a message that said that that's only me and a few other scots and there are some good ones, would that affect the capacity to adapt to what was an aversive stimuli?
DR. PERSINGER: Certainly. There are two options here. One, if it's a free operant society in the sense that you have choice to read it or not, okay –
MR. CHRISTIE: That's one premise?
DR. PERSINGER: That's the important feature. I mean, if you read it and become offended, you also have an opportunity in a free operant setting not to read it and to avoid it. That's also your choice, if you had that opportunity.
On the other hand, you also have a chance to respond to overcome what I guess would be the most appropriate explanation, the categorical error. And a categorical error is over-inclusiveness, to say all scots are this way, all scots are that way. That's the limit of human language.
“Hate speech” And alleged lowered Self-Esteem
MR. CHRISTIE: I just want to briefly and quickly, if I can, go to the previous paragraph where you start to deal with the assertions of the Cohen Committee, that individuals subjected to racial -- and this is a quote:
"Individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological stress, damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage."
You say, "...is confounded by archaic concepts of psychological processes." Can you tell us what are those "archaic concepts of psychological processes"?
DR. PERSINGER: I think one has to be respectful to the level of science at the time Dr. Kaufman wrote this, in the 1960s. In the 1960s, the psychological concepts were dominated by primarily Freudian theories and various kinds of very primitive sociological theories, social psychology theories which, in large part now, have been shown to be inaccurate or simply more complicated aspects to the whole process.
So those were archaic types of concepts. For example, the term self-esteem is a term that's primarily a psychometric test and we now realize that almost all of the things that were claimed here are correlational. They are not experimental, they're correlational studies.
And even the strength of the effects are really, really small. For example, self-esteem and correlations with these types of things are smaller than the self-esteem effects associated with being left-handed or right-handed.
These are all very small effects, but they are all based on psychological ideas that were very prominent in 1960s. And neuroscience and neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience has gone a long way. Now we know how the brain works much more effectively. And many of these ideas were great ideas at the time, but are just out-of-date.
Modern Neuropsychology and unbiased answers
MR. CHRISTIE: What if modern neuropsychology had as tools to, shall we say, refine and re-examine these concepts more effectively at the present time than we did in the past?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, at the present time now, for the first time certainly in the last 10 years, if you are interested in studying hatred or aversive stimuli you can actually evaluate what goes on in the brain at the time when a person is having experiences. You can now look at the changes throughout the brain, in different areas of the brain that are involved with not only perception but empathy, with emotion, with hurt, with rage, with love. You can look at all of these emotional behaviours in a real-time way without relying on verbal report only.
MR. CHRISTIE: Or anecdotal?
DR. PERSINGER: Or anecdotal evidence, yes.
Correlational Studies Are very Questionable
MR. CHRISTIE: Can you explain the significance of correlational effects to, for example, subjective and anecdotal evidence? Is there some relationship between those?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, subjective experiences are simply experiences that the person reports. And one thing we do know about human experience is that individuals are relatively good measurers of their internal states, relatively good. They are not very good, not very accurate about telling you the reasons for it. In other words, in a clinical setting very often you listen to a person's experiences. If they say, I've got unusual lights in the upper -- flashing lights in the upper left visual field, you pretty much know that it's a right temporal lobe phenomenon.
But if they then say it's because an angel is visiting me, or if it's because of this or that reason, most of the time people's attributions for why they have an experience are not correct, most of the time.
So attributions are really, really erroneous. So I would say that whenever we are looking at subjective experiences one has to accommodate that.
Now, correlational studies, that simply means you have two variables and they are related. It doesn't mean cause/effect and because somebody listens to something and you expose them to -- they're exposed to literature or to a stimulus it's correlated, for example, with self-esteem changes, that doesn't tell you that it's a causal phenomenon.
Let me give you an example, an everyday example.
If you start with a fever and then after a couple days you start getting a cold, then start to sneeze, you'll be totally inappropriate to say the fever caused the sneezing. There's a third favor producing both. And one of the limits of correlational studies is you almost never know what the third factor is, especially when the effects are very weak and the correlations between self-esteem and many of the variables suggested by Kaufman are very, very weak.
Large Group Identity (Race/Religion) Effect
DR. PERSINGER: Well, the primary thrust here is when you see somebody hurt, I would hope most people would stop and help them. When you see somebody in distress feeling badly because they had been offended -- many people feel bad when people fail a course, they feel bad. When people have a divorce they feel bad.
So the critical question, what area of the brain allows us to experience sympathy? Where in the brain does sympathy take place and is that area related to social interaction and social bonding? And that's what the point of this article was.
MR. CHRISTIE: Does it assist us to know what social interaction is more likely if there is a large group identity to reinforce our reaction?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, if indeed a large group of people after you've been aroused tell you why you are aroused, and says it's because that group or that person made you feel bad, that tells us -- this particular study tells us a great deal about the dangers, or perhaps sometimes the benefits, of having groups of people telling you how to respond and how to feel. But, moreover, regardless of the social implications, it tells you what part of the brain is involved so you can realize what other things, what other variables may influence empathy and sympathy.
MR. CHRISTIE: Is this a correlational study?
DR. PERSINGER: No, this is an experimental study.
Hate Laws create an environment that
leads to frustrative aggression
MR. CHRISTIE: You seem to indicate that honesty of belief is possible without reference to truth?
DR. PERSINGER: Without a doubt.
MR. CHRISTIE: So does honesty of belief have any relationship to frustrative aggression if the belief is suppressed?
DR. PERSINGER: Well, one of the things you find about belief if it's suppressed is the individuals will find other forms and other ways to manifest it. And when they cannot freely express it, then you get the motor behaviour, the physical behaviour taking place. I mean, human beings -- that's what we do, we talk. Fish wag their tails, rats gnaw, we talk. And if you interfere with free expression, then the other option is crude, physical behaviour.
The above testimony of Dr. Michael Persinger are short excepts from the 186 page transcripts of February 22, 2007. Warman v. Lemire. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing: T1073/5405. Transcripts volume 14, pages: 2785 – 2967. Paris Room of Novotel Hotel, Mississauga, Ontario.
More here: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=50775
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
Last edited by Tomasz Winnicki; February 10th, 2008 at 10:18 PM.
|February 10th, 2008||#2|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Blog Entries: 34
Re: Marc Lemire (Canada)
Wikipedia [highly biased source]:
Marc Lemire is a neo-Nazi  figure in the Canadian white supremacist movement. He is the webmaster of the Toronto-based Freedom-Site, which he began in 1996.
According to Matthew Lauder, a researcher who infiltrated the far right in Canada, Lemire has been national director of the often violent white supremacist Heritage Front (HF) organization since January 1, 2001. 
In 1997, he ran for school trustee in Toronto Public School Ward P17 and received 2,503 votes (or 12% of the total). In the mid-1990s he was a Canadian Armed Forces reservist. In their 1997 Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, B'nai Brith Canada wrote, "Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedom-Site that hosts the websites of several of Canada’s most virulent antisemitic organizations such as the Heritage Front, The Canadian Patriots Network and the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform". In 1998, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation called the The Canadian Patriots network a "hate website".
Lemire's involvement with Droege and the Heritage Front began when he was a teenager in the early 1990s, but with the HF falling into crisis around 1993, he attempted independent projects on the far right, such as his Canadian Patriots Network before embarking in his online activities. He resumed his activity with the Heritage Front within a few years, and according to the HF website, Lemire helped organize an Heritage Front flyer campaign in 2001. The flyers were titled in part Immigration can kill you, and included the claim that there was a connection between immigration and an outbreak of tuberculosis.
Lemire was briefly a member of the Canadian Alliance, a mainstream conservative Canadian party — along with several other far-right figures, such as Paul Fromm, Doug Christie and Doug Collins — until the late 2000, when, according to The Report Newsmagazine, they were all expelled from the party.
 Legal and human rights issues
A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a decision in August 2006, finding that postings by Craig Harrison on the Freedom-Site forum (an interactive message forum on Lemire's website) contained violations of Section 13 of the CHRA. No liability was found against Lemire though the Tribunal did issue a decision that "compelled" Lemire to provide evidence during the hearing. 
As of 2006, Lemire is the subject of a federal human rights complaint for allegedly "communicating and/or causing to be communicated" messages in violation of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Hearings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are scheduled for February 2007. 
On November 25, 2005, Lemire filed a Notice of Constitutional Question with every Attorney General in Canada, against the Canadian Human Rights Act, in which he alleged that ss. 13 (Internet hate) and 54(1)(1.1) (Fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are in violation of ss. 2(a) and (b), 7, 26 and 31 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that these violations are not saved by s. 1 thereof. A violation of ss. 1(d) and (f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights is also alleged. . As a result of the constitutional challenge, the Canadian Free Speech League, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Attorney General of Canada, The Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith Canada and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre have all obtained "Interested Party Status" in the case. 
During questioning of two Canadian Human Rights Commission employees - Hannya Rizk and Dean Steacy - the Canadian Human Rights Commission invoked section 37 (public interest immunity) of the Canada Evidence Act to block any questioning on an alias used by the CHRC on the Stormfront. Org message board and any questions involving investigation techniques.
On May 17, 2007, Mr. Lemire filed a Notice of Application to the Federal Court, for a determination of the Commission's claims of public interest immunity, in accordance with s. 37(3) of the Canada Evidence Act. 
In July, 2007, Marc Lemire filed a motion to stop the Tribunal hearing Sine Die.  On August 17, 2007, Marc Lemire received an adjournment sine die from Athanasios D. Hadjis, a senior member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This adjournment completely stops the tribunal proceedings with no fixed date to continue, pending the appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.
|February 10th, 2008||#3|
White - European - Aryan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Re: Marc Lemire (Canada)
VICTORY AT FEDERAL COURT!
“Human Rights” Commission Cries "Uncle", Reveals Staff Spying on the Internet & Court Awards Costs to Lemire
Marc Lemire's Applicant Record (lays out the full challenge)
Letter from CHRC Answering all Section 37 questions (From FreeDominion website, which they received from the Federal Court Registrar)
RULING from the Federal Court of Canada (Jan 15, 2008)
TORONTO. January 15, 2007. Despite an Eastern Ontario snowfall that delayed the appearance of his counsel, Barbara Kulaszka , for an hour and a half. Marc Lemire walked out of Federal Court in Toronto today a happy man. By sheer persistence, he had wrung out of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions some amazing admissions. At least one investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission has adopted a false Internet persona and trolled the Internet engaging in conversations with prospective victims. In other words, the CHRC is spying on Canadians, not observing and investigating, but participating and instigating.
After claiming Sec. 37, under the Canada Evidence Act to rule out a number of key questions to Canadian Human Rights Commission employees, the CHRC had effectively shut down some important lines of inquiry. When this claim to not divulge certain information is asserted by the government, the only recourse is to seek judicial review in Federal Court. The information is placed before a judge and he determines whether revealing the information would endanger national security or the life or safety of a person. It might be used to keep confidential the location of someone in the witness protection program. It is seldom used in civil court.
Marc Lemire contended all along that the Commission was hiding behind Sec. 37 to cover up their spying on Canadians. Following his oft repeated motto “No Surrender”, Mr. Lemire had persevered despite numerous Commission submissions and maneuvers made it clear he would go to Court, In a last minute effort to avoid Court, the Commission’s outside lawyer Margot Blight gave in on all points. Suddenly, what had once been information so sensitive it could not be revealed without imperiling the public interest was disclosed.
