Fighting the good fight for free speech in Canada – with thanks to 1389 Blog

October 11th, 2012
Rev. Terry Jones

Today Dr Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp were held at the Canadian border for four hours, searched, questioned repeatedly about the movie “Innocence of Muslims,” and then were denied entry to attend a pro freedom speaking event in Toronto.


Reaction from Dr Terry Jones:

“We are shocked by the fact that we were not allowed in to Canada. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press are the very foundation of our free society. If we lose freedom of speech we will sooner or later lose our freedom as a nation and freedom as individuals.

As George Washington said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

So we consider this to be a grievous blow to freedom of speech. We hope that this is a lesson for the Canadians and the Americans for us to stand up, unite together, and protect our freedom of speech. It is the very cornerstone of a Western free society.”

At the Canadian border, at Windsor, the Pastors’ rental car was thoroughly searched, the men were searched, they were questioned repeatedly, together and individually, their cell phones and computers were taken and all the files searched. Two simple hand writen protest signs were confiscated from the car.

At the Canadian border, at Windsor, the Pastors’ rental car was thoroughly searched, the men were searched, they were questioned repeatedly, together and individually, their cell phones and computers were taken and all the files searched. Two simple hand written protest signs were confiscated from the car. One read “KORAN BURNING SITE” the other stated “ISLAM IS THE NEW NAZISM.” They were asked several times if they were bringing a copy of the movie Innocence of Muslims into Canada. They were carrying nothing illegal and both have no criminal record.

In the end they were denied entry based on two legal battles the border police had researched in wikipedia and google, one from 20 years ago in Germany, and one more recent situation in Dearborn, Michigan. In 1993, Dr Terry Jones was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Divinity from a university in California for his missionary work in Germany. He began to use the Dr title and the German government fined him for its use. He paid the fine at that time and appealed to the German government for the right to use the title. He won that appeal. Now the Canadian government is requiring documentation of the whole case to be brought to a Canadian Consulate here in America in order for them to consider allowing Dr Jones to come to Canada.

The other case cited against both men was their arrest and imprisonment in Dearborn, Michigan in April, 2011 for refusing to pay a Peace Bond that was designed to prevent them from holding a peaceful protest at the Islamic Center of America. That case was also overturned in a higher court on appeal. Still, this was cited as a past criminal offense.

Clearly the Canadian government had no valid reason to bar them from Canada, and the decision was purely political.

Contact: 352-371-2487 or 352-871-2680 (Stephanie Sapp) or

Quran burning pastor Terry Jones denied entry into Canada

Published on Oct 12, 2012 by GlobalToronto

Thu, Oct 11: Florida Pastor Terry Jones has been denied entry into Canada on Thursday, hours before a scheduled debate on free speech in Toronto. Rob Malcolm reports. For more info, please go to

Also see:

Published on Oct 3, 2012 by SDAMatt2a

In what may be the last hurrah for the Canadian Human Rights Act’s vanishing prohibition on hate speech, the Federal Court of Canada has ruled that a tribunal was wrong when it opted not to apply the act’s provisions in a 2009 decision.

Parliament voted in June to repeal section 13 of the act, which bans hate speech on the Internet. The matter is now before the Senate and has yet to receive Royal Assent.

Despite that, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled this week that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply the controversial section following a hearing into a complaint by Ottawa lawyer and activist Richard Warman.

Warman filed a complaint in 2003, alleging that Marc Lemire, webmaster of and a former leader of the far-right Heritage Front, had violated the act by allowing the posting of comments that were likely to expose homosexuals and blacks to hatred or contempt. Lemire responded with a constitutional challenge of section 13.

The tribunal ruled on the case in 2009. While it found that one article on Lemire’s website violated the section, it ruled that penalties in the act were inconsistent with Charter of Rights guarantees of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.

On that basis, the tribunal declined to apply section 13 or any of its associated remedies, which include cease-and-desist orders and fines of up to $10,000. It found, in effect, that the section 13 regime outlined in the act had become too punitive and unduly impaired Lemire’s right to free expression.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission — which investigates complaints under the human rights act and determines which ones are referred to the quasi-judicial tribunal for adjudication — applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the tribunal’s findings. Tuesday, Mosley released his 69-page decision.

The court found that the act’s penalty provisions — added in 1998 — were unconstitutional, saying they “fundamentally altered the nature of the section 13 process and brought it uncomfortably close to the state’s ultimate control measure, criminal prosecution.”

But Mosley said the tribunal should have “severed” the penalty provisions and applied section 13 and its other remedies. Those parts of the act are “justifiable in a free and democratic society,” he found, and the tribunal erred by declining to apply them.

“The minimal harm caused by section 13 to freedom of expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality,” he wrote.

Mosley noted that the House of Commons has voted to repeal section 13 and leave the suppression of free speech to criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, he said he had no difficulty concluding that section’s objectives “continue to be substantial and pressing.”

He ordered the tribunal to issue a declaration that Lemire’s publication of the offending article breached section 13 and determine whether a remedy, such as a cease-and-desist order, is appropriate.

Section 13 was included in the 1977 human rights act to address groups and individuals who were then using the telephone to disseminate hate messages. In 2001, as part of post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures, Parliament amended the act to specifically include Internet hate messages. Ever since then, the section has sparked intense controversy, with critics characterizing it as a tool for censorship.

For all the sound and fury, Internet hate complaints have never been very numerous, making up about two per cent of all signed complaints received by the human rights commission.

Since 2001, the commission has investigated 77 section 13 complaints, half of which did not proceed to the tribunal — a separate and independent body. Others were settled through mediation. Fewer than 20 have proceeded to the tribunal for a hearing, though all but a handful of those were upheld.

Warman, who once worked as an investigator for the human rights commission, has been the instigator of more than a dozen of the online hate complaints heard by the tribunal. Prior to the Lemire decision in 2009, all were upheld or settled in mediation.

Philippe Dufresne, the human rights commission’s acting senior general counsel, hailed Mosley’s decision as important.

“It clarifies the circumstances where a tribunal can refuse to apply legislation,” he said. “For us, the decision was about the rule of law. It was about tribunals following laws enacted by Parliament, unless they’re declared unconstitutional.”

In that sense, Dufresne said, Mosley’s decision has broader implications. “It means any time you have a law that’s validly enacted and constitutional, tribunals have to apply them.”

BREAKING: Federal Court Rules in Lemire case. Some good news and some bad news: Wacky ruling by Federal Court sends the Marc Lemire case back to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a declaration on Section 13 but invalidates the Penalty Provisions

TORONTO Oct 3, 2012: The Federal Court of Canada has issued its ruling in the Marc Lemire case, which challenges the infamous censorship provision Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Federal Court has struck down the penalty provisions of Section 13, but held that the doctrine of Severance was applicable and that Section 13 remains constitutional.

In yet another head scratching move by the Federal Court, Justice Richard G. Mosley has found that the notorious censorship provision – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional, but that the penalty provisions are unconstitutional. The Federal Court issued their ruling while at the same time; the Senate of Canada is passing Second Reading on Bill C-304 an Act which will strip the censorship powers from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. How out of touch with the will of Canadians can the Federal Court be?

This is both a major victory for freedom and a set-back. The Federal Court has found that the penalty provisions of Section 13 are unconstitutional. The Federal Court “declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;”. This strikes down the law which assessed huge fines against victims of Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship. Fines of up to $10,000 were imposed at will against anyone caught up in the “human rights” juggernaut.

From the very outset of this thought-control trial (starting in 2003/2004 !!!); Marc Lemire – though his courageous counsel Barbara Kulaszka – advocated for the penalty provision to be struck down. The CHRC and their fellow travelers fought tooth and nail against this. Finally in 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agreed with Lemire, but lacked the power to actually invalidate the law. Today, The Federal Court has struck down the penalty provision and wiped this blight from Canadian Law books. This effectively removes the hammer which the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission have used to silence and suppress political dissidents from speaking truth-to-power on the Internet.

The bad news is that the Federal Court has upheld Section 13. The court found that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should have applied the doctrine of Severance, and “read-out” the Penalty provisions and held the underlying provision as constitutionally valid. This is the most shocking part of the decision.

Ignoring the very decisive and detailed ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Justice Mosley found that Section 13 was just fine. Contrary the mountain of evidence which was submitted during the Lemire Tribunal hearing; Justice Mosley found that there was little difference with Section 13, when it only applied to telephone answering machines to what it applies to now – the entire Internet. In Mosley’s mind, a crappy telephone answering machine is similar in reach and scope as the entire internet is. And as such there is no issue with applying the censorship powers of Section 13 to the entire media, broadcast media, podcasts, interactive content, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc etc etc. After all they are just like an answering machine?!?!?

It really makes you wonder what is wrong with our courts and those clowns that elevate themselves to god-like status to rule over us little sheep. How the heck could the court rule that a telephone answering machine is no different than Facebook, Twitter or YouTube?

Unlike our proud ancestors who had to fight for freedom in the trenches of Normandy and in the highlands of Scotland, nowadays we have to fight for freedom in stale court rooms surrounded by out of touch “Justices” and their cadre of useful idiots just waiting to praise anything they do.

Every single major news outlet in Canada has denounced the censorship provisions of Section 13 – from coast to coast. From the leftists at the Toronto Star, to the National Post,Toronto Sun, Vancouver Province, Globe and MailMacleans MagazineCalgary Herald,Ottawa CitizenLondon Free PressCatholic InsightCatholic RegisterB’nai Brith Jewish TribuneHalifax Chronicle HeraldSask Leader-PostWinnipeg Free Press, and even theCBC.

The Parliament of Canada has voted to repeal Section 13 by a majority of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The Senate of Canada has already voted twice to repeal Section 13 and is it now on the way to third and final reading … yet this Justice Richard Mosley – in utter sheer arrogance and in clear contrast to a majority of Canadians – gives Section 13 its last gasp of air.

It was pretty clear during the court hearing in 2011, that Justice Mosley was harbouring a great deal of animosity towards the side representing freedom and justice. He treated my lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka – like complete trash. Constantly cutting her off and limiting our time to submissions down to almost nothing. The exchange between Mosley and Kulaszka was even quoted in the National Post the next day.

Like a lost soul, Justice Mosley just kept asking why the Attorney General of Canada was not appearing before him to make submissions. Of course the mere fact that the Attorney General was not going to appear in Federal Court to uphold this censorship law spoke volumes to everyone present. It is really quite a statement when the Attorney General of Canada refused to appear in the court to uphold their law. And it was even more evident when days later the Attorney General of Canada – Rob Nicholson – rose in the House of Commons and voted on Bill C-304 an Act to repeal Section 13. Can the message be any clearer Justice Mosley?

The question now is what to do. Do I accept the ruling of Justice Mosley or do I appeal and continue to fight to rid Canada of this horrible censorship legislation? The choice is as much mine as it is yours. I can not continue to fight for freedom without your support. There are a series of other cases in the “Human Rights” grist mill, which are awaiting a final decision in my case. If I chose not to appeal, all those cases would then be activated and the censorship victims would be dragged before these kangaroo courts (Arthur Topham, Alexan Kulbashian, etc)

Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the “Human Rights” Commission’s racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical 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.

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.

You can contact me here:

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

Web: |
Twitter: @marc_lemire

>> Donate online here <<


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: