Wednesday, February 27, 2013

[AUDIO] John Gormley Live - Douglas H. Christie, Lawyer and Activist

An interesting interview of Douglas Christie (from his hospital bed) by John Gormley - live on CJME 980 in Regina, Saskatchewan.


Download the audio file of the 18 minute interview here:





John Gormley Live - Douglas H. Christie, Lawyer and Activist - The man who defended Canada’s most notorious hate-mongers is dying of liver cancer

Audio File: 


Broadcast Date/Time: 

Tue, 2013-02-26 (All day)

Douglas Christie-known as the ‘Battling Barrister’ due to his counsel of Canada’s most hated hate-mongers (including a former Nazi SS guard) is dying of liver cancer. He joins John.

Douglas H. Christie, Lawyer and Activist.







[TIMES COLONIST] Victoria lawyer Doug Christie, who defended Zundel and Keegstra, is dying


Ignore the shocking headline.  The article itself is not as bad as the CBC hit piece or the National Putz.



Victoria lawyer Doug Christie, who defended Zundel and Keegstra, is dying

Richard Watts and Louise Dickson / Times Colonist
February 26, 2013



A Victoria lawyer who has earned a reputation among some as a fearless defender of free speech and others as an apologist for hate criminals is dying.

Doug Christie, 66, has been admitted to Royal Jubilee Hospital and in a Monday telephone interview, confirmed doctors have told him he has cancer in his liver and about six months to live.

He expressed gratitude to those who have shown him kindness and to Victoria, “the most beautiful city in all Canada.” His only regret is leaving his clients without representation, he said. “There are still some big battles ahead.”

Christie is one of the most well-known and controversial lawyers in Canada. Defendants in his high-profile court cases include Jim Keegstra, the Alberta teacher who was fired for teaching his students that Jews were conspiring to take over the world and convicted of spreading hate, and Ernst Zundel, a Toronto printer who distributed a tract questioning whether six million Jews died during the Holocaust. Christie won the latter case, forcing a rewrite of the Canadian Criminal Code after the law against “spreading false news” was ruled unconstitutional. He even successfully defended a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Christie has always been careful not to publicly support the views of his clients, insisting his cases were about protecting the right to free speech.

But his controversial caseload earned him many critics. In 1993, the Law Society of Upper Canada wrote that based on his comments during the trial of alleged Nazi war criminal Imre Finta, Christie had “crossed the fine line separating counsel from client.” But the society nevertheless dropped misconduct charges against him.

For his clients, he will always be “the battling barrister,” the lawyer who never hesitated to stand by them and defend their right to have an opinion and to speak it aloud.

“I am very grateful I had the chance to battle for thought, to choose what I thought was the right thing,” Christie said Monday. “The power of the state is an absolute power and like all absolute power, tends over time to be corrupted.”

Christie also expressed gratitude for the chance to earn his living the way he did, calling defence lawyers the only thing standing between citizens and state oppression. “Without defence lawyers, you wouldn’t even need the courts — you would need only a police state,” he said.

Christie’s Victoria friend Barclay Johnson said Christie has attracted clients who are not especially likable. “But you don’t necessarily have to share the view of your clients when you take on cases.”

He said Christie modelled much of his life after Robert E. Lee, the American Civil War-era Confederate general, who also took on a cause with the odds against him. “Doug has a very strong belief in representing people in those situations,” said Johnson. “He is a real fighter and a gentleman as well.”

He said Christie was first diagnosed with prostate cancer in November 2011 and underwent chemotherapy. The disease now appears to have spread. Christie has been married for 31 years and has two children, a 22-year-old son and a 20-year-old daughter.








Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Doug Christie: In his own Words (Immortal freedom fighter and hero)

Doug Christie: In his own Words 
(Immortal freedom fighter and hero)

Forget about the media invective that is currently being hurled at Douglas Christie by the whores in the controlled media party.  Doug Christie is a decent, honourable and true fighter for individual liberty and freedom of speech in Canada.  You can count on a single hand the number of decent lawyers in Canada, and Doug Christie is one of them!

Find out who Douglas Christie really is – from his own words, in this YouTube video:

Douglas Christie: "Who I Am"

Doug Christie had a long and memorable legal practice.  While the media gets in a lather about Doug’s more controversial so-called “racist” and “anti-Semitic” clients (because Doug dared to represent them), they actually only made up a small portion of his legal practice.  According to the video above, Doug has represented clients on about 8,000 cases over 37 years as a defence lawyer – generally representing the rights of the individual against the state. His cases range from child custody cases where the state persecuted parents to tax freedom cases.

Douglas Christie is a hero and dedicated fighter for freedom of speech.  In my youth, I recollect attending a meeting where he was the guest speaker. I was struck not only by his superior oratory skills, but even more so by both his passion and love for freedom. He brilliantly conveyed the significance of what freedom is all about and how vital it is to resist artificially induced state control over it.

Over the past couple of decades I have become closely acquainted with Doug. The respect that spawned the evening I saw him speak for the first time only deepened with every case and submission that he made on behalf of freedom. His defences consisted of a rare combination of sound logic and reason combined with compelling emotion.

In my case before the Kangaroo court also known as the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, Doug flew all the way from Victoria in order to participate. Typically, he had a major impact but none more poignant than when he raised questions about the “mental serenity issues” surrounding CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. It was vintage Doug Christie! 

Here are some of the transcript references of Doug Christie’s submissions to the Tribunal:

MR. CHRISTIE: I have heard two explanations which are as frivolous as any I have ever heard in justifying an adjournment of a whole proceeding… To say I am not feeling well, but sit here and talk about it, is inconsistent. There is no medical certificate, and I heard very faintly Mr. Vigna say I'm not physically sick, I don't have a serene state of mind. Very few of us in the difficulties we face always have a serene state of mind. I don't know what that means. 

This is not a case of a nervous breakdown or a mental state justifying a psychiatric examination.

… it’s not entirely clear what the cause of Mr. Vigna's mental state is … if Mr. Vigna is providing a medical certificate … If there is a serious long-term mental problem that isn't related to this serious issue, I think it's appropriate that we should know about it.

MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I will provide a medical certificate.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down, Mr. Vigna.
MR. VIGNA: I feel insulted by that comment.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please sit down.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Ottawa , Ontario

The closing submissions Doug gave in my case was a sight to behold.  The entire courtroom was mesmerized as Doug hammered away at the pillars of censorship for close to two hours!  Doug has a commanding voice and delivery that would make Clarence Darrow jealous.

Doug Christie wrapped up his comments with these very insightful critiques of censorship:

We’re here because this legislation is no joke. It has created a monstrous threat to freedom of speech. The passage of time has changed the nature of the communication, increased its volume, and made it rebuttable from the time of Taylor. 

If Sec. 13 had attacked the activities of drug user, lawyers would be lined up for their defence of narcotics users, but as it attacks free speech, there are few to defend it. Apparently, drug users are more popular than free speech.

The enemies of free speech don’t want to debate their opponents; they want to silence them. I don’t hesitate to say hate is right in some cases; hate for evil and hate where the lives of innocent people are at stake. We’re not allowed to argue the truth of what we say that might prove the validity of strong opinions.

The Commission wants a cease and desist order against Marc Lemire for a website he neither owns nor controls. This legislation allows this absurdity.

Apparently, to have an honest opinion that people don’t like is to violate the law. It is implicit that truth is no defence, honest belief is no defence, intent is no defence.

Hatred and contempt without reference to truth – which is not a Sec. 13 defence – is an invitation to hypocrisy.  If we keep this legislation, we will undermine democracy and promote hypocrisy.

Doug Christie, you are my hero, and I wish you well.  For 40 years, Doug has stood (often alone) as the beacon for freedom against state control, censorship and bullying.

You’re in my thoughts and prayers, and so is your entire family.

-Marc Lemire
February 26, 2013

Universal Principles of freedom of speech
Free Speech lawyer Douglas Christie discusses the concept of universal principles in freedom of speech cases. Is free speech for everyone or just your friends?

Living Free in an Unfree World
Western Canadian Separatist and free speech lawyer Douglas Christie talks about freedom, purpose and self-fulfillment, in an unfree world.

Doug Christie on BBC
Douglas Christie, defense lawyer for Imre Finta in Canada's only war crimes trial, appears on the BBC

Monday, February 25, 2013

Update on Doug Christie's Medical Condition

Here is an update on Doug Christie from his wonderful wife – Keltie:




I am writing to tell you about Doug’s recent diagnosis of metastatic liver cancer, and its implications.


Ironically, the hundreds of tiny, diffused foci of cancer that have spread to his liver, have apparently not come from the prostate cancer, which seems to be controlled, but from some unknown, new primary, that they are currently trying to locate. The doctors give an estimate of six months to live, but Doug and the kids and I realize this is only approximate and will rely on a number of factors. Consequently, we are dealing with an unknown time-frame. He is pretty weak and fragile, and the disease seems to have been moving extremely quickly, and continues to do so.


He's been fighting hard in a jury trial for about three weeks, getting progressively sicker each day with pain and nausea until on Thursday he just couldn't continue. There's only about two days left in the trial and of course Doug wanted to finish it for the client because that's Doug’s way. He would always fight to the very last inch for his clients and his principles, and that's why he's been both reviled and loved. Anyway, he just couldn't do it and the case was adjourned for me to take him to emergency and that's where this pervasive cancer was discovered. Despite the pain and nausea and weakness, up till yesterday afternoon he was still determined that he would go back to court on Tuesday for his very last jury address. That is not going to happen, as he just is not able. It’s very hard to believe that he is at this state in his life, so suddenly.


Our children and I are reeling in shock, but somehow we are not surprised because he's had such battle fatigue for a very long time. Many of you have realized that, I know, seeing him fight so hard for so many years, being under the pressures of taking on unpopular cases and always being misunderstood for it. That has taken its toll. Despite that, you and I will always remember his humour and his loving generosity and his great joy in music, beauty, and human courage.


I am infinitely grateful for the people who have seen who he really is, and cared enough to communicate this to him, reminding him that he has not been alone in these terrible struggles. I hope that those of you who feel inclined to do so, will send him a little message of what is in your heart and mind for him. You can email me in reply to this letter, or send messages to Box 101, 255 Menzies Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3G6. Emails would be better as they will get here faster. His email address is and he can get them on his cellphone, which he has with him in the hospital while they do more tests and try to get his pain and nausea under control before he can, we hope, come home. He does not have the stamina right now for visitors or many phone calls.


For quite a few years now, I’ve been trying to get him to at least start on his memoirs, and I want to tell you that he’s left a body of writing that I will be able to work with so that his courageous story will be told.


Thanks again for the loving kindness of you, our friends near and far. You have supported the principles of freedom for many years, through all these struggles and we are deeply grateful for you.


Keltie Zubko






[Catholic Register] Section 13 repeal 'not a done deal'

Section 13 repeal ‘not a done deal’


Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News

Thursday, 21 February 2013 13:19


Sen. Douglas Finley

Senate is next obstacle for end to anti-free speech clause in rights act

OTTAWA - Senator Douglas Finley warns the passage of Bill C-304 to eliminate the anti-free speech Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is “not a done deal.”

Conservative MP Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill to eliminate the vaguely worded Section 13 clause that deems communication “likely” to expose a protected group to hatred or contempt discrimination under the act passed the House of Commons last June. Finley, the Conservative senator who is shepherding the bill’s passage through the Senate, said many pundits assumed the fight had been won then, leaving “a false impression.”

“This will receive opposition in the Senate, although we have a pretty large majority,” Finley said, noting that even some Conservative senators have spoken against it.

Bill C-304 is expected to go to a vote on second reading soon. Finley expects the bill to pass and go on to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, which will receive witnesses.

“How long this will take is very largely a matter of the interest shown by outside witnesses to attend the hearings,” he said.

“The process can take anywhere from a matter of days to several months. It’s difficult to predict,” but the “issue provokes passion on both sides of the argument.”

Finley said he “would really like to see the passion warm up again, especially among those who are passionate against Section 13.”
Opponents of Bill C-304 “are rallying their side,” he said. “They know the battle’s not over with.”

Section 13 and similar provisions in provincial human rights codes have been used against Catholic Insight magazine, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry and a number of others for Christian expression on issues such as traditional marriage and Christian teachings on human sexuality.

The Catholic Civil Rights League’s Joanne McGarry “hopes that the legislation to end Section 13 will make its way through the Senate and become law as soon as possible. The peaceable expression of opinion based on religious belief should not be penalized in a democracy, and Section 13 gave far too much power to non-judicial tribunals to do just that, as for example in the case of Catholic Insight magazine.

“In our view, limitations on expression should be subject to the built-in protections of real courts through libel and slander laws and hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code,” she said.

“It’s a badly used, blunt-force tool,” said Finley. “It’s outrageous.”

When Finley spoke on the bill last June, he said Section 13 has jeopardized freedom of speech in Canada.

“The broad scope of this section and the wide investigative powers and quasi-judicial independence granted to human rights commissions places too much power in the hands of unelected officials,” he said. “These commissions have, in the last decade at least, run roughshod over the civil liberties of Canadians. Political correctness has run amok.

“The abuses of both provincial and federal human rights commissions cannot be allowed to continue unabated,” he said. “The censorship of politically incorrect statements in publications is not only wrong but also contrary to our democratic principles.”

But Bill C-304 faces stiff opposition from Liberals led by Senator Jim Munson, a former television journalist. In October, Munson told the Senate Section 13 “plays a crucial role in promoting tolerance and respect among Canadians.”

Section 13 and the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada “are a necessary complement to one another,” he said, noting the higher burden of proof required by the Criminal Code.

Munson described the debate on Section 13 as “the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country.”



Doug Christie Very Ill, Suspends his Legal Practice [National PUTZ article]

This is very sad news to hear that Doug Christie is seriously ill.  He is a great defender for freedom in Canada and also a great person.

Take the following article with a grain of salt, as it comes from a reporter with a certain view, who is obsessed with trying to fit the words “hater”, “racist” and “failed defence” in almost every paragraph.  Typical stuff from the National Putz!

Doug Christie is a decent and caring lawyer who actually took his legal oath seriously; to defend and represent his clients to the best of his ability.  His monumental defences of freedom, stuck down many unjust laws in Canada, including the notorious “false news” law and the despicable “War Crimes” law, which suffered its rightful death.  All Canadians owe him a debt of gratitude.

Doug Christie will be in my prayers and I hope yours too.  

-Marc Lemire
February 25, 2013


‘It’s the end of everything’: Defender of hatemongers, free speech fighting terminal liver cancer

Joseph Brean | Feb 24, 2013 11:30 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 24, 2013 11:31 PM ET
More from Joseph Brean
John Major, for National PostDouglas H. Christie has made a career of representing clients in landmark Canadian hate speech and war crime trials.
Douglas H. Christie, the so-called Battling Barrister, counsel to almost every prominent Canadian hatemonger of the last thirty years, from John Ross Taylor to Ernst Zundel, has advanced liver cancer and is not expected to live more than six months. He is not being treated, and has withdrawn from the defense of Arthur Topham, a British Columbia man facing trial on a rare charge of wilful promotion of hatred.
“If the doctors are right, it’s the end of everything,” Mr. Christie said yesterday from his bed at home in Victoria, B.C.
The illness marks the close of a remarkable legal career that has seen Mr. Christie stand up for freedom of speech, even in defense of the most vile propaganda and often illegal racist incitement, everywhere from human rights tribunals to the Supreme Court of Canada. As such, it leaves a gaping hole in Canada’s legal scene.
“I don’t know anybody that’s willing to take these on with the type of commitment I think is necessary, because it certainly is a costly process, in time, in effort, and in reputation,” he said, and compared himself to Father Damien, a sainted 19th century Belgian priest who cared for people with leprosy in Hawaii.
You become associated with your clients and, as Father Damien found, eventually you become a leper
“You become associated with your clients and, as Father Damien found, eventually you become a leper,” he said.
Mr. Christie’s clients make up a rogues’ gallery of racism in Canada and their cases mark the limits of Canada’s uniquely compromising approach to the regulation of hate. They include John Ross Taylor, whose failed defense by Mr. Christie at the Supreme Court in 1990 remains the precedent on which hate speech cases are still argued, and Ernst Zundel, the Holocaust denier whose case saw the criminal law against “false news” struck down as unconstitutional.
As head of his Canadian Free Speech League, Mr. Christie also played an important intervenor role in the hate tribunal of FreedomSite webmaster Marc Lemire, in which the internet hate-speech section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was also judged to run afoul of the Charter right to free speech.
His first big hate case was against Jim Keegstra, a teacher and former mayor of Eckville, Alberta, who was charged in 1984 with promoting hatred by spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to high school students. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction because pursuing a defense of truth placed too high a burden on the accused, but it was reinstated by the Supreme Court, in a 1990 analysis that remains the legal benchmark.
“At that time, it was a novel proposition to prosecute people for what they said,” Mr. Christie said. Criminal hate laws had been on the books since the 1960s, but were effectively dormant, and Keegstra “was the first case in which the state felt it was entitled to criminalize persons on the basis of what they sincerely believed.”
Since then, Mr. Christie has been spoiled for choice. He represented Michael Seifert, a Nazi SS guard whom Canada extradited to Italy in 2008 for gruesome concentration camp murders, and Imre Finta, acquitted in 1990 in Canada’s first war crimes prosecution.
He saw disgraced native leader David Ahenakew through to an acquittal for his anti-Semitic comments, which was a cause of embarrassment for the Saskatchewan Crown. “It’s quite a mixed bag when you charge a visible minority person with a hate crime, because the only people who are supposed to be haters are white people,” Mr. Christie said.
TYLER BROWNBRIDGE / Postmedia News FIlesDouglas Christie.
His most famous client of all was Zundel, a German who was barred from arguing the “truth” of his holocaust denial theories as a defense against a human rights complaint, and he later represented Zundel’s reactionary protege, Wolfgang Droege, whose Heritage Front brought racial violence to the streets of Toronto.
The roster also includes some quirks, such as the Ontario gentleman who does not believe the constitution permits the government to collect taxes from him.
Perhaps inevitably, Mr. Christie has been accused of being a fellow traveller with racists, and defending them because he shares their beliefs. As such, he stands as an extreme case study in whether it is fair to judge a lawyer by his clients.
In 1993, the Law Society of Ontario dropped misconduct charges over his defense of Zundel and Finta, but the chair of its discipline panel nevertheless issued a report saying Mr. Christie “made common cause with a small, lunatic, anti-Semitic fringe element in our society.”
He also sued a B.C. broadcaster, Gary Bannerman, in 1990 for saying that he has “aligned himself so many times with these perverted monsters that he has to be viewed as one himself.” Mr. Christie lost on grounds of fair comment, at both trial and appeal. Another libel suit was successful, to the tune of $30,000 in 1984, against a journalist who described Mr. Christie’s failed separatist political venture, the Western Canada Concept, as an “Alberta version of the Ku Klux Klan.”
“Anybody who knows me knows that I treat all people fairly and I don’t discriminate against individuals on the basis of any race, religion, etc.,” Mr. Christie said in the interview. “But to the vast majority who have only heard about me, they would definitely get that impression.”
In 2006, the Law Society of British Columbia found he committed professional misconduct by counseling a client to prepare subpoenas on his own, but the penalty was a modest fine and $20,000 in legal costs, as he had acted out of “stress and excessive zeal to help his client, rather than from desire for personal gain.”
Zeal has always been a mark of the Christie approach to hate defense.
He was literally the loudest person in the room on a fateful day in Ottawa in 2008 when revelations about investigatory practices at the Canadian Human Rights Commission blew the Section 13 hate speech debate wide open, and set the stage for its eventual repeal. Forced to deal with minor objections, Mr. Christie hollered that he had flown all the way from Victoria and he was not going to abide the CHRC’s “obstruction” of his cross-examination.
Otherwise, he has a soft and measured demeanour, eloquent to the point of verbosity on legal issues, and known for rhetorical flourishes. But for the trademark cowboy hat, he can seem almost professorial.
He pins much of the blame for Canada’s legal unease over hatred on multiculturalism, which forced judges into awkward balancing acts at the expense of fundamental values.
“I think it boils down to the fact that judges desire, in large measure, to be seen as tolerant and relatively popular, and the opinions of people like Mr. Zundel and Mr. Taylor are seen as intolerant and unpopular,” he said. “Therefore it becomes a difficult matter for a judge to hold in favour of someone who is publicly so perceived.”
Mr. Christie is married to Keltie Zubko and has two children, a son in law school and a daughter in engineering.
National Post

Sunday, February 24, 2013

[CdA] Marc Lemire Case Update - February 14, 2013





Marc Lemire Case Update – February 14, 2013


On February 14, 2013, Marc Lemire filed with the Federal Court of Appeals a devastating critique of Canada’s Internet censorship laws and the fanatical corruption of the misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

These are the legal documents which will (I hope and pray) finally bring an end to Canada’s draconian thought control apparatus: Section 13 of the “Human Rights” Act.

The Memorandum of Fact and Law (written by brilliant freedom fighter Barbara Kulaszka) is a concise review of the nine years of persecution the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission has dragged Marc Lemire through, all for daring to post a single article on his website – an article he did not even write.

It is a shocking and clinical review of all that goes wrong when an out of control government agency with a “Nazi fetish” is unleashed, from spying on Canadians with the possibility of entrapment, to threatening Internet Service Providers (ISP) to force deletion of content they don’t like.

At the Federal Court, Lemire and his lawyer have filed thick stacks of evidence in what the court calls “Appeal Books”.  These contain the transcripts and evidence from his massive 3-year hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where Lemire and lawyer Barbara Kulaszka beat down the censors, forcing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to admit publicly that Section 13 was unconstitutional!

The battle is not yet over, but Marc Lemire and his lawyer have both the will and the strength to carry on.

George Orwell once said:

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.

Human Rights Commissions = DECEIT!

Marc Lemire, Barbara Kulaszka and everyone who supports Freedom of Speech are the revolutionaries for freedom that will set the Internet free!

Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation?

Marc Lemire and his courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. They have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the “Human Rights” Commission’s radical censors.

This case is a seminal one where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

Marc Lemire cannot carry on this critical battle alone. Your donations literally mean the survival of this case.

Please support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Marc Lemire is the only person to beat the CHRC in it’s 33 year history!  That battle is not over yet, however, and Marc desperately needs the support of every Freedom-loving person in this country.

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






[CELL PHONE TAPPING] As Secretive "Stingray" Surveillance Tool Becomes More Pervasive, Questions Over Its Illegality Increase




As Secretive "Stingray" Surveillance Tool Becomes More Pervasive, Questions Over Its Illegality Increase


A few months ago, EFF warned of a secretive new surveillance tool, commonly referred to as a "Stingray," being used by the FBI in cases around the country. Recently, more information on the device has come to light and it makes us even more concerned than before.

The device, which acts as a fake cell phone tower, essentially allows the government to electronically search large areas for a particular cell phone's signal—sucking down data on potentially thousands of innocent people along the way. At the same time, law enforcement has attempted use them while avoiding many of the traditional limitations set forth in the Constitution, like individualized warrants. This is why we called the tool "an unconstitutional, all-you-can-eat data buffet."

Recently, LA Weekly reported the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) got a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant in 2006 to buy a stingray. The original grant request said it would be used for "regional terrorism investigations." Instead LAPD has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable.

In just a four month period in 2012, according to documents obtained by the First Amendment Coalition, the LAPD has used the device at least 21 times in “far more routine” criminal investigations. The LA Weekly reported Stingrays “were tapped for more than 13 percent of the 155 ‘cellular phone investigation cases’ that Los Angeles police conducted between June and September last year.” These included burglary, drug and murder cases.

Of course, we’ve seen this pattern over and over and over. The government uses “terrorism” as a catalyst to gain some powerful new surveillance tool or ability, and then turns around and uses it on ordinary citizens, severely infringing on their civil liberties in the process.

Stingrays are particularly odious given they give police dangerous “general warrant” powers, which the founding fathers specifically drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent. In pre-revolutionary America, British soldiers used “general warrants" as authority to go house-to-house in a particular neighborhood, looking for whatever they please, without specifying an individual or place to be searched.

The Stingray is the digital equivalent of the pre-revolutionary British soldier. It allows police to point a cell phone signal into all the houses in a particular neighborhood, searching for one target while sucking up everyone else’s location along with it. With one search the police could potentially invade countless private residences at once.

In another recent development, the FBI handed over two documents—out of an estimated 25,000 they have on Stingrays—to EPIC as part of the privacy group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain more information about the use of mysterious devices. As Slate’s Ryan Gallagher reported:

Two heavily redacted sets of files released last month show internal Justice Department guidance that relates to the use of the cell tracking equipment, with repeated references to a crucial section of the Communications Act which outlines how “interference” with communication signals is prohibited. 

