Patreon Supporters

Become a Patron!
Evan Balgord, A supporter from Ontario, Maureen Hurley, "Uncooperative Palindrome", Yellow Vests Canada EXPOSED, "No Name", "The ARC of the Moral Universe", Eric Weiss, "No Name", "No Name", Lamech N Shem

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Our Scoop Has Been Scooped: Terry Tremaine Served

Damn "Globe and Mail"!

Oh well.

Terry Tremaine has been served with contempt of court charges for continual violation of the CHRT ruling from February 2, 2007. Soon after the ruling was rendered, Tremaine continued posting inflammatory statements about Jews and other minorities as well as stating that he would ignore the CHRT ruling forbidding him from posting such materials including but not limited to the following which we have summarized:

July 5, 2007: Tremaine equates Jews with parasites killing the host and not being able to forsee their own deaths as a result. He then goes on the quote a section of the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion and later states that the "brown masses" would ultimately destroy the Jews regardless of the continued existance of "the White Race."

August 30, 2007: Again Tremaine compares the Jews to parasites and states that it is important to understand the "parasitic lifestyle" that Hitler described "with scientific accuracy."

September 22, 2007: In response to his own posting titled “Residential school “survivors” can now apply for cash” Tremaine complains that Canadian taxpayers are being ripped off. Compares the settlement regarding residential schools with the Holocaust which he claims was "a scam" and accusses Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations of being "coached by the Jews " in an "extortion through-victimhood" strategy. Tremaine further claims that First Nations peoples should instead be appreciative of residential schooling because they learned to speak English as a result. However, he then goes on to say that "we regret that such an effort was made to raise them out of their savage condition" claiming that had First nations peoples not learned English, that they would have remained on reserves "where they belong" and not be "infesting our cities today."

And so on.

Tremaine is already to go on trial for having violated section 319(2) of the Criminal Code (his apartment was raided in June 2007 and he was arrested January 23, 2008 on those charges). If he is found guilty of being in contempt of the CHRT ruling against him, Tremaine will be sent to jail just like Tomasz Winnicki was sent to jail for violating the terms of the CHRT ruling against him.

Now, we eagerly await the crying and moaning of the Stormfront and VNN crowd.


Anonymous said...

This IS good news but you can be found liable for reposting that information.


Nosferatu200 said...

Good question. Obviously the reason why we've posted the comments is to illustrate the vitriolic rhetoric being leveled at Jews and minorities by Tremaine and to show why he is being found in contempt. However, you might have a point. We're going to consult with someone who could provide a definitive answer and we'll get back to you. It might be that the context would mitigate the use of the quotes, but we'll find out for sure.

Anonymous said...

I suspect given that the context makes it clear you don't support the statements, it's probably okay. After all, the legal reason behind this is "incitement to hatred", and this blog is anything but, but I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

In human rights law, the context does not matter. Neither the truth of the statements (in this case they are false) nor your intent (in this case quasi-journalistic) matters at all. The test is whether they are likely to expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt, full stop. So, theoretically, you could be liable for a Section 13 charge. In criminal law, however, you are clearly exempt from a wilful promotion of hatred charge. Along with the exemption for private conversation, that law also provides defenses of truth, public interest, identifying hatred for the purpose of eradication, and religious arguments made in good faith. In this case, at least three would seem to apply.