Paul Fromm Might Be An Idiot..... Again

A few days ago during the scheduling of Terry Tremaine preliminary hearing, Paulie was roasted for breaching conditions of the publication ban. The judge suggested that Paulie could face prosecution for his violation, leaving that decision up to the crown prosecuter.

A normal, reasonable person would then decide it might be better to abide by the court's decision and to keep quite about in in public. Not Paulie though. In a display worthy of any playground temper tantrum, Paulie posts a message on Stormfront, refers to Richard Warman (who Fromm seems to believe had supplied the prosecutor with the Stormfront postings) as a, "tattle tale" and then goes on to write about more in-court discussions:

REGINA. November 28, 2009. "Teacher, teacher, Joey, is chewing gum." We all remember the prissy grade school tattle tale squealing on another child to get him into trouble. No one, not even most authority figures, like the tattle tale. People tattle usually, not out of some sense of justice or concern about important laws being violated, but out of some form of vindictiveness, an effort to hurt someone, or, in those long past school days, get some other kid into trouble.

The Regina Leader-Post (November 27, 2009) reported: "On Thursday, far-right activist, Paul Fromm with the Canadian Association for Free Expression, drew criticism from Crown prosecutor John Stoesser for allegedly breaching conditions of that ban through an Internet posting. Fromm has been present in the courtroom gallery throughout much of the hearing.

[Judge Bruce] Henning reminded Fromm about the publication ban. The judge said he'd leave it up to the Crown to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, and advised Fromm to speak to a lawyer if he has any questions or concerns.

"A few more details should be added. On Thursday, just before former political prisoner Terry Tremaine's preliminary hearing into a charge of violating Sec. 319, Canada's notorious "hate law", adjourned until March, Crown Prosecutor Stroesser rose waving a two page download from Stormfront. He indicated that this posting had been brought to his attention (umm, by whom, one wonders?) and that it might constitute a breach of the court ordered ban on publication of the evidence before the preliminary hearing. Judge Henning took a quick glance at it and refused to act further, saying that, if the Crown had concerns, it was up to them to proceed.

Stroessser later said that he doubted that my report crossed the line, but, as a complaint had been made, he had brought it to the attention of the Court, and warned me to be careful.

My posting on Stormfront had carefully avoided revealing the evidence or even the identity of Crown witnesses heard in the first week of hearings in this matter in October. The printoff, lovingly highlighted in yellow bore a distinct resemblence to the style of a certain Ottawa lawyer known to be a chronic complainer. Can I prove who's behind this? No, I can't PROVE it.

I do see a pattern. Richard Warman, the Sec. 13 champion complainant, filed the initial Sec. 13 complaint against Terry Tremaine for his Internet postings back in 2005. He almost immediately, long before the matter was adjudicated, wrote to Mr. Tremaine's then employer the University of Saskatchewan, demanding that "appropriate" action be taken. Mr. Tremaine lost his job as a part time lecturer. Mr. Warman subsequently filed a Sec. 319 complaint against Mr. Tremaine, which led to the current charges. There has been an all-out effort to destroy Mr. Tremaine and those who support his right to free speech.

My earlier writings decrying Mr. Warman's war on Internet dissent or what he's called "neo-Nazis" led to a long a costly libel suit against me and CAFE.

In August, 2008, in Hamilton, Ontario, during the Warman v Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance Canadian Human Rights tribunal, Mr. Warman was lurking around the security men who were checking people entering the Court building. I wasn't sure what the security guard muttered and he assumed from my large lawyer's briefcase that I was a lawyer. He waved me through, without the usual wanding and search. I was Mr. Ouwendyk's "agent" but am not a lawyer. Warman hopped up early in the hearing: "Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair" (I wondered whether he'd be addressing the table next). He proceeded breathlessly to suggest that I'd lied and somehow evaded or avoided or subverted security. The tribunal chairman said, "Let's just move on."

However, you get the picture.

It is very dangerous in Canada to publicly dissent from political correctness, especially on the Internet. Warman had made the lives of dissenters hell, with a torrent of Sec. 13 complaints. Those who have protested these persecutions, like myself, have also come under attack. Lawyers like Douglas Christie and Ezra Levant who have stood up for victims of various human rights commissions have also been the objects of Law Society complaints by some in the "human rights" industry.

Paulie seems to be treating the judicial system, something he clearly has no understanding of based on this prissy fit or his "help" of various idiological allies. His failures however make it fun for us to ridicule him.

Paulie should be aware, however, that Mr. Warman isn't the only person watching who might slip information to the prosecution.

Chew on that a little bit.

Warman v. Lemire: We Told You It Likely Wasn't Over

Do we sound smug when we say we told you so?

Now let's all listen to the in unison crying and gnashing of teeth from the speechies:

Judicial Review Application in the Warman v. Lemire case

Judicial Review Application

Warman v. Lemire

On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Commission applied for Judicial Review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision in the Warman v. Lemire case before the Federal Court.

The Commission applied for Judicial Review so that technical but important legal issues raised by the decision can be clarified. These issues go beyond this particular case and could have an impact on other administrative tribunals. As a result, the uncertainty created by the decision is not in the public interest and merits a binding decision by a higher court.

The application is based on two grounds. It is the Commission’s view that:

The Tribunal erred in law when it found that the manner by which the applicant exercises its statutory mandate could render section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional; and

The Tribunal’s findings of unconstitutionality also resulted from the adoption of subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada’ s decision in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply section 13 of the Act because a refusal to apply subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) would have provided a sufficient remedy in respect of this ground.

The Commission endorses the Tribunal's narrow interpretation of section 13, which is consistent with the Supreme Court and Tribunal's jurisprudence as well as with the Commission's 2009 Special Report to Parliament. The Commission accepts the Tribunal's finding that the penalty clause is unconstitutional. In fact, the Commission itself has recommended that this provision be repealed in its Special Report to Parliament.

The Commission is a servant of Parliament and considers that Parliament's statutes must be applied unless they are found to be unconstitutional. In this case, it is the Commission’s view that the Tribunal went too far in refusing to apply section 13 in its entirety when the constitutional concern could be remedied by refusing to apply the penalty clause in 54(1)(c).

Given that the original decision was a bad decision based on a poor understanding and application of the law, we couldn't imagine that the decision wouldn't be appealed. On way or another, at least we'll be closer to some clarification.

Update: New links, now with kng-fu grip!

Topham Complaint Going Ahead

Dear Tribunal and Parties,

We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.

It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.

In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).

Yours truly,

Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission

Marc Lemire: Retreat on Key Accusations

In the spirit of collaboration and not reinventing the wheel, we'd like to send our readers to BigCityLib Strikes Back to read the following article:

Lemire Retreats! Speechies Get Stiffed!

To sum up, Lemire has very quietly admitted that Mr. Dean Steacy and other CHRC members did not post racist materials on his website's message board. Further, he is no longer claiming that the CHRC hijacked the wireless Internet service of an Ontario woman as previously claimed.

We wonder if Mr. Levant, the "National Post," Mr. Steyn, etal will publicly apologize to Mr. Steacy for their libelous claims?

John Beck

Name: John David Beck

DOB: March 8, 1968

Posts on Stormfront and other hate sites using a number of usernames.

Last Known Residence: Kelowna, BC

Formerly Operated www.bcwhitepride.com and www.whiterenegade.com

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision found at www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1120_0206dejan9.pdf