Saturday, December 17, 2011

Canadian Human Rights Commission ARE LIKE THE NAZIS! Kulaszka was right to make the comparison


During the Marc Lemire hearing this week, Federal Court Justice - Mr. Justice Richard Mosley - took great offense that Lemire’s lawyer Barbara Kulaszka dared to describe Canada’s internet censorship law - Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as similar to the worst repressive totalitarian regimes such as the Nazis or the Communists.


Joseph Brean writing in the National Post described the encounter as: “Ms. Kulaszka compared Section 13, and its supposed 100% conviction rate, to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which did not sit well with Judge Mosley. ‘Let's not get carried away with hyperbole. Some comparisons are offensive,’ he said. ‘Counsel should know this and restrain yourself.’”


Let’s take a look at the facts, and you can make up your own mind.  Is Section 13 a law totalitarian regimes like the Communists or Nazis would love?




Are The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission like Nazis?

The Nazis

The Canadian Human Rights Commission

The Nazis targeted one race

The CHRC targets only working-class Whites, whose beliefs they disagree with.  When Muslims or friends of the CHRC are investigated for posting vile hate, the CHRC dismissed the complaints as “not in the public interest”.

The Nazis used unfair courts and tribunals while limiting any possible defence

Not a single person has ever won a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (over 40 cases…) 100% conviction rate! Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be jealous!

The Nazis targeted the poor

98% of victims the CHRC attacks are poor. 90.7% of victims are so poor they are not able to even hire a lawyer to represent them. Victims are not able to get legal aid, and the government pays the expenses for the complainants.

The Nazis used militarist terms and concepts to forward their totalitarian agenda

The CHRC uses the language of war, of enemies, of  fear and hysteria and a belief that laws of coercion will change hearts. They publically write in terms of “fighting”, of “combating” those they disagree with, in which the fighters must show “solidarity”.

The Nazis used all means at their disposal to silence their opponents.

The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices…

Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act

The Nazis used the Gestapo to attack and silence their political opponents

The CHRC has benefited from the Police raiding people’s homes for alleged “hate”.  No criminal charges are ever filed but the CHRC uses the seized material against victims before the Tribunal (In contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms)  The CHRC pose as Nazis and infiltrate internet websites and message boards searching for Canadians with politically incorrect views to persecute.

The Nazis would get people fired from their employment over their beliefs

A recent victim of the CHRC (Terry Tremaine) was fired from his position at the University of Sask. for his political beliefs.

The Nazis used Krystalnacht (Night of broken Glass) to attack their enemies and used “brown shirts” to attack political opponents on the streets.

The CHRC has publicized groups with a long history of violence (ARA). This includes attempted murder, uttering death threats, assault and harassment – even advocating blowing up Domino Pizza outlets!



Dictators and totalitarian regimes around the world all have the same idea in mind, and they want to control information and stifle dissent at all cost. Under Adolf Hitler, political dissidents were imprisoned and sent to camps. In today’s communist China, the Communist politburo plots to “purify” the internet (China's top Red vows to 'purify' net – The UK Register, Jan 24th, 2007). In Saudi Arabia, internet bloggers sit in prisons. In Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s “Strategic initiatives” section sits in Ottawa and plots to “cleanse” the internet of idea’s and speech it doesn’t like. In all cases, the effect is the same. State sponsored control of information and political repression.


Because of the fanatical ideologically driven efforts of the “human rights nazis” at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada has now sunk to the level of a China, Nazi Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in terms censorship.  The apparatchiks at the CHRC regularly scour websites like looking for anything to attack their political opponents with. If they can’t find enough to “get them”, they get their willing accomplices in the Gestapo – Canada’s misnamed “hate crimes” political police – to raid people’s homes on trumped-up “hate” charges. The police, under the guise of criminality, seize computers, books, clothes and even shoes! The items will never be used in a real court – where real rules of evidence are used – but rather are entered as evidence before Kangaroo-like show trials at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, where fairness is almost unknown to those accused of “hate”.  The rules of evidence are just mere suggestions, hearsay and double hearsay evidence is just fine; where truth is NO defence (but rather a reason to convict the accused and increase the amount of the fine!); and where politically correctness reigns supreme. 


CHRC Emulated Chinese Internet Control Policy

Today in communist China, dissidents like Zhang Wei, are subjected to show trials and kangaroo courts, then locked away in jails. Zhang Wei is in a Chongqing jail for six years for running “unapproved news” in his paper. In September, 2006, the Canadian Human Rights Commission admitted during a conference call with the ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal in the Lemire case, that they have strong armed upwards of 200 to 300 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) [mostly in the United States, where the CHRC does not have ANY authority], to remove content they disagree with.  And amazingly this is done with no tribunal order or any determination of the material. Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be jealous!


Like other totalitarian countries, Canada has the stain on its history of imprisoning people due to their political beliefs. Just in terms of the Internet, at least four people recently have been or currently are in Canadian prisons.  “Thought criminals” like  Tomasz Winnicki, Terry Tremaine, Reinhold Meuller and Jean-Sebastient Presseault of Quebec for posting material on his website.


The misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission is currently undertaking an ideologically-driven war against speech and political commentary on the Internet. The CHRC’s censorship rage knows no limits. Some 46 cases have been brought since the inception of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship law), and every single one of the defendants were White. 98% of all cases involved poor defendants and only 9% could afford a lawyer to represent them. The CHRC is drunk with power, and intent on silencing all opinions they disagree with and will use “any means necessary” to enforce their politically motivated anti-White racial hatred on Canadians. And we say NO MORE!



Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada):


"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)



Attorney General of Canada – Rob Nicholson,

“Our government believes that Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda


... Maclean’s magazine, National Post, and even the Toronto Star says this section should go.”

(House of Commons – Parliament. Nov 2011)









>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<


Twitter:  Marc_Lemire

Twitter:  #Section13


   DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case


Legal arguments from the Marc Lemire case before the Federal Court of Canada. Marc Lemire is the only Canadian in history to ever beat the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in Sept 2009 won his case when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada's shameful censorship legislation) was found to be unconstitutional. This booklet covers

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback





TORONTO STAR: Free speech is the key


You know that Section 13 censorship is screwed when even the Toronto Star is calling for it to be scrapped!


Free speech is the key

Is a new era of freer speech about to dawn in this country? Canadians can only hope. We’ve lived with fetters for far too long.

In Ottawa, Parliament is debating a bill by Conservative MP Brian Storseth to erase obnoxious sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act that unduly restrict free speech in the name of silencing hate mongers. At the same time the Supreme Court of Canada is re-examining hate speech jurisprudence in a case stemming from Saskatchewan’s equally restrictive provincial rights code. And Federal Court is taking its own independent look at the federal act.

All this is reason to hope that the chill that has settled on our Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression over the past few decades is about to thaw.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, prohibits publishing via the Internet “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” That can draw fines of up to $10,000 plus heavy damages. That’s a damper on spirited public discourse. The act can be interpreted to cover stereotyping and defaming, as well as hate-mongering. There’s no need to prove intent. Evidence can be accepted that would not stand up in court. And guilt doesn’t have to be established beyond doubt. All this puts an unreasonable burden on anyone unlucky enough to be hauled on the carpet.

Some provincial codes are no better. In Saskatchewan, publishing material that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of groups such as gays or lesbians can also draw harsh penalties. Belittles? Affronts the dignity? How can that be measured, let alone defended against? British Colombia’s code has its own problematic prohibitions.

Most Canadians have no sympathy for hate mongers. But an unwarranted, creeping chill is being cast over free speech, absent any real problem. Human rights commissions should concern themselves with discriminatory behaviour, not discriminatory opinions. It’s time to reaffirm free speech.


Thursday, December 15, 2011

Marc Lemire on Ezra Levant's The Source on Section 13 censorship. Plus Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation

Marc Lemire on Ezra Levant's The Source on Section 13 censorship.  Plus Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation

THURSDAY DECEMBER 15, 2011:  Great interview of Marc Lemire by Ezra Levant on his SunTV show ‘The Source’.  The interview discusses the recent Federal Court of Canada appeal by the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission of the September 2009 decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which acquitted Marc Lemire and found that the despicable internet censorship provision, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as unconstitutional.

Chris Shafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation follows Marc Lemire and discusses the outrageous investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has been defined by the CHRC’s lead investigator – Dean Steacy, when he testified in the Lemire case that “Freedom of Speech Is an American Concept So I Don't Give It Any Value”.  While such comments are antithetical to most Canadians, it is standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says



TORONTO. December 13, 2011. The efforts by the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission to salvage Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) was heard in Federal Court in Toronto today. The case involves Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite. His lawyer Barbara Kulaszka opened her submissions by noting: "What I heard this morning was an attempt to put lipstick on a pig."


She added: "My friends are trying to convince you that all you have to do is sever the penalties and all will be well."


On September 2, 2009, Marc Lemire won a landmark decision, indeed, the only victim ever to win an Internet censorship case. He had challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13 and won. Member (Judge) Athanasios Hadjis had ruled that 1998 amendments to the act -- imposing fines and financial penalties -- meant the law was no longer "remedial" and, thus, went beyond what the Supreme Court had upheld as constitutional, in 1990 in the Taylor case, when it ruled the old version of Sec. 13 which censored political messages on telephone answering machines.


"Sec. 13 is a violation of freedom of speech," she argued. The Internet is a different context from what this law was in 1977, when it was instituted or 1998 when penalties were added. "Taylor referred to a two minute message on a telephone. Now the whole world is on the Internet, every newspaper and all sorts of scholarly publications. If we don't have freedom of speech, we don't have anything."


Sec. 13 had a 100 per cent conviction record "worthy of the Soviet Union."  The judge, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley, interrupted and told Miss Kulazska to "avoid hyperbole."


(See Flyer on the comparison between communism and the CHRC… is it really hyperbole?)


Once a complaint was laid, she argued, there is no defence -- not truth, not intent.


In arguing to salvage Sec. 13, the Commission's pricey outside counsel Margot Blight conceded that the penalties and fines were unconstitutional and would have to go. She as much as admitted there ware abuses and misdeed by Commission staff -- amply proven during the Lemire hearings. "Striking down the statute because of the activities of the Commission is draconian," she pleaded.


"The Tribunal concluded that the Commission didn't act in a sufficiently conciliatory fashion. The Commission referred the Lemire case to a Tribunal even though the impugned posts had been removed and it had declined Mr. Lemire's request for mediation." She sought the Court to remit the case back to the Tribunal for a decision on punishment on the sole count on which Mr. Lemire was found guilty -- a post by Kevin Alfred Strom on the dangers of AIDS and interracial sex.


Doug Christie, representing the Canadian Free Speech League, recalled: "On December 4, 1989, when I rose to speak in the Supreme Court in the Taylor case, I was all alone and there were 25 lawyers on the other side. Today, the sides are equal." It's dangerous, he argued, to disregard the many constitutional arguments made before the Tribunal.  "We have raised other reasons why Sec. 13 is unconstitutional.


Testimony before the Tribunal "showed that the Internet is a very different medium than telephone answering machines, there is the ability to reply or disregard the message." John Ross Taylor handed out business cards inviting people to call his message machine. Marc Lemire did no such thing, Mr. Christie explained. "There are millions of diverse blogs and websites on the Internet," he added. Back then there was only Mr. Taylor's voice asserting the truth. Now, on the Internet, there are many voices of refutation.


Complainant Richard Warman "presents himself as a victim, but he is a Nazi hunter," the Battling Barrister from Victoria insisted. "The message does not come to Mr. Warman. He finds it only after research." Mr. Christie added that the record shows that the Commission's expert witness Dr. Tsesis and Marc's expert neuropsychologist Dr. Michael Persinger both agreed that truth should be a defence; that truth is not hate. "Dr. Persinger said even hateful comments do not lead to violence.


Mr. Christie argued that Member Hadjis's ruling was inadequate. He could have given better reasons.


Representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Ottawa lawyer Gerald Langlois, QC., insisted: "The Court should declare Sec. 13 unconstitutional… There is no effort in Sec. 13 to accommodate the right to free speech… the effect of Sec. 13 on free speech is dire," he added. Citing Madame Justice Beverley McLaughlin's dissent in Taylor -- she is now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- Mr. Langlois argued that words like "hatred" and "contempt" and sketchy and vague. "I don't think there’s a person in this room who has not felt hate or contempt for someone. This law has made some groups more equal than others," has made some minorities privileged.


Mr. Langlois challenged the judge, "if you're not going to strike down Sec. 13 give us an overview and explain how Taylor can still stand."


Ed Morgan was the President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 2004-2007 and is an Honorary Patron of the Canadian Somali Congress. Today he was representing the “African Canadian” Legal Clinic. "Sec. 13," he argued, "is a necessary part of equality and is a necessary tool to confront anti-Black racism." [Although not a single “African-Canadian” has ever used to law in the over 30 years since the law was introduced]


Joint spokesman for interveners the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal, Marvin Kurz admitted: “I have a bit of a red face. I failed to file my book of authorities," until this morning. He argued: "The problems of hate speech and anti-Semitism and the use of the Internet to spread these ideas is of pressing concern to the Government of Canada."


The judge interrupted, "but the Government of Canada is not here," as they had been during the Tribunal. Observers suggest this means the government does not really stand behind the legislation.


Serial complaint filer Richard Warman was the only lawyer not to be gowned. He asked for his costs. He supported the Commission's position and complained that mediation in Sec. 13 cases is difficult. "The respondents deny their views are hate but insist on disseminating their White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs over the Internet."


Andrew Loken representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported Mr. Lemire and freedom of speech. Professor Richard Moon, appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, did a study of Sec. 13 and recommended its repeal in 2008, he pointed out. "The penalties under Sec. 13 encourage litigiousness."


He too noted the failure of the Attorney General of Canada to intervene to support Sec. 13.


"The Internet," he explained, "is excellent for counter speech to make your voice heard. Counter speech persuades more people than the CHRT's orders," he added. "The optimistic assumptions in Taylor that Sec. 13 would be conciliatory did not work out." The record shows that the Commission has been anything but conciliatory in Sec. 13 cases. "The CHRC has sought penalties in most Sec. 13 cases."


Also intervening on Marc Lemire's behalf was Jason Gratl representing the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. "It is not just permitted but required of the Tribunal to examine the effects of the legislation. Mr. Hadjis looked at the practical effect of the Act on those subjected to its decisions."


The Court was filled with supporters of freedom of speech. Many gathered around and congratulated Marc Lemire, Miss Kulazska, and Mr. Christie as the Court adjourned.


Mr. Justice Mosley reserved his decision.








>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<


Twitter:  Marc_Lemire

Twitter:  #Section13


   DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case


Legal arguments from the Marc Lemire case before the Federal Court of Canada. Marc Lemire is the only Canadian in history to ever beat the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in Sept 2009 won his case when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada's shameful censorship legislation) was found to be unconstitutional. This booklet covers

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback



Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Live Blogging of the Lemire Hearing Deciding the fate of section 13 - Canada's Internet Censorship Law



You can follow the hearing via the internet at the following sites:


·        TWITTERMarc_Lemire

·        Freedomsite:

·        StopSection13:



Discussions of the hearing at:


·        TWITTER#Section13

·        FreeDominion:





Monday, December 12, 2011

The Fall of Section 13 Censorship: Information on the Upcoming Lemire case

It is now just two days until the Federal Court of Canada hearing in the Marc Lemire case, which will review the constitutionality of Section 13 (internet censorship).  In 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acquitted Marc Lemire and threw out the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  The Canadian Human Rights Commission is seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.  After 2 years, the hearing is finally taking place in the Federal Court.  This hearing will determine if the Internet will continue to be censored by the out of control fanatics at the CHRC.

Here is all the background information on the case and how the follow the hearing on the Internet.  The hearing will be live blogged on the Freedomsite and via Twitter.  Discussions on the case are going to be hosted on Twitter also.


December 13 and 14, 2011
Federal Court of Canada
180 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario

Starts 9:30am daily.


You can follow the hearing via the internet at the following sites:

·        TWITTERMarc_Lemire
·        Freedomsite:
·        StopSection13:

Discussions of the hearing at:

·        TWITTER#Section13
·        FreeDominion:


The hearing will be presided over by Mr. Justice Richard Mosley.  (Contrary to incorrect information reported in the media)


The schedule is not written in stone, but it appears that on Tuesday Dec 13th it will be the CHRC and the Section 13 supporters.  On Wednesday Dec 14th it will start off with Lemire, and then groups opposed to Section 13 censorship.

1.    CHRC Submissions on Appeal
2.    Groups supporting the CHRC
a.     B’nai Brith Canada
b.    Canadian Jewish Congress (according to the National Post they are not attending)
c.     Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre
d.    African Canadian Legal Clinic
3.    Richard Warman in support of the CHRC
4.    Marc Lemire
5.    Groups supporting Lemire
a.     BC Civil Liberties Association
b.    Canadian Civil Liberties Association
c.     Canadian Free Speech League
d.    Canadian Association for Free Expression
6.    Reply submissions of the CHRC (Applicant)


These are the Factums of the main parties.  They set out the legal arguments of each group and their requests of the Court.

·        Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law [A must read!]
·        Written Representations of the Canadian Free Speech League
·        CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law

You can get a professionally printed copy of the Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law, which is reprinted in the book: Dismantling Tyranny.

  • Marc Lemire: Originally charged in 2003 for allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities to “hatred and/or contempt”.  Found innocent in 2009 but the censorship fanatics at the CHRC appealed the decision to the Federal Court. As of Dec 2011, Marc Lemire has been persecuted by the thought control fanatics for over 3,000 days and since 1977 is the only Canadian to ever win a Section 13 case

  • Barbara Kulaszka: Civil Liberties lawyer who has represented Lemire for over 7 years.  She is the only lawyer in Canada to ever win a Section 13 case. Barbara’s legal arguments have been published around the world, and she is very well respected by her peers. Known for her courage and legal skill.

  • Margot Blight:  Represents the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They appealed the decision.
  • Douglas Christie:  Long time barrister for freedom in Canada.  Represented the very first victim of Sec. 13.  Counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League.
  • British Columbia Civil Liberties Association: Civil lib association from BC.  Tried to intervene in Lemire case during the “human rights” tribunal.
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Long time supporters for freedom of speech in Canada.
  • Canadian Association for Free Expression: Also intervened during the Lemire tribunal.
  • Canadian Jewish Congress, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, B’nai Brith: The Censorship Musketeers
·        ‘African-Canadian’ Legal Clinic: Their lawyer was the former head of the Can Jewish Congress.


(Adobe PDF Format)
(Microsoft Word Format)
FLYER: Stop Section 13:  Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011
(JPEG Format)

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has endless money to keep their censorship franchise running.  I have beaten the CHRC at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; and with your help, we will beat them once and for all at the Federal Court of Canada as well!  I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. No organizations are assisting with the bill at all.  As you know, I don’t send out a newsletter monthly asking for help.  I only send them out when I have exhausted all my resources and really need your help to continue.  This is one of those times!  I currently have a large amount of bills and expenses to fight this case, and really need your help to continue.  We are on the verge of beating the CHRC for good!

Send your cheque or money order to:

Marc Lemire
762 Upper James St
Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario
L9C 3A2



The Marc Lemire Case

Dismantling Tyranny: The Marc Lemire Case, details the upcoming battle at the Federal Court of Canada over Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. After a 6 year legal fight, in September 2009 I was the first person in the history of Canada to win a Section 13 case at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found me innocent of allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities “to hatred and/or contempt” and found the law under which I was hauled before the Tribunal as unconstitutional under Canada’s laws.  The fanatical censors at the CHRC – caring little about tax-payers money – appealed the Tribunal decision to the Federal Court of Canada, in a lame attempt to keep their censorship franchise afloat.
Dismantling Tyranny details exactly what is wrong with Section 13 and Internet censorship.  It is a broad look at how the dirty side of censorship really works, from the suppression of freedom of speech (which the CHRC considers an “American concept”) to spying on Canadians. This 80 page book covers the facts of censorship from both a legal and moral position and is a must read for anyone that has been following the utter fall from grace these disgusting censors so richly deserve.
Dismantling Tyranny is available in paperback and Ebook formats.  You can order online from one of the mainstream book distributors like or or directly from me.  If you want a copy of the book prior to the December 13-14 Federal Court hearing, order it directly from me via my website.  You can get either a professionally printed paperpack, or a copy in Adobe PDF format.  For the paperback version, I send them out nightly, and if you get your order in soon, you should be able to have it prior to the hearing. If you order the Ebook format, it will be emailed to you within a few hours.

Follow the case live at:

Twitter:  Marc_Lemire
Twitter:  #Section13

   DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case

Legal arguments from the Marc Lemire case before the Federal Court of Canada. Marc Lemire is the only Canadian in history to ever beat the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in Sept 2009 won his case when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada's shameful censorship legislation) was found to be unconstitutional. This booklet covers the December 2011 appeal by the fanatical censors at the CHRC to the Federal Court of Canada
Paperback: $15.00 | Order now
EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback
Dec. 13-14, 2011
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario [..more]