"Holocaust denial laws"

[Free Truth]

It is a big misconception that there are laws against telling the truth about World War 2 in Canada.  

There is no "holocaust denial law" in Canada. Technically, there is no "holocaust denial law" anywhere. There are only STATUTES, that is all any of the "hate" crimes are, rules against your person.

Check out section 318 from the Criminal code of Canada on "Hate Propaganda":



Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.



The "laws" are worded differently in every country. They are ambiguous and it takes walking a tightrope for them to be applied to what one says when discussing and investigating WW2. Many of them don't directly list all of the points of revision, like whether or not there was homicidal gas chambers, a genocidal agenda, and/or questioning the statistics. Some will mention one or two of them, but the supposed laws are defined with things like "inciting hatred," "denying genocide," "minimizing genocide," "trivializing genocide," "reviving nazism," or "denying, belittling or approving of an act committed under the rule of National Socialism," even "disparaging the memory of a deceased person."

It could be said any court and establishment of whichever country is "denying genocide," "minimizing genocide," "trivializing genocide" by not holding accountable the IDF, the Israeli government and anybody that aided (especially the media) them for their 'Cast Lead' murders are worlds more guilty of denying, trivializing readily verifiable genocide than any individual discussing highly questionable events; claimed events that have been used to manipulate the world for decades and billions, no less.

Their terms that outline what is "holocaust denial" need to be clearly defined. What exactly is denial? What is the "holocaust?" What are the official numbers? How does "denying genocide" apply to the different aspects of investigation? Denying genocide, is a loaded phrase. Very many people question the official story (and many more are doing so everyday). Nobody has ever denied that so-called jews died...
Let the goyim get informed and make a decision... Ah, but they cannot have that; not a chance. TPTB have built everything up on this house of cards and dearly rely on it, so their version of history is defended with all they have.

Now, lets have a look at every other so-called holocaust denial (or "hate") laws out there.

The so-called "Holocaust denial laws," by Country:



Austria

    National Socialism Prohibition Law (1947, amendments of 1992)

    § 3g. He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a – 3f will be punished (revitalising of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years imprisonment.

    § 3h. As an amendment to § 3 g., whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.


Belgium

    Negationism Law (1995, amendments of 1999)

    Article 1 Whoever, in the circumstances given in article 444 of the Penal Code denies, grossly minimises, attempts to justify, or approves the genocide committed by the German National Socialist Regime during the Second World War shall be punished by a prison sentence of eight days to one year, and by a fine of twenty six francs to five thousand francs. For the application of the previous paragraph, the term genocide is meant in the sense of article 2 of the International Treaty of 9 December 1948 on preventing and combating genocide. In the event of repetitions, the guilty party may in addition have his civic rights suspended in accordance with article 33 of the Penal Code.

    Art.2 In the event of a conviction on account of a violation under this Act, it may be ordered that the judgement, in its entity or an excerpt of it, is published in one of more newspapers, and is displayed, to the charge of the guilty party.

    Art.3. Chapter VII of the First Book of the Penal Code and Article 85 of the same Code are also applicable to this Act.

    Art. 4. The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, as well as any association that at the time of the facts had a legal personality for at least five years, and which, on the grounds of its statutes, has the objective of defending moral interests and the honour of the resistance or the deported, may act in law in all legal disputes arising from the application of this Act.


Czech Republic

    Law Against Support and Dissemination of Movements Oppressing Human Rights and Freedoms (2001)

    § 260 (1) The person who supports or spreads movements oppressing human rights and freedoms or declares national, race, religious or class hatred or hatred against other group of persons will be punished by prison from 1 to 5 years. (2) The person will be imprisoned from 3 to 8 years if: a) he/she commits the crime mentioned in paragraph (1) in print, film, radio, television or other similarly effective manner, b) he/she commits the crime as a member of an organized group c) he/she commits the crime in a state of national emergency or state of war

    § 261 The person who publicly declares sympathies with such a movement mentioned in § 260, will be punished by prison from 6 months to 3 years.

    § 261a The person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify nazi or communist genocide or other crimes of nazis or communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years.


France

The Gayssot Act (French: Loi Gayssot), voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it an offense in France to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity.

    MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF JULY 29, 1881 ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Art 8. - Article 24 of the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 is supplemented by the following provisions: In the event of judgment for one of the facts envisaged by the preceding subparagraph, the court will be able moreover to order: Except when the responsibility for the author of the infringement is retained on the base for article 42 and the first subparagraph for article 43 for this law or the first three subparagraphs for article 93-3 for the law No 82-652 for July 29, 1982 on the audio-visual communication, the deprivation of the rights enumerated to the 2o and 3o of article 42 of the penal code for imprisonment of five years maximum;

    Art 9. – As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: <<Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one years imprisonment or a fine.

    Art 13. - It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: <<Art. 48-2. - publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favourable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five years imprisonment or a fine.


Germany

    § 130 Public incitement

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in (although is not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a outlaws various symbols of "unconstitutional organisations", such as the Swastika and the SS runes.

    § 130 Public Incitement

    (1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

       1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
       2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

    shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

    (3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

    (4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbes the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

The definition of section 6 of the Code of Crimes against International Law referenced in the above § 130 is as follows:

    § 6 Genocide

    (1) Whoever with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group:

       1. kills a member of the group,
       2. causes serious bodily or mental harm to a member of the group, especially of the kind referred to in section 226 of the Criminal Code,
       3. inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part,
       4. imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group,
       5. forcibly transfers a child of the group to another group, shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

The following sections of the German crimnal code are also relevant:

    § 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)

    Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

    § 194 Application for Criminal Prosecution

    (1) An insult shall be prosecuted only upon complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the aggrieved party was persecuted as a member of a group under the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree, this group is a part of the population and the insult is connected with this persecution. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if the aggrieved party objects. When the aggrieved party deceases, the rights of complaint and of objection devolve on the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2). The objection may not be withdrawn.

    (2) If the memory of a deceased person has been disparaged, then the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2), are entitled to file a complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the deceased person lost his life as a victim of the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree and the disparagement is connected therewith. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if a person entitled to file a complaint objects. The objection may not be withdrawn.


Israel

In Israel, a law to criminalize Holocaust denial was passed by the Knesset on July 8, 1986.

    Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, 5746-1986

    Definitions 1. In this Law, "crime against the Jewish people" and "crime against humanity" have the same respective meanings as in the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law, 5710-1950.

    Prohibition of Denial of Holocaust 2. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

    Prohibition of publication of expression for sympathy for Nazi crimes 3. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement expressing praise or sympathy for or identification with acts done in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

    Permitted publication 4. The publication of a correct and fair report of a publication prohibited by this Law shall not be regarded as an offence thereunder so long as it is not made with intent to express sympathy or identification with the perpetrators of crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity.

    Filing of charge 5. An indictment for offences under this Law shall only be filed by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.


Liechtenstein

Although not specifically outlining national socialist crimes, item five of section 283 of Liechtenstein's criminal code prohibits the denial of genocide.

    § 283 Race discrimination

    Whoever publically denies, coarsely trivialises, or tries to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity via word, writing, pictures, electronically transmitted signs, gestures, violent acts or by other means shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years.[22]


Switzerland

"Holocaust denial" is not expressly illegal in Switzerland, but the denial of genocide and other crimes against humanity is an offence.
   
Art. 261bis 1

    Racial discrimination

    Whoever publicly, by word, writing, image, gesture, acts of violence or any other manner, demeans or discriminates against an individual or a group of individuals because of their race, their ethnicity or their religion in a way which undermines human dignity, or on those bases, denies, coarsely minimizes or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity [...] shall be punished with up to three years imprisonment or a fine.


Luxembourg

In Luxembourg, Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997 applies to:

    ...anyone who has contested, minimised, justified or denied the existence of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in the statutes of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or the existence of a genocide as defined by the Act of 8 August 1985. A complaint must be lodged by the person against whom the offence was committed (victim or association) in order for proceedings to be brought, Article 450 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997.


The Netherlands

"Holocaust denial" is not illegal in The Netherlands.

While Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal in The Netherlands, the courts consider it a form of spreading hatred and therefore an offence.

    Article 137c

       1. He who in public, orally, in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, or their hetero- or homosexual orientation, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a third category fine.

    Article 137d

       1. He who in public, orally, in writing or image, incites hatred or discrimination against people or acts violently towards people or property of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their gender or their hetero- or homosexual orientation, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a third category fine.


Poland

In addition to Holocaust denial, the denial of communist crimes is punishable by law in Poland.

    Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Dz.U. 1998 nr 155 poz. 1016)

    Article 55
    He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

    Article 1
    This Act shall govern:
    1. the registration, collection, access, management and use of the documents of the organs of state security created and collected between 22 July 1944 and 31 December 1989, and the documents of the organs of security of the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning:

        a) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:

            - Nazi crimes,
            - communist crimes,
            - other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes

        b) other politically motivated repressive measures committed by functionaries of Polish prosecution bodies or the judiciary or persons acting upon their orders, and disclosed in the content of the rulings given pursuant to the Act of 23 February 1991 on the Acknowledgement as Null and Void Decisions Delivered on Persons Repressed for Activities for the Benefit of the Independent Polish State (Journal of Laws of 1993 No. 34, item 149, of 1995 No. 36, item 159, No. 28, item 143, and of 1998 No. 97, item 604),

    2. the rules of procedure as regards the prosecution of crimes specified in point 1 letter a),
    3. the protection of the personal data of grieved parties, and
    4. the conduct of activities as regards public education.


Romania

In Romania, Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002 prohibits Holocaust denial. It was ratified on May 6, 2006. The law also prohibits racist, fascist, xenophobic symbols, uniforms and gestures: proliferation of which is punishable with imprisonment from between six months to five years.

    Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002

    Article 3. – (1) Establishing a fascist, racist or xenophobic organisation is punishable by imprisonment from 5 to 15 years and the loss of certain rights.

    Article 4. – (1) The dissemination, sale or manufacture of symbols either fascist, racist or xenophobic, and possession of such symbols is punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

    Article 5. – Promoting the culture of persons guilty of committing a crime against peace and humanity or promoting fascist, racist or xenophobic ideology, through propaganda, committed by any means, in public, is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

    Article 6. – Denial of the Holocaust in public, or to the effects thereof is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.


Spain

"Holocaust denial" is legal in Spain. although justifying the Holocaust or any other genocide is  punishable in accordance with the constitution.

    PENAL CODE- BOOK II, TITLE XXIV Crimes against the International Community
    Chapter II: Crimes of genocide - Article 6071.

    1. Those who, with the intention to total or partially destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, perpetrate the following acts, will be punished:

        1) With the prison sentence of fifteen to twenty years, if they killed to some of its members.



Big question: Is World war 2 revisionism "denial of genocide?"
Is science "anti-semitic?"

Though some of the threats appear more serious than others, all of these statutes are highly questionable.
The truth is the representatives of the owners that occupy your country can't tell you to do anything let alone stop you from talk about the so-called holocaust.

The countries listed above are the only ones with these so-called jews' commandments. Most of these commandments only have to do with genocide. Nobody in their right mind would ever endorse or deny death and genocide of people. The Palestinians know of people not in their right mind...

In fact, people in their right mind value truth and would value the piece of mind that such claimed atrocities like continuously gassing innocent people is not a permanent tarnish to humanity and our history! The less people that died, in any conflict, the better.

World war 2 revisionists Vs. Holocaust exterminationists
Based just on name, which side would you choose? Who in their right mind would want the extermination of innocents to be true!?

The world must uncover the whole truth about what happened to redress the entire situation, to clear names of anybody wrongfully accused and to bring to justice anybody that is truly responsible and that has benefited from what is called the holocaust. The world will get the answers it seeks; the truth will surely win.  

How could we ever let them convince us to shut up?!

It is frustrating that people submit and acknowledge these nonsense, supposed laws against what is right. On TFC audios, Daryl does not talk about the holocaust due to what are believed to be laws against doing so. But painting the pictures, "I'll get dragged out of my house by my hair," or "taken away in handcuffs," is not only submission to questionable rules against truth, but is dissuading to anybody that hears it; and the listeners of the French connection are leaders.
We're tired of hearing that.
It reminds me of a thread by our friend Active Indolent called, 'Learned helplessness and my problems with Daryl':

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3403&hilit=helplessness&start=15

I agree with AI's feelings of respect and aim to be constructive.
Perhaps a better approach to addressing the so-called holocaust when it comes up is a good idea. Besides, the "laws" in France against WW2 truth look non-existent.

Does the following caveat, or a similar statement, cover a speaker when informing others of the facts about WW2?
"I don't deny jews died during WW2, but there is credible and rational evidence suggesting we have not been told the truth about the events called the holocaust and, at the very least, we need to thoroughly revise the the event and have historians' questions answered."  

Citing the existence of these nonsense laws against historical truth and free speech is a winning argument, and it may be the best way to go about starting the ball rolling on discussion of the situation.

The way that these rules are feared and endorsed by fooled masses is unfortunate because the fact they exist is heavy evidence on it's own. What most resembles truth about WW2 is blatant for anybody with (un)common sense that takes five minutes to really think about it.
At least that's what I hope...

Tell everybody about the so-called holocaust.
Never stop talking about it...

Never again.
 

[kolnidre]

Excellent post. I believe it should answer Brandon Dean's questions on how Canada approaches this issue.

I have a member of the tribe staying as a guest next week. Should I "deny" the Arthur Butz, David Irving, Germar Rudolph, Donn de Grand Pre, and Michael Hoffman II and other such books from my shelf?

[MikeWB]

Excellent research! This shows that Canadian laws are not very strong and are not holocaust specific and charges can be defended against on multiple grounds. If one of these cases went to court, Zios would be scared of what kind of evidence you might submit that could prove that your POV is true.

Some of the other country's laws are downright scary.

[GordZilla]

Excellent research! This shows that Canadian laws are not very strong and are not holocaust specific and charges can be defended against on multiple grounds. If one of these cases went to court, Zios would be scared of what kind of evidence you might submit that could prove that your POV is true.

Some of the other country's laws are downright scary.

'Cept the Supreme court of Canada has already ruled that; "truth cannot be used as a defense" for anyone charged with Holocaust denial.

so yeah, it's scary here too.

[Free Truth]

'Cept the Supreme court of Canada has already ruled that; "truth cannot be used as a defense" for anyone charged with Holocaust denial.

so yeah, it's scary here too.

Are you scared!? Of what?
You shouldn't be...

Can you give me a source for that Supreme court of Canada ruling?
It's been a pleasant surprise that in my research I have not been able to find any proof of that claim.

In fact, I've found more than one instance where Canada has upheld individual rights when dealing with attacks on those that have spoken truth on World war 2.

A Canadian high-school teacher named James Keegstra was charged with "denying the Holocaust" and being "antisemitic" in his classroom! Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code of Canada (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression.

AND

Ernst Zundel was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by a Canadian (Ontario) court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust." After a number of free-speech activists stepped forward to defend his right to publish his opinion, Zundel gained considerable notoriety and his conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the "false news" law unconstitutional.

So, where did that claim that the truth is not a defense originally come from?! The truth is and always will be a defense!
The truth is also and always will be the best offense.

[Free Truth]

I have a member of the tribe staying as a guest next week.

Are you aware of whether this so-called jew is a supporter of Israel, a believer in the so-called holocaust or a 9/11 truth denier?

If so, if you don't intend to help him, you shouldn't let him make a single step into your home.

Should I "deny" the Arthur Butz, David Irving, Germar Rudolph, Donn de Grand Pre, and Michael Hoffman II and other such books from my shelf?

No way!

[GordZilla]

'Cept the Supreme court of Canada has already ruled that; "truth cannot be used as a defense" for anyone charged with Holocaust denial.

so yeah, it's scary here too.

Are you scared!? Of what?
You shouldn't be...

Can you give me a source for that Supreme court of Canada ruling?
It's been a pleasant surprise that in my research I have not been able to find any proof of that claim.

"Scared" was used sarcastically, I only fear God , well rather His judgement of me. :shock:      

Anyways  here's the story;

http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=954

[kolnidre]

I have a member of the tribe staying as a guest next week.

Are you aware of whether this so-called jew is a supporter of Israel, a believer in the so-called holocaust or a 9/11 truth denier?

If so, if you don't intend to help him, you shouldn't let him make a single step into your home.

Should I "deny" the Arthur Butz, David Irving, Germar Rudolph, Donn de Grand Pre, and Michael Hoffman II and other such books from my shelf?

No way!

I only know this person is a liberal who wears all the usual accessories associated with projecting outwards about equality and justice, saving this and that, and feeling great about oneself.

I have no idea about this person's stance on Israhell, but with my command of the facts I do not fear a good debate, and hold out the possibility of making allies. Being born into a certain skin or group isn't a crime. Some of the biggest allies we have for exposing the mess that is the Zionist state are so-called Jews. For instance, this article http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko08252009.html is phenomenal for showing the division that cleaved it at its founding, how German and Polish Jews could only get aid if they settled in Palestine, how the society bred a new generation of militarized grunts almost immediately, how it faces serious demographic, religious, identity, and manpower problems, and much more. Michael Collins Piper demolished an apparent shill for Israhell last week using references from exclusively Jewish sources. Only by destroying supremacist tribalism and parasitism, not physically but through enlightenment, can we prevent these forces from destroying us. And for that we need allies.

Rest assured, I won't take a single book off my shelves.

[Free Truth]

'Cept the Supreme court of Canada has already ruled that; "truth cannot be used as a defense" for anyone charged with Holocaust denial.

Actually, the famous truth is no defense nonsense statement had to do with "hate," I believe.

Many people cite this situation when talking about these jewish rules...
Lets take a closer look.

[Free Truth]

The CHRC, which some would call the equivalent of the ACLU, has taken a lot of heat in Canada from the public, the parliament and even the Canadian media.

Marc Lemire is the individual involved in the outrageous case in Canada where it was claimed that truth is not a defense.
It turns out that Marc Lemire came under attack by the shameful Richard Warman. Warman claims title to having issued the most "hate" complaints to the thought police in Canada. But get this, the shabbat goy (unless he's crypto) has been caught attempting to entrap people online by inciting hatred in forums!
(Shouldn't Warman be brought up on all kinds of charges?!)

Warman had been trolling a number of dissident sites like VNN (Vanguard Network News) and Stormfront. He adopted phoney persona and posted racist comments that he himself had to admit were "problematic". "Why?" Marc's incredibly dedicated lawyer Barbara Kulaszka asked him. You can access these sites to spy on Canadians as a mere visitor. Warman admitted that he identified most of his victims from information they themselves freely provided. Why then adopt these persona and write fiery posts, one of which strongly supported some fringe Nazi leader is the U.S. who was the subject of criticism by other activists for embarrassing the movement by parading around in a Hollywood issue Nazi uniform. Was Warman, in fact, trying to lure young and impressionable folks into making comments that he could then complain about, she suggested.
 
Warman's credibility has never been put under such scrutiny. Even more, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has accepted all his complaints, but rejected at least four made by so-called right-wingers, has known of his devious and questionable  Internet activities and apparently condoned them.

If I'm reading this order correctly, March 25th may become known as Black Tuesday at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

That's when Marc Lemire -- one of the few Canadians who has had the energy and legal resources to fight back against the CHRC's section 13 thought crimes steamroller -- will be allowed to cross examine commission staff about their "undercover" activities on the Internet. Judging by what Lemire has uncovered so far -- such as an Edmonton Police "hate crimes" officer posting anti-Semitic and anti-Aboriginal bigotry on the Internet -- it's sure to be a blockbuster.

(It's deeply disturbing that "hate crimes" police -- I'm not talking about human rights keystone cops now, but real police officers -- publish such bigotry on the taxpayers' dime, and all in the name of keeping the peace. One must ask: at what point is the "fake" hatred generated by the police a larger problem than the "real" hatred that exists already on society's fringes? And, really, is there any moral difference between the two, other than the police claim they don't really mean it? At what point does the cure become worse than the disease?)

Remember that these are the same "anti-hate" activists -- police, human rights activists, and even CSIS agents -- who paid a government agent to set up the Heritage Front, arguably Canada's leading neo-Nazi movement twenty years ago. The fact that these same government agents then "infiltrated" the nascent Reform Party, to the great embarrassment of Preston Manning, shows that these "anti-hate" campaigns have long been torqued into a partisan political weapon.

The CHRC had vigorously opposed the coming interrogation of their staff, and it's easy to see why. Dean Steacy, one of the staff who will be compelled to answer questions on March 25th, has previously admitted to creating Internet pseudonyms to infiltrate websites the commission was hunting (something Richard Warman has admitted to doing as well after, uh, first not admitting to it). But instead of preparing some hermetically-sealed, written answers to Lemire's questions, as Steacy has been able to do in the past, he must now take the stand and answer questions live, under oath, from Lemire's lawyer.

It will be fascinating to watch. Remember, Steacy was the commission staffer who once exclaimed that freedom of speech -- which just happens to be section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights -- "is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." Watching Lemire's lawyer cross-examine him might be worth flying all the way to Ottawa.

Another CHRC staffer, Hannya Rizk, will be ordered to take the stand, too. It will be interesting, if only to see why the CHRC tried so hard to deny Lemire the right to ask them questions about their investigative tactics. Surely one of the hallmarks of a limited, responsible government, where the police and other instruments of state power are accountable to civilian oversight, is transparency. If the CHRC wants to hide its tactics, isn't that in itself a sign that something is awfully wrong? The tactics and techniques of real police officers are subject to scrutiny by the public all the time -- from tasers to photo radar to search warrants to closed circuit TV cameras to wire taps. It's healthy -- and it reminds police that they serve the people, and not the other way around. Why did the CHRC try so hard to keep its tactics immune from scrutiny?

Besides grilling Steacy and Rizk, my reading of the order is that Lemire can now subpoena Internet records from Bell that would "remember" any details that Steacy or Rikz might "forget". That's another win, too.

But the CHRC isn't the only organization that's sure to be embarrassed on March 25th. If I understand the order, it will permit Lemire to enter as exhibits correspondence between the Canadian Jewish Congress and the CHRC, in which the CJC discussed methods by which Internet companies could block access to Internet websites -- that is, to censor them -- without even bothering to go through the process of a CHRC hearing.

This, I've got to see. The CHRC has a 100% conviction rate under its section 13 thought crimes section; people dragged before the commission have to pay for their own lawyers, and often are ordered to pay fines to the commission and to the person who brought the complaint to the commission's attention (like Richard Warman has done so frequently). Apparently that absurd, one-sided procedure is still too much hassle for the CJC. It will be fascinating to see the censorship plans cooked up between the CJC and the CHRC that involve short-circuiting the kangaroo court, and going straight to the censorship.

But I think the most dramatic moment of all will come when commission staffer Dean Steacy is asked about his undercover activities targetting Free Dominion, a leading conservative political "chat" website. Steacy's fake Internet name, Jadewarr, was used to sign up on Free Dominion just two weeks before a "hateful" post was made there, that later formed the basis of a CHRC complaint against the site.

Did Dean Steacy himself manufacture that "evidence" that was then used as the basis of a complaint against Free Dominion? Why was the CHRC targeting a mainstream conservative chat site, the same way it had targeted overtly racist sites in the past? Who at the CHRC had made the determination that taxpayers' dollars and bureaucrats' time should be used to infiltrate a conservative political forum?

We might just get an answer to these questions on March 25th. If so, it will be a rare glimpse into the secretive, unaccountable world of human rights commissions -- and therefore, an important step towards educating the public, and the politicians, about the aching need to rein in these commissions and cut them down.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/march-25t ... resti.html

Richard Warman is an Ottawa based lawyer active in human rights law. Warman worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission from July 2002 to March 2004. He is best known for initiating complaints against white "supremacists" and "neo-nazis" for Canadian Human Rights Act violations related to Internet content. In June 2007, Warman received the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award from the Canadian Jewish Congress for "distinguished service to the cause of human rights."

Warman has written a detailed report for B'nai Brith's Annual Audit of anti-semitic Incidents.



Warman, who is said not to be jewish, but has been presumed to be so by some of his opponents, has been the target of "anti-semitic" and homophobic smears by "neo-Nazis" and other "anti-semites."



Exposing censorship in Canada

http://www.freedomsite.org/exposed/index.html

Lemire's site:

http://www.freedomsite.org/



Nothing has happened to Marc Lemire; in fact, he "smoked" them with plenty of support from every day people.

[Free Truth]

What are Melvin's thoughts on these strawman rules he submits to, the way he's influenced others to do so, and on moving forward differently with regards to them?

[MikeWB]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Jeers+loathing+tribunal/399125/story.html

Jeers and loathing at tribunal

Critics in gallery challenge human rights bureacracy

BY JOSEPH BREAN, NATIONAL POST SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

OTTAWA - For people who consider the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal a kangaroo court, the supporters of Marc Lemire in his defence against a hate-speech charge were surprisingly respectful of protocol yesterday, as they packed a gallery to see the landmark cross-examination of the investigator behind the case.

Mindful of the police presence, everyone rose when directed and no one heckled, although old men muttered their dissent. A thick-necked young Lemire associate with a buzz-cut kept cracking his neck and gnawing the chapped skin on his thumb, but was otherwise quiet and still as he doodled and took notes. Even the old guy with the knife in his pocket smiled as he removed it for the Tribunal guards at the hearing room door.

All in all, the monitor from the Canadian Jewish Congress had plenty to monitor, from Canada's most famous online racists and the legal team that defended Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel, down to the conservative Maclean's columnist Mark Steyn, dapper with a red pocket puff, who at the breaks signed autographs for admirers.

It seemed a recipe for disaster, but the awkward highlight of the day came not from Mr. Lemire's defence team, nor the prosecution team of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, nor even the complainant, Richard Warman, a human rights activist who has rarely attended his own case, and did not yesterday as it concluded.

Rather, it came when the Tribunal appeared to wrongly out an innocent person as a Commission operative, thus exposing her to the unwanted attention of the vast army of bloggers who support Mr. Lemire, owner of the far-right FreedomSite.

For a government agency that has fought for months to protect the personal security of their own staff, even going so far as to (unsuccessfully) invoke national security to keep them off the witness stand, their handling of the "Nellie Hechme" question is remarkable.

Legally, however, the most significant part of the day was the admission by CHRC investigator Dean Steacy that his colleagues share control of an online identity called Jadewarr, which they have used to anonymously monitor and contribute to controversial far-right and white supremacist websites. Mr. Steacy's examination on this point by Mr. Lemire's lawyer Barbara Kulaszka bolstered their case that he should not be held accountable for what others post on his site, especially if those others might be government employees.

There was little mention of Mr. Lemire's constitutional challenge of the part of the human rights act under which he is charged, section 13.1, which says it is a violation to disseminate material on the Internet that is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

That challenge explains Mr. Steyn's presence, because Maclean's is also accused of a section 13.1 violation, based largely on a Steyn book excerpt about Muslim demographics, which was brought by Mohamed Elmasry, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and others.

Ezra Levant, the other high-profile section 13.1 defendant (he published the Danish Muhammad cartoons in his now-defunct Western Standard magazine) did not attend, but he had the luxury of reading live Internet coverage of the hearing by Mr. Steyn's colleague Kady O'Malley, and Mr. Lemire himself, who blogged from his chair closest to the witness stand.

There were moments of drama, such as when Mr. Steacy bluntly and repeatedly refused to answer a question (he was asked for the identity of an anonymous complainant, who never filed a formal complaint), to the evident disbelief of Athanasios Hadjis, the one-man tribunal hearing the case.

"You refuse to answer?" he said twice.

There were raised voices, most notably that of Doug Christie--best known as Ernst Zundel's lawyer and now an intervenor on behalf of Mr. Lemire -- who yelled at Mr. Hadjis that he had flown all the way from Victoria, B.C., on his own tab, and he was not going to let the Commission lawyer continue her "obstruction" of his cross-examination.

There were revelations about the informal relationships between Commission investigators and police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Mr. Steacy, among the Commission's main 13.1 investigators, said he has asked for and received information from law enforcement "maybe a dozen times," and twice provided information to them.

But, for skeptics of human rights commissions, the coup de grace came first thing in the morning, when Alain Monfette, director of the law enforcement support team for Bell Canada, took the witness stand.

He had been subpoenaed to explain who logged on to the Web site freedominion.ca as Jadewarr in December, 2006, just as bloggers were using technical data to reveal it as Mr. Steacy's online identity.

Later in the day, Mr. Steacy testified that the name Jadewarr "is actually a short for for Jade Warrior, which is a character from a novel I read as a teenager." He said access to the account was shared by at least five people, including investigators, their superiors and Mr. Steacy's personal assistants (he has been blind since 2004). He said there was no managerial oversight of what investigators did under this identity, although he said "the manager would be aware of what was going on."

Once Mr. Hadjis explicitly ordered him to do so, Mr. Monfette reported that Bell's technical staff learned that whoever logged on as Jadewarr that day in 2006 had accessed the Internet through a Bell account controlled by Nellie Hechme. He gave the phone number and the street address of the apartment where the account was registered.

By the morning coffee break, associates of Mr. Lemire had already tracked down the value of Ms. Hechme's apartment, but not her identity. And by the end of the day, the Commission's lawyer Margot Blight said that Ms. Hechme remains a mystery to everyone involved, including Mr. Lemire's team.

Reached by phone last night, Ms. Hechme, 26, told the National Post she has no connection to the tribunal, has never known any of the investigators, and has never accessed a Web site as Jadewarr. She said that in the relevant period in 2006 she did have a Bell Sympatico account with a wireless connection that was not password controlled, meaning anyone within range of her apartment could have accessed the Internet with it.

She does, however, have a link to Bell Canada. She has been employed there, though not in the Internet division, since before 2006. She had never heard of this Jadewarr issue before, and was disturbed that her name had been publicly disclosed, by her employer no less, without so much as a heads-up.

Even before the lunchbreak yesterday, her identity was the subject of feverish speculation on Web sites supportive of Mr. Lemire, which also posted her address. By the late afternoon, someone had dug up her old MySpace page, in a mass online investigation that no doubt continued into the wee hours of this morning.

It was just the most prominent of awkward moments for an unusually long and complicated tribunal hearing whose ending, to judge by the tone of the discussion in the late afternoon, has come as a blessed relief to all involved.

Notably, however, we all await the decision.

[Free Truth]

A recent study claims that only as many as 25,000 people died in the Allied bombing of Dresden.
I always heard the death toll numbers placed in the hundreds of thousands (~250,000).

Could it be said that anybody involved with this study and/or involvement in disseminating it are "denying genocide," "minimizing genocide," "trivializing genocide," "inciting hatred," "denying, belittling or approving of an act committed under the rule of National Socialism," and/or "disparaging the memory of a deceased person?"

I say YES.

Perhaps the appropriate "authorities" should be notified of this denial...

A five-year official study of the Allied bombing of Dresden in World War II has concluded that as many as 25,000 people died, far fewer than most historians have estimated, the BBC reports.

The study by The Dresden Historians' Commission was aimed at ending a heated debate on the casualty figure from the raid on the German city by British and American warplanes Feb. 13-15, 1945.

Far-right groups in Germany have claimed that the attack and ensuing firestorm killed up to 500,000 people and constituted a war crime.

The Telegraph in Britain says the bombing has long been a cause of tensions between the two countries and noted that protesters demanding an apology threw eggs at Queen Elizabeth II when she visited the city in 1992.

The commission used records from city archives, cemeteries and other official registries as well as eyewitness and published reports, the BBC says.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -dresden/1

[scorpio]

Excellent post. I believe it should answer Brandon Dean's questions on how Canada approaches this issue.

I have a member of the tribe staying as a guest next week. Should I "deny" the Arthur Butz, David Irving, Germar Rudolph, Donn de Grand Pre, and Michael Hoffman II and other such books from my shelf?

NO...those are all great authors.
Donn de Grand Pre....I didn't think anyone else read that book.

Those who get offended need to be offended.
Diversity in thought is a good thing