Thursday, July 28, 2011

*** Canadian Jewish Congress is discontinuing its activities


Wow…  The CJC is defunct?   Wonder if they are still going to be intervening in my case?








Canadian Jewish Congress is discontinuing its activities

Effective July 1st, the Canadian Jewish Congress is discontinuing its activities. Canadian Jewish advocacy will be handled by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA). In the near future, the CIJA website will be overhauled and expanded to reflect the enlarged mandate.

For more information, please contact Judy Zelikovitz at 416-489-8889 ext 338.




Saturday, July 23, 2011

FreeDominion Appeal Court Ruling to Protect Anonymity of Users - CCLA set to intervene in John Doe Appeal again!

From FreeDominion:  


On July 28, 2011, there will be a hearing in Ottawa where we will be asking for leave to appeal the Blishen decision in the John Doe case.

To refresh your memory, this is part of a long battle over the personal information of John Doe posters who have been sued for defamation by Richard Warman. Warman brought a motion to the court asking for that information, and the judge ordered us to turn it over. We appealed that decision to Divisional Court where the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic intervened and argued that anonymous posters should not be unmasked automatically upon the mere allegation of defamation. We won the appeal and the Divisional Court devised a test that must be met before that information would be ordered to be turned over. Richard Warman took us back to a motions judge where the judge was to apply the new test and decide if the information should be turned over.

After a lengthy deliberation, the judge reached her verdict, and she decided against us. We don't believe that she applied the new test correctly, and the CCLA agrees with us so strongly that they are submitting their own affidavit for the motion for leave to appeal.

We are so thankful that the CCLA sees how important this issue is, and that they are willing to step up and help us again.

Here is their affidavit:

Please pass along this information and try to make it to our hearing on the 28th. (This has been moved from the 22nd)

It is very important that we have supporters in the court room so that the judge will see that this is an important issue.




If you’re in Ottawa, pass by the court house and show your support for freedom of speech.  This is a huge case for freedom of expression.  The amazing civil liberties lawyer Barbara Kulaszka is once again representing FreeDominion.  And the Canadian Civil Liberties Association may also be present.  It is well worth your time to just go by and hear the submissions of Barbara Kulaszka.  She is a fantastic presenter and her submissions are always clear, concise and thought provoking.



July 28, 2011

Ontario Superior Court

161 Elgin St
Ottawa, ON


[Google Map]


Ask at information counter for the court room number.



More information at:




Tuesday, July 19, 2011

FreeDominion in Ottawa Court - July 21st - Baglow Dismissal Motion

FreeDominioner’s Mark Fournier, Peter O'Donnell and Connie Fournier will be in the Ontario Superior Court on Elgin Street in Ottawa on July 21, 2011.

John Baglow, aka Dr. Dawg, has decided to sue [FreeDominion] for defamation, and [FreeDominion] has made a motion to dismiss his claim as frivolous and vexatious.

This is the fourth lawsuit that has been launched against us. The others have dragged on for years, but this is your chance to be in the courtroom as both sides lay it all on the table in this case. If we get our way, the judge will look at the evidence and decide this once and for all.



This court date will hear the application to dismiss.  The fabulous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka will be representing FreeDominion and the hearing sounds like it will be a great battle for freedom of speech against what some have called a “frivolous” SLAPP lawsuit.  It would be well worth going by the court just to hear Barbara’s arguments.  Her submissions are always thought provoking, direct on point, and very interesting.


If you’re in Ottawa, pass by the court house and show your support for freedom of speech.



July 21, 2011

Ontario Superior Court

161 Elgin St
Ottawa, ON


[Google Map]



More information at:



Only Whites can be Racist? Yes... according to the kooks at the Toronto District School Board.

Only Whites can be Racist? Yes... according to the kooks at the Toronto District School Board.

The Toronto District School Board might claim that only "Whites" are racist, but check out this headline from today's Daily Mail:

'I was robbed, beaten and mocked for being white': Man suffers vicious 'racial attack' on New York subway

18th July 2011

A New York man was beaten and robbed on a subway train yesterday by four men who he claims picked on him because he is white.

Jason Fordell, 29, of Brooklyn, was on his way home at 5am from an East Village nightclub, where he sells hand-designed leather accessories, when he was affronted by a gang of black men.

Police said four young men began harassing him and then another passenger joined in the spontaneous attack.

Mr Fordell said: 'Everyone on the train was egging them on.

'People started saying stupid little comments - cracker this, white boy this, f*** this.'

He told the New York Daily News: 'I told them the only reason they were saying this is there was four of them and one of me.

'I'm a small little white kid with long hair. They got guys three times my size threatening me.

He added: 'I was in a headlock, punched and kicked on the floor.

'I had a whole lot of bleeding from my skull. My eye is swollen five different colours. There was blood in my urine. I have a footprint on my back and on the back of my neck.'

Mr Fordell said after the initial attack on the train he got off at his Fordham Road stop where the assailants snatched his bag, containing $2,900 worth of merchandise. He chased them before he was attacked again while they escaped with the bag.


[See full news story at:]

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Toronto District School Board Teaches That Only White People Are Racist


Blazingcatfur has a good blog posting today.




Toronto District School Board Teaches That Only White People Are Racist

Reader JH asked: Am I reading this correctly? Yes Jim you are. The Toronto District School Board has decreed that "Only White People Are Racist" 

From the TDSB Resource: Teaching about Human Rights 9/11 and Beyond A Package for Educators Grades 7-12

Definitions Pages 5-6 - found on page 70 of this document.


"While people in different contexts can experience prejudice or discrimination, racism, in a North American context, is based on an ideology of the superiority of the white race over other racial groups. Racism is evident in individual acts, such as racial slurs, jokes, etc., and institutionally, in terms of policies and practices at institutional levels of society. The result of institutional racism is that it maintains white privilege and power (such as racial profiling, hiring practices, history, and literature that centre on Western, European civilizations to the exclusion of other civilizations and communities). The social, systemic, and personal assumptions, practices, and behaviours that discriminate against persons according to their skin colour, hair texture, eye shape, and other superficial physical characteristics."


This is child abuse, it is hate speech, I strongly encourage any parent unfortunate enough to have a child in this filth ridden system to file a complaint with the Toronto Police Services Hate Crimes Unit and to launch a civil suit against the TDSB. (I think that’s a great idea. Flood the system with complaints — especially as they’re valid ones. Instapundit)

I also encourage you to contact the TDSB directly, this cannot be allowed to stand. Contact by phone, by e-mail, or via Twitter - @TDSB_Official


You can see the entire posting and comments at:









Saturday, July 9, 2011

Stop Online Spying in Canada

"We oppose mandatory Internet surveillance. This scheme is poorly thought out, costly, and will leave our personal information less secure. Unchecked mass surveillance is a breach of our fundamental right to privacy."

[From:] The government is trying to ram through an anti-Internet set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to surrender our personal information to "authorities" without a warrant.

This bizarre legislation will create Internet surveillance that is:
  • Warrantless: A range of "authorities" will have the ability to invade the private lives of law-abiding Canadians and our families using wired Internet and mobile devices, without a warrant or any justification.
  • Invasive and Dangerous: The laws leave our personal and financial information less secure and more susceptible to cybercrime.
  • Costly: Internet services providers may be forced to install millions of dollars worth of spying technology and the cost will be passed down to YOU.
If enough of us speak out now the government will have no choice but to stop this mandatory online spying scheme.

Sign the petition now, and forward it to everyone you know →


The Globe And Mail: Bill C-51 will turn ISPs into Internet gatekeepers

TVO’s Search Engine: It's Time to Worry About Lawful Access

Michael Geist: Web Surveillance Legislation Requires Study, Not Speed

Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Canadian police state legislation needs closer examination

Letter to Public Safety Canada from Canada's Privacy Commissioners and Ombudspersons on the current 'Lawful Access' proposals

From Maiden Heaven and others on the Facebook Discussion Boards: Canadian police state legislation needs closer examination


Wednesday, July 6, 2011

CHRC: No Section 13 Complaints in 2010 ... so what do we need this law for?

CHRC says: No Section 13 (Internet censorship) Complaints in 2010!
… so what do we need this law for?

On July 5, 2011, David Gollob the Director of Communications for the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission wrote a letter to the editor of the Langley Advance. In the letter, Mr. Gollob states that “The Commission did not accept any complaints under section 13 in 2010.”  Mr. Gollobs can be read in its entirety online at:

Section 13 is the controversial censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which allows fanatical rights enforcers the ability to gag so-called “thought criminals” for life. Along with lifetime gag orders, Kangaroo courts which hear the complaints can also issue heavy fines up to $30,000 in total. So far over 37 Canadians suffer under a permanent lifetime speech ban, which if violated can result in up to five years in jail for contempt of court.

Now that yet another year has passed without a single Section 13 complaint being filed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, why on earth do we need this censorship law on our books?   

In all of 2010, not a single complaint was accepted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission … and amazingly the sky did not fall.  Jews are not being beaten up on the streets, Nazis have not taken over Parliament, and homosexuals are not being rounded up into camps. Life went on without the iron fist of the state looking over our shoulders and telling us what we can and can not say. Of course if you listen to the human rights maniacs, the physical and psychological security of the Jewish community would be in peril if Section 13 was struck down.

After looking at cases such as the Mark Steyn/Macleans Magazine debacle, it is clear that Section 13 has a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Canada.  How many other Canadians would want to be ground through the CHRC’s process – which is clearly meant as a punishment itself? In the case of Macleans Magazine, it cost them around $1,000,000 to defend the case, and at the end of it all, Kenneth Whyte, Editor in Chief of Macleans Magazine said that “There will absolutely be self-censoring, and it will be harder going forward to have clear and full debates on a lot of important issues like race or religion or public policy because of this.” [Daily Gleaner, Print media will stay relevant because it must: Whyte, January 31, 2009] How many editors and newspapers will allow commentary on controversial issues if they are going to face being labeled as racist or Islamophobes, in conjunction with years of costly litigation, where the tribunal boasts a 98% conviction rate? 

Mr. Gollob from the CHRC also states in the letter to the editor that “However, one such complaint, involving Maclean’s magazine, did receive media attention four years ago. That complaint was dismissed by the Commission, as it was found to have no merit. As that case illustrates, the Commission works to ensure that only complaints of real and actual discrimination under the Act are accepted.

The decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to drop the complaint against Macleans Magazine was done to stop the onslaught of negative media the CHRC was receiving.  During the time the CHRC was investigating Macleans, hundreds of articles and editorials appeared in the media from coast to coast.  The CHRC wanted the daily negative media publicity to stop, so they suddenly found freedom of speech and dismissed the complaint.

The truth behind the dismissal of the Macleans complaint is that the Investigator of the case wasn’t so sure it should just be dismissed.  The Investigator highlighted that what Mark Steyn wrote could expose Muslims to hatred and contempt.

In the March 25 2008 CHRC Investigators report on the Macleans complaint, the Investigator wrote in paragraph 49:

“It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to request that the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is of the view that:

•           the material does appear to meet some of the hallmarks of hate and is of such a nature that it may likely expose persons of the Muslim faith to hatred and contempt;

•           a decision by the Tribunal addressing the fact situation in this case may be in the public interest as it raises new considerations regarding the relationship between section 13 and the right of freedom of the press, as aspect of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression.”

The complaint against Macleans Magazine was dropped when it reached the “political level” at the CHRC, but it was obvious that the investigator in the case recommended “in the alternative” that the case go to a tribunal.

The CHRC’s “political level” is staffed by political appointees like the Jet-setting world traveler - Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch and Deputy Chief Commissioner David Langtry.  They have the role of reviewing the complaint and approving it to be sent onto a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.   Unlike the investigator in the Macleans case, the political Kangaroos smelled the political wind, and threw out the case like a hot potato.

How many editors and newspapers will allow commentary on controversial issues if they are going to face being labeled as racist or Islamophobes, in conjunction with years of costly litigation, where the tribunal boasts a 100% conviction rate?  As Macleans Magazine reports: "Cases like these foster an atmosphere in which sensible people who know they can't summon the resources to defend themselves will censor themselves. It creates an ever-growing body of very regressive law when it comes to the integrity and freedom of a democratic forum."  (John Dixon, a two-term former president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association) 

Self-censorship has always been a goal of the CHRC, which is why they have undertaken costly impact prosecutions on the few that resisted.  Making examples of what will happen to those that dare to stand up to the CHRC ensures that few will ever stand up in the future.

The complaint against Macleans Magazine was laid by a Muslim group named the Canadian Islamic Congress.  The Muslim complaint comes on the heels of CHRC staff drumming up business.  On June 29th, 2006, Harvey Goldberg, the senior policy advisor for Section 13 with the CHRC traveled to Toronto to meet with a delegation of Muslims from the Canadian Arab Federation.  As a result of that meeting, Mr. Goldberg wrote to Ian Fine, the Director of the CHRC’s oddly named “Knowledge Centre.”   

In Goldberg’s July 5th, 2006 memo, he states:

A couple representatives of the Muslim community expressed concern that the threshold for hate was too high and that much of what they perceived as anti-Islamic comments in the media and elsewhere would not be included in the current definition of hate. I referred them to the [Name redacted by CHRC] article in the Hate on the Internet magazine, copies of which I had distributed.

They also questioned whether the Commission would accept complaints dealing with anti-Muslim sentiments. I assured them that the Commission was fully committed to fulfilling its mandate under section 13.
Overall I think this round of meetings was successful in the continuing process of networking with key stakeholders and of furthering the Commission initiatives in the areas of disability and hate on the Internet.”

It looks like the representatives of the Muslim community were 100% correct with their skepticism of the CHRC.  On June 25th 2008, in a highly political decision, the Canadian Human Rights Commission refused to accept the complaint filed by Canadian Islamic Congress against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine).   

The decision by the CHRC stated that: “Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision.  Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13(1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.  For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.

It appears that after some 250 articles in the mainstream press highly critical of the CHRC, the Commission suddenly found freedom of speech.

It’s time to scrap Section 13 and get the government out of the thought control and censorship business.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

What's positive happening for Freedom this week. Roundup of articles.


What’s positive happening for Freedom this week.  Roundup of articles.



·        Judge Says Google Can be Sued for Sniffing WiFi Packets eavesdropping on unprotected WiFi APs is still eavesdropping!

·        [VIDEO] Levant & Shaidle on anti-gay speech planned for Pride week Conference coincide with Pride weekend

·        [CCF] Feds back out of Whatcott case, save taxpayers a bit of money

·        Interesting Vid (EFF) "Using 'National Security' Concerns to Hide Internet Censorship" Canada does same thing

·        THE CENSOR DOWN UNDER: Australia Heads down the Slippery Slope, Authorizes ISPs to "voluntarily block" Block Content.

·        Alberta's Wildrose Party voted overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing Alberta's Human Rights Tribunals Good Riddance!

·        Know Your Rights: What to Do When Law Enforcement Goes After Your Digital Data. EFF's Guide

·        Bravo to Guy Earle for fighting back! "Comedian takes B.C.’s Human Rights Code to court over gay slur decision"  

·        The Human Right to Tweet? Broadcaster fired over controversial tweet files human rights complaint with CHRC

·        Wilders acquitted of hate speech against Muslims