Again I thank both Four Horses and FreeDominion.com site owner Connie Fournier for posting it. It is a fine example of just how valuable open debate can be when it comes to understanding the inner workings of the democratic system while at the same time illustrating further the inestimable value of freedom of speech here in Canada.
Shine your Light for Peace and Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
radical@radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
——————————————————-
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104731
Breaking: CHRC complaint against B’nai Brith
By Four Horses
four_horses@warpmail.net
September 25, 2008
Just last week, the Radical Press reported on its website http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=785 that a human rights section 13 complaint filed against it by Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith in August of 2007, is being referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In the decision to prosecute the publisher (Arthur Topham) and the Radical Press, we learned that the CHRC is relying
Quote:
“on the emerging body of section 13 jurisprudence.”
Part of this emerging jurisprudence is the “Eleven Hallmarks of Hate”.
Wow! How the worm turns
A complaint has been filed against B’nia Brith in conjunction with Ken McVay and Nizkor. According to the documents, the complaint is based upon race, colour, sexual orientation and national or ethnic origin. The complainant appears to be “private” and seems to fall under some CHRC scope of security concerns and pleads precedent set with “Beachesboy”. I have no idea who or what “Beachesboy” may be and I don’t recall a CHRC case relating to that – but there have been so many. As far as security concerns go, we know this is a huge issue for the CHRC and the CHRT. The Lemire Constitutional Challenge case brought some of these security issues to light. The Tribunal chair needed special security. The complainant in the Lemire case, Richard Warman provided testimony that his life was endangered just by being a complainant and thus he required special security – right down to washroom visits. The CHRC itself, made a great deal of security in several hearings – even to the point of trying to have their witnesses hidden from the court room and from the defendants. Cost was not a factor. The complaint form filed says that based upon security concerns, the complainant does not want its name or any information about the complainant given to the respondents.
The complaint filed against Ken McVay, Nixkor and B’nai Brith stems from several postings found on the B’nai Brith cooperation affiliated website (Nizkor) which are extremely vile and contemptuous to predominantly blacks, homosexuals and Jews. The postings which contain several different hate filled passages are related to fund raising efforts and the Nizkor project. The posting were allegedly ongoing from July 2008.
I have scanned through the postings in questions and they do appear to be very vile in nature. I will not repeat them. The complaint that discusses these postings can be found here, here and here. [please refer to the url above for FreeDominion.com A.T.]
A Tangled Mess
At the Lemire Constitutional Challenge hearings held in Oakville, the public learned a lot about the government’s position regarding hate on the internet. Counsel for the CHRC, Margot Blight, noted strongly that it was the website operator or owner absolute liability to ensure hate was not posted on their website. The complaint filed states that website is not a message board. If that is true, then there doesn’t appear too much in the way of a defence that some anonymous poster may have posted these comments. The arguments offered up in many of the previous section 13 cases pertained to anonymous posters with some of those types of posters being operatives of the CHRC trying to entrap or instigate others to commit these crimes. The fact that it is not a message board would also seem to fall well within the CHRC’s position of “absolute liability”.
Reading the postings, a layman can easily discern that these fall well within the “Eleven Hallmarks of Hate”. This again raises the challenge that there is very little in the way of public interest issues that can be discussed to any depth or context, without triggering these new Eleven Commandments. It also points to who compiled these Commandments and just how they were incorporated into this new emerging jurisprudence in Canada.
I believe these postings complained of, were posted as true examples of the vile nature of hate speech on the internet. Again, at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge hearings, we learned that the truth is no defence. . This was a concept hammered hard by counsel for the CHRC – Margot Blight. The intent of postings or messages is also not a defence. If “intent is not a defence” as we also learned, then the respondents will be hard pressed to rely upon their intent to disclose the truth in matters of public interest.
The respondents will also have to pass the extremely high hurdle disclosed by the CHRC counsel that “there is no free pass for anyone!”. The current dating of these postings (July 2008) raises some interesting questions. These are not archived postings that one could inadvertently have missed. These are current. These have been up since the controversy surrounding section 13 cases has come to the forefront. These have been up since B’nai Brith has stepped into the constitutional challenge to defend the interpretation and operative techniques of the CHRC.
In the Richard Warman v Melissa Guile / Canadian Heritage Party case, much of the controversy includes discussion and debate of current socio-political issues on the CHP website. Guille was forced by CHRC to divulge a full membership list of that party. That is a striking blow to democracy. Will B’nai Brith have to divulge their membership? The sauce for the goose and the sauce for the gander – right? Suppose it is given to the complainant? Suppose that complainant is a group who is committed to the destruction of Jews – a real group, not some nerdy basement neo-nazi, not some false Heritage Front as was concocted by CSIS – but a real live anti-Semitic group – ones with guns and swords and bombs. Will BB get a pass on this? The CHRC didn’t seem to care about the personal security of members of the Canadian Heritage Party. Will they have a different view of BB? Does BB fall on the correct side of Fothergill’s “depends on whether you are part of Canadian political mainstream or a conservative group”?
Will their offices be raided and computers seized? Will their hard drives be forwarded on the CHRC and the complainant? Will their emails be hacked and portions posted on the net. It happened to Jessica Beaumont, new emerging jurisprudence – new investigative techniques supported by BB in their intervener status in the Lemire case trying to squash this method via section 37 of the evidence act. Will evidence be fabricated to incriminate the respondents? It was in the Beaumont case. Hummmmm! It was accepted as investigative techniques that could not be contested. The Tribunal chair ruled that the Tribunal didn’t concern itself as to how evidence was provided, just that it was in front of the Tribunal. Will more evidence come out? Will it be withheld from the respondents for a year or so, based upon a relationship of the complainant with the CHRC? Will it be redacted? Will it be so heavily redacted as it was done in the Lemire case, that the respondents find it as useful as a blank page of paper?
No free pass
We heard this from the CHRC. This was loud and clear. There is no free pass for anyone. Will the respondents plead? Will they plead exception? They can’t plead against the Hallmarks of Hate – that emerging jurisprudence. Those hallmarks have been triggered by the postings, clear and as plain as day. It took place in Canada so it falls under the growing Canadian human rights legislation. It falls under Canada’s obligations with the United Nations. Much ado was made of this at the Constitutional Challenge hearings on how Canada via section 13, complies with its obligations under the UN Human Rights. They can’t claim “Freedom of Speech”. That is an American concept. We heard that one loud and clear from Dean Steacy and reiterated again by Fothergill at the section 13 Constitutional Challenge hearings. America is out of step with the world, with their archaic ideas of Freedom of Speech.
Absolute liability applies. We learned that too. It doesn’t matter who might have created the postings and for what reason (intent). It is the absolute liability of the webmaster / owner. Intent is useful to incriminate, but never applicable to defend. We found that in the Beaumont case. No free pass.
We read in the Radical Press case that B’nai Brith is the voice of Jewish people in Canada. We learned from Levant that this is not so. I believe Ezra Levant here. I do not for a moment believe that Jewish Canadians would condone posting of these vile comments, no matter what the reason, no matter what the truth. I should think that the overwhelming majority of the membership claimed by B’nai Brith would lean to Fothergill’s statement to the effect that there are so many other ways of discussing these matters without ever approaching a gray zone, let alone a blatant disregard for the law.
We heard from B’nai Brith’s lawyer, at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge hearings, that the Steyn/MacLeans case had no merit – that’s why it was thrown out. Yet, we also learned that the investigator’s report ruled the complaint had merit. We know the complaint was tossed out by upper management at the CHRC. Fothergill challenged the public to prove that it was politically motivated. Like someone at the CHRC upper management level is going to testify they tossed it out under political pressure – and name the person who pressured them and what that pressure might have been. Right Simon ! These are civil servants. No merit, said Kurtz on behalf of B’nai Brith. No merit to the Islamophobic complaint about the Steyn article in MacLeans.
Political discourse – no merit. Yet we have just seen an example of political discourse that B’nai Brith claims has merit. Radical Press‚ criticism of Zionism. An introduction to that case is here. [Again, please see original post at FreeDominion.com A.T.] Political Zionism / political Islamism.
Different. Same. Different. Same. Different.
Recently we have learned that Mohammad Elmasry wants us all to shut up. He is ticked off about the Steyn/Macleans case. He wants Islamophobia included in the emerging jurisprudence in hate speech. He wants this as an election issue. He leans to the philosophy that all Israeli Jews over the age of 18 are good targets for death. How vile! This case will feed fuel to his fire again.
The respondents are between the proverbial rock and a hard spot. They have advocated for the continuation of section 13. They have intervened against the constitutional challenge against section 13. They have supported the use of section 37 of the Evidence Act to suppress the disclosure of clandestine operations and the corrupt activities of the CHRC. They have actively promoted Richard Warman and Maximum Disruption techniques. They have closed their yes to vile, anti-Semitic postings by operatives of the CHRC in an endeavour to promote the use of section 13 to control the internet. They have initiated their own complaint of anti-Zionism. Now they are caught by the rules they sought to engrave in stone.
I don’t think it is right. I don’t believe that these respondents should be prosecuted under section 13. I can possibly see what was attempted here – the most vile examples were posted to generate support for the positions taken by the respondents. They were posting truths. Truths as they found them on the net. Their intent was to make their membership and others aware of a matter of public interest. Their intent was to raise funds to fight this and continue their political position on section 13. They, however violated section 13. They violated section 13 just as others have violated section 13 to discuss other matters of public interest, to debate matters of public interest. I don’t think persecuting Pastor Boisson, Ron Gray, Catholic Insight, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, Marc Lemire, Macleans, or any of the others, was right or any more just. Many of these defendants violated section 13 in the exact same way – in matters of public interest – in the hope of debate, discourse and awareness. The respondents are as equally guilty as the others or conversely, the respondents are as equally innocent as the others.
The Muslim community is peeved that their complaint against Macleans was thrown out on a political bias. [see url at FreeDominion.com A.T.] They feel they are being treated as less than equal. Suckered. Now the self proclaimed Jewish voice, B’nai Brith has a complaint going forward against the Radical Press which has spoken up for Islamism politics with its anti-Zionism comments. How can they feel they are treated as equal? What will the Muslim community say when they hear of the complaint lodged against B’nai Brith and the prima facia violation of section 13? What will Canada tell the Muslim community if this case is dismissed – that there are two different rules depending upon who you are? What will Canada tell the disenfranchised, undereducated, low income, white Christian community that has carried the burden of persecution? Will they tell them that’s a Christian’s job to carry the cross?
I don’t know how the respondents will defend their way out of this. The Attorney general told us that
Quote:
“A little bit of chilling … is tolerable”
Perhaps the Attorney General’s office will play the “get out of jail free card”, explained to us by Fothergill –
Quote:
“It depends on who you are”
CHRC: B’nai Brith complaint vs Radical Press. (Analysis by Four Horses)
September 25th, 2008I would first off like to extend a thank you to the person “Four Horses” for posting this analysis of the B’nai Brith complaint against RadicalPress.com on what I call the “Not so” FreeDominion.com website. I say “Not so” because the owners of that site have banned me from going on it, apparently due to my posts regarding the nature of political Zionism and their unabashed affection for the ‘state’ of Israel along with its Zionist ideology. Nonetheless, it is gracious of them to have allowed another member of their site to post their perspectives on this contentious issue (at least thus far).
Readers will note the url to the site and I would recommend going there if you cannot access urls, etc. I am unable to access it due to the ban but you likely will be able to.
The analysis is worthy of your consideration for the writer has brought up a number of related issues that need to be understood, both in showing their inter-connectedness and what they actually reveal in terms of understanding the origins of this legislation and who, ultimately, is responsible for its creation and why they might benefit from it.
One small point that the writer erred in was in stating that the complaint by Harry Abrams and the B’nai Brith alleged “anti-Semitism”. It doesn’t. It alleges promoting “hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel”. I believe these Zionist orgs like BB and the CJC and the SWC stopped using the “anti-Semite” card some time ago after it was basically proven that these Ashkenazi Jews do not have any Semitic blood lines and therefore the argument of being against Arabs (i.e. Semites) didn’t hold water any longer. That’s why they shapeshifted the argument from anti-Semite to “hate”, a much more versatile, nebulous term that works well with their entrapment trick the “Hallmarks of Hate”.
Again, in the interests of freedom of speech for everyone I would humbly ask that you pass this analysis on to others. Thank you.
Shine your Light for Peace and Justice for All,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
radical@radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
——————————————————-
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1232892#1232892
Posted by Four Horses
four_horses@warpmail.net
File # 20071016
Just this last week, the Radical Press in BC reported that it was served with a CHRC notice of recommendation that the complaint filed against it and its publisher, Arthur Topham, be prosecuted at the Star Chamber. The Radical Press is a small, interior B.C. publication with an associated website. The complaint was filed with the CHRC by Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith, in August 2007. The complaint alleges anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, offensive to Jews and offensive to citizens of Israel. This case is rather interesting as it raises a number of questions and challenges.
The CHRC investigator’s report can be found here: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=785 Report from CHRC Investigations Division Re: Abrams/B’nai Brith Complaint against RadicalPress.com
The investigator for the CHRC is Sandy Kovak. This is the same individual who investigated the Steyn/Macleans complaint and the same individual whose name was raised in the Marc Lemire constitutional challenge – a small world. Of course we read the standard rhetoric from the CHRC in these section 13 complaints:
Quote:
“The issue in this complaint is whether the respondent communicated or caused to be communicated, by way of the internet, material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion and national or ethnic origin.”
What is interesting to note is the qualifier reported by the investigator:
Quote:
“A review of the website shows that, although some other information is present, the website focuses on the subject of ‘Zionism’.”
The respondent (Topham) defends that his publications and writings are not anti-Semitic, but commentary on Zionism, which he claims is a political movement. This raises a lot of issues as does the nature of the complaint. Is discussion (or criticism in this case) of Zionism considered hate speech? The investigator has differentiated anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism. Abrams and B’nai Brith, the complainants, maintain that this is offensive to Jews and to citizens of Israel. Abrams also maintains that B’nai Brith is the voice of Jews in Canada. This is a twisted argument that seems to reach a long way. First is the premise that BB speaks for Jews in Canada. Ezra Levant in his post on May 4 of this year, called “Jews for Free Speech”, took strong issue with this premise and informed Canada that the leaders of B’nai Brith, the CJC and the SWC may speak for themselves, but not for the whole Jewish population in Canada.
If Levant’s contention is true, that B’nai Brith doesn’t speak for the Jews in Canada, is B’nai Brith then speaking for the citizens of Israel? That claim seems to be an inherent part of the CHRC complaint lodged by Abrams. Novel approach – B’nai Brith filing a section 13 complaint on behalf of foreign citizens. I suppose this is even more of a creative approach if Zionism is a political agenda. At this point, we may have to refer to the Attorney General representative’s submission at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge hearings. Simon Fothergill, on behalf of the AG says that Canada’s section 13 legislation was very forward thinking – almost pace setting, and in step with the rest of the western democracies. Except America that is. We also heard at the Constitutional Challenge hearings, that Canada honours its human rights commitments as outlined by the U.N. If that is so, and since this case has been referred to Tribunal for prosecution, it would appear that Canada believes its laws extend past it borders. This could be bad news for Israel in the long run. The recent side play at the U.N. to have Islamphobia decreed as hate speech would not be kind to Israel, or its citizens. What would Canada do then if the Islamophobia resolution is passed? This is even more stark as Kovak notes in her findings that the communications have taken place in Canada.
Kovak encountered a similar situation with the Islamophobia complaint lodged against Steyn/Macleans. The Steyn book, “America Alone”, discussed both the radical Islamic political movement as well as western issues pertaining to the Islamic religion. We have seen that these two facets at times are inseparable in a discussion. Does the same hold true for Judaism and Zionism? Can Zionism be discussed without references to Judaism?
In her investigative report, Kovak incorporates the “Hallmarks of Hate” in paragraph 18 of her analysis. The envelope is pushed forward here. Kovak incorporates the “Hallmarks of Hate” to
Quote:
“the Tribunal identified a number of hallmarks‚ of material that is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt, based on the emerging body of section 13 jurisprudence.”
Wow! Emerging jurisprudence.
Scrap the Supreme Court of Canada folks. The CHRC will decide what is jurisprudence. Kovak goes on to write in section 19 of her analysis:
Quote:
“Based on the excerpts cited by the complainant, it appears that the articles bear several of the characteristics identified by the Tribunal in Kouba as being hallmarks‚ of material that is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt.”
This is so familiar. Kovak could have just cut and pasted her analysis from the Steyn/Macleans case. Both said the same thing. Both had those http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104583 Hallmarks of Hate. Both were likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt. The difference is that the Steyn/Macleans case was tossed out by upper management at the CHRC, even though there was the same analysis and same recommendation to prosecute.
Kovak’s statement below, is rather revealing:
Quote:
“the material appears to meet the criteria for hatred and contempt as outlined in the case law and therefore appears to be likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred and contempt.”
Kovak’s findings show that the material was about Zionism. Kovak’s statement concludes that discussion or criticism of Zionism exposes Jewish persons to hatred and contempt. We do not learn anything from this report as to Kovak’s expertise in political science. I wonder if Kovak relied upon another party to make this conclusion? That is not revealed in her report.
From this Radical Press case, we do now know that if Zionism is a political debate, it is restricted speech in Canada. From the Steyn/MacLeans case, we know that speech about political radical Islam is hate speech, but it is allowed. A qualifier here is actually in order. Fothergill, on behalf of the Attorney General told the Tribunal at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge hearings, that it depends upon who says it. He further qualified the position by telling the tribunal that it depends upon whether it is a voice from mainstream political Canada or from a conservative organization. I guess this is another example of “the emerging body of section 13 jurisprudence.”
Topham has posted a dissertation of his defence on his website. http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=786 Comments on CHRC Report. Re: Abrams/B’nai Brith Complaint against RadicalPress.com . Topham maintains that his ongoing critique of Zionism is political debate only. He further states that his wife of many years is Jewish, and that he is not anti-Semitic. Topham also challenges the CHRC on their assertions of political incorrectness regarding specific books and third party materials on his site.
Unfortunately for Topham, we have learned that it doesn’t matter whether he told the truth or not or whether the materials are truthful or not – The Truth is no defence! Fothergill, on behalf of the AG expanded this theorem in his submission to the Tribunal at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge and we learned that people can talk about so many things in a political debate without going anywhere near a gray zone. Try to have a meaningful debate on any variety of public interest topics without tripping a Hallmark of Hate. MacLeans couldn’t on political Islam. One can’t talk meaningful about Air India, tainted blood supply, war on terror, Canada in Afghanistan, same sex marriage, Barak Obama & Sarah Palin, Aboriginal land claims, Quebec separation ….
Fothergill also told us that there is no such thing as a wholely truthful statement. Hey, hey, hey Simon! Sort of puts a negative slant on all the previous testimony that the crown has relied upon in these section 13 cases as well as all those criminal cases prosecuted. Doesn’t it ?
Again, tough luck for Topham as his intent in posting debatable material is no excuse. We learned that Intent is no excuse . It doesn’t matter whether his topic was a matter of public interest. It doesn’t matter whether there is a dire issue at stake. Intent and truth are no excuses
Further, tough luck to Topham as we learned at the Lemire Constitutional Challenge, that there is “no free pass for anyone”. That is of course subject to the qualifiers disclosed by Fothergill as to who you are.
An interesting case? What will the Canadian Muslim community now think? The question was posed: “Was the Cdn Muslims suckered by the CHRC?” Elmasry wants these issues to become part of the election issues. He also wants you to shut up. and wants section 13 strengthened. This case will just add fuel to his fire.
As to Fothergill’s comments on behalf of the Attorney General – well, I think they are self explanatory.
And Abrams? Maybe he should do a reality check – sit down, have a coffee and listen to what Ezra Levant has to say.
The origins of the case can be seen in the archives at http://www.radicalpress.com .
![[9_10_s22.jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_s5yaZ0Ye2Mo/R3slhl7bTtI/AAAAAAAAG4o/pXTUHusKJIg/s1600/9_10_s22.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment