Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > Uncensored Europe + > Canada
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old April 6th, 2008 #41
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

More Disclosures of Commission Spying Demanded in Lemire Case

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/more-disclosures-commission-spying-demanded-478799.html
__________________
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
 
Old April 10th, 2008 #43
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Motion for Disclosure of CHRC fake names and to
reopen hearing over CHRC WiFi Hacking
Because of CHRC Willful Disregard for Disclosure Rules - The legality of each and every section 13 case is in question



http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/04/motion-for-disclosure-of-chrc-fake.html


In a motion filed on March 31, 2008 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Marc Lemire is demanding that the CHRC disclose the fake names they used on internet message boards and to reopen the hearing so that the CHRC employees can be cross examined.

With the revelations from the Canadian Human Rights Commission that they withheld very relevant information from every single victim of Section 13 – every “conviction” has to be reviewed!

Here is some excerpts of the motion filed:



TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,
160 Elgin St., 11th Floor,
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405



It is clear that the respondent cannot close his case in the circumstances given the evidence by Dean Steacy last week and the statement made by Ms. Margot Blight at the hearing concerning the change in disclosure policies of the Commission.

Three things became clear from a review of the proceedings:

1: Firstly, and most importantly, Dean Steacy revealed that as an investigator he had signed onto the Freedomsite message board using a pseudonym. This was one of a number of message boards that he had accessed using false emails and personas. Nothing was ever disclosed about this to the respondent in these proceedings. Since four other people had access to the false email accounts, the question is raised of whether other investigators posted on the Freedomsite. As of this date, Marc Lemire has not received any disclosure about the signing up and posting of material on Freedomsite by Commission employees. This goes directly to the merits of the case since most of the material which forms the basis of this case comes from the Freedomsite message board.
The Commission has violated its duty of disclosure. Dean Steacy ignored the requirements of the subpoena issued by the Tribunal which required that he bring all documents with respect to monitoring the Internet. This case cannot be closed when it is now revealed that evidence going to the merits of the case exists and was never disclosed to the respondent. This evidence must be disclosed.

Ms. Margot Blight, for the Commission, stated to the Tribunal on March 25th that it had been the Commission’s policy up until the Federal Court decision in Lemire in January of this year, not to disclose to any respondent in a section 13 case that the Commission investigators were communicating under false names with respondents via emails and/or were signing up accounts under false names on their own message boards or message boards such as Stormfront. This included the respondent. This admission by the Commission shows that not one respondent in a section 13 case obtained full disclosure from the Commission and that matters going directly to the merits of these cases were hidden from respondents and the Tribunals hearing their cases. This admission brings into question the legality of each and every section 13 case decided by the Tribunal.

2: The evidence given by Alain Monfette of Bell Canada was extremely puzzling to me and to the respondent. However, after further investigation, Mr. Lemire has informed me of the following facts:
·the log files of the Freedomsite show that when Hannya Rizk accessed the site in 2003 and 2004 during her duties at the Commission, she did so through UUNET Canada. UUNet provided businesses with Internet access.
·Bell Sympatico is Bell’s RESIDENTIAL internet provider. Bell Nexia is Bell’s BUSINESS internet provider (http://www.bellnexia.com/).

It is submitted that the evidence shows that Dean Steacy, at the offices of the Commission on December 8, 2006 accessed Stormfront.org via a high-jacked wireless access point. Ms. Nelly Hechme lives just down the street from the Commission offices and it appears her unsecured wireless access was used by the Commission in an attempt to hide their tracks. If this is correct and the Commission is using the Internet accounts of private citizens, without their knowledge, on section 13 cases, this goes directly to the constitutionality of section 13.

3: The evidence of Dean Steacy that there are no written agreements between police forces and the Commission regarding the exchange of information on respondents and therefore no legal authorization for such violation of the privacy rights of Canadian citizens also goes to the constitutionality of section 13. Information has been obtained or given over a dozen times according to Mr. Steacy. This goes directly to the constitutional challenge as the Commission is indirectly accessing information from police which it could not obtain lawfully through its own procedures.

The documents produced by Ms. Blight on March 25th included emails of [email protected] showing that the Commission employees had over 50 emails at that time in the email inbox. No disclosure was made of these emails or other contacts with respondents or other persons via false name emails or postings or private messages.


In June of last year, I informed the Tribunal that the respondent had no further witnesses. I did not say that the respondent’s case was closed. It obviously was not closed since the respondent had commenced an application in the Federal Court to obtain answers to various questions

It is not the prerogative of this Tribunal to tell the respondent when his case is closed. The duty of this Tribunal is to ensure that the parties are given a fair hearing. There is no requirement in the Canadian Human Rights Act that cases be finished within a certain time. The Tribunal’s repeated statement that “This case is done” is, with respect, not a matter for the Tribunal to decide. The Tribunal’s duty is to ensure a fair hearing and that justice is done.

It is submitted that the revelations on March 25th show the outline of the following activities of the Commission:

1.They have failed to make major disclosure of vital and key information in all section 13 cases, including this one, of contacts with respondents or attempted contacts via false identities;
2.That Sgt. Stephen Camp (as “Estate”) and Richard Warman (as “Pogue Mahone”) on Stormfront, worked together on the Stormfront message board from the fall of 2003 until their false personas were revealed. “Jadewarr” was simply part of the same strategy. None of this was disclosed to respondents who were brought before this Tribunal for postings on Stormfront;
3.That only John Chamberlain, if even he, is the only person at the Commission who knows the full extent of the creation of false personas and false email accounts by Commission employees;
4.That a deliberate decision has been made by the Commission to use unsecured wireless Internet accounts of private Canadian citizens to access targeted sites and message boards;
5.That the Freedomsite message board was accessed by Dean Steacy in his “Jadewarr” persona with no disclosure of any facts concerning this made to the respondent.

The respondent therefore makes this motion for the following relief:

1.An order from this Tribunal that the Commission make full disclosure of

(a) all email accounts using false names used by Commission investigators in section 13 cases, such as [email protected].
(b) all emails sent or received in those accounts;
(c) all pseudonyms used by Commission employees to post on message boards or websites;
(d) all pseudonyms used by Richard Warman, police officers, or any other persons, that the Commission coordinated and worked with in section 13 investigations;
(e) copies of all private messages (PM’s) sent or received using pseudonyms on message boards or websites;
(f) copies of all Commission or investigator notes or other documentation or memos with respect to policies, strategies or activities using the false emails and pseudonyms or personas;
(g) disclosure of all documentation concerning the unauthorized use of private wireless access points;
(h) all documents relating to the exchange of private information on respondents or other individuals to police with respect to hate investigations by either police of the Commission;

2.An adjournment of the hearing until such disclosure is made, at which time the parties may make motions on the hearing of oral evidence or subpoenas.


I realize that the Tribunal has been criticized for lengthy hearings. However, in this case it is Mr. Lemire who is the one who stands to lose the most from this complaint. Richard Warman is demanding a penalty of $9,000.00 to be assessed against Mr. Lemire [Vol. 4, p. 695] as well as a lifetime cease and desist order.

Mr. Warman, in the meantime, has left the proceedings and has not returned. He suffers no prejudice whatsoever from a full hearing of the evidence.

Ms. Blight, for the Commission, stated earlier on the last conference call that the Commission wished to have final submissions in the Fall. The Commission therefore sees no problem with a delay to the autumn for final submissions, giving ample time for this disclosure to be made and for further hearings, if necessary.

The material at the heart of this complaint was removed by the respondent some four years ago. There is therefore no prejudice to the public interest.

This Tribunal has a duty to uphold the law. The evidence of March 25th shows that the Commission has not followed the law or the rules of natural justice in the section 13 cases decided prior to this one or in this one. It did not make highly relevant disclosure to respondents.

This evidence goes directly to the merits of the Lemire case and to the constitutional challenge of section 13 and its penalty provision.

Mr. Lemire is entitled to a hearing which is lawful and where the Commission is required to obey the law. He has never delayed proceedings and never complained about delay in the proceedings. The time a case takes is irrelevant to whether justice is done. In this case, given the incredible statement of Ms. Blight on March 25th that the policy of the Commission has now changed, it means that this case just changed.

The disclosure requested is required for the respondent to have natural justice and a fair hearing as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Whether the respondent will request further subpoenas as a result of this disclosure remains open.

The respondent’s case has not been closed when full disclosure from the Commission has never been made, even on the merits of the case. The announcement of Ms. Blight last Tuesday on the change of policy of the Commission means that that disclosure must now be made.

All of which is respectfully submitted.



Barbara Kulaszka
__________________
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
 
Old May 4th, 2008 #44
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

URGENT APPEAL!


The dates for the final arguments in the Richard Warman case against Marc Lemire under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act have now been set. Written arguments must be filed in May and oral arguments will be held before the Tribunal in June.

Marc Lemire has challenged the constitutionality of s. 13 of the CHRA as a violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. A pdf of the written argument can be found > here <.

This case will set a crucial precedent in the fight against section 13! We need support from civil liberties associations!


Message from Marc Lemire:

There is time for the civil liberties and journalist associations in Canada to join this fight and to intervene on the side of freedom in this precedent-setting case. I have written to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists urging them to intervene as interested parties in my case so that they can support the constitutional challenge. M y letter is copied below.

I need the Internet community and the blogoshere to contact these organizations and let them know that this case is going to be the most important precedent regarding freedom of speech and the Internet for years to come. Will they be there? Will they lend their expertise and weight to the side of free speech NOW? No other person has challenged the constitutionality of section 13.

This is our chance to strike this law down as a law that no democracy can justify.

Please write to the associations and urge them to stand up NOW against the tyranny of section 13.
If not now, when?



THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
A. ALAN BOROVOY, GENERAL COUNSEL
506 - 360 Bloor Street West
Toronto , ON M 5S 1X1
phone: 416-363-0321
fax: 416-861-1291
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.ccla.org/


BC Civil Liberties Association
550 - 1188 W. Georgia St .
Vancouver , BC
V6E 4A2
phone: 604-630-9748
http://www.bccla.org/

PEN Canada
24 Ryerson Avenue., Suite 301
Toronto ON M 5T 2P3
Canada
(416)703-8448
http://www.pencanada.ca


The Canadian Association of Journalists
Algonquin College
1385 Woodroffe Avenue , B224
Ottawa , ON K2G 1V8
Telephone 613-526-8061
Fax: 613-521-3904
http://www.caj.ca/
__________________
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; May 4th, 2008 at 12:50 AM.
 
Old May 4th, 2008 #45
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Letter from Marc Lemire to Civil Liberties Associations


April 29, 2008

Canadian Civil Liberties Association
506 - 360 Bloor Street West
Toronto , ON M 5S 1X1
Fax: 416-861-1291

Constitutional Challenge – request to intervene in case


Dear Canadian Civil Liberties Association,

My name is Marc Lemire and on 25 November 2005 , my legal counsel filed a Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 is the totalitarian provision that gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission the ability to censor material on telephone lines and computer networks (such as the Internet).

Your organization has recently come out publicly against Section 13, and now is the time to join the battle. If not now… when?

The Constitutional Challenge I have filed is questioning the validity, substance and application of the law, and is not about my case. I am asking that you intervene only on the validity of the law, in the context of the Charter challenge that my counsel has filed. As it stands now, that intervention on the charter challenge, would only be written arguments on the constitutionality of Section 13.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal have been given the authority to rule on the constitutionality of it’s own enabling legislation. So that’s where the real fight over the validly of Section 13 of the CHRA has to take place.

Your organizations has decried the use and abuse of Section 13 to attack writers and journalists such as M ark Steyn, Ezra Levant and Macleans Magazine, and now is the only time such a challenge will be heard.

No other case will ever have the factual background as this case. World-renown experts have testified, like Dr. Michael A Persinger from Laurentian University, and Dr. Donald Downs from the University of Wisconsin . As well, through the testimony of three CHRC employees subpoenaed by the respondent, the entire investigative process, lack of training and utter contempt of free speech have been laid bare. In one case, Dean Steacy a senior investigator for the CHRC said that “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value”.

CHRC investigators have admitted under oath, that they used fake names and pseudonyms to post on White Nationalist websites such as Stormfront, VNN , BC White Pride, etc. As well as other sites such as the largest conservative chat site in Canada – FreeDominion.ca.

The CHRC has also admitted to withholding those crucial facts from every respondent and even the Tribunal, and only recently changed their policy after they were called before the Federal Court of Canada to gave up their Section 37 (Canada Evidence Act) claims to withhold disclosure of the identities they used.

To date their has been 26 hearing days, spanning four cities in Ontario . Including, Toronto , Ottawa , Mississauga and Oakville . Currently, seven groups have received interested party status. This is the biggest challenge Section 13 has ever under gone, and your organizations intervention in this case is paramount.

Interest in Case:

The media has been very interested in this case, and even the National Post’s Editorial Board has publicly declared their support for this constitutional challenge and a repeal of Section 13.



Groups and Writers that Support Repeal of Section 13:

Liberal MP Keith Martin
Liberal MP Dan McTeague
Conservative MP James Rajotte
Ezra Levant
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)
Catholic Insight Magazine
Catholic Register
Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)
Victoria News
PEN Canada
CDN Association of Journalists
Mark Steyn (Macleans Magazine)
Calgary Herald
Western Standard Magazine
London Free Press
B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune
Sask Leader-Post
Deborah Gyapong
Calgary A M 770
Globe and Mail
National Post
David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)
Eye Magazine ( Toronto )
Toronto Star
Toronto Sun
Interim Magazine
Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday
Winnipeg Free Press
Oak Bay News


The Canadian Human Rights Commission is drunk with power and wants to limit the freedom of many Canadians. Since the inception of the law, over 100 complaints have been accepted against Canadians. Every single person who has ever been before the Tribunal has lost. That’s a 100% “conviction” rate for respondents. Truth and intent are NO defence!

Recently the Rights Enforcers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission have attacked:

The Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

This case is the definitive challenge of the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and cases before the Federal Court of Canada have been stayed pending the decision in my case. The National Post Editorial Board, and editor Johnathan Kay has called me a “principled free-speech martyr” and is supporting a repeal of Section 13.

To date, 7 parties have received interested party status before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These include:

·The Federal Attorney General of Canada
·Canadian Human Rights Commission
·Canadian Free Speech League
·B’nai Brith Canada
·Simon Wiesenthal Centre
·Canadian Association for Free Expression
·Canadian Jewish Congress

In support of freedom of speech and the Constitutional Challenge I have called as expert witnesses:

Dr. Donald Downs: Professor of Political Science, Law and Journalism at the University of Wisconsin , Madison . He has written four previous books, including Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community, and the First Amendment, winner of the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award and The New Politics of Pornography, winner of the Gladys M . Kammerer Award of the American Political Science Association. Professor Downs has also published extensively in leading journals, encyclopedias and professional books, lectured throughout the US and in England and Scotland , and made numerous media appearances on radio and television to discuss issues of American politics and law.


Dr. Michael Persinger: Full Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience at Laurentian University. Since 1987 has been a registered Psychologist in Ontario , specializing in: Neuropsychology and Personality Assessments, with secondarily specialization in Psychometric Family Assessments. Dr. Persinger has written seven books and written/contributed to over 200 scientific articles and journals. He is well recognized as an expert the world over. Since 1983 has been the Coordinator of Behavioral Neuroscience Program at Laurentian University. Dr. Persinger has appeared on “NOVA”, ABC's “20/20", ABC’s “NightLine,” “60 M inutes” ( Australia ), “That's Incredible,” “48 Hours” (CBS), Unsolved M ysteries, The Discovery Channel, UltraScience, MTV News Special, The Unexplained, CNN News, NBC News, The Learning Channel, Arts and Entertainment Channel, Japanese T.V. among others.

Bernard Klatt : Internet and computer expert. Has been in the computer industry since 1970. Has worked for multinational corporations like Digital Equipment, General Electric and Philips-Signetics. Owner of Fairview Technology Centre, an Internet Service Provider in British Columbia .

Just to give you an insight into the mentality that permeates the Canadian Human Rights Commission, read the testimony of Dean Steacy. He is the lead investigator at the CHRC on internet cases (Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act)

M S KULASZKA: M r. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

M R. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

M S KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

M R. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.
Warman v. Lemire Transcripts, Volume 21, Page 4793 (2007/05/10)

During the course of the Constitutional Challenge we called evidence on every single Section 13 case that has ever been heard, to document the systemic bias used to both investigate and accept Section 13 cases.

This is the best chance to overturn Section 13, and remove the censorship provisions of the Act. What I am asking for is for your organization to intervene on the motion submitted on the constitutionality of Section 13. The tribunal has ruled that submissions for this will be in writing. This would be a written motion on how you view Section 13 and it’s chilling effect of silencing people and how it covers personal and private communication on the Internet or a “group of connected computers.” Which could mean intranet, private computer networks, as well as corporate intranets would be subject to censorship at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The process you would need to do is as follows:

1.Contact the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and request to be an Interested Party on the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13.

TRIBUNAL FILE:
T1073/5405
STYLE OF CAUSE:
Richard Warman v. M arc Lemire

2.The tribunal will ask you to submit a motion to grant interested party status.

3.After receiving interested party status, you will file a final submission on the validity of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street
11th Floor
Telephone: 613 995-1707
Fax: 613 995-3484

Registry Officer from Human Rights Tribunal
Name: Carol Ann Hartung

Relevant law on Interested Parties:
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/about/dow...-regles-04.htm

I hope this can answer some of the questions you had on the constitutional challenge and assist you in making a decision on intervening on this very important case for privacy and freedom of speech. With 26 hearing days and numerous expert witnesses, this case is clearly not about me, but rather about Section 13 of the

Canadian Human Right Act, and the decision if the CHRC should indeed be put in charge of making judgment on political and religious material and penalize those who are found guilty.

Full transcripts of this case are in electronic format (Adobe PDF) and I can send them to you on request. The 11 CHRT rulings to date, are available online the CHRT website.

Attached to this letter is a copy of the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.



- Marc Lemire
Email: [email protected]
__________________
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
 
Old May 4th, 2008 #46
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default


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.

Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

Liberal MP Keith Martin
Liberal MP Dan McTeague
Conservative MP James Rajotte
Conservative MP Bruce Stanton
Ezra Levant
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)
Catholic Insight Magazine
Catholic Register
Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)
PEN Canada
CDN Association of Journalists
Mark Steyn ( Macleans Magazine)
Calgary Herald
Western Standard Magazine
London Free Press
B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune
Sask Leader-Post
Deborah Gyapong
Calgary A M 770
Globe and M ail
National Post
David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)
Eye Magazine ( Toronto )
Toronto Star
Toronto Sun
Interim Magazine
Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday
Winnipeg Free Press
Oak Bay News
Victoria News


Constitutional Challenge of Section 13






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:
Marc Lemire
152 Carlton Street
PO Box 92545
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 2K1
Canada
__________________
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
 
Old May 4th, 2008 #47
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Canadian Constitution Foundation Seeks Intervener Status in Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

CCF wants an end to the censorship of the Canadian Human Rights Commission


On May 1, 2008, the Calgary based, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has applied for Interested Party status to support the constitutional challenge filed by Marc Lemire against Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mr. Lemire’s motion, written by the brilliant and courageous Barbara Kulaszka – seeks to toss out Section 13 as a violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. A pdf of the constitutional argument can be found > here <.
The CCF in it’s application written by counsel Desmond P. Burton-Williams, sets out several key arguments which highlight why Section 13 is totally unconstitutional and needs to be removed from Canadian law books. One of their key arguments is that Section 13 is nothing more than a quasi-criminal statute without any of the protections of criminal legislation. As well Section 13 is vague and impossible to apply unless the trier of fact speculates as to the cause and effect of speech.
PDF of the CCF's Motion available HERE

Key points by the CCF of the motion to intervene are:
'The Foundation is a citizen-based organization with supporters across Canada . … The Foundation is governed by a board of directors which includes lawyers, a law professor, and other professionals. Our Advisory Board includes Eugene Meehan, Q.C. and other prominent Canadians. The Foundation has been actively involved in supporting public interest litigation being conducted by such distinguished counsel as William McIntyre, Q.C., and D. M .H. Goldie, Q.C.
The Foundation is a credible, trustworthy and objective organization that has expertise and a unique perspective on the application of the Canadian Constitution and the ideals expressed therein, including its essential characteristic: that the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law, government measure or common law principle that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Submissions to be made by the Foundation
This challenge directly involves important constitutional principles, including jurisdiction and the clarity of legislation. Understanding these issues and acting within their prescribe boundaries allows for governance without unnecessarily intruding into the rights of citizens. The resolution of these issues allows government to be effective in what it does by establishing clarity of purpose while eliminating dueling and competing public activities and actors. Generally speaking this leads to efficiency in government while securing the liberty of Canadians.
The Foundation will argue that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act mirrors Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada and thereby places the Tribunal in the unintended position of acting as law enforcement and the court as they relate to criminal matters. Enforcement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the Tribunal has the effect of finding one liable for an indictable offence minus the indictment, as the ability to lay an indictment falls only within the jurisdiction of the Crown. This instance of jurisdictional trespass by the Tribunal leaves law enforcement and the courts confused as to where their respective jurisdictions lie. The application of Section 13 also has the effect of leaving the public in a state of ambiguity with respect to the criminal status of persons charged under it.
The Foundation will argue that the wording of Section 13 as it relates to '"persons being exposed to racial hatred" as a result of speech is not only vague, but difficult if not impossible to apply unless the trier decides to speculate as to the issues of cause and effect. The offense dealt with by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is identical to an indictable offense as described in the Criminal Code of Canada. The standard of proof as prescribed in criminal law is very high in keeping with the stigma effect of a criminal conviction. By contrast the standard of proof for the Tribunal is far lower, yet the effect of being found to be a "bigot", as a finding of Section13 liability does, would inevitably follow.
The Foundation will argue that the Tribunal has not been authorized to usurp the criminal law powers of the state, and that laws that are vague ought to be declared void for being such, in keeping with established precedent.
The Foundation will take the position that, to the extent that any limitations placed on freedom of expression by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act infringes upon constitutional rights, and that due to the aforementioned flaws in its application as well as its composition, the infringement cannot be justified under Section 1 of the Charter.

The Interest of the Foundation in These Proceedings
The Foundation has a legitimate interest in the issues raised by this application. As stated above, the impugned statute allows the Tribunal to act in a manner that violates the constitutional rights of Canadians, and to do so with sweeping powers and dubious authority.
The Foundation is gravely concerned that arguments advanced by Richard Warman, if adopted by this Tribunal, will result in the Canadian Human Rights Commission having the ability to violate the Constitution with impunity and without consequence. The Foundation submits that remedies to the aims sought by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act already exist in the Criminal Code of Canada and can be derived from the realm of public debate, where it constitutionally belongs.

The Foundation’s Unique Perspective
Our Foundation brings a unique perspective and approach to the issues raised in this application, and has a broader interest in these proceedings than the specific interests being pursued by the respondent. We will not duplicate the submissions of Mr. Warman, Mr. Lemire or of the other interveners.
The Foundation is not clouded by personal, social or political agendas in its understanding of the Canadian Constitution. Rather, it brings clarity of purpose to any constitutional debate by promoting the ideals expressed in the Constitution itself without reference to extraneous considerations

[Signed]
Desmond P. Burton-Williams
Counsel
Canadian Constitutional Foundation
PDF of the CCF's Motion available HERE

This application for Intervener Status by the Canadian Constitutional Foundation has been made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The next steps are for the parties to make submissions on this application. Finally the Tribunal will decide.
Closing arguments in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge are fast approaching, and even with the CHRC just today ( May 2, 2008) disclosing another 400 pages of highly relevant documents, (which they were *ordered* to disclose back in 2006 - Specially [43] L), the Tribunal seems to be guided by external forces which are dictating that this case will be over no matter what happens within the next few months.
The Tribunal has it’s marching orders from above, and those orders are to stop the absolute demolishing of the CHRC by Barbara Kulaszka – by any means necessary… Fairness, truth or justice be damned!
Please watch the Freedomsite for updates on the CCF’s application for Interested Party status, and those who are members of the CCF should send in a letter of appreciation.
But the big question still remains.. where is Borovoy and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He has been getting press from coast to coast talking about the CHRC, but where is he? In they won’t intervene at the most important juncture on a serious challenge of the validity of Section 13.. IF NOT NOW…. WHEN?
__________________
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
 
Old May 5th, 2008 #48
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Devastating motion filed today with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.




-----------
Attention: Ms. Carol Ann Hartung, Registry Officer

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405


To the Tribunal:

Last week, I received from the Commission further disclosure in the amount of some 400 pages. I was served with two CD’s of documents and further faxed information. The last disclosure was made by fax on May 1, 2008. Ms. Blight has indicated that more material might be coming by May 5, 2008.

The disclosure includes many documents relevant to the constitutional challenge which should have been disclosed by the Commission two years ago.

They include correspondence between Dean Steacy and various police agencies across Canada concerning obtaining police evidence on various respondents and information received by the Commission from police about these respondents. It is the very evidence which the respondent was seeking in 2006 when he made his motion for disclosure from the Commission and obtained the ruling of the Tribunal dated August 16, 2006.

On August 16, 2006, the Tribunal ordered the Commission to disclose the following documents:

[43] On the other hand, I accept that the requests in items (j), (l) and (m) are arguably relevant and are not over-reaching or ambiguous:

j) All documents relating to the Commission's relations with Internet Service Providers, including attempts to pressure ISPs to shut down websites or remove them;
l) All documents relating to meetings, networking and consultation with any group representing one of the groups protected from discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and any police or governmental agencies, relating to hate on the Internet;
m) All documents relating to educative or publicity activities of the Commission with respect to hate.

The documents disclosed fall squarely within the order for disclosure made in that ruling. The disclosure ordered was in relation to the constitutional challenge filed by the respondent under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They have now been disclosed one week before the final arguments are to be filed by the respondent on the constitutional issue. And they are made with highly relevant information being blacked out or whitened out with no specific claim of privilege being made to justify this action.

There are crucial documents included in this disclosure. The failure of the Commission to disclose these documents in 2006 prior to the hearing of any oral testimony has severely prejudiced the respondent in his constitutional challenge as he was prevented from using them during the hearing and the testimony of Richard Warman, Dean Steacy and Harvey Goldberg.

This is not the first time this has happened. Throughout this case, the Commission has consistently dragged its feet and only disclosed evidence after multiple motions by the respondent and orders of the Tribunal. Last year, many documents were disclosed after Harvey Goldberg gave testimony and the respondent was unable to explore them with the witness.

The respondent requests that the Tribunal order the Commission to disclose the documents in an unredacted form. As well, there are documents that appear to have been double-sided but only one side has been copied for disclosure. The Commission appears to claim no privilege for the portions of the documents that are erased and is therefore bound by the August 16, 2006 order to disclose the documents in their original state. The respondent asks that the Tribunal set a date for the Commission to complete this disclosure.

The respondent will be making a motion to file many of these documents into evidence after they are produced in the proper form. There appear to be close to 200 pages of documents which the respondent will be seeking to enter into evidence. They go to the heart of the respondent’s constitutional argument, that section 13 has become in essence a criminal provision and the Commission is using, in an indirect way, the search and seizure powers of the police.

Secondly, the respondent requests an adjournment of written submissions and final arguments until either the summer or fall.

The Tribunal set dates for final arguments on February 11, 2008. These dates are not set in stone. They were set in good faith, giving the parties ample time given the circumstances then prevailing to make their submissions.

That is not the case today.

The respondent has already been severely prejudiced by the Commission’s failure to make timely disclosure of these documents.

If he is not given time to ask for proper disclosure and time to make a motion to admit the unredacted documents into evidence as exhibits, then he will have been denied natural justice and a fair hearing, as required by section 48.9 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and by the common law governing quasi-judicial tribunals.

There is also great prejudice to the public interest.

In Kulbashian v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [2007] F.C.J. No. 475, the court stayed the judicial review application challenging the constitutionality of section 13 pending the outcome the constitutional challenge in this case. The Court held:


12 Although the Attorney General recognizes that the Court has the jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges, he argues that there was no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the alleged Charter violation or any potential justification about this violation pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. The Attorney General argues that the appropriate remedy is for the Court to decline to hear the Charter issues now being raised and to wait for the outcome in Lemire, where the parties will have the opportunity to submit evidence in respect of this issue. […]
42 In my opinion, a stay of the present proceedings is appropriate on the grounds that the sole issue raised in the Applicants' Amended Notice of Application is currently the subject of adjudication before a tribunal in the Lemire matter.
43 In WIC Premium Television Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp., [1999] F.C.J. No. 862 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), the Court addressed the factors to be considered in granting a stay when there are proceedings before another court or in another jurisdiction. These criteria include the risk of inconsistent findings, excessive costs and the capacity of the court to grant the complete or comprehensive remedy.
44 These factors are relevant in the present case. The tribunal hearing the Lemire matter is authorized to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of subsection 13(1) of the Act and that disposition, including any subsequent application for judicial review, will be available for the guidance of the Court when the current matter proceeds. […]

The motion is allowed. The within matter is stayed pending the disposition of Richard Warman v. Mark Lemire, Tribunal File No. T1073/5405 proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal. [emphasis added]


The evidentiary record of this hearing will be used, not only in any judicial review of the decision of this Tribunal, but also in other cases before the Federal Court.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this case will be the defining decision with respect to section 13’s constitutionality for many years. The record of this proceeding will be the basis for those decisions.

The Tribunal has received recognition of this fact in the application of the Canadian Constitution Foundation for interested party status. This organization can make useful submissions on the constitutional issues and the respondent therefore submits the application should be granted. It should also be allowed time to review the record.

Given the importance to the most basic rights of the respondent, to other respondents and to the Canadian public’s interest in the Charter rights to freedom of expression and conscience, the respondent must be given the opportunity to obtain these documents in an unredacted form and to subsequently apply to enter many into evidence.

I enclose a listing of the documents which accompanied disclosure of the CD’s. The faxed disclosure were emails which are so blacked out it is difficult to know who they are to, but appear to come from the Winnipeg Police Service.

The respondent therefore requests:

1.An order that the Commission disclose the documents in their original form with no redactions or, in the alternative, claim a specified privilege;
2.An order that the written submissions and final arguments be rescheduled to a later date to allow the respondent to obtain disclosure of documents in their original form and to apply to file documents as exhibits in the case.


Yours truly,


Barbara Kulaszka
__________________
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
 
Old August 9th, 2008 #49
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Dear Friends of Freedom;

Here are the final submissions we filed for the constitutional challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada’s thought control legislation)

These submissions include a summary of all the evidence we submitted, as well as 50 pages of additional argument to the main motion I filed in 2005 (can be seen here)

Even tho the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Tribunal “member”, did not allow the intervention applications of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, we did incorporate their arguments into the final submissions.

The summary of testimony includes:
  • CHRC spying operations on Canadians via Message Boards, Email and the postal system, using pseudonyms such as “Jadewarr” and “OdensRevenge”
  • The WiFi hijacking of Nelly Hechme’s internet account by CHRC operatives to hide their online identity (currently being investigated by the RCMP)
  • CHRC investigator Dean Steacy’s famous quote that “freedom of speech is an American concept and therefore has no weight”
  • CHRC investigator Dean Steacy admitting that he tried to talk to me on internet message boards to entrap me, and get evidence to claim I was “vexatious” and therefore not able to file CHRC complaints.
  • Testimony of Dr. Michael Persinger, a top Canadian neuroscientist, who testified that “hateful” speech does not cause trauma and harm to Canadians and that censorship causes a wide range of chilling effects on speech. Also proved that there is NOT A SINGLE experimental study which links so called “hate speech” to any loss in self-esteem or cause any trauma.
  • Charts on how Section 13 is used and abused
  • Section 13 is not rationally connected to it’s objective
  • Section 13 is no longer remedial, as the law was written, but being used to punish dissidents and protestors
  • Subjectivity and vagueness of “hate”
  • Truth is no defence before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal --- Testimony from BOTH the government witnesses that truth is essential (!)
  • The effect of censoring speech on the Internet
  • The limitation by the CHRC of the right to speak anonymously
  • Abuse and corruption of the CHRC and its processes
  • Section 13 posing as a criminal statue, without any of the protections offered by the Criminal Code of Canada
  • Testimony of serial complainant Richard Warman who forgot the answers to 157 questions by Barbara Kulaszka. (questions like, what fake names do you use online….)
  • Exposing the complete joke Tribunal hearings really are with no rules of evidence, and the obscene farce of witnesses testifying, and when objections are made about relevance – the witness stays in the room, while defence counsel have to lay out exactly why they are asking the questions…. Meanwhile this gives the witness the ability to specially tailor their evidence.


This material is going to be printed into a 500 page book, which will be available in the next few weeks.

Part of the books summary, which well describes the attached file:

The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (CHRC) has become the single largest threat to freedom of expression, religion and personal beliefs in Canadian history. This book painstakingly documents this abusive law; how and who uses this law; the pseudo-science used to justify the law; and the complete drunken abuse of power by the fanatics that now staff the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

This book consists of the evidence as presented in the Richard Warman vs. Marc Lemire case, based on 26 days of hearings, which took place during 2007 and 2008 in four different Ontario cities (Toronto, Mississauga, Oakville and Ottawa). Also includes the devastating constitutional argument challenging the notorious thought control Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Evidence during the Lemire hearing documented that Section 13 is an unreasonable limitation of freedom of expression. Many disturbing facts about the CHRC were also brought to light for the first time in history. Including that CHRC employees sign up on Internet message boards in order to spy on and entrap users. CHRC employees have shockingly absolutely no respect for freedom of speech, which they consider an “American concept” that deserves “no weight”!.

The evidence documented in this book, shines a much need light on the CHRC’s self-obsessed mission of elevating themselves into a secret police agency, reminiscent of the Gestapo and KGB. As part of their undercover spying operations, evidence suggests that they have even hijacked the private internet connection of a poor women that happened to live close to the CHRC headquarters in Ottawa. Currently the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada are investigating the CHRC. In the House of Commons, Liberal MP Keith Martin, has introduced a motion to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian uman RightsHjHuman Rights Act, which enjoys support across party lines. This book is packed full of amazing testimony, shocking facts and disturbing evidence. A MUST READ!







NO SURRENDER!
-Marc Lemire


The Authors:


Barbara Kulaszka
Barbara Kulaszka is an Ontario civil liberties lawyer. She has acted in such notable cases as the "false news" trial of German-Canadian Ernst Zundel, who was brought before the criminal courts for questioning the official history of World War II and the war crimes trial of Imre Finta, who was acquitted in Canada's first and only trial under these draconian laws. She is the author of "Dix Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian False News Trial of Ernst Zundel - 1988" and "The Hate Crimes Law in Canada 1970-1994 Effects and Operation."
Marc Lemire
Marc Lemire is a certified computer systems engineer and human rights victim consultant based in Toronto. He is the webmaster of the Freedomsite, which is a resource of freedom oriented material, including the largest archive in Canada of information exposing the ravenous censorship of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In 2006, Lemire won the "George Orwell Free Speech Award" for his courageous defence of freedom and open debate. In March 2008, the National Post Editorial Board called Lemire a "principled free-speech martyr". Marc lives in Toronto with his wife and two wonderful children.




The closing arguments in Marc Lemire's case will be heard in September 16th-19th.
__________________
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
 
Old August 17th, 2008 #50
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Big Victory over the Secrecy Obsessed Canadian Human Rights Commission!
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada states that the
CHRC acted improperly by denying Marc Lemire information






On August 10, 2008, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada ruled in Marc Lemire’s favour over a Privacy Act complaint and chastised the Canadian Human Rights Commission for improperly withholding information.

This latest refusal by the CHRC is part of a long standing history they have of denying Marc Lemire any information requested under the Privacy Act, or the Access to Information Act. For instance, in 2007, a request was filed to determine the amount of money they paid to Richard Warman for his testimony in three CHRT cases. The CHRC’s response was to say “we neither confirm, nor deny that we have such information” The CHRC’s culture of secrecy and entitlement is one of the most revealing tell tale signs of how corrupt and totalitarian the “Human Rights” Commission extremists have become.


“Under the circumstances, I am of the view that your complaint that the CHRC denied you access to personal information is well-founded and the CHRC has been so informed.”
Joyce McLean, Acting Director General
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (investigations)


Background:

On April 18, 2008, I filed a properly formatted request under the Privacy Act to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The request stated:

A copy of the TRANSCRIBED transcripts made by the CHRC in my case for the following hearing:
March 25, 2008, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Hearing. Ottawa, Ontario.
Case: Warman v Lemire. Tribunal No. T1073/5405. [CHRC O&M Project ID: 031961-2]
Transcripts were made at the request of the CHRC via counsel - Margot Blight. (See attached letter)
Would prefer the electronic version of the transcript, and can be sent on CD-ROM. Or in the alternative, a printed version.
(NOTE: THIS IS NOT FOR THE AUDIO RECORDING, BUT ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTS)


On May 15, 2008, the CHRC responded to my request in their typical arrogant and brutish way by stating:

“We have been advised that all the parties have received a copy of the transcript concerning the hearing of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing No. TI073/5405 Warman vs. Lemire. Therefore, we have considered this matter closed”

This is of course totally untrue. The CHRC actually chose to leak to the media a highly questionable copy of the Transcript, with key portions “missing” from the transcript. (See: CHRC Transcript Irregularities: Explosive testimony by CHRC Investigator Dean Steacy on Richard Warman is missing from Transcript!)

Ezra Levant broke the story, after he had obtained a copy of the Transcript from a friend in the media.

On June 1, 2008, I appealed the CHRC ridiculous claim to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. After 2 month investigation, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada ruled that my complaint was “well-founded” and informed the CHRC.

Here are the relevant portions of the letter sent to Marc Lemire:


Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
August 10, 2008
Dear Mr. Lemire:
This letter is to report the results of our investigation of your Privacy Act complaint against the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). You stated in a letter received in our office on July 8, 2008, that the CHRC failed to grant you access to personal information you sought to obtain under the Act.
Our investigation confirmed that the CHRC received your request for access to your personal information on April 18, 2008. … On May 15, 2008, the CHRC refused you access to the requested information …
… The investigation confirmed that the transcribed transcripts of this hearing was under the control of the CHRC at the time of your request and, as such, the CHRC was required to process it and provide you with your personal information where it exists, subject to exemptions.
Under the circumstances, I am of the view that your complaint that the CHRC denied you access to personal information is well-founded and the CHRC has been so informed….
Section 41 of the Privacy Act provides a right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for review of the decision of a government institution to refuse to provide access to personal information. (goes on to describe the Federal Court Appeal process, etc)
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
Joyce McLean
Acting Director General
Investigations and Inquiries Branch


Also posted at:------------------
Marc Lemire is a certified computer systems engineer and human rights victim consultant based in Toronto. He is the webmaster of the Freedomsite, which is a resource of freedom oriented material, including the largest archive in Canada of information exposing the ravenous censorship of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In 2006, Lemire won the "George Orwell Free Speech Award" for his courageous defence of freedom and open debate. In March 2008, the National Post Editorial Board called Lemire a "principled free-speech martyr".


Marc has written three popular books entitled:

·In Defence of Freedom… Marc Lemire Vs. The Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Enforcers”,

·Challenging the Internet Censors” and

·Hate Laws Debunked: Exposing the junk science behind ‘hate’ legislation”.

Currently, Marc Lemire is working on an devastating in-depth analysis of the notorious Section 13, Canada’s draconian internet thought control legislation. This book is scheduled to be released in October, 2008.









It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act





We really need your help to continue! Please donate what you can
Marc Lemire
152 Carlton Street
PO Box 92545
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 2K1
Canada
__________________
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
 
Old August 24th, 2008 #51
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/08/...arguments.html



Closing Arguments in Lemire Case
This is a summation of the entire case where all the evidence is presented by all sides and arguments are made.
** This will be must-see. The CHRC will be exposed as spies, thought police, hate posters and political censors **
September 15-17, 2008
Quality Hotel & Executive Suites
Northampton Room
754 Bronte Road
Oakville, Ontario

Starts daily at 9:30am
More information will be released closer to the closing arguments, but mark your calendar! This will be a great time for those who love freedom.
__________________
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
 
Old September 9th, 2008 #52
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

.Section 13 of the CHRA is the single largest threat to Freedom of Speech in Canada!

WHERE?:
Holiday Inn Oakville Centre
Argus Ballroom
590 Argus Road
Oakville, Ontario

WHEN?
Sept 15 – 17, 2008
9:30am to 5:00pm daily

[See a Map of Location] | [Get Directions to hearing]

On November 25, 2005, Marc Lemire and his courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, filed a devastating constitutional challenge of Section 13 (internet censorship) and Section 54 (impose hefty fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The 2005 Constitutional motion can be read > here <
The 2008 final submissions can be read > here <
After 26 hearing days, 8 interveners and 11 witnesses spread across two years and 4 Ontario cities, the closing arguments are finally being presented. It will be a historic moment filled with shocking evidence.

The National Post has described the grilling the CHRC took by Barbara Kulaszka in March as a “landmark disaster for the Canadian Human Rights Commission”.

Journalist and Free Speech advocate Ezra Levant described the case against Lemire on his Blog:

“And to say the CHRC's section 13 thought crimes case against Marc Lemire has backfired is an understatement. Not only have his counterattacks blown the lid of the CHRC's corrupt tactics, such as their practice of posting anonymous, bigoted messages online, but their illegal hacking into a private citizen's Internet account has now attracted the scrutiny of Canada's Privacy Commissioner.”

At the start of the Lemire hearing, no one in Canada had any idea that the CHRC was such a corrupt and dirty organization, intent on stealing peoples right to freedom of expression. Or that the CHRC was running a secretive internet spying ring, intent on entrapping all those in their path. After 1,700 days under the Iron heel of the fascists at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Lemire hearing is heading to a finale. If the National Post called the day Barbara Kulaszka grilled the CHRC totalitarians a “landmark disaster”, just wait till they see the closing arguments!

All the evidence uncovered during the last 5 years will be brought out into the open. From the CHRC’s spying apparatus to their totalitarian investigative techniques, to the absurd lie the CHRC is pushing ... that “hate speech” causes mental “trauma”. The complete abuse of process in the Lemire case to even the alleged stealing a private woman’s internet connection. In a multimedia presentation, your eyes will be opened to what the CHRC really represents, and what a revolting crowd the “human rights” industry really is. You’ll be shocked to learn about the hate filled bureaucrats who, with the immunity of the state, are able to propagate some of the worst racist material online. Are they prosecuted? NO, actually promoted

Sacred cows will be crushed. 30 years of censorship is about to come to an end! Be part of history in the making, and come out to show your support. Show that Canadians love freedom, and show the Tribunal, that Canadians will stand as silent witnesses to their trampling of 500 years of our enshrined rights.

FREEDOM WILL BE A VICTIM …. NO LONGER!!!!


Closing Arguments will be held at:

Holiday Inn Oakville Centre
Argus Ballroom
590 Argus Road
Oakville, Ontario

Sept 15 – 17, 2008
9:30am to 5:00pm daily



Driving Directions
FROM THE Q.E.W. (QUEEN ELIZABETH WAY),
·EXIT 118 (TRAFALGAR ROAD SOUTH),
·TURN RIGHT ON ARGUS ROAD.
FROM HWY 401 (EAST OR WEST)
·EXIT 328 (TRAFALGAR ROAD SOUTH),
·TURN RIGHT ON ARGUS ROAD.

[See a Map of Location] | [Get Directions to hearing]







It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
__________________
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
 
Old September 11th, 2008 #53
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
LEMIRE Constitutional Challenge against Internet CENSORSHIP
We Desperately need your help to continue

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 a massive amount of 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. The entire fight for freedom is very costly and has incurred heavy financial debts. Against freedom is a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless a budget. Those who are seeking to uphold thought control and censorship of the Internet (Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General), have 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 an entrenched 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.
Every victory we've attained against the "Human Rights" juggernaut has come at great expense. Barbara and I are more than willing to continue, but your financial generosity is desperately needed. Barbara deserves to be compensated for the extraordinary work she's put in and we need to cover the overwhelming associated court costs such as printing and photocopying which alone have amounted to thousands of dollars.
We cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equals the survival of this case.
I wish to thank all those that have donated to this worthy cause. Please donate directly to Marc Lemire, so that I can send out a personal thank you. If you have donated to another organization or individual; please contact me so I can thank you directly and send you a copy of our special booklet that is for our supporters only. I want to personally thank every single person that has supported this case and freedom of speech in Canada.
No Surrender!
Marc Lemire
How you can help:

Donate using a credit card online with either PayPal or MoneyBookers.
Click on the donate button from the homepage of the Freedomsite. http://www.freedomsite.org
PayPal: Send your donation to: [email protected]
MoneyBookers: Send your donation to: [email protected]

By Mail:

Please send your check or money order to:
Marc Lemire
152 Carlton Street
Box 92545
Toronto , Ontario
M5A 2K1


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


Booklets for Freedom!

Hate Laws Debunked
Exposing the junk science behind "hate" legislation
Pages: 43 - $15

Neuroscientist Dr. Persinger destroys the myths that “hate” causes psychological damage. Includes his expert report and stunning testimony
Challenging the Internet Censors
Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Pages: 43 - $15

The constitutional challenge filed by the Lemire defence team. Chapters on what the CHRC is and the threat it poses to freedom and liberty
In Defence of Freedom

Marc Lemire Vs. The Canadian "Human Rights" Enforcers

Pages: 67 - $20
Details the case of Marc Lemire and his battle against the Human Rights Enforcers. Contains the amazing defence filed and important documents

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
.Section 13 of the CHRA is the single largest threat to Freedom of Speech in Canada !

WHERE?:
Holiday Inn Oakville Centre
Argus Ballroom
590 Argus Road
Oakville , Ontario

WHEN?
Sept 15 – 17, 2008
9:30am to 5:00pm daily


On November 25, 2005, Marc Lemire and his courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka , filed a devastating constitutional challenge of Section 13 (internet censorship) and Section 54 (impose hefty fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The 2005 Constitutional motion can be read > here <
The 2008 final submissions can be read > here < and > here <
After 26 hearing days, 8 interveners and 11 witnesses spread across two years and 4 Ontario cities, the closing arguments are finally being presented. It will be a historic moment filled with shocking evidence.
The National Post has described the grilling the CHRC took by Barbara Kulaszka in March as a “landmark disaster for the Canadian Human Rights Commission”.
Journalist and Free Speech advocate Ezra Levant described the case against Lemire on his Blog:
“And to say the CHRC's section 13 thought crimes case against Marc Lemire has backfired is an understatement. Not only have his counterattacks blown the lid of the CHRC's corrupt tactics, such as their practice of posting anonymous, bigoted messages online, but their illegal hacking into a private citizen's Internet account has now attracted the scrutiny of Canada 's Privacy Commissioner.”
At the start of the Lemire hearing, no one in Canada had any idea that the CHRC was such a corrupt and dirty organization, intent on stealing peoples right to freedom of expression. Or that the CHRC was running a secretive internet spying ring, intent on entrapping all those in their path. After 1,700 days under the Iron heel of the fascists at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Lemire hearing is heading to a finale. If the National Post called the day Barbara Kulaszka grilled the CHRC totalitarians a “landmark disaster”, just wait till they see the closing arguments!
All the evidence uncovered during the last 5 years will be brought out into the open. From the CHRC’s spying apparatus to their totalitarian investigative techniques, to the absurd lie the CHRC is pushing ... that “hate speech” causes mental “trauma”. The complete abuse of process in the Lemire case to even the alleged stealing a private woman’s internet connection. In a multimedia presentation, your eyes will be opened to what the CHRC really represents, and what a revolting crowd the “human rights” industry really is. You’ll be shocked to learn about the hate filled bureaucrats who, with the immunity of the state, are able to propagate some of the worst racist material online. Are they prosecuted? NO, actually promoted
Sacred cows will be crushed. 30 years of censorship is about to come to an end! Be part of history in the making, and come out to show your support. Show that Canadians love freedom, and show the Tribunal, that Canadians will stand as silent witnesses to their trampling of 500 years of our enshrined rights.
FREEDOM WILL BE A VICTIM …. NO LONGER!!!!

Closing Arguments will be held at:
Holiday Inn Oakville Centre
Argus Ballroom
590 Argus Road
Oakville , Ontario

Sept 15 – 17, 2008
9:30am to 5:00pm daily



Driving Directions
FROM THE Q.E.W. ( QUEEN ELIZABETH WAY ),
·EXIT 118 ( TRAFALGAR ROAD SOUTH ),
·TURN RIGHT ON ARGUS ROAD .

FROM HWY 401 (EAST OR WEST)
·EXIT 328 ( TRAFALGAR ROAD SOUTH ),
·TURN RIGHT ON ARGUS ROAD .



---------------------------------
It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
__________________
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
 
Old September 14th, 2008 #54
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Family Coalition party leader Giuseppe Gori wants the 'Human Rights' commissions eliminated.
http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2...ader-says.html
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB...c.php?t=104226

I myself don't only want these so-called 'Human Rights' commissions (which actually murdered our human rights) eliminated, I also want *ALL* of those responsible for their creation, *ALL* of those who worked for them to persecute and prosecute dissidents, especially White Nationalists, charged criminally with corruption and thrown in jail. Expulsion to China would also be acceptable since those hicks working for the CHRC and CHRT would fit right in.
__________________
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; September 14th, 2008 at 03:32 PM.
 
Old September 14th, 2008 #55
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

LIVE BLOGGING of the Closing Arguments in the Lemire case
(Internet Censorship, CHRC Entrapment and the Human Rights Enforcers)

Starting Monday Sept 15/08




The closing arguments in the Lemire case will be historic. This will be a very revealing look at internet censorship, entrapment, internet spying, the claimed effects of speech and the need for Truth as a Defence in Kangaroo Court - “Human Rights” Cases.

The entire hearing will be live blogged on the Freedomsite.

Starting Monday, September 15, 2008, live updates will posted as they come. Visitors from Vancouver to St. John’s will be able to follow the hearing, just as tho you were at the hearing room in Oakville.

Tune in a catch the Live Blogging. Bookmark this site:



This will be cross-posted to the following sites:

http://www.freedomsite.org
http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com



__________________
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
 
Old September 14th, 2008 #56
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

National Citizens Coalition wants to "Stop the Free Speech Police"

http://nationalcitizens.ca/cgi-bin/o...product&pid=75
__________________
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
 
Old September 17th, 2008 #57
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Well... I'm glad I'm still widely considered to be a "prominent white supremacist and convicted hatemonger". I was wondering whether my reputation disappeared.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/can...html?id=792277
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=794816
__________________
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
 
Old September 18th, 2008 #58
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Controlled media:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...National/home/
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Loc...00421-sun.html

The full truth:
Marc Lemire interview on AM770 CHQR.
http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/TheWo...tryID=10008430

http://www.freedomsite.org/
http://blog.freedomsite.org/
Closing arguments day 1: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/09/...e-wrap-up.html
Closing arguments day 2: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/09/...o-wrap-up.html
Closing arguments day 3: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/09/...ag-admits.html

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...et-523201.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...ge-523679.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...ka-523680.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...ra-523506.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...es-523808.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...sy-523657.html
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...re-523963.html
__________________
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; September 18th, 2008 at 09:13 PM.
 
Old November 28th, 2008 #59
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,218
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Media Bonanza: Editorials show overwhelming support to repeal Section 13!


Canada’s mainstream media is alive with editorials and opinion articles denouncing the Canadian Human Rights Commission and demanded an end to the repression of Section 13. (Canada’s Internet censorship provision)

The editorials cross all party lines. From the National Post, to the Globe and Mail to the Toronto Star. Section 13 is the disgrace of Canada.

Sadly our elected officials are busy sitting on their hands and want to keep reviewing and studying the impact of a repeal of Section 13.

A political solution might come one day, but the first test, and a direct benefactor of the Moon report will be the Marc Lemire Constitutional Challenge, which is currently awaiting a decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, on exactly the same grounds that Moon studied.

Thanks for the Moon Report, Lemire’s constitutional challenge just gained huge momentum!

Please help the Marc Lemire Constitutional Challenge. The best chance to overturn Section 13!
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.






Mainstream Media Editorials and Opinion Pieces on the Repeal of Section 13 in response to the Moon report






EDITORIAL: Common sense on free speech
Calgary Herald - November 26, 2008, Page A-18

EDITORIAL: FREE SPEECH AND HATE SPEECH - Common sense on offence
Globe and Mail – November 25, 2008

EDITORIAL: At last, common sense on free speech
Montreal Gazette – November 26, 2008

EDITORIAL - Free speech, and hate
Toronto Star – November 26, 2008

EDITORIAL: Resisting the censors
Ottawa Citizen – November 26, 2008
EDITORIAL: The Internet - No place for rights commission
Windsor Star – November 26, 2008

EDITORIAL: No need to hate free speech
London Free Press – November 26, 2008
http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cg...tive&s=letters


EDITORIAL: Moon’s Spin on Hate
Metro News (Ottawa) – November 26, 2008


A victory for free speech: With the release of the Moon report, Parliament has no excuse not to kill the censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
National Post – November 25, 2008

Kill section 13
National Post – November 25, 2008

Jonathan Kay on censorship, press councils and hate speech: Three observations on Richard Moon's CHRC report
National Post – November 25, 2008

Keith Martin: Time for Parliament to take action on free speech
National Post – November 26, 2008

Steve Janke: Who will correct damage already done by CHRC?
National Post – November 26, 2008





As of Nov 26, 2008 @ 10:00pm – 122 news articles in GoogleNews





It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
__________________
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
 
Old November 28th, 2008 #60
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jews Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant only started criticizing section 13 supporters like Bernie Farber and the Canadian Jewish Congress, when they themselves became threatened with tribunals.
__________________
Momma tried to raise me better.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 PM.
Page generated in 0.41524 seconds.