Con gov't votes to repeal sections on hate spech from HR cod

[WestViking]

Shiva, you played a MAJOR part in all of this. Take a bow.
In other news, however, Section 13 Respondent Arthur Topham has been 'disappeared', and his personal possessions, including his computer, have been confiscated and, if history is any indication, copies of his hard drive have been passed around. WestViking is right. This is far from over.

I agree, it's not over. What they give with one hand they take with the other but still something. We still have all of those opposition MP's who voted against this and that unfortunately is the status quo thinking on these matters in all of our institutions so yes, far from over.

Topham is not properly a CHRA s13 respondent in the latest attempt to use lawfare to silence him. He is being persecuted under the Criminal Code this time and the CC is being abused and misused in much the same way that the CHRA was abused and misused by unethical people with an agenda and no ethics.

When we first became aware of efforts to silence people under the CHRA s13 we were astonished at how many victims existed. Until FD members started investigating how many people besides the Fourniers had been hauled before a CHR star chamber Tribunal and silenced, we were ignorant of the extent of treachery.

Charges under the Criminal Code s 318 & 319 are relatively rare and this time we will be watching closely with particular attention to due process by the criminal courts. I suspect that many criminal court judges will not be happy with the scrutiny or publicity that will follow their deliberations. As an example, note the SCC decision in url=http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Criminal+Code+s+319&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc7/2005scc7.html]R. v. Krymowski. [/url]

Case law for application of the CC provisions on Hate Crimes is starting to build up. Criminal Court decisions are subject to appeal which is far different from decisions under the CHRA. For one thing, people without means prosecuted under the criminal code are eligible for legal aid, stopping self-proclaimed anti-racists from cherry-picking victims unable to afford legal representation.

We were caught napping when the CHRC issued a demand to the Fourniers. We will not be caught napping again as we value our freedoms and will not accept government censorship or government snooping masquerading as protection for society. The abysmal record of our criminal justice system screams out against increasing the powers of our police forces and criminal courts.

[shiva]

Shiva, you played a MAJOR part in all of this. Take a bow.
In other news, however, Section 13 Respondent Arthur Topham has been 'disappeared', and his personal possessions, including his computer, have been confiscated and, if history is any indication, copies of his hard drive have been passed around. WestViking is right. This is far from over.

I agree, it's not over. What they give with one hand they take with the other but still something. We still have all of those opposition MP's who voted against this and that unfortunately is the status quo thinking on these matters in all of our institutions so yes, far from over.

Topham is not properly a CHRA s13 respondent in the latest attempt to use lawfare to silence him. He is being persecuted under the Criminal Code this time and the CC is being abused and misused in much the same way that the CHRA was abused and misused by unethical people with an agenda and no ethics.

When we first became aware of efforts to silence people under the CHRA s13 we were astonished at how many victims existed. Until FD members started investigating how many people besides the Fourniers had been hauled before a CHR star chamber Tribunal and silenced, we were ignorant of the extent of treachery.

Charges under the Criminal Code s 318 & 319 are relatively rare and this time we will be watching closely with particular attention to due process by the criminal courts. I suspect that many criminal court judges will not be happy with the scrutiny or publicity that will follow their deliberations. As an example, note the SCC decision in url=http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Criminal+Code+s+319&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc7/2005scc7.html]R. v. Krymowski. [/url]

Case law for application of the CC provisions on Hate Crimes is starting to build up. Criminal Court decisions are subject to appeal which is far different from decisions under the CHRA. For one thing, people without means prosecuted under the criminal code are eligible for legal aid, stopping self-proclaimed anti-racists from cherry-picking victims unable to afford legal representation.

We were caught napping when the CHRC issued a demand to the Fourniers. We will not be caught napping again as we value our freedoms and will not accept government censorship or government snooping masquerading as protection for society. The abysmal record of our criminal justice system screams out against increasing the powers of our police forces and criminal courts.

Exactly so WV. I'm afraid at times I've perhaps sounded like a negative nelly when people excitedly spoke about the inevitable demise of Section 13 but as many of us have noted, as it became obvious that the writing was on the wall for the end of Section 13, those who wish to silence certain perspectives, have simply shifted their tactics and sadly, they have been aided and abetted in their efforts by the politicians and civil servants who have a vested interest in keeping rumours of hate alive.

[fourhorses]

Charges under the Criminal Code s 318 & 319 are relatively rare and this time we will be watching closely with particular attention to due process by the criminal courts. I suspect that many criminal court judges will not be happy with the scrutiny or publicity that will follow their deliberations.

Quite possibly one of the reasons Topham received those bail conditions ie: no internet access / communication


If you recall in FD's attempts to expose the CHRC's cancerous tactics, the case Abrams/BB v Topham was followed on Freedo. Topham supplied copies of Motions, correspondence, emails, charges, re-charges, positioning and tactical moves by both sides. That amounted to, or as close to full disclosure, as we have seen in any of those Roo cases.

The complainants Abrams & BB howled about the publicity and scrutiny given to their case. I do believe that Abrams/BB also provided a certain amount of their own fuel to stoke their side of the fire. Further, I recall the complainant posting comments on additional charges of retaliation against the respondent, for the alleged crime of making all those aspects of the case public.


I would submit that the onerous conditions of denying someone their rights of communication (internet being the most expedient mode of today) had absolutely nothing to do with potential harm to Canada and everything to do with public knowledge and scrutiny.


The question is:
Who wanted what hidden from view?

[Connie Fournier]

Good points, 4H. The next question is how do we respond to someone being "disappeared" like this? It's unacceptable.

[fourhorses]

Exactly so WV. I'm afraid at times I've perhaps sounded like a negative nelly when people excitedly spoke about the inevitable demise of Section 13 but as many of us have noted, as it became obvious that the writing was on the wall for the end of Section 13, those who wish to silence certain perspectives, have simply shifted their tactics and sadly, they have been aided and abetted in their efforts by the politicians and civil servants who have a vested interest in keeping rumours of hate alive.

an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year in Canada
Jobs and careers of many
Influence and prestige

- a cheap price to pay; the rights and freedoms of Canadians compared to the above



Follow the money
Always follow the money


Who has what at stake?
What will it cost them to lose?
What will they gain from a win?


And we could known so much of this, if, if, if

Close their doors
Open their files
Prosecute the unlawful


Who is standing in the way of following through on that justice?

[WestViking]

Good points, 4H. The next question is how do we respond to someone being "disappeared" like this? It's unacceptable.

We need a Charter s7 challenge to the 'release conditions' - Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Mr. Topham's liberty is most certainly compromised by the 'release conditions'. We need to raise hell with politicians of every stripe to let them know that we will not accept abuse of our criminal courts to deprive people who have not been convicted of any crime of their Charter rights and freedoms, in particular their right to the freedom of expression. A democracy that allows censorship cannot survive as a democracy.

We also need a campaign to remove Charter Article 15 (2): Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Article 15 (1) states: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

We cannot have it both ways. Either we are equal before and under the law or we are not. Article 15 (2) of the Charter is, by the way, the only article where the term 'groups' is used; "individual(s)' is used three times and 'person(s)' is used 8 times. The phrase "amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals" sounds pretty good until we realize it means to improve or upgrade conditions for a disadvantaged individual. That in turn means that some bureaucrat is deciding whom amongst us qualifies for government largess under an upgrade program.

I, for one, want to be upgraded to an MP pension plan.

[pirapoi]

There have been 2 updates on the Cariboo Mining Association site since May 16.

CMA NEWSLETTER for May/June 2012
Posted on June 3, 2012 by Webmin

CMA Annual General Meeting coming up on June 9th at the Billy Barker Hotel 12:00 PM
Posted on May 31, 2012

http://cariboominingassociation.com

If Arthur Topham is the webmaster for that site (as he claimed) he must have internet access.

[Winston Smith]

There have been 2 updates on the Cariboo Mining Association site since May 16.

CMA NEWSLETTER for May/June 2012
Posted on June 3, 2012 by Webmin

CMA Annual General Meeting coming up on June 9th at the Billy Barker Hotel 12:00 PM
Posted on May 31, 2012

http://cariboominingassociation.com

If Arthur Topham is the webmaster for that site (as he claimed) he must have internet access.

Or he gave his creds to someone else foreseeing this eventuality.

[pirapoi]

Winston Smith wrote:

Or he gave his creds to someone else foreseeing this eventuality.

That's certainly possible, although there are characteristics in the HTML coding that lead me to believe it was all done by the same person.

[shiva]

Does anyone have a link to info on how each CPC MP voted on this?

I looked on the "how'd they vote" site but it doesn't appear to be there.

[Maikeru]

Good points, 4H. The next question is how do we respond to someone being "disappeared" like this? It's unacceptable.

Connie, the most public response to former FreeDominion member Arthur Topham being 'disappeared' - at least until Canada's vaunted news media is informed by BC's Attorney General - is found right here on FreeDominion.

OTOH, for all the media back-patting that's going on right now for putting the boots to Sec 13, FreeDominion's role in the matter doesn't 'appear' anywhere, which is a glaring omission considering that this site was also subject to a CHRC 'investigation'.

Thanks for nothing, Jonathan Kay et al...

[pirapoi]

shiva wrote:

Does anyone have a link to info on how each CPC MP voted on this?

Hopefully here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?FltrParl=41&FltrSes=1&Vote=269&Language=E&Mode=1

[shiva]

shiva wrote:

Does anyone have a link to info on how each CPC MP voted on this?

Hopefully here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?FltrParl=41&FltrSes=1&Vote=269&Language=E&Mode=1

Fantastic pirapoi! Thank you.

[Faramir]

shiva wrote:

Does anyone have a link to info on how each CPC MP voted on this?

Hopefully here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?FltrParl=41&FltrSes=1&Vote=269&Language=E&Mode=1

I see no conservatives voted against - were the rest just absent and too busy to be bothered?

Looking over the past wins (ending wheat board, ending S 13, environmental review, tough on crime) against the failures (abortion debate cut off, budget excesses, foreign police, lack of military funding, Arar settlement, Marc Emery, China flip flop) I still put Harper in the enemy category, along with the Cabinet. Particularly I would like to see Nicholson, O'Connor, and Flaherty gone.

However, the CPC MPs fall back into the friend camp for me, ending into that camp largely due to this bill.

Am I missing any wins or failures in my list?

[fourhorses]

Good points, 4H. The next question is how do we respond to someone being "disappeared" like this? It's unacceptable.

Connie, the most public response to former FreeDominion member Arthur Topham being 'disappeared' - at least until Canada's vaunted news media is informed by BC's Attorney General - is found right here on FreeDominion.

OTOH, for all the media back-patting that's going on right now for putting the boots to Sec 13, FreeDominion's role in the matter doesn't 'appear' anywhere, which is a glaring omission considering that this site was also subject to a CHRC 'investigation'.

Thanks for nothing, Jonathan Kay et al...

You really think Kay and Steyn are going to give Connie a hat tip ?
It's taken the MSM as well as most bloggers, ten years to say "Marc Lemire" without prefacing or suffixing a neo-nazi or white supremacist label.

Wonder why the only time you really see McLeans is in the doctor or dentist's office, or why NP newsprint / news-speak has lost so much circulation