It’s a small but significant detail. Why? Because it demonstrates that “there are clearly concerns, even within the agency, that the use of Stingray technology might be inconsistent with current regulations,” says EPIC attorney Alan Butler. “I don't know how the DOJ justifies the use of Stingrays given the limitations of the Communications Act prohibition.”

The documents also suggest that the FBI is loaning out the devices to local police.

On March 28th, the judge overseeing the Rigmaiden case, which we wrote about previously, will hold a hearing on whether evidence obtained using a stingray should be suppressed.  It will be one of the first times a judge will rules on the constitutionality of these devices in federal court.

It’s time for local police and federal law enforcement agencies to come clean about the technology and how they are using it, before more ordinary citizens have their constitutional rights violated.


Full article is at:









SUN: Kangaroo courts waste tax dollars, time

There is a good article in the Sun chain of newspapers today from Charles Adler.  He makes a great point when he says “These aren’t rights, they’re complaints. They’d truly be laughable if they didn’t waste a lot of our tax dollars, and the valuable time of the people who get dragged into these kangaroo courts.


This is the crux of the issue with “Human Rights” Commissions.  They are trying to expand their unionized base of lackeys and now taking any perceived “complaint” as a horrible race crime.  From haircuts to handwashing, the “human rights” Commissions in Canada are out of control and thoroughly discredited.


Fire. Them. ALL!







Kangaroo courts waste tax dollars, time


By Charles Adler ,QMI Agency

First posted: | Updated:


Canadians are truly fortunate for many reasons. But an unfortunate side effect of our privileged position is many Canadians have lost the understanding of true human rights.

Provincial human rights commissions are supposed to protect citizens from genuine acts of discrimination. But all too often they act as misguided enforcers for the easily offended — a forum for people who seek out anything remotely controversial and warp basic human disagreements into human rights violations.

Take restaurant chain Earls and its Albino Rhino beer, sold in 50 locations across Canada and the U.S. Albino rhinos actually do exist. So do albino lions, birds, dolphins and reptiles; they have in common the condition where there is no pigment in the skin, increasing sun sensitivity.

But it was the extreme sensitivity of a human albino, Ikponwosa Ero, that has caused a lot of problems for Earls. Ero complained that Earls didn’t understand that it was “demeaning and humiliating for their condition to be featured on a menu item.” She went to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. Earl’s caved to the politically correct plaintiffs.

Suppose I made a beer and called it “Bucky Beaver.” That’s just plain insensitive to those who suffer from “overjet” — buck teeth.

How about something like “Hairy Monkey”? That would drive people with hypertrichosis — excessive body hair — into a deep depression.

There’s a lot more at stake here than a brand of beer. The victory over Earls’ Albino Rhino is only the most recent example of how human rights commissions can empower even a single person to infringe on the freedoms of everyone else. These cases not only inhibit us but they can also harm us.

When Beena Datt, a McDonald’s employee, claimed she had developed a skin condition and could no longer wash her hands to restaurant standards, McDonald’s ended up letting her go, after searching for a solution. What happened? The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled McDonald’s had to pay Datt $23,000 for lost income, $25,000 for lost dignity plus all her legal fees and rehab experts. Then to top it all off, the tribunal ordered McDonald’s to stop discriminating against people who can’t wash their hands!

In Alberta, the provincial human rights commission awarded Ruby Repas $5,000 after fighting for her right to work in a restaurant while infected with hepatitis.

Then there’s the customs officer who successfully sued her employer to work on the schedule she wanted as a young parent. Forcing an organization of thousands to bend beyond reason to the whims of one employee.

There’s Faith McGregor, the woman who, when a muslim barber didn’t want to cut her hair, complained to the Ontario human rights tribunal for the right to get a haircut from whomever she wants.

And the father who went to Newfoundland’s human rights commission because he thought minor league hockey ice time favoured girls over boys. And Patricia Howson in Ottawa, who went to the human rights tribunal in pursuit of the human right to convenient parking.

These aren’t rights, they’re complaints. They’d truly be laughable if they didn’t waste a lot of our tax dollars, and the valuable time of the people who get dragged into these kangaroo courts.


See the full article at: