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 September 1st, 2009 #61
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

BREAKING: Lemire Constitutional Challenge decision - This Wednesday


Almost a full year after the closing arguments were heard in the CHRC/Richard Warman vs Marc Lemire case, chairman Hadjis will be releasing his ruling this Wednesday morning. According to a communication from Katherine Julien, the Registry Officer of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal:

The Tribunal will be releasing its decision in the matter of Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire at 9:30 a.m. (Ottawa time) on Wednesday, September 2, 2009.



Stay tuned on the Freedomsite, for more updates and commentary.






I suspect it will be, as usual, one of those not really here nor there type of ruling that will still screw Whites and uphold the current anti White status quo. Marc may get some crumbs thrown his way but I don't expect much in his/our favour. I also suspect that the tribunal will not make any effort to clarify exactly what kind of 'free speech' crosses the line, so the system can keep people on the edge (condition the Pavlov dogs to keep their mouths shut if they're thinking anything 'controversial') and keep throwing them into jail (in the 'free' and 'democratic' Canada) arbitrarily if they (our enemies) decide that some White men or White women are doing too much to help our cause.

Whatever the ruling will be, we still must continue to work hard to free ourselves from the current anti White system. I will stress again the extremely high importance of creating our own independent, usury free, electronic and highly crypted local monetary systems that are beyond any control by usurer bankers or politicians. I want to see those anti White scumbags either get a real job like farmers have, grow their own food to stay fed, or beg in the streets. Right now they are murdering our freedoms using our own money (our own labour) that they extort from us through taxes. That's just one of the reasons why we need our own independent monetary systems, so that we can keep the trade flows, our labour, our money, between ourselves, so we can use them to crate the kind of laws and nation we want to live 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
 
Old September 6th, 2009 #62
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default


Important legal decision on the validity of the Canadian Human Rights Act to censor Internet postings and online media

Tribunal ruling on the Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 expected on Wednesday Sept 2, 2009 at 9:30am (EST)


TORONTO, September 1, 2009: The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is expected to finally release it’s ruling on the constitutional challenge of internet censorship brought by computer systems engineer Marc Lemire. In 2003 a complaint was filed against Lemire for hosting an internet message board, where comments allegedly violated Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. None of the complained of material was written or approved by Lemire, yet he was forced to endure a six year costly legal ordeal to defend his Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and expression.

As part Lemire’s defence to the allegations, he challenged Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as being an unjustifiable limitation on freedom of expression and violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Attorney General of Canada (requested by Liberal Irwin Cotler – then Justice Minister) and five interested parties intervened in the case. The constitutional challenge was heard over a four year period by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This constitutional challenge of Section 13 is the largest ever undertaken in the 32 year history of the law. During the course of the trial, evidence was brought to light that employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission actively take part in internet websites, which the CHRC has described as neo-Nazi. The RCMP also investigated the CHRC for 8 months over criminal allegations of internet and WiFi theft based on testimony in the Lemire hearing. The RCMP was forced to abandon criminal charges because the evidence led to an American website where the RCMP has no jurisdiction.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been under close scrutiny since they investigated Macleans Magazine (Mark Steyn) and blogger Ezra Levant on allegations of promoting hatred and contempt against Muslims. Editorials and opinion pieces have appeared in almost every single newspaper and magazine condemning the CHRC and demanding a repeal of Section 13.

In October 2008, Prof Richard Moon, a hand-picked constitutional expert retained for over $50,000 by the CHRC, studied Section 13 and regulation of hate speech on the internet. Moon’s main recommendation was to repeal Section 13. Many organizations have publically called for an end to the censorship of CHRC. These groups include: PEN Canada, Canadian Association of Journalists, and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Over two dozen Members of Parliament have openly called for a repeal of Section 13, including Liberal MP Keith Martin, who tabled Private Members Motion M-446, which called for “subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act:”. In 2008, the Conservative Party policy convention voted 95% in favour of withdrawing Section 13 from the Human Rights Act. Among those voting to delete Section 13 was Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Since 1977 not a single person has ever won a Section 13 case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal boasts a shocking 100% conviction rate, which would make dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Ill salivate. In order to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 13 in a real court of law, Canadian law requires that a ruling has to be made by the Tribunal first.

Decision to be released: Sept 2 at 9:30am

The decision in the matter of Richard Warman Vs. Marc Lemire will be posted to the Internet at 9:30 am (EST) on Wednesday Sept 2, 2009. A copy of the Tribunal’s decision will be immediately available on the Freedomsite website located at http://www.freedomsite.org. The decision will also be posted at the Tribunal’s official website http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca later in the day.


For more information, please contact, Marc Lemire: marc@lemire.com


About Marc Lemire:

Marc Lemire is a certified computer systems engineer 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.
__________________
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 6th, 2009 #63
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

SECTION 13 HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!


http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search...=_e&isruling=0





V. Conclusion

I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire andI will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).
"Signed by"
Athanasios D. Hadjis



OTTAWA (Ontario)
September 2, 2009
__________________
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 6th, 2009 #65
McKinley
coast to coast WN
 
McKinley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
McKinley
Question

Marc LeMire = Canadian Hero.

Richard Warman = Faggot piece of jew crap. Warman is what's left over after an Abe Foxman dump.
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven

Kentckyanna True News

"What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!"

Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears.
 
Old September 7th, 2009 #66
McKinley
coast to coast WN
 
McKinley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
McKinley
Default

Notice how the Filthy jews come out of the wood work to complain about the ruling. These kikes only want free speech when it suits them, like for porn or biting of the hear of a babies penis and sucking the blood out of it.

Sick bastards!!!

Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal


Joseph Brean, National Post

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.

The shocking decision by Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis leaves several hate speech cases in limbo, and appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

Mr. Warman's first big loss is a victory for the respondent Marc Lemire, webmaster of freeedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right.

Typically for the messy state of Canada's perennial hate speech debate, public reaction to the ruling yesterday was polarized, running the spectrum from glowing praise for the "bold" Mr. Hadjis, to criticism that his "outrageous" conclusion is "vulnerable on judicial review."

All sides seem to agree, however, that the stage is set for pitched battle in federal court, where CHRT rulings can be appealed. Another less likely outcome is for Parliament itself to repeal or amend Section 13, a law that even supporters say needs updating in the age of the Internet.

Neither the CHRC nor Mr. Warman would comment.

"No matter what happens, this decision is going to federal court," Mr. Lemire said. "This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 now. This law is 32 years old. Not a single person has ever won until today. But did I really win? I have given up six years of my life. The process is the punishment."

Mr. Warman, a former investigator for the CHRC, brought a complaint against Mr. Lemire in 2003, after monitoring his website for almost a year. He alleged that postings on the discussion forum, mostly written by others, contravened Section 13 in that they were "likely to expose" identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt." Mr. Warman later urged the CHRC investigators to expand their investigation to other websites he believed Mr. Lemire was involved with, but to "hold off on informing" Mr. Lemire "until the police take a good look at it." No criminal charges were ever filed.

In all but one case, Mr. Hadjis decided that these postings either did not contravene Section 13(1), or that Mr. Lemire cannot be held responsible for what others posted on his website.

Mr. Hadjis found Mr. Lemire violated the law in one case, by posting an article called "AIDS Secrets", written by an American neo-Nazi, which Mr. Hadjis found was "rife with hyperbole and moral condemnation. Homosexuals, and Blacks to a lesser extent, are denigrated as purveyors of a "killer" that is on the loose, agonizingly destroying the lives of American children and adults alike."

Even with this finding, however, Mr. Hadjis declined to make any order against Mr. Lemire. As a statutory tribunal, Mr. Hadjis does not have the legal authority to officially declare a law unconstitutional. But if he finds it would be unconstitutional to enforce it, he can do as he has done, which is to "simply refuse to apply these provisions."

Part of his motivation was that virtually all the offending material was removed either before or shortly after Mr. Lemire received word of the complaint against him.

"Mr. Lemire had not only "amended" his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him," Mr. Hadjis wrote. "The problem had thus already been eliminated, yet the complaint continued to be processed."

Section 13(1) remains valid Canadian law, despite this ruling. Its constitutionality was last upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1990 split decision, before the Internet age.

That decision, about neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor, upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression largely because of its remedial, non-punitive purpose. But Mr. Hadjis found that that, today, the law "has become more penal in nature," and this renders it an unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression.

Ever since a 1998 amendment to allow the Tribunal to levy fines up to $10,000 -- payable to the government -- the pursuit of Section 13(1) cases "can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature," he wrote.

He cited Mr. Warman's request for a $7500 penalty against Mr. Lemire. Mr. Warman has won over a dozen other Section 13(1) cases, many leading to similar fines, payments to himself, and legal restrictions on Internet activity.

This criticism about a punitive law masquerading as a remedial one echoes that of Richard Moon, a law professor hired by the CHRC last year to provide an expert analysis of their online hate speech mandate. In essence, his advice was that it could not be done fairly, and so should not be done at all.

Prof. Moon said Wednesday's decision is "obviously a significant moment in the history of Section 13, but it seems like it is in some important sense inconclusive."

He said the ruling has no weight as legal precedent, and could theoretically be ignored by future tribunals, but in practice it is impossible to ignore, and it hints at a fundamental problem with the law.

"As soon as the Supreme Court confirmed that the scope of Section 13 was narrow, and confined to extremely hateful messages, then it was highly unlikely that we were going to have a kind of regular human rights process that involves conciliation between the parties," he said. "That was always something that we could have foreseen."

"We still believe Section 13 is constitutional. There seems to be some major difference of opinion within the Tribunal itself," said Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, referring to previous constitutional challenges of Section 13 that went the other way.

Marvin Kurz, legal counsel to B'nai Brith, which was an intervenor in this case along with the CJC and others, echoed Mr. Farber's question about why Mr. Hadjis did not simply "read out" the penalty section -- that is, ignore it, but allow the actual hate speech section to stand.

"Not only did he not do it, but he failed to explain why he did not consider the alternative," Mr. Kurz said. "It's like if the police act wrongly in a criminal case, you don't throw out the criminal law. That's what he's done here, and that doesn't make sense to me."

Ezra Levant, a blogger who has led the campaign against human rights hate speech law, said the ruling "shows that the CHRC has been acting illegally for many years," and it forces the Conservative government to make a "new kind of decision" about whether to appeal.

"If they launch an appeal, they are casting their lot with the censors," he said.

Pearl Eliadis, a human rights lawyer and a defender of Section 13, played down the importance of the ruling, and said Mr. Hadjis "just got it wrong. With respect, it's constitutionally not within the normal way that these provisions are dealt with." She said he should have simply ignored the offending penalty section and upheld the law.

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law professor at York University, said Mr. Hadjis was correct to find that the penalty provision "exacerbated the chilling effect" on freedom of expression. But he said Mr. Hadjis' reasoning "broke down at the end," and he should have simply rejected the penalty provision.

He also wondered how Mr. Lemire was acquitted over the posting of an article that explicitly denied the Holocaust, which he called "outrageous and inconsistent with jurisprudence," and makes the entire ruling "vulnerable on judicial review."

Mark Steyn, a conservative author who was the target of a prominent hate speech complaint over his writing in Maclean's, said Mr. Hadjis' realized "that there is no future for Section 13 because of the damage done to it by the dress-up Nazis of the CHRC and and the sordid racket of Richard Warman."

"It makes explicit that section 13 has no friends," he said.

National Post

jbrean@nationalpost.com

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-pr...tml?id=1954734
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven

Kentckyanna True News

"What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!"

Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears.
 
Old September 7th, 2009 #67
McKinley
coast to coast WN
 
McKinley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
McKinley
Default

Notice how the Filthy jews come out of the wood work to complain about the ruling. These kikes only want free speech when it suits them, like for porn or biting of the hear of a babies penis and sucking the blood out of it.

Sick bastards!!!

Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal


Joseph Brean, National Post

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.

The shocking decision by Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis leaves several hate speech cases in limbo, and appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

Mr. Warman's first big loss is a victory for the respondent Marc Lemire, webmaster of freeedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right.

Typically for the messy state of Canada's perennial hate speech debate, public reaction to the ruling yesterday was polarized, running the spectrum from glowing praise for the "bold" Mr. Hadjis, to criticism that his "outrageous" conclusion is "vulnerable on judicial review."

All sides seem to agree, however, that the stage is set for pitched battle in federal court, where CHRT rulings can be appealed. Another less likely outcome is for Parliament itself to repeal or amend Section 13, a law that even supporters say needs updating in the age of the Internet.

Neither the CHRC nor Mr. Warman would comment.

"No matter what happens, this decision is going to federal court," Mr. Lemire said. "This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 now. This law is 32 years old. Not a single person has ever won until today. But did I really win? I have given up six years of my life. The process is the punishment."

Mr. Warman, a former investigator for the CHRC, brought a complaint against Mr. Lemire in 2003, after monitoring his website for almost a year. He alleged that postings on the discussion forum, mostly written by others, contravened Section 13 in that they were "likely to expose" identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt." Mr. Warman later urged the CHRC investigators to expand their investigation to other websites he believed Mr. Lemire was involved with, but to "hold off on informing" Mr. Lemire "until the police take a good look at it." No criminal charges were ever filed.

In all but one case, Mr. Hadjis decided that these postings either did not contravene Section 13(1), or that Mr. Lemire cannot be held responsible for what others posted on his website.

Mr. Hadjis found Mr. Lemire violated the law in one case, by posting an article called "AIDS Secrets", written by an American neo-Nazi, which Mr. Hadjis found was "rife with hyperbole and moral condemnation. Homosexuals, and Blacks to a lesser extent, are denigrated as purveyors of a "killer" that is on the loose, agonizingly destroying the lives of American children and adults alike."

Even with this finding, however, Mr. Hadjis declined to make any order against Mr. Lemire. As a statutory tribunal, Mr. Hadjis does not have the legal authority to officially declare a law unconstitutional. But if he finds it would be unconstitutional to enforce it, he can do as he has done, which is to "simply refuse to apply these provisions."

Part of his motivation was that virtually all the offending material was removed either before or shortly after Mr. Lemire received word of the complaint against him.

"Mr. Lemire had not only "amended" his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him," Mr. Hadjis wrote. "The problem had thus already been eliminated, yet the complaint continued to be processed."

Section 13(1) remains valid Canadian law, despite this ruling. Its constitutionality was last upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1990 split decision, before the Internet age.

That decision, about neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor, upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression largely because of its remedial, non-punitive purpose. But Mr. Hadjis found that that, today, the law "has become more penal in nature," and this renders it an unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression.

Ever since a 1998 amendment to allow the Tribunal to levy fines up to $10,000 -- payable to the government -- the pursuit of Section 13(1) cases "can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature," he wrote.

He cited Mr. Warman's request for a $7500 penalty against Mr. Lemire. Mr. Warman has won over a dozen other Section 13(1) cases, many leading to similar fines, payments to himself, and legal restrictions on Internet activity.

This criticism about a punitive law masquerading as a remedial one echoes that of Richard Moon, a law professor hired by the CHRC last year to provide an expert analysis of their online hate speech mandate. In essence, his advice was that it could not be done fairly, and so should not be done at all.

Prof. Moon said Wednesday's decision is "obviously a significant moment in the history of Section 13, but it seems like it is in some important sense inconclusive."

He said the ruling has no weight as legal precedent, and could theoretically be ignored by future tribunals, but in practice it is impossible to ignore, and it hints at a fundamental problem with the law.

"As soon as the Supreme Court confirmed that the scope of Section 13 was narrow, and confined to extremely hateful messages, then it was highly unlikely that we were going to have a kind of regular human rights process that involves conciliation between the parties," he said. "That was always something that we could have foreseen."

"We still believe Section 13 is constitutional. There seems to be some major difference of opinion within the Tribunal itself," said Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, referring to previous constitutional challenges of Section 13 that went the other way.

Marvin Kurz, legal counsel to B'nai Brith, which was an intervenor in this case along with the CJC and others, echoed Mr. Farber's question about why Mr. Hadjis did not simply "read out" the penalty section -- that is, ignore it, but allow the actual hate speech section to stand.

"Not only did he not do it, but he failed to explain why he did not consider the alternative," Mr. Kurz said. "It's like if the police act wrongly in a criminal case, you don't throw out the criminal law. That's what he's done here, and that doesn't make sense to me."

Ezra Levant, a blogger who has led the campaign against human rights hate speech law, said the ruling "shows that the CHRC has been acting illegally for many years," and it forces the Conservative government to make a "new kind of decision" about whether to appeal.

"If they launch an appeal, they are casting their lot with the censors," he said.

Pearl Eliadis, a human rights lawyer and a defender of Section 13, played down the importance of the ruling, and said Mr. Hadjis "just got it wrong. With respect, it's constitutionally not within the normal way that these provisions are dealt with." She said he should have simply ignored the offending penalty section and upheld the law.

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law professor at York University, said Mr. Hadjis was correct to find that the penalty provision "exacerbated the chilling effect" on freedom of expression. But he said Mr. Hadjis' reasoning "broke down at the end," and he should have simply rejected the penalty provision.

He also wondered how Mr. Lemire was acquitted over the posting of an article that explicitly denied the Holocaust, which he called "outrageous and inconsistent with jurisprudence," and makes the entire ruling "vulnerable on judicial review."

Mark Steyn, a conservative author who was the target of a prominent hate speech complaint over his writing in Maclean's, said Mr. Hadjis' realized "that there is no future for Section 13 because of the damage done to it by the dress-up Nazis of the CHRC and and the sordid racket of Richard Warman."

"It makes explicit that section 13 has no friends," he said.

National Post

jbrean@nationalpost.com

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-pr...tml?id=1954734
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven

Kentckyanna True News

"What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!"

Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears.
 
Old September 14th, 2009 #68
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Interesting Maclean's article here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19681069/MacLeans-CHRC
Thanks to OdinPatrick at SF (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...=635742&page=2) for the find.

You would expect that Canada's top national magazine would be more careful with its editing and fact checking. The title "The CHRC tells itself to shape up" is wrong. It was CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) chair Athanasios Hadjis that told the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission) to 'shape up'. Also, there was no hacking into the email account of a private citizen Nelly Hechme (see http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=50775&page=2). Her WiFi internet connection was hacked.

I will also point out, again, that Maclean's did nothing or almost nothing to help these Canadians:
David Ahenakew
Arthur Topham
Melissa Guille
Jim Pankiw
Kenneth Whyte
Bruce Allen
Mark Stevenson
Brian Segal
Chris Cook
Connie Wilkins
Mark Fournier
Lubomyr Prytulak
Bruce MacKinnon
John Ross Taylor
Charles Scott
Kevin Lew
Wolfgang Droege
Alex Di Civita
William James Harcus
Randy Johnston
Terry Long
Eldon Warman
Harry Vaccaro
Tony McAleer
John Micka
Craig Harrison
Glenn Bahr
Peter Kouba
Bobby James Wilkinson
Fred Kyburz
Jim Keegstra
Brad Love
Doug Collins
Jean-Sebastient Presseault
James Scott Richardson
Henry Makow
Victor Fletcher
Robin Ronstead
Jason Ouwendyk
Fr. Alphonse de Valk
Mayor Brad Woodside
Mayor Diane Haskett
Scott Brockie
Ron Gray
Terry Tremaine
Philippe Rushton
Tom Winnicki
Ciaran Donnelly
Jessica Beaumont
Alexan Kulbashian
Marc Lemire
Stephen Boissoin
Bill Noble
Ernst Zundel
Paul Fromm
Kathy Shaidle
John David Beck
Chris Kempling
Malcolm Ross
(There are some more names that should be added to this list.)

... when their freedoms were being violated. Maclean's, Mark Steyn, Western Standard and Ezra Levant only started to aggressively fight for freedom of speech/expression when their own freedom came under attack. They didn't care much for our freedom of speech/expression. They only jumped on the Marc Lemire bandwagon when he started to kick CHRC's, Warman's and his commie pals' asses, after years of hard work and tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs. Until then the Lemire case was kept under wraps although it was and still is of monumental importance to the whole country.