Among the information sought, protected but now revealed:
As the Commission had withdrawn its Sec. 37 claim, there was little for Madam Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson to decide. Mr. Lemire had asked her to direct the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to re-open its hearing to permit the re-calling of the Commission investigators, especially Mr. Steacy.
Miss Kulaszka argued: “It is crucial to the Applicant that he have the right to hear the answers directly from the witnesses and to be able to ask further relevant questions. For example, given the disclosure that has been given, it is now known that the anonymous poster, “Jadewarr” who twice attempted to elicit information about or from M arc Lemire on the Stormfront message board, was in fact Dean Steacy. Yet, he gave evidence before the Tribunal that viewing of Stormfront would only occur pursuant to a complaint. The attempts to elicit information from Mr. Lemire occurred in 2006, after the complaint had already been sent to the Tribunal in August of 2005.”
The judge said she did not have the power to so direct the Tribunal.
Barbara Kulaszka forcefully argued that the Commission had delayed providing this information and had used Sec. 37 as a stalling tactic to run up Mr. Lemire’s costs. Mr. Lemire is a young father of two with very limited resources.
The judge seemed to sympathize and awarded $1,500 in costs to Mr. Lemire.
In written submissions Douglas H. Christie, counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, which intervened on Mr. Lemire’s behalf, argued: “The Commission, the Attorney General, and parties like ourselves are at a great imbalance of financial resources. For this reason, it is appropriate that adequate compensation be given to the Applicant for the costs of obtaining the admission at the last minute. It appears the admission was only generated out of the desire to avoid an adverse ruling.”
Mr. Lemire indicated that his defence team would be making an early application to Tribunal Member Athanasios Hadjis to re-open hearings so that the witnesses, including Dean Steacy can be recalled.
The Federal Court at 180 Queen St., West was packed. More chairs had to be brought in twice and all extra chairs from the counsel table added to those for the audience who streamed in from London , Kingston , Uxbridge, Port Credit, St. Thomas , Ottawa and Penticton .
The hearing was delayed until 11:00 from its original 9:30 start. When it commenced, it was quite short. The audience complained about the poor sound. A wary commissionaire waved several people rising to object to silence. “This is supposed to be a public hearing,” said Wolfgang Mueller and auditor and spokesman for the Canadian Association for Free Expression. “How can it be public when the public can’t hear and the authorities don’t seem to care. This is not the first time we’ve been treated like this.”
At previous Richard Warman cases, since August, 2006 there has been heavy security, including up to give government paid bodyguards for Warman and the Commission lawyers.
“I see it must only be an orange alert today,” Paul Fromm representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression which was intervening on Mr. Lemire’s behalf said to Commission lawyer M argot Blight before the hearing. “I see there are only the private security wanding all people entering, no Metro Police, no bodyguards.”
Blight answered: “You don’t expect me to comment, do you?”
Ironically, this was the biggest crowd of supporters ever to attend one of the Lemire hearings and it included several victims of Richard Warman. The atmosphere was enthusiastic but peaceful.
“The bogus threat of security and the drama queen scene of Mr. Warman and Commission lawyers even being accompanied to the washroom by bodyguards has been a costly and deliberate tactic to vilify the victims, to make us appear to be a threat. I’m glad that this time, both sides were allowed to approach the bench on a level playing field,” Paul Fromm commented.
Issues at the Federal Court Review
The CHRC stopped all questioning of this infiltration account. “Jadewarr” was used to engage M arc Lemire and others online. This is part of a larger scheme, with the Edmonton Police hate crimes unit posting outright discriminatory messages on Stormfront.org using the name “Estate”. Evidence before the Tribunal shows “Jadewarr” was a CHRC employee. We want the name
CHRC using the account “Jadewarr” on the White Nationalist website www.Stormfront.org
The CHRC has been trying to elevate itself to a police agency. They only have statue remedial powers, but through a series of police agreements they have access to highly secured police databases such as CPIC. As well M otor Vehicle records, phone records, police powers of search and seizure. We want to know the extent of the relationship and how its been used
The relationship between the CHRC and Police
In 2003-2004 the CHRC had filed 5-6 complaints against users on AOL Online, who were critical of homosexuality and opposed to same-sex marriage. We want to know the names of the respondents and what effect the CHRC had in prosecuting only critics of same-sex marriage
The CHRC silencing critics during the Same-Sex M arriage debate
Throughout the course of M arc Lemire’s hearing, it has become clear the CHRC has used shady tactics to go after those they don’t like. This includes using tools to reveal the identity of online users, such as WHOIS and Visual Route . We want to know how they used those tools and why
The CHRC’s investigative techniques
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Active and Past cases: 46 | Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37
·NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case
·98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
·90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
·$99,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
·35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
Section 37 info at: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jun...ection_37.html
CHRC and the Canadian Police: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Sep...nd_Police.html
Stephen Harper (Conservative Party Leader, current Prime Minister):
"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)
For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgements on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.
Ottawa Citizen - December 9, 2007
Human rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose moment has passed. That they can be exploited by a narrow lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon other Canadians is a serious problem.
CalgaryHerald - December 19, 2007
there is plenty of prima facie evidence to suggest the "human rights" racket is systemically corrupt. I will cite only the most obvious example: In the three decades of its existence, no defendant dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission under a Section XIII complaint has ever been acquitted. A "court" that only reaches the same verdict is not the most reassuring example of justice's blindness.
Mark Steyn – January 2, 2008
Biased and Unfair | TRUTH is NO Defence | 100% Convictions | Lifetime Speech bans
Censors ... HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!
Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge
Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law
and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !
·Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:
152 Carlton Street
PO Box 92545
|February 4th, 2013||#4|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Blog Entries: 34
Federal Court Rules: CHRC will get their fiendish wish --
Lemire has to fight on two fronts in two courts
Marc Lemire now has to fight against Section 13 at the Court of Appeals
and against a lifetime gag order at the “Human Rights” Tribunal
In what has become more and more typical in Canada’s repressive thought control regime, the Federal Court of Appeals has dismissed the stay motion filed by Marc Lemire. The stay motion was seeking a short reprieve to allow the court to actually rule on Canada’s draconian shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act.
To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you’re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you … but hey this is CanaDUUH. Sentence first, then we’ll see if the laws ok later.
In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression. While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom’s enshrines freedom of expression as a “fundamental right”, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as “freedom of speech is an American concept”. As crazy as that is, that’s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.
The Justice found that “the appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal” Gee, even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS* a violation of our freedom of expression. How hard is it to really believe that if the “Human Rights” Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won’t cause “irreparable harm”. And this is not just a hypothetical … the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders / speech bans.
The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre. The “Justice” that writes that “…there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in…” Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate?
This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for “Pre-Crimes” before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada… where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?
Unlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future. The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might “expose” someone to “hatred” and/or “contempt”. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future.
Two-Front - Maximum Disruption Campaign
After nine years of fighting Marc Lemire, the CHRC must have realized that he is not going to give up very easily. So they took a page out serial Section 13 complainers handbook; Richard Warman’s “Maximum Disruption”. The basic strategy of “Maximum Disruption” is to hit your enemies on as many fronts as possible, and that’s exactly what the CHRC has done.
Marc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional. And at the same time, in front of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!)
The CHRC is hoping that Lemire’s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases. This is why we desperately need your help.
Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought
All of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved, reformed or tinkered with. The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it.
The end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: to Silence Thought. That’s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them, they keep spending and spending. After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial “politically incorrect” opinions on the internet?
It’s just easier to self-censor yourself, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment. And that’s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced. The censors undertake ‘impact prosecutions’ and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary.
Take a look at the Marc Lemire case. This is the 9th year of fighting the censors … all because he posted a SINGLE document on his website, that he didn’t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States. As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again.
That made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the “Human Rights” Commission – in their parting “F*ck You” to freedom – continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire.