NC Asks:  Under Canadian libel laws, “truth is not an absolute defense.”  If truth is not an absolute defense,  then what is an absolute defense?

Repeat this five times:  ”Truth is not an absolute defense”!

Do you hear how insane that sounds?  Law has to be based on something,  so if Truth is not an absolute defense it leaves opinion.  So is opinion an absolute defense? What is an absolute defense in Canada?

Remember that our Founding Fathers lived under this kind of tyrannical jurisprudence which is why they coined the phrase, “You are innocent UNTIL you are proven guilty,”  laid out the arguments in the debates to create our Constitution and then provided absolute Constitutional protection of that Right in that cherished document.

Now say this five times,  ”I am innocent until the accuser proves me guilty!”

Which one of these statements sounds insane?

Think about what it would be like to have to spend 100s of 1000s of dollars to prove your innocence.  And on top of that, it’s about something you said in the course of trying to save innocent lives!  Canada is in a sorry state of affairs if this is how they protect the principle of  free speech.

Op-Ed

by Dr. Paul Williams, No Compromise Media contributor

I am a United States citizen on trial in Canada for exposing a situation at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario that threatened the lives and welfare of Canadians and Americans alike. My book The Dunces of Doomsday, published in the U.S. by Cumberland House, revealed potential terrorist threats from al-Qaeda affiliates at McMaster. The university is suing me for libel, demanding $4 million in punitive and aggregated damages.

Unlike American libel laws where the plaintiff must prove that what was said about him is not true,  and it was said in malice, Canadian libel laws, like the British, put the burden of proof on the defendant, not on the plaintiff.

What I wrote and said about McMaster from my home in Pennsylvania falls well within the standards of responsible journalism. Nevertheless, I have been dragged into court in Toronto, Canada, to be tried under Canadian law that lacks the U.S. Constitutional protection of free speech.

This ordeal has damaged my professional career, depleted my life savings, and placed me in financial jeopardy.

I am not alone.

Other writers have suffered a similar fate, including Joe Sharkey, a New Jersey-based freelance business journalist is being sued for reporting about a plane crash he survived over the Amazon. A woman who claims Sharkey offended the “dignity” of Brazil by criticizing its air-traffic control is suing him for libel in Brazil. This despite the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board’s conclusion that the Brazilian air traffic control was responsible to the crash.  She demands $500,000 and apologies in national and international media outlets.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose criticism of a Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire who funded al Qaeda, has resulted in a judgment by default in British court against her for allegedly defaming the Saudi. She was ordered to pay $250,000, apologize in international media outlets and destroy her book: Funding Evil; How Terrorism Is Financed – and How to Stop It.

The same ordeal can befall all investigative reporters in the U.S. unless federal legislators pass The Free Speech Protection Act 2009, which is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Last week my pretrial took place in Toronto. It was not a pleasant experience. My Canadian lawyers and the appointed mediator spent seven hours attempting to coerce me into signing an apology to McMaster University for stating the truth. They maintained that none of my statements were factual according to Canadian libel laws.

I pointed to the fact that McMaster was home to several al-Qaeda members who plotted to blow up Canada’s Parliament and behead its prime minister. In fact, a week before my pretrial took place, the guilty plea of a McMaster student, Saad Gaya, to charges of terrorism captured the headlines of Canadian newspapers. Gaya was one of eighteen al-Qaeda affiliates also charged with planning to blow up trucks loaded with bombs at the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Toronto office of the Canadian Security intelligence Service and a military base on Ontario. He was the eleventh to be convicted. The remaining seven members of the group, known as the “Toronto 18,” remain in prison awaiting trial. Such statements of fact have done little to persuade McMaster to drop the lawsuit, and my trial is set for April 2010.

In Canada, as in England and Brazil, truth is not an absolute defense.

No American citizen should be stripped of his/her Constitutional rights by foreign countries or foreign entities.

Congress should act immediately to pass the Free Speech Protection Act 2009.

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

Clarks Green, PA

ThoughtRogue:  Apparently, some people, especially liberals in Canadian Parliament, cannot understand the incredibly vital distinction between the Right to Freedom of Speech, and how a person with that right chooses to exercise it.  The liberally concocted “Hate” obsession has fostered the self-delusion to extraordinary levels.  Government prosecution for “hate”, i.e. deciding to be offended by someone else’s speech, then pretending this has caused them great bodily harm, finally culminating in the reading of people’s minds and then condemning them, not only for the criminal use of Free Speech but also for preventing future crimes that certainly MAY occur (perhaps, maybe.. waaaahh!), does not apparently strike a leftist Canadian as loony – not to mention literally uncivilized and dangerous.

Perhaps, just as a fish will never admit that they are all wet, a liberal, leftist MP will never admit that their own use of “Free Speech” and their self-proclaimed ability and authority to adjudicate it is evermore dangerous than mere hate-speech itself.  These kangaroo commissions of goodness which Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have recently tangled with is of the same strain of virulent liberal sickness which is now attempting to entrap Dr. Paul L. Williams within its blood-sucking tentacles.  What kind of society would attempt to criminalize opinion – by those who disagree with just that certain opinion, of course (the working definition of “hateful” speech!)?

I watched these vids last night and became somewhat mesmerized by Ezra and Mark’s incisive, cogent smackdown of Canada’s wussy kangaroo commissioners regarding the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.  I suspect a couple of the parliamentarians on the committee panel understood what “freedom of speech” really means, but most of these loons were clearly blinded by their own wishy-washy political-correctness fantasies.  As an evil opinionated U.S. Citizen myself I must ask, Is it a requirement for a Canadian politician to come across at all times as completely wussified and obtuse while as downright BLAND as possible?  HATE!!  Arrest HIM!!  Call in the Free Speech Mounties!

Steyn and I testify before Parliament

By Ezra Levant

Today, Mark Steyn and I testified before Parliament’s Justice and Human Rights Committee, in support of their investigations into the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their discredited censorship powers.

Later this week I’ll share some of my views about how it went, including my assessment of the questions from the MPs. (In a word, I was quite encouraged.) In the meantime, here are YouTube videos of the whole hour, courtesy of SDA Matt. I’m curious how you thought it went: feel free to leave a comment not only about what Steyn and I said, but what the MPs said, too.

Click here to view the rest of the videos of Ezra and Mark’s testimony.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

By Tracy Hood, No Compromise Media

American investigative journalist, and author, Dr. Paul L. Williams, will begin his crusade, October 8, in a Toronto courtroom to answer charges of defamation regarding his explosive investigations into missing radio active material at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

Williams become entangled in a legal jam with the Canadian university while discussing his book The Dunces of Doomsday on the nationally syndicated “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio program with George Noory.

According to Williams, “What is unique about my case is that my alleged violation of Canadian law took place in the U.S.A. I wrote my book in America, where it was published, and I spoke to American reporters who called me at my home in Pennsylvania. By all standards, what I said and wrote aboutMcMaster University remains well within the libel and defamation laws of our land. Still and all, I am being sued by a foreign entity and have lost not only my freedom but my life savings.”

The case is significant since it represents the first time in American History an American journalist has been forced to submit to a foreign jurisdiction. Williams speculates that the reason Canada is able to sue him over the border is because of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

NAFTA was signed into law in 1994 eliminating most trade barriers. However, an unintended consequence of NAFTA was the ability for foreign individuals and entities to sue American journalists and authors on libel and defamation suits much harder to adjudicate in America.

Under Canadian law, once an accusation of libel is made, the respondent must prove they are innocent rather than the plaintiff proving guilt.

“I was asked to sign an apology for remarks I made that came straight from the Congressional Record and testimony by a 9/11 Council, Janice Kephart” Williams stated, “These remarks were verified by several federal investigations and researchers; a host of highly reputable journalists, including Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of The Washington Times.”

Foreign citizens or entities suing American journalists in foreign courts for libel and defamation is a growing trend, and as a result Congress is stepping into this issue to fortify free speech protection.

US Citizen, Rachel Ehrenfeld, author, and lecturer was also sued for libel in a British court over her controversial book, Funding Evil. She counter sued stating that under American defamation laws her book was not libelous, but her case was dismissed in a New York court. As a result of her case, theNew York legislature passed a law called Rachel’s Law, protecting New York citizens against libel judgements not recognized under American libel jurisprudence.

Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA), alarmed at the increase of libel suits against the American press, has sponsored The Free Speech Protection Act. Spector stated on the Senate floor: “[T]he Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 address[es] a serious challenge to one of the most basic protections in our Constitution. American journalists and academics must have the freedom to investigate, write, speak, and publish about matters of public importance, limited only by the legal standards laid out in our First Amendment jurisprudence.”

Ehrenfeld says, “We need a federal law which allows respondents to counter sue for damages. This law will protect free speech, and be used as a deterrent against foreign lawsuits.”

The House has a similar bill, HR 1304, which would create a “cause of action to determine whether defamation exists under United States law in cases in which defamation actions have been brought in foreign courts against United States persons.”

###

If you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Dr. Paul Williams, please email Tracy at nocompromisemedia@gmail.com

Please use trackback url: http://nocompromisemedia.com/2009/10/07/american-journalists-silenced/

A Health Care Bill that I do not wish on my worse enemy, Part deux!

by Mr. H

What will happen when the United States government bans Americans from private health care and replaces it with Obamas Universal Health Care plan?

What would happen if you found out that you had cancer, and were told by a doctor that you needed an MRI scan, but were told you had to wait 4-5 months to receive the scan that could help the doctors save your life, and that you could not pay for it yourself even though the doctor said time was of the essence?

What would you do if there were no neighboring countries you could travel to in order to receive the care needed to save your life, even if that meant paying the medical expenses out of your own pocket?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO???

To answer these question, and to look into our future under the universal health care package we need to look no further than our neighbors to the North – Canada.

source A Short Course in Brain Surgery

Back to the United States

Friends, nothing in life is free, and if you believe it is, it is time to wake up; it is time that we as a people wake up from the lunacy that is destroying our nation.

We do not need government health care, what we need is to get back to God and live as we are taught in the Holy Bible.

My dear friends, do not seek governments help for health care, we the people, the Christian people of this nation need to help one another, we do not need the governments hand out as that is what got us is this financial mess in the first place, but that is another article.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 NIV (7) If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. (8) Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. (9) Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. (10) Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. (11) There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

If your neighbor is in need then help him, do not ignore, stop living life in the secular view of give me, give me, give me, and start giving back to your communities in order to get the government out of our lives!

Deuteronomy 22:1-4 NIV If you see your brother’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to him. (2) If the brother does not live near you or if you do not know who he is, take it home with you and keep it until he comes looking for it. Then give it back to him. (3) Do the same if you find your brother’s donkey or his cloak or anything he loses. Do not ignore it. (4) If you see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help him get it to its feet.

If we as a nation turn back to our Christian roots, and make sure we only vote God fearing men and women into office come election time, then the mess we got ourselves into can be reversed; only if we as a nation repent and turn back to God – the God of Israel.

Deuteronomy 11:13-15 NIV (13) So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul— (14) then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. (15) I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied.

But if we do not, and we continue to refuse the Lord God Almighty, then the trials and tribulations we face today are only the beginning, and I can assure you it will get much worse.

Deuteronomy 11:16-17 NIV (16) Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. (17) Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you.

Yes, the choice is clearly ours, continue to refuse God as a nation, or accept Him, the question is, what are you going to do?

I accept the Lord God and His Son Jesus Christ, and I choose to follow Him to the end of the earth, and I pray that we as a nation once again become a Christian God fearing nation where we put God first and foremost so that we once again can become the beacon the United States once used to be.

God bless each and every one of you, and please consider the words in which I wrote; repent and be delivered, or refuse and accept destruction.

Yes, the choice is ours, and we are free to choose however we see fit, but please my dear friends choose wisely for this will be the most important decision you will ever have to make. God is love, but He is also full of wrath, and I for one do not dare test Him…

Wait – How much time do you have?

TR:  Watch this video, and carefully note the horrors just below Steven Crowder’s humor.  It may seem like a parody – but it is a real look at the wonders of “free” health care in Canada.  This is what you can look forward to if we allow ObamaCare to be shoved down our throats.

American Mayors could take a lesson from this hottie!  

NC asks:  Are we now witnessing  kristallnacht? 

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UWPeK-uydk]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1kDii1Unw]

UPDATE: IT’S VIRTUALLY DEFINITE: HE’S A MUSLIM & Yep, greyhound beheader was a Muslim..

By CHARMAINE NORONHA, Associated Press Writer

Sat Aug 2, 7:43 PM ET

TORONTO – A police officer at the scene of a grisly beheading on a Canadian bus reported seeing the attacker hacking off pieces of the victim’s body and eating them, according to a police tape leaked on the Internet Saturday.

In the tape of radio transmissions, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer refers to the attacker as “Badger” and says he is armed with a knife and scissors and is “defiling the body at the front of the bus as we speak.”

On the tape, which lasts about 80 seconds, officers continue to detail the attacker’s movements until one reports, “Badger’s at the back of the bus, hacking off pieces and eating it.”

Read the rest of this entry »

NC Sez:  I got the pleasure of interviewing Ezra several weeks ago about his fight for his God-given Free Speech Rights in Canada which can be heard >> here

by Ezra Levant

July 11, 2008

I had the pleasure of making a presentation as an expert witness to the U.S. Congress’s bi-partisan human rights caucus today.

I didn’t count, but I’d estimate that there were over 100 people there. I met quite a few readers of my blog, and even a donor to my legal defence fund — what a warm welcome in a far away city! There were a surprising number of journalists, including Luiza Savage, Maclean’s magazine’s Washington Bureau Chief. And there were a lot of religious liberty NGOs, including those from the Bahai, Hindu and Buddhist communities — including several in bright orange monk’s robes.

As a Canadian, I had forgotten that, in the U.S., every Congressman (and certainly every Senator) has their own foreign policy staff. Many such advisors were present, as well as lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice, the House Justice Committee, and the State Department.

My fellow panellists were impressive, especially the Turkish scholar whose specialty was documenting the treatment of apostates in Muslim countries, and the State Department lawyer who is the point-person in response to the international diplomatic campaign to have criticism of Islam criminalized. And — very usefully — the second secretary of the Pakistani Embassy was there. It was very striking to hear, directly from the source, the plans that Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world have when it comes to censoring their critics through the twisting of Western legal apparatuses. It was like getting a glimpse at the other team’s playbook — and having our worst fears confirmed. Frankly, I was surprised that she showed up.

Read the rest of this entry »