The whole so-called 'Human Rights Act' (and other 'acts' that violate our ancient English common law rights) ought to be stricken from the books. Just cut off their monetary funding. Force those commie wannabe censors find real jobs. Freedom is as simple as that, it's who controls the creation and flow of money.
__________________
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, 2009 at 01:54 AM.
 
Old September 14th, 2009 #69
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Before, Marc was just another "basement dwelling neo-nazi", today, after having the balls to fight, he's of the "far-right" persuasion.
__________________
Momma tried to raise me better.
 
Old October 2nd, 2009 #70
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

BREAKING NEWS (Thursday October 1 2009)
The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has filed for a judicial review of the Lemire Tribunal decision, which found that Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be unconstitutional.

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/10/...-decision.html
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=570


I know directly from Marc Lemire himself that his whole ordeal has cost him around $100,000. Fucking government scumbags will now drain him even more. Canada... a free and democratic country... MY ASS!!! I myself am still paying $$$ for my 'Canadian free speech' .
__________________
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; October 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 AM.
 
Old October 4th, 2009 #71
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant to hammer section 13 of the so-called 'Human Rights(Murdered) Act' at parliament subcommittee.

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/10/...ection-13.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 October 7th, 2009 #72
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant hammer the Human Rights Commission and justly so. Steyn called the Human Rights Commission "corrupted and diseased beyond salvation".


http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/Cont...tEntityId=5071
http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2009/10...in-ottawa.html
http://www.canada.com/news/Human+Rig...087/story.html
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/05/s...oing-about-it/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/05/t...ice-committee/
http://communities.canada.com/ottawa...an-rights.aspx
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2069093
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...ommission.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; October 7th, 2009 at 08:21 PM.
 
Old January 31st, 2010 #73
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/can...tml?id=2493145
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=677084

Helping Marc Lemire financially is equivalent to investing in a freer future. Marc himself and his legal team have done tremendous amount of research and prepared an amazing case against Warman and his commie pals at the CHRC/CHRT and BEAT THEM at their own game! If you love freedom do consider pitching in a few bucks for Marc. He has a track record of WINNING.
http://www.freedomsite.org/
__________________
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 February 13th, 2010 #74
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

LifeSiteNews.com on the Lemire case.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09090209.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020810.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 February 28th, 2010 #75
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

On February 15, 2010, Marc Lemire filed his Memorandum of Fact and Law.

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/feb...tum_at_FC.html


I need your help for the Appeal!




PayPal: Send your donation to: admin@stopsection13.com
MoneyBookers: Send your donation to: marc@lemire.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 March 17th, 2010 #76
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Earlier today (Wednesday, March 17, 2010), the Federal Court of Canada issued it’s ruling, allowing the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) to intervene in the Lemire constitutional Challenge of Internet censorship.

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/03/...s-allowed.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 9th, 2010 #77
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Canadian Civil Liberties Association Applies for Intervener Status in the Lemire Constitutional Challenge of Internet Censorship
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/apr...nes_at_FC.html

What were all those so-called 'civil liberties' associations doing few years ago?
__________________
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 14th, 2010 #78
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

African Canadian Legal Clinic seeks intervenor status in the Lemire case. Most likely they are against Marc Lemire and free speech on the internet. They want me in jail http://www.tcgpr.com/companyprofile/...nr_04_136.html

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca...t_no=T-1640-09
__________________
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 28th, 2010 #79
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,217
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Here's Marc on the intervention of the African Canadian Legal Clinic.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/05/...ian-legal.html

Breaking news related to the Henry Makow and Arthur Topham cases. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Refuses to Enforce Section 13. All S.13 cases halted.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/05/...-tribunal.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 August 22nd, 2010 #80
fang987
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm in China. Where are you?
























five finger shoes
Vibram Five Finger shoes
Christian Louboutin Christian Louboutin shoes
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 AM.
Page generated in 0.21531 seconds.