Archive | Freedom of Speech RSS feed for this section
March 5, 2015

Putting Our Money Where Our Conservative Mouths Are
Attila Vaski liked this post

With the fall of Sun News Network Canadian conservatives lost the one friend they had on television. The only Canadian voice of liberty was lost… silenced because we Canadian conservatives failed when it counted most.

There is nothing we can do about that failure. Nothing we do today will bring back the Sun News Network. It’s done.  It is gone forever.

There is, however, something we can do to support the only known option to build something from the ashes of that failure, TheRebel.Media.

Ezra Levant has teamed up with fellow Sun alumni Brian Lilley, Michael Coren, Marissa Semkiw and John Robson to create TheRebel.Media, a new voice for conservatives.

Ezra and his team have managed, in just a few short weeks, to garner financial support for all the audio, video and computer equipment they need and even for have funding for social media marketing.

But what about the four individuals who do all the heavy lifting behind the scenes?  What about those four brave young people who today, right this very minute, are gambling their future on us, Canadian conservatives?

These four individuals remain almost entirely unfunded.

To me that says a lot, not about Ezra’s fundraising efforts, but about us, his supporters.

We’re willing to give tens of thousands of our hard-earned dollars to buy all the stuff they could possibly want, but we aren’t willing to support the people who actually do the work.

That’s just plain wrong.

If you feel I like I do, that is wrong, please follow the links below to financially support the individuals who support Ezra, Brian, Michael, Marissa and John so they can do what they do best: educate us and our fellow Canadians.

There comes a time when a person must simply do what is right; put our money where our loud mouths are, and be among those precious few who matter.

I believe that time has arrived.

If we want a truly conservative voice in Canadian media then we must each determine what that is worth to us.  We can’t rely on someone else to pay our way like we did with Sun News Network.  This time we must each pay our own way.

Me? I’ve already sent my check for $1,000.  I will be sending more shortly, as well, specifically tagged to support these four individuals.

Ezra and the rest of the on-camera talent already have a lot of options for making money.  These four brave individuals have bet their futures on both Ezra’s team and on us… conservative Canadians.

I think they’ve made a great bet and one that will pay off for them both now and in the future, and I’m willing to back that bet with cold, hard cash.

Will you join me?

Click on each of the four links below and contribute what you can to financially support each of these brave and talented individuals.

Hannah Vanderkooy


Jon Egier


Amanda Achtman


  Martin Gardiner



If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 2, 2015

TheRebel: Will conservative-minded citizens financially support a true conservative news outlet?

That’s essentially the question I posed in the February 14 issue of The Canadian Rights and Freedoms Bulletin.

Like so many others I was shocked to see nothing but a logo on the Sun News Network website and that all links to content on that site now returned nothing but a “404 not found” error message.

Friday, February 13, was indeed a terrible day for Freedom of the Press in Canada but it can also teach us a valuable lesson if we are willing to learn what the disappearance of Sun News Network actually means for conservative-minded Canadians.

We do not financially support those who support us.

That may be an truth to hear but it is one proven by the fact that Quebecor Media, the company that owns the Sun News Network, lost millions of dollars keeping the Sun News Network going.

Quebecor didn’t fail us… we failed Quebecor.

Sun News Network was the only Canadian voice speaking truth to stupid. Now it is gone. This is to our eternal shame, as now we are left with such bastions of a “free press” like the CBC who report that of which the Left approves and very little else.

That the Sun News Network failed due to massive financial losses means only one thing: we were happy to have SunTV, but only so long as someone else footed the tab. We conservatives did not put our money where our mouths are.

As I wrote two weeks ago:

We conservatives don’t back conservative media with our dollars. This is to our eternal shame, as now we are left with such bastions of a “free press” like the CBC who report that of which the Left approves and very little else.

Should the above efforts (or any others) to create a new conservative voice get off the ground we ought to do what we failed to do with Sun News: Support it financially this time…

At the moment there appears to be a single viable option for a new conservative media: TheRebel.Media. Along with fellow Sun alumni Brian Lilley, Michael Coren, Marissa Semkiw and John Robson, Ezra Levant dares us all to join these 5 proud reporters to create a true conservative media outlet.

TheRebel’s is website is currently financed and operated out of Ezra Levant’s livingroom but it cannot stay that way.

Levant wrote an email to potential supports a few days ago. Here is just part of what he wrote:

Do you think Canada needs an alternative, independent, tell-it-like-it-is news source, especially now that Sun News is gone?

If you do, please help me. I don’t have enough personal savings to buy all the tools we need to execute my business plan. I’ve got the energy; we have an outstanding team that’s growing each week. And I believe our customers are out there — more than 15,000 people have signed up as casual users in just one week.

But I need help to buy the business tools to succeed.

Would you please consider helping me “crowdfund” the execution of my business plan?

We have one professional, high definition camera that I put on my credit card. It cost over $4,000. And we have a couple of laptop computers and some editing software. But we need to buy more cameras, and lights, and to build mini-studios in Toronto and other cities.

We need everything from wireless microphones to tripods. We need to pay a monthly royalty fee to companies like Associated Press, to have access to their TV footage of foreign news. We need to buy insurance. There are literally dozens of tools we need to do our job — tools we have to buy now, so we can create the great TV that will convince people to become members.

Will you help us do that? If you give us the tools, we’ll do the job!

We’ve set up a “crowdfunding” page on our website, HERE. We list many of the tools we need — including a few fun ones. Items range from $2 to $40,000 and everything in between. Would you consider helping us out? It’s like a wedding gift registry, really. But instead of giving a gift to a young couple starting out in life, it’s a gift to a young company starting out in life.

I know it’s unusual asking for help to start a company. But it’s reality. We’re not a massive media company like CTV or Global. We’re as grassroots as it gets.

Visit online. Then send Ezra and the gang a check in support of their efforts or you can donate online.

As you will see when you visit their website, they have good financial support already but they need more, especially for their supporting and technical staff. Those four fundraising items are pathetically funded right now and that needs to change.

Ezra Levant.

Brian Lilley.

Michael Coren.

Marissa Semkiw.

John Robson.

Their past accomplishments prove one thing above all else: They deserve our financial support.

Will you join me in supporting a true conservative media outlet for Canada? Visit and donate to whichever fundraising item strikes your fancy or mail your donation, payable to The Rebel, to

The Rebel
PO Box 1082, 31 Adelaide St E
Toronto, ON M5C 2K4

My check for $1,000 is already in the mail… with more to come.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 7, 2015

Raif Badawi: Our Right to Free Speech must not be taken lightly


Here in North America we take our Right to Freedom of Speech for granted. We criticize our government with abandon and gusto, confident we are safe from retaliation; that there is no price to be paid for speaking our mind. We forget the rest of the world doesn’t take so kindly to criticism.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, criticizing the government comes at a very high cost. In Saudi Arabia it is a crime to speak about things the government disapproves.

Blogger Raif Badawi learned that lesson the hard way. Convicted of crimes against the state, specifically for operating a blog and discussion forum that ridiculed Saudi Arabia’s religious police, Badawi was arrested in 2012 and put on trial.

His conviction was automatic and never in question.

His penalty? One thousand lashes with a bamboo cane and ten years in prison. No, that’s not a misprint. Ten thousand lashes with a bamboo cane, to be delivered 50 per week for 20 consecutive weeks.

I cannot imagine being flogged with a cane 50 times, let alone 50 times a week for the next 20 weeks in a row. Just kill me and get it over with!

Just after Friday prayers on 9 January, Raif Badawi was led by Saudi officials out of a bus and into the middle of the square in front of al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah. A large crowd had gathered to see the flogging.

Raif stood in the middle of the crowd, handcuffed and shackled by his ankles, his face uncovered. A security officer approached Raif and began caning him across the back and legs, until he had been beaten 50 times. A witness told us it took just five minutes to cane Raif 50 times; the lashes were constant and quick.

I can only commend Raif Badawi for his incredible courage. He took his first 50 canings silently, determined not to give his abusers the satisfaction of hearing him cry out in pain.

I can only pray that in similar circumstances I would have that same courage.

‘Raif raised his head towards the sky, closing his eyes and arching his back. He was silent, but you could tell from his face and his body that he was in real pain.’

The public outcry around the world at the brutality of the sentence actually forced the Saudi administration to backpedal, even if only temporarily, from implementing the rest of the sentence.

Doctors examined Badawi after the first flogging of 50 lashes and determined he has not healed enough to take a second 50 lashes even after two weeks of postponed canings; that to flog him again before his would are healed would threaten his life.

While nobody in Canada will be caned repeatedly for speaking their mind that does not mean we are without our faults. The now-repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was used to silence individuals, often with crushing monetary penalties even though the Act was supposedly “remedial” in nature, not punitive.

Marc Lemire’s 10-year fight to preserve his right to freedom of speech, for example, caused Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be repealed. Lemire’s refusal to cave in to censorship eventually forced the government to strike Section 13 from the books. The irony of that decision is that even though Lemire beat the censors at their own game he may still lose his rights under that repealed section of law.

Found guilty for publishing a document he did not write and didn’t even know existed on his website until he faced prosecution, Lemire faces a lifetime ban on his freedom of speech should he lose his last court appeal.

Arthur Topham faces prison time for daring to speak his mind on his own website, as he faces criminal charges under Canada’s hate crimes legislation contained in Section 318 – 320 of the criminal code.

From the November 6, 2012 National Post story on the charges against Arthur Topham:

Mr. Topham is a miner and is listed as secretary of the Cariboo Mining Association. He also publishes Radical Press, a website that posts materials with conspiracy theory themes such as the “Biological Jew” and the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

[Editor’s Note: Both books are widely available on the internet free of charge and at such purveyors of hate as and]

The Biological Jew depicts Jews as parasites that suck the blood from their “host” societies while the Protocols is a fraudulent book that purports to describe a conspiracy for worldwide Jewish domination.

In May, Harry Abrams, a B’nai Brith volunteer in Victoria, B.C., and Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman both complained to police about the website. Mr. Warman’s complaint said both the Biological Jew and the Protocols were banned from import into Canada as hate propaganda.

“When you’ve got that kind of just rabid attack against the Jewish community I think it’s incumbent on people to stand up in society,” said Mr. Warman, who regularly files complaints about racist websites.

While Mr. Topham does face the prospect of jail time for speaking his mind he will not be flogged mercilessly with a cane by agents of the state.

Does that mean Canada has no issues when it comes to Freedom of Speech?


Instead of defending our Right to Free Speech all levels of government seem insistent that dissenting voices must be silenced, and at almost any cost.

We must not offend Muslims, Jews, First Nations or practically anyone except white Christian males. On that particular group of faithful it’s “open season” with no end of that particular hypocrisy in sight.

Yes, we still have a very long way to go if our Right to Freedom of Speech is to actually mean something.

Eventually we will strike down the “hate speech” section of the Criminal Code as well, leaving ideas, both good and bad, to the court of public opinion which is precisely where they belong.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 27, 2014

Censorship Essential to Combat Terrorism says British Prime Minister David Cameron

Pete Snelson liked this post


Governments of all kinds despise Freedom of Speech. Dictatorships despise it because, if allowed, their detractors relentlessly denigrate them and their lack of integrity. Democracies despise Freedom of Speech for precisely the same reason. Freedom of Speech allows mere citizens to comment upon the actions of their so-called leaders, both good and bad.

The United Nations despises Freedom of Speech because when a free people discusses the worthiness or lack thereof of that wannabe world government it is obvious that organization is found…. wanting.

Governments of all kinds despise the Internet and the Freedom of Speech it affords mere citizens the world over. They despise how easily an individual on one side of the planet can share ideas with another individual on the other about the issues they face.

Governments, both tyrannical dictatorships and alleged democracies alike, desperately need to silence their citizens on the internet. So far, the goal of stripping the citizens of the world of their Right to Freedom of Speech has failed, but never fear: Government will always find a bogeyman to blame for the “need” to strip us of our rights.

A trial balloon went up in Britain this past week as British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the “new and pressing challenge” facing that nation and the world is to strip the Internet of Free Speech.

Of course, David Cameron didn’t use that language. He used language far more likely to garner support from the masses who have lost their ability to think critically about the task at hand.

Prime Minister David Cameron used the newest and brightest bogeyman of them all, terrorism, as his rationale for stripping the world of free speech on the internet.

The “new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the internet. We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space,” Cameron decried.

Cameron demanded British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) create filters for “harmful material” and the “extremist narrative” he deemed to be the instigator of terrorist activity the world over.

This is the “root cause” of terrorism so far as David Cameron is concerned and, in his view, radical Muslims will no longer chop off people’s heads on the streets of Britain or anywhere else once the Internet is appropriately sanitized.

He’s completely out to lunch, of course, but that did not stop him from ordering Britain’s ISPs to comply with his demands. Unfortunately for British citizens, those companies caved fully, completely and immediately.

The UK’s major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation.

They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.

David Cameron wholeheartedly supports censorship… so long as he is the one who determines what gets censored, and therein lies the problem with censorship.

“We are making progress but there is further to go. This is their [ISPs] social responsibility. And we expect them to live up to it,” the prime minister added.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is said, and so is censorship. “Permitted speech” is in the eye of the censor, and God help anyone who gets on the wrong side of The Censor.

Cameron neatly sidesteps the actual root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and the foreign policy of Britain and other western nations, and places the blame on freedom of speech on the internet instead.

“And let us be frank. It’s not poverty, though of course our nations are united in tackling deprivation wherever it exists. It’s not exclusion from the mainstream. Of course we have more to do but we are both successful multicultural democracies where opportunities abound.

“And it’s not foreign policy. I can show you examples all over the world where British aid and British action have saved millions of Muslim lives, from Kosovo to Syria – but that is not exactly the real point. In our democracies, we must never give in to the idea that disagreeing with a foreign policy in any way justifies terrorist outrages.”

The root cause was in fact the “extremist narrative”, Cameron said.

Freedom of Speech is the cause of all the world’s ills. It’s that darned Free Speech on the internet that’s the culprit, don’t you know.

Well, I didn’t know but I’m so very grateful David Cameron set me straight.

You just can’t let people say anything they want! God knows what crazy things they’ll say!

How long until Australian, American and Canadian governments order their Internet Service Providers to censor internet content to their liking? It is the wet dream of every president and prime minister on the planet; the ability to control what their people say, read and hear, and therefore what they think.

There remains only one question to be asked, really.

How long will it be until my protesting censorship is considered “extremist material” unsuited for the eyes of my fellow mere citizens?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 4, 2014

BC Attorney General Suzanne Anton is too Cowardly to Answer for Arthur Topham Prosecution


I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Bureaucrats are, generally speaking, a cowardly bunch, but the response given to Joseph Hickey, Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is truly pathetic even by that low standard.

Joseph Hickey’s letter was written directly to the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Attorney General of British Columbia.

While addressed specifically to her, it seems Ms. Anton is a little to busy to respond to a letter of inquiry from the head of a civil liberties group. She ordered some unnamed government minion to respond on her behalf instead.

The cowardly bureaucrat answering Mr. Hickey’s questions, or more accurately evading them, refused to put his or her name on the letter.

I suppose they were terrified someone like me might get a hold of their non-responsive letter and their name and mock them mercilessly for their evasions and non-answers.

They would be correct.

I would do that.

I would take great pleasure in it, to be precise. For the moment I must take what pleasure I can in mocking the nameless bureaucrat…

But I digress…

As I’ve written repeatedly in regards to Arthur Topham’s case, the Criminal Code of Canada makes it very clear that a prosecution under Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws, including Section 319, CANNOT happen unless the Attorney General of the province personally signs off on the case.

It’s written right into the Criminal Code.

Section 318 (3)

No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

The unnamed bureaucratic minion starts the response off by completely ignoring Section 318 (3) of the Criminal Code, which is the primary subject of Joseph Hickley’s letter.

Your letter of September 24, 2014, addressed to the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, has been forwarded to the Criminal Justice Branch for a response. The Criminal Justice Branch is responsible for the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions in British Columbia.

This is complete and utter hogwash.

While the Criminal Justice Branch may be responsible for “the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions” in most cases, that authority resides specifically and ONLY with the BC’s Attorney General in the Arthur Topham criminal prosecution.

Quoting the OCLA’s most recent letter:

Criminal Code (at s. 2) expressly defines “Attorney General” as meaning “the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy”.

The proceedings against Mr. Topham (R v Topham) are taken in BC.

Thus, to use the colloquial expression, the buck stops at your office, Madame Attorney General.

After claiming Attorney General Anton is not responsible for Topham’s prosecution the cowardly bureaucrat then drones on about presumption of innocence, something the Crown prosecutor in Arthur Topham’s case has repeatedly tried to quash.

From the day Arthur Topham was arrested until today, the Crown Prosecutor has tried to strip Arthur Topham of his Right to Freedom of Speech.

Arthur Topham cannot even name the two men who initiated the criminal code complaint against him, serial human rights complainant Richard Warman and his buddy Harry Abrams, British Columbia representative of B’nai B’rith Canada.

Should Arthur Topham write those names publicly he is in contempt of court.

How absurd is that?

After further droning about how Attorney General Suzanne Anton isn’t actually responsible for the Topham case the unnamed bureaucrat then attempts to blame Peter MacKay, Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, despite the fact MacKay is not the person who must personally approve a criminal charge under Section 319; Suzanne Anton is.

If you can stomach it the cowardly unsigned response to Hickey’s original letter is available for download here at the link below. This PDF file also includes Joseph Hickey’s second letter clarifying Minister Anton’s responsibilities, including a repeated demand she rescind her approval of the prosecution of Arthur Topham.


If you are a British Columbia resident I urge you to write Minister Anton and personally demand she rescind her consent for Arthur Topham’s criminal prosecution. As I’ve explained above she must personally approve charges under Section 319 of the Criminal Code before they can be prosecuted.

You can reach Ms. Anton here:

Hon. Suzanne Anton
Attorney General of BC
Room 232, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4
Email: or

Also, please sign the OCLA petition demanding BC Attorney General Suzanne Anton rescind her consent for Arthur Topham’s criminal prosecution under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 16, 2014

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis – Just Another Tyrannical Douchebag?



Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis: if you can’t handle being mocked stop being a politician. Mocking and ridicule come with the territory so either get a thicker skin or get yourself a new job. Wasting police resources to harass those who oppose you is the act of a tyrant, not a mayor.

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis was so worried about a parody Twitter account with all of 50 posts and 50 followers he sent the Peoria Police Department on a 3-week chase of the heinous offender who created @peoriamayor (now defunct).

Bizarrely, three separate judges signed off on warrants for this case; one warrant for the Twitter account information, another for the ComCast subscriber information and the third was a search warrant for the home identified by the user’s IP address as identified by ComCast.

Violating the rights of this mere citizen is not only condoned but demanded by Mayor Jim Ardis. Freedom of Speech exists only for Jim Ardis, I suppose, and not for any of the citizens he presides over.

When police finally found the man responsible for mocking their mayor, one Jonathan Daniel, they descended like good little Police State thugs, with all the might they could muster. Since Jonathan Daniel committed no crime they dug through his possessions (illegally) until they found some marijuana.

They arrested Jonathan Daniel’s roommate, charged him with possession and held him on $3,000 bail, after seizing iPhones (2), XBox game controllers (2), private mail, digital memory cards and “drug paraphernalia”, whatever that means.

Presumably one of the cops needed new XBox controllers for his own system? Can’t imagine how else they can rationalize the seizure…

The only reason Daniel faced criminal charges at all is they had to charge him with something… how else do they justify this massive waste of police time and resources?

The crime of mocking one’s mayor is… well… no crime at all. Freedom of expression protects we mere citizens from such attacks by the overzealous minions of the state, or at least they ought to and that’s the point behind the lawsuit filed by Jonathan Daniel.

Jonathan Daniel says police, acting under the specific direction of Mayor Jim Ardis, violated his civil rights.

From March 9 through March 19, 2014, Mr. Daniel tweeted from a Twitter account, @peoriamayor, which used a picture of Jim Ardis (“Ardis”), the mayor of Peoria, as the account’s avatar. Displeased with the content of the tweets, Defendants embarked on a plan to shut down the account and identify and punish its creator in violation of his constitutional rights. As part of Defendants’ plan, Peoria Police Department officers searched Mr. Daniel’s residence, seized his personal property, reviewed personal information on Mr. Daniel’s electronic devices and in his mail, and arrested, detained, and interrogated Mr. Daniel purportedly for the crime of false personation of a public official.

Good for Jonathan Daniel for standing up for himself in the face of such blatant abuse of power.

If there is any sense of actual justice left in Illinois (and I wouldn’t bet on it given 3 separate judges issued search warrants in this case) then Jonathan Daniel’s win will be a slam-dunk.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 10, 2014

Are you offended by something I said?

Ryan Steacy, Mike Ackermann liked this post

The problem with some folks is they can’t accept the fact an opinion exists of which they don’t approve. Freedom of speech is okay but only if you agree with their opinions.  The problem with politicians is they feel compelled to pander to the people who cannot accept another’s point of view.

Combine the two (incessant whiners and politicians) and you get nightmares like the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 318 of the Criminal Code, both of which create special status for “special” people, leaving the rest of us mere citizens out in the cold.

Not only are we left out in the cold, we now have the full weight of government to contend with any time we say something one of the protected class of whiners doesn’t like.

Shockingly, one isn’t required to be a member of a protected class in order to file a complaint on their behalf. ‘I’m outraged for you’ appears to be the operational basis here, and a very profitable one for some.

Try saying anything outside of the mainstream politically-correct view about any of the following folks and you will quickly discover the error of believing you actually have a Right to Freedom of Speech:

“any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some pigs are truly more equal than others.

White heterosexual Christian males need not apply, however. You are NOT one of the “protected classes” of people despite having an actual religion, sexuality and race. Put another way, you’re not quite as equal as others.

Am I saying every member of these protected groups is a whiner? Of course not. I blame gutless politicians for pandering to special interest groups more than I do those lobbying on their behalf.

To live is to offend someone, somewhere along the way. Do we really need a group of bureaucratic thugs to beat us into submission simply because our view of the world is different than theirs?

Here in Canada the answer is a resounding YES!

Ask Marc Lemire, Connie Fournier or Arthur Topham. Each of these individuals suffered the crushing weight of bureaucratic excess, and often for sentiments they never even wrote.

Marc Lemire faces a lifetime free speech ban for an article posted on his website. He didn’t write the article. He didn’t even post the article himself, yet the screaming banshees at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal consider him more of a threat to the “Canadian way of life” than… well pretty much any violent criminal.

To date the Canadian people have wasted over a quarter million dollars prosecuting Marc Lemire… and for what? An article he didn’t even write that was read by perhaps 10 people worldwide?

Connie Fourier finally shuttered after being found guilty of defamation of serial human rights complainant Richard Warman. The final straw for Ms. Fournier was the condition she be held liable for any negative comments made by anyone, at any time in the future, about Richard Warman.

That ruling’s phrasing would even allow Richard Warman, for example, to log onto and post something negative about himself and still trigger the full weight of the law on Ms. Fournier. It’s utterly absurd for Connie Fournier to he beld accountable for the comments of another, yet that’s now the law of the land here in Canada.

Arthur Topham wrote something about someone or some group of someones that offended another someone who complained to both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the RCMP. Arthur Topham now faces charges under both the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Nobody will tell Topham what he wrote that was so offensive. Instead they demand he defend everything he ever wrote from six months before his arrest until… well.. whenever he might finally get his day in court. That’s right. Every word Mr. Topham writes until his trial can and will be used by Crown prosecutors to show what a heinous threat he is to both the Canadian Way of Life and The World as We Know It.

Yeah, there’s justice for you!

While I would hope our Canadian skins are thick enough to tolerate offensiveness in others… apparently we can only tolerate our own offensiveness. That our attitudes may actually offend others is completely missed in the rush to fend off some perceived slight.

Like Stephen Fry so bluntly said, if you’re offended by what I say, “…so fucking what?”

Get over yourself already.

Dismantle every so-called “human rights” tribunal and commission across Canada. If they were ever needed (I doubt it) their “best before” date expired long ago and are now simply vehicles for punishing those with whom we disagree.

Abusing our fellow citizen is not a “Canadian value” simply because we disagree with what he or she says.

Or at least it shouldn’t be.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 6, 2014

Flashing Your Headlights to Warn of Police Ahead is NOT a Crime

Mike Ackermann liked this post

It’s a simple, common-sense ruling, and one founded in that most basic right of all, Freedom of Speech.  Just like honking your horn as you pass by people holding a sign like “Honk if you Support Our Troops” is legal, so is flashing your headlights to warn oncoming drivers of police in their path.

So says Oregon Judge Joseph Carter.

Hauling a truckload of logs to a Southern Oregon mill last fall, Chris Hill noticed a sheriff’s deputy behind him and flashed his lights to warn a UPS driver coming the other way.

The deputy pulled over Hill on U.S. Highway 140 in White City and handed him a $260 ticket for improperly using his headlights, saying another deputy had seen the flashing lights from behind the UPS truck and alerted him to stop the log truck because of the signaling.

Chris Hill, outraged at being ticketed for expressing himself, fought the ticket in court and in early April, 2014 Judge Carter dismissed the traffic citation.

Jackson County Justice Court judge dismissed the citation, finding that motorists flashing their headlights amounts to speech protected by the Oregon Constitution.

Judge Joseph Carter determined the law covering the use of high beams was valid, but was unconstitutional as it was applied by the deputy.

The citation was clearly given to punish the Defendant for that expression,” the judge wrote.

“The government certainly can and should enforce the traffic laws for the safety of all drivers on the road. However, the government cannot enforce the traffic laws, or any other laws, to punish drivers for their expressive conduct.”

In this age of “revenue by traffic citation” it is very refreshing to see a judge uphold the rights of a mere citizen against the almighty Minions of the State.

Common sense says one should drive with low-beam headlights when there is oncoming traffic.  The law supporting that also makes sense, as it can be a danger to others when someone is blinded by oncoming high-beams.  However, common sense flies out the window when that law is used to punish a mere citizen for exercising his or her Right to Freedom of Speech simply because the mechanism of that Free Speech is flashing one’s high-beams.

Dave Fidanque, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, noted the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a traffic law prohibiting horn honking for non-traffic purposes on similar grounds in the 1990s after a number of people got tickets for honking in support of U.S. troops during the Gulf War.

If the motive of the sheriff’s deputies was in fact not to make the roads safer, but to raise more revenue from traffic enforcement, that would be even more reason why it should be  unconstitutional,” Fidanque said. “If this is part of a pattern, then it probably would be worth us looking into it in more detail.”

Free Speech takes many forms.  It appears the minions of the almighty state don’t like we mere citizens exercising that right in as many ways as possible.  Thank God for judges like Oregon Judge Joseph Carter, who takes the concept of Free Speech seriously, just as he should.



Traffic rules applied solely for the purpose of generating revenue for the State is a heinous affront to liberty.  This affront is not unique to Oregon or even America.  It happens routinely here in Canada as well.

Recently there was an expose on Sun TV about a man who spends his free time recording police making traffic stops on a particularly stupid street in one of Ontario’s urban centers.

There is a no left turn sign at a particular intersection.  Obeying that sign means a long circuitous detour to get there.  Disobeying it means chancing an expensive ticket, and given the visibility of police down the street from that intersection it’s become a favourite spot to generate revenue for the city.

Access to Information requests prove this out.  Astonishingly, far less tickers are issued when this man videotapes police than when he does not.  Those same Access to Information requests prove that too.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 23, 2014

Should Arthur Topham Have Sexually Assaulted 23 Women Instead?



That may seem a strange title for an article about our legal system, but after reading about Campbell Ernest Crichton, the former Duncan, BC, physiotherapist who faces charges he sexually assaulted at least 23 of his former patients, it seems to be the correct title.

A February 21, 2014, article in The Province started thus:

A hearing has been ordered in the case of a former physiotherapist who successfully argued he was too poor to pay for a lawyer to defend himself against charges he sexually assaulted 23 female patients.

Last year Campbell Ernest Crichton of Duncan, B.C., had his charges temporarily set aside after a judge found he was indigent and needed a government-funded lawyer for the complex criminal trial.

Anyone following my writings on Freedom of Speech will be well familiar with the case of Arthur Topham, the Quesnel, BC, publisher of, and alternative news website.

Mr. Topham currently faces criminal charges under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada for “inciting hatred” against an identifiable group.

What, you ask, is the connection between Arthur Topham’s Freedom of Speech case and an [alleged] degenerate serial sex offender?

Quite simply, neither man can afford legal counsel for their criminal trials.

In the case of the [alleged] sex offender B.C. Supreme Court Justice Keith Bracken said there was a “real and substantial” risk to Crichton’s right to a fair trial if if did not have legal counsel. As a result of that “real and substantial” risk Justice Bracken ordered Crichton be provided a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is facing criminal charges for exercising his Right to Freedom of Speech. There is no “victim” here other than a few people whose actions lead me to believe they self-identify as victims. Topham sexually assaulted nobody. He physically harmed nobody. He never forced a single person on Planet Earth to read what he wrote.

Despite those facts Arthur Topham’s right to a fair trial with adequate legal counsel seems unimportant to the very same judiciary that ruled an [alleged] serial sex offender ought to have a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is not a wealthy man. He’s a modest man living on modest means in his rural home outside of Quesnel, BC.

His application for legal aid was denied. His application for government funding under what is known as a Rowbotham Application was similarly denied.

By these standards it is far more important that a sexual deviant’s rights be safeguarded than a man who dared write a few words someone found objectionable.

That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Sending a man to prison for the words he writes out to scare the crap out of every single writer in Canada. Sure, today it’s Topham’s views that are “politically incorrect” and therefore fair game for our legal system, but what about tomorrow? Whose views will be deemed “incorrect” then? Who will stand up for you?

Campbell Ernest Crichton is charged with sexually abusing 23 human beings. That is real, substantial physical and emotional trauma all for one sick man’s own sexual gratification.

There are real human victims.

Arthur Topham wrote an article someone didn’t like. For that the BC Hate Crimes Unit of the RCMP and the BC Attorney General want to send Mr. Topham to prison, while refusing him any chance of a true legal defense.

Shouldn’t we be far more concerned about sexual predators?

Nope. We’ll happily pay their legal fees and send that darned writer to prison.

After all, ideas are far more dangerous than sexual predators, right?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 1, 2013

A “Right” to be Heard? That simply doesn’t exist.



Brenda Kenny, president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, wrote an article published in the Vancouver Sun on September 17, 2013, whose title caught my attention solely because it was so absurd.

Her article, titled “Freedom of speech includes right to be heard”, was a defense of oil sands production and the reversal of a pipeline to send Alberta’s oil to eastern Canada. She starts off by stating this:

As Canadians, we are fortunate enough to live in a country where we have the ability to speak our mind on issues that matter most to us. It is a fundamental right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And, at the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, we believe in this right, too.

No problem. That makes complete sense and I am in complete agreement with Ms. Kenny. It’s in her next paragraph where she goes wildly off the rails.

We believe that, as a productive member of a democratic society, it is important for all Canadians to be heard.

The statement that “it is important for all Canadians to be heard” is fine on its face; transforming how we like “being heard” into a Right is something else entirely.

It’s ridiculous.

The Right to Freedom of Speech has absolutely nothing to do with “being heard.”

Freedom of Speech is solely and specifically about the right to speak your mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with forcing others to listen to what we have to say, no matter how much we may want them to listen.

For example, I am exercising my Right to Freedom of Speech by writing this article. For me to believe that, simply as a function of writing my this article, I have the right to force you to read it is ludicrous.

Kenny’s article discusses a lawsuit over the reversal of a pipeline that’s been operational for decades. Canadian anti-oil zealots oppose reversing the pipeline even though they cannot bring forth a single coherent and sensible argument for that opposition.

These anti-oil forces (while hypocritically using oil to transport themselves around the globe) are currently trying to force the National Energy Board into endless public debates over this pipeline reversal, something that makes no sense whatsoever.

She succinctly describes the pipeline in question:

The hearing that the lawsuit refers to is a proposal to re-reverse a pipeline built decades ago. The pipeline was built in the 1970s to supply oil from Western Canada to eastern Canadian refineries after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries embargo. The pipeline was reversed in the 1980s due to changing market conditions. Now, the pipeline operator is looking to reverse it once again.

Essentially the anti-oil lobby is trying to say, through this lawsuit, that their Right to Freedom of Speech is violated by the changes made to the regulatory process. They’re upset they cannot tie up that process endlessly.

There are limits on the process, of course, but none that stop anyone from speaking their mind on the issue. It simply stops an endless parade of people and groups from saying the same thing over and over again for years, stopping a project from moving forward simply so a debate can rage on without end.

Brenda Kenny’s article is good and helps shed some light on the current process and I highly recommend you read it and other articles on the subject to fully inform yourself about this issue.

We use oil and gas every day to heat our homes and businesses, move us to and from work and even, as shocking as it is to say out loud, to transport anti-oil activists to the very hearings they want to bog down.

My problem is that Kenny uses a lousy premise to advance her position, even though I agree with that position.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 23, 2012

Arthur Topham & Hate Crime Trial – Freedom of Speech Legal Case Update



On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 Arthur Topham was back in the Quesnel, BC, Court house for his latest attempt at a bail hearing. The regular Judge presiding over Arthur’s case was unable to attend so a female judge, M. Church, heard the application instead.

Crown Council Jennifer Johnston opened by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case, including Crown’s reasons why she has still not provided Topham’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, with full disclosure in the case.

She claimed that almost 5 months from the time of Arthur Topham’s arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 was insufficient time to gather enough evidence for an indictment against Mr. Topham. She also claimed this somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure, despite two previous promises to the judge to do so.

Mr. Topham had received a disclosure document from Mr. Christie that was not marked confidential in any way. Mr. Topham shared this document with a friend via email and portions of that document subsequently were found in an article in the National Post. According to Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, this is why she refused to divulge any more disclosure documents to Mr. Christie.

The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor Arthur Topham would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case, and definitely not for publication.

Doug Christie then commenced his argument by referencing a host of case law where he outlined for the Judge many precedents for the legal right of publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists. Christie cited articles in mainstream publications, such as the New York Times, making the point that no particular group is exempt from public criticism.

Regarding Topham’s criticism of the RCMP, Doug Christie pointed out to the court the RCMP is certainly not above criticism and, given their current atrocious public image, he didn’t think Crown’s argument in defense of them was even worthy of consideration.

Lastly, he also made it clear that Crown’s attempt to curtail Mr. Topham’s Charter Rights to Freedom of Expression before he was even convicted of any crime was absurd. To a priori assume that whatever Mr. Topham is publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such a severe curtailment upon his Charter rights should not even be considered in Canada.

Doug Christie concluded his arguments approximately 4:15 p.m., at which time he informed the Judge he had a plane to catch at 5 p.m.

The Crown tried to refute all of Mr. Christie’s arguments and told the Judge that because Mr. Topham was charged with a “hate crime” the Crown could impose whatever restrictions they wanted on him.

The Judge reserved her decision, telling both sides she would consider the arguments and submit a request to another body (it is not known which body she meant) for further clarification in early January, after which she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision.

This state of affairs leaves Arthur Topham free to exercise his Right to Freedom of Speech for the moment, as well as to access the internet.

This is good news, if only temporary, but there is a long legal battle ahead for Mr. Topham.

If you are able, please mail a donation in support of his Right to Freedom of Speech to:

Arthur Topham
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C. Canada V2J 6T8

To support Arthur Topham’s fight against our “hate” laws and Internet Censorship via PayPal, please go to either or The PayPal button is in the right hand corner on either site.




If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 1, 2012

An Open Letter to the Free Speech Censors at



Arthur Topham believes in his Right to Freedom of Speech. He’s a very vocal advocate for that right, and has been for many years.

Arthur Topham is also the latest individual being harassed by RCMP for what they call “hate speech” on Arthur Topham’s website


Even though Mr. Topham has not been convicted of any crime, the RCMP Hate Crimes Unit has contacted Mr. Topham’s web hosting company,, and “suggested” that promoted hatred on the internet and should be pulled down immediately. complied with the RCMP “request.”

I would suggest if you’re looking for a web hosting company, that you do NOT use Any company that will, on the whim of a state official, deny a Canadian citizen’s Right to Freedom of Speech by yanking their website from the internet is not a company that I want to do business.

For me this is not some arbitrary thought. I’m actually a Netfirms customer. I will not be for long, however, and steps are already underway to move all my web business to another company.

I don’t believe in making idle threats. I wrote to Netfirms on Arthur’s behalf and expressed my displeasure with their intention to take down

I explained that should they choose to deny Mr. Topham’s Right to Freedom of Speech before he has been convicted of anything, that I would remove all my business from the immediately.

Choices have consequences. chose to violate Mr. Topham’s Right to Freedom of Speech.

I choose to never again do business with this company, and will urge everyone I know to boycott them as well. It’s called “voting with my dollars” and is a principle I believe in very strongly.

Here is a link to the letter written by Arthur Topham that describes the latest events in his case. I urge you to read his letter in its entirety, and think about the ramifications of the RCMP actions against him. If they can do this to Arthur Topham, they can do it to anyone.

And in case you decide you can’t stand Arthur Topham or what he has to say, I would urge you to remember that Freedom of Speech is just that: the right to say what you think without
fear of persecution by any state entity.

It is NOT the Right to “Approved Speech”; to say only that which is politically correct.
When “Approved Speech” is the only thing left, we no longer have Freedom.

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to “Zach P.” at on November 26, 2012.

I have yet to receive a response. Shocking, I know…

Dear Zach P.

It’s come to my attention that you’ve threatened to take down the website, which is hosted on Netfirms servers.

Since the website has not broken the law and there is this pesky little thing we call Freedom of Speech in Canada, I’m very curious to know why you would be taking this action.

The RCMP, or at least one constable from the RCMP, seems to have taken it upon himself to see to it that Arthur Topham’s website is removed from the internet.

Guilty until proven innocent would appear to be this particular constable’s game, but that’s just not how Canada works.

Please be advised that I am also a Netfirms customer, and that should you remove Arthur Topham’s website from the internet, I will immediately remove all my business from Netfirms.

Free Speech is the right to say what I think. It does not mean your anyone else has to agree with what I say.

I will not do business with a company that does not 100% support my Right to Freedom of Speech, or that of any other Canadian, including Arthur Topham and

I look forward to hearing back from you precisely why you threatened to take down this website, and under what authority you would do so.

Thank you.

Yours in Liberty,

Christopher di Armani

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 25, 2012

A Resounding SLAPP in the face for Politicians Wishing to Stifle our Freedom of Speech



Freedom of Speech is the fundamental right of every Canadian. This right is, first and foremost, a protection for those of us who speak out about public affairs and public people.

Our Right to Freedom of Speech trumps a politician’s desire to punish those who would say unkind things about her.

If an individual runs for public office, we mere citizens have every right to comment on both their actions and character, and any politician too thin-skinned to deal with that should find something else to do.

Thin-skinned crybaby Phyllis Morris

Thin-skinned crybaby Phyllis Morris

One such thin-skinned politician is the former mayor of Aurora, Ontario, from 2006 until December 1, 2010: Phyllis Morris.

In October of 2010 Morris ran for reelection. By most accounts she wasa pretty lousy mayor, and many news sources commented on her lack of leadership ability, perceived or otherwise.

One critical source was the Aurora Citizen, an online news website aimed at keeping the citizens of Aurora informed about the antics of their elected politicians.Then-mayor Phyllis Morris took exception to an article and subsequent comments about her published on the Aurora Citizen website.

In keeping with her strong beliefs of Freedom and Liberty for all, Phyllis Morris did what all defenders of freedom do when faced with critical opposition: she filed a lawsuit against everyone she could think of to shut them up.

She filed suit against Richard Johnson, William “Bill” Hogg, Elizabeth Bishendon, a number of anonymous bloggers who left comments and, last but not least, Automattic Inc., the makers of the blog software platform WordPress.

That’s akin to filing suit against Microsoft because someone wrote a Word document you didn’t like, or suing Ford Motor Company because you were hit by a drunk driver. I suppose Phyllis Morris figured that if anyone had deep enough pockets to pay off her $6 million lawsuit it would be the makers of WordPress.

Lawsuits like this are only filed for one purpose: to stifle the free expression of ideas and information by a free people. Morris clearly despised criticism and was willing to go to any extreme to stop people from saying things she didn’t like.

This type of lawsuit has occurred often enough to garner its own name: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or SLAPP lawsuit. The sole purpose of a SLAPP lawsuit is to silence someone by the threat a massive judgment against them. In Morris’ case, she sued these individuals and Automattic Inc. for $6 million. That’s a big enough threat to scare most people into silence.

While this sort of lawsuit has already happened many times in Canada, this time the judge clearly saw it for what it was and ruled accordingly.

Let me step back a little so you have the full picture.

Phyllis Morris first filed the lawsuit against anyone she could find:Richard Johnson, William “Bill” Hogg, Elizabeth Bishendon, a number of anonymous blog commenters and the makers of the blogging platform WordPress.

As she was still mayor at the time the suit was filed, she managed to convince the Aurora city council to fund her lawsuit.

She then attempted to have the identities of the anonymous blog commenters revealed so she could name them specifically in her SLAPP lawsuit. She lost that case. Then she made the surprising announcement that she was dropping the case entirely.

I’m sure losing the election and subsequently being forced to fund the lawsuit herself both played a large part in her new-found common sense.

However, since it was Morris who dropped the lawsuit she was still on the hook for the consequences of her ill-advised actions, and defendants Johnson and Hogg found a unique section of law that allowed them to make a claim against Morris for their legal costs.

In a weird turn of events, Morris never even contested the motion for costs and that resulted in a default judgment against her for the legal costs for Johnson and Hogg. Elizabeth Bishenden had already settled previously, so she was not able to sue for costs.

This case is a resounding victory for common sense and our Right to Freedom of Speech, and sends a loud warning to politicians who think they can use public money to silence their critics through abusive actions in the courts.

Since the lawsuit filed against Johnson and Hogg was ruled to be a SLAPP lawsuit, they were entitled to what is called an “elevated award of costs”. This is meant as a deterrent to politicians or corporations who think they can silence dissent through punitive court cases, and it is a very good thing.

Here is the relevant section from the ruling by Master Thomas Hawkins:

[27] The following evidence before me is uncontradicted. Mayor Morris brought this action expressly in her capacity as Mayor of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora. Initially and up to December 14, 2010 she had access to Aurora municipality money to fund this litigation.

The action was commenced without any prior demand letter to Johnson, Hogg or Bishenden from Mayor Morris or her lawyers. The action was commenced without complying with the prior notice provisions of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 ch. L-12 respecting broadcasts. (Johnson and Hogg take the position that Aurora Citizen “broadcasts” its content as that term is defined in the Libel and Slander Act).

The action was commenced three weeks prior to the municipal election in which Mayor Morris was seeking a second term as mayor. The action was commenced by notice of action rather than by statement of claim. In her notice of action Mayor Morris expressly sought damages of $6,000,000 from the defendants.

In an action for damages it is unusual for the plaintiff to claim a specific amount of damages in the notice of action. The notice of action was served on the defendants Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden immediately and without any statement of claim, in contravention of subrule 14.03 (4).

[28] I infer from these facts that Mayor Morris was not prepared to wait and see if a demand letter would have the desired effect of silencing Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden, and not prepared to wait until her lawyers prepared a statement of claim.

In my view, Mayor Morris wanted to hit Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden quickly and hard, in order to silence them as her critics sooner rather than later in the weeks leading up to the October 25, 2010 municipal elections.

[29] I therefore come to the conclusion that this action is indeed SLAPP litigation.

Morris was so desperate to shut up Johnson, Hogg and Bishenden that she couldn’t be bothered to file her lawsuit in a legal manner. She wanted these people silenced, and silenced immediately. That was all she cared about, and attaching a $6 million price tag to their Right to Freedom of Speech all but guaranteed the three would indeed be silenced.

That is just plain wrong.Abusive bully tactics from thin-skinned whiners like Phyllis Morris can never be permitted.

It’s obscene that, in a nation that supposedly prides itself on the Rights and Freedoms of every citizen, a politician at any level of government would dare try to extort a citizen into silence.

That Phyllis Morris now must pay back $21,275 in legal costs to Johnson and Hogg is the loudest and best “shot across the bow” I’ve ever had the pleasure to write about.

It’s refreshing to see our right to Freedom of Speech upheld so convincingly, and that a politician so clearly undeserving of elected office as Phyllis Morris was soundly put in her place.


In closing, I would urge you to read the entire 6-page ruling by Master Thomas Hawkins for yourself. It’s great reading!


My previous articles on the Phyllis Morris case:

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 12, 2012

Why we must Support Marc Lemire’s Appeal of the Bizarre Federal Court ruling on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act



As you no doubt already know, MP Brian Storseth’s Private Members Bill C-304, an Act to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, has passed the Canadian Parliament. However, it must still pass the Senate before this piece of freedom-crushing legislation will be gone for good.

Serial plaintiff Richard Warman is “Canada’s most offended man” according to Ezra Levant

Serial plaintiff Richard Warman is “Canada’s most offended man” according to Ezra Levant

In the meantime, Marc Lemire’s long legal battle with serial plaintiff Richard Warman continues. Warman is the man who Sun TV commentator Ezra Levant refers to as “Canada’s most offended man” because he is personally responsible for over half of all complaints before Canada’s Human Rights Commission.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley recently ruled in the case of Warman v. Lemire (view PDF of decision) and his decision was quite bizarre. It struck down the penalty clause of the Human Rights Act, Section 54, while simultaneously upholding the constitutionality of the freedom-killing Section 13.

If you think that is confusing, don’t worry. You’re not alone. Ezra Levant is also a little puzzled, and he’s done his best to explain what the federal court ruling means with some help from Chris Shafer of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. You can watch that video at the bottom of this article.

It is important to remember that Marc Lemire is the only person to win their case in the 33 year history of the Canadian Human Rights Commission! He is the guy who finally broke their 100% conviction rate.

So far this case has eaten up 8 years of Marc Lemire’s life and the battle is still not over.

Since this is currently the law of the land until the bill to repeal Section 13 passes the Senate, Marc Lemire must continue his battle to have the law struck down on constitutional grounds.

But is it really necessary to appeal this ruling since Bill C-304 will inevitably pass the Senate?

Yes, it is, and here’s why.

First, at the moment there are dozens of Section 13 cases that are “on hold” pending the outcome of Marc Lemire’s case. Should Lemire decide NOT to appeal this ruling, then all those cases will be taken off hold and the unjust persecution of those Canadians will resume.

Second, we have no idea when Bill C-304 will pass the Senate, even though it’s practically guaranteed to do so. The problem lies, as I outlined above, with the time period between today and the day when the Bill C-304 is actually proclaimed into law. During this time period cases already “in the system” will move ahead, even though everyone knows the law will be repealed.

Marc Lemire

Marc Lemire

Since it is currently the law of the land, it will be applied as such, despite the impending repeal of Section 13.

As I see it, if for no other reason than supporting Lemire’s case prevents all these other cases from resuming, it is well worth supporting.

So I urge you to please join with me in supporting Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

You can donate online through PayPal (you don’t need a PayPal account to donate as long as you have a credit card) by using this link:

If you prefer not to use PayPal you can mail your donation directly to Marc Lemire at:

Marc Lemire
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defense Fund
762 Upper James St, Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario L9C 3A2

But I don’t support what Mr. Lemire says,” you’re thinking.

So what? That’s not the issue, is it?

I don’t have to agree with what someone says in order to support their right to say it. That’s the whole problem with Section 13 of the Human Rights Act! It takes Free Speech and turns it into Approved Speech.

The problem with Approved Speech should be obvious. So long as you’re on the side of those who get to decide, you’re okay. But what happens when the political climate changes and you’re no longer on the side of the “approvers“?

Unless you are content to live in Orwell’s world, support Marc Lemire. He is the good guy in this fight and he has earned our support, if for no other reason than he is the first and only person to ever win a case against the Canadian Human Rights Commission! Their 100% conviction rate was secure until they went after him.


Ezra Levant and Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation discuss Federal Court ruling in Warman v. Lemire.


Ezra Levant: Good Riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 28, 2012

Freedom of Speech Personified: Pat Condell tells it like it is!



While Pat Condell and I will obviously disagree on the topic of God, we agree on far more than we disagree.

He is an outspoken proponent of Freedom of Speech and is, along with many other European commentators, doing his best to alert the Western World to the threat posed by radical islam and it’s murderous followers.

Pat Condell, to quote the Wikipedia entry for him,

240px-Pat_Condellis an English writer, political commentator, comedian and atheist internet personality. He performed alternative comedy shows during the 1980s and 1990s in the United Kingdom, and won a Time Out Comedy Award in 1991. He was also a regular panellist on BBC Radio 1’s “Loose Talk”.

Pat Condell is a strong proponent of free speech and critic of religion.

From early 2007, he began posting short monologues denouncing religion to a number of video sharing websites, consequently receiving numerous death threats. As of October 2012, Pat Condell’s YouTube channel has over 165,000 subscribers and 41 million views.

Here is one of many of Pat Condell’s awesome monologues about Islam, the Religion of Peace.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 14, 2012

Malala Yousufzai: shot in the head for the “crime” of wanting an education



Fourteen-year-old Malala Yousufzai is a girl who has high ambitions. She wants to be a doctor. Well, at least she did before some terrorist Taliban moron shot her in the head and throat for her audacity. Who knows if she will survive her wounds and be able to accomplish that dream.

Malala YousafzaiThe Taliban immediately took credit for this heinous act.  Of course they did.  These pathetic cowards are actually proud of themselves for their manliness and bravery at attacking a defenseless 14-year-old girl.

What is astounding to me is that a 14-year-old girl like Malala even has to be an “activist” for something as simple as wanting an education.

Taliban spokescritter Ehsanullah Ehsan actually called Malala’s activism an “obscenity” that had to be crushed like a bug underfoot.

“This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter.”

If ever the world needed any more evidence of the evil of islam and it’s pedophile prophet Muhammed, surely Malala Yousufzai is it.

If ever the world needed any more proof that “The Religion of Peace” is anything but peaceful, surely 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai is it.

While Obama crows that he “crippled the Taliban” as he desperately seeks any means of salvaging his election hopes, the Taliban obviously never got the President’s memo.  Those cowardly and evil pieces of bovine excrement are carrying on as if Bin Laden never even existed.

Malala Yousufzai just wanted what any girl her age deserves: an education.  Yet in muslim-controlled nations like Pakistan, merely saying that out loud is a crime.  She isn’t male.  She has no rights.  She deserves nothing but whatever atrocities the muslim men of her community will commit against her.

The offense here is against Sharia Law.

A woman must know her place.

A woman must keep her place.

A woman must not speak unless given permission to speak by some man.

If she dares open her mouth and speak the words, “I want to be a doctor” she is simply signing her own death warrant.

It’s disgusting.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 12, 2012

Pastor Terry Jones Barred Entry. So Much for Freedom of Speech in Canada…


Florida Pastor Terry Jones is best known for his outspoken opposition to islam.  He made international headlines when he burned a Koran two years ago on the anniversary of 9/11.   He also created and promoted “International Burn a Koran Day” as a way of protesting against radical islam.

Terry Jones was scheduled to debate Toronto imam on the film Innocence of Muslims outside Ontario’s legislature Thursday evening, but instead spent over 4 hours being searched and interrogated by Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) agents before being denied entry into the country.

Eventually both Terry Jones and his assistant, Wayne Sapp, were handed letters from CBSA explaining they would not be allowed into Canada.

“Dr. Jones’ letter said they were denying him entry to Canada because years ago in Germany, when he lived there, he was fined by the German government for using the title doctor,” said Fran Ingram of Stand Up America Now, the U.S. organization that promotes Mr. Jones.

The CBSA letter also demanded that Mr. Jones provide a criminal records check before attempting to  enter into Canada again.

While the CBSA is arguing they had valid reasons for keeping Pastor Jones out of Canada it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

CBSA cited a note from German officials who were upset that Jones used the designation “Dr.” from an institution they refused to recognize and a claim that they didn’t have enough information about an alleged breach of peace bond against Mr. Sapp as the reasons why they were not allowing the two into Canada.

Yeah, okay.  That’s sketchy at best, and disingenuous to say the very least.

For reasons unknown, the Canadian government was not interested in allowing a Christian Pastor to debate a muslim imam in Ontario.

Odd, since they were perfectly willing to allow radical muslim Dr. Bilal Philps to speak at an islamic conference in Calgary earlier this year. Philips has been kicked out of two countries (Germany & Kenya) and banned from two others (Britain & Australia) for his outspoken views on homosexuality, among other things.

But since Philips was born in Canada it’s completely okay for him to speak, right?  But an American Christian pastor? Forget about it.

I guess that means that Ann Barnhardt is also unwelcome in Canada since she is

1) a Christian, and
2) burned a Koran and posted the video on YouTube.

It would seem that Freedom of Speech is based, not on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but on which religion you happen to preach.

Islam 1, Christianity 0.

How very open-minded of the Canadian government…

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player