Margaret Atwood has weighed about her concerns with the government's Online Harms Bill. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)
Justice
Minister Arif Virani is defending his government's Online Harms Bill
after celebrated Canadian writer Margaret Atwood shared views comparing
the new legislation to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The
award-winning author took to social media late last week to share an
article from the British magazine The Spectator titled, "Trudeau's
Orwellian online harms bill."
"If this account of the bill is true, it's Lettres de Cachet
all over again," Atwood wrote on X, referring to letters once sent out
by the King of France authorizing imprisonment without trial.
The
federal government introduced late last month its long-awaited Online
Harms Bill, which proposes to police seven categories of harmful content
online, including content used to bully a child, content that
sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, content that incites
violence or terrorism, and hate speech.
As part of proposed amendments, "hate speech" would be defined based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions.
"The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!" Atwood wrote.
In
Orwell's cautionary novel about a totalitarian society, thoughtcrime is
the illegal act of disagreeing with the government's political
ideology in one's unspoken thoughts.
Atwood famously tackled authoritarian regimes in her novel The Handmaid's Tale, in which a religious patriarchal society forces women to bear children and those who speak freely are severely punished.
Her publicist said she was not available for interview about her social media post.
Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani speaks during a
press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on the new online harms
bill on Feb. 26. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Asked
about Atwood's comment during an event in Toronto, Virani said there's a
lack of understanding about Bill C-63 and how to combat hate.
Virani said the definition of hate speech in the bill does not include content that's "awful but lawful."
"It
includes expressions of detestation and vilification. It does not
include insults, offensive comments, or jokes that are not very polite,"
said Virani in French.
"The
idea that someone on their smartphone on an afternoon while they're
watching a football game, if they insult anyone ... could be condemned
in a court or caught by a peace bond is ridiculous, in my opinion."
Virani,
who is shepherding the Online Harms Bill through the House of Commons,
said protecting freedom of expression is essential to him as minister of
justice.
Over the weekend the minister responded to Atwood on X suggesting the article she shared "mischaracterizes the bill."
"Happy to discuss," he posted.
Former chief justice thinks bill will be challenged
Atwood isn't the only eminent Canadian weighing in.
Speaking
on the Public Policy Forum's "WONK" podcast, former chief justice of
the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin said society is changing.
"It's
our responsibility as responsible citizens, it's the government's
responsibility, to deal with new media, new harms, new things that
develop in society. So I applaud the government for taking this on, as
many other countries have," she said.
But she cited
potential problems with the bill's proposed changes to the Criminal
Code, such as an increase in the maximum punishment for four hate
propaganda offences.
Someone found guilty of advocating genocide, for example, could face life imprisonment, up from five years in prison.
"I do predict that this is going to be challenged in the courts," McLachlin told host Edward Greenspon.
"We
have not seen this in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge —
life sentences for sending out some words. That's heavy. And it will, I
suspect, be challenged."
Former
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, says
she expects the Online Harms Bill will be challenged in court. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)
The Canadian
Civil Liberties Association has called for amendments, saying the
bill's "draconian penalties" could put a chill on free speech.
"Bill
C-63 risks censoring a range of expression from journalistic reporting
to healthy conversations among youth under 18 about their own sexuality
and relationships," said executive director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv in a
statement issued soon after the bill was introduced.
"The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism. "
Conservative
Leader Pierre Poilievre has said his party supports criminalizing the
harmful content categories laid out in the bill. But the Tory leader
accused the Liberals of trying to create more bureaucracy rather than
supporting law enforcement agencies.
Speaking to a small
group of reporters the day after the bill was introduced, RCMP
Commissioner Mike Duheme said he welcomed the legislation, particularly
tougher sentencing provisions and the move to make tech companies bear
more responsibility for what happens online.
Duheme said that right now, the RCMP believes it could enforce the new measures without additional resources.
Catharine
Tunney is a reporter with CBC's Parliament Hill bureau, where she
covers national security and the RCMP. She worked previously for CBC in
Nova Scotia. You can reach her at catharine.tunney@cbc.ca
The Online Harms Act would limit constitutionally-protected expression in the following ways:
- The Bill would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. The tribunal could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The subjectivity of defining “hate speech” will lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech.
- The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment.
- The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future. The accused would be forced to choose between imprisonment or a “recognizance to keep the peace” that may be accompanied by severe conditions such as giving a bodily sample, refraining from drugs and alcohol, giving up firearms and wearing an ankle monitor.
- The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk. Social media companies will likely err on the side of caution and block large amounts of speech that is close to the legal line.
- The Bill would require social media companies to provide a mechanism for users to flag content that they believe is “harmful content,” which is defined as including speech that “foments hatred.” This will inevitably lead to censorship of legally-protected speech.
- The Bill would require social media companies to report on how they dealt with perfectly legal but otherwise “harmful content” that “the operator had reasonable grounds to believe posed a risk of significant psychological or physical harm.” This appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech that the government cannot outlaw.
In this episode I mention a tweet thread by my colleague Josh Dehaas.
As our followers know, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is deeply concerned
that the Online Harms Act introduced in the House of Commons on
February 26 will significantly hamper constitutionally-protected
expression. Among other effects:
The
Bill would create a new process for Canadians to report instances of
online speech directed at them is discriminatory, with a quasi-judicial
tribunal ordering fines up to $50,000, and up to $20,000 paid to
complainants, who in some cases would remain anonymous. Findings would
be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the
criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
The
Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from
five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could
lead to life imprisonment;
The
Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they
believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future;
The
Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that
users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat
of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk; &
The
mere threat of human rights complaints and fines for Canadians and
social media companies will chill large amounts of otherwise protected
speech.
This Monday we launched a new campaign that allows visitors to our site to use a form to tell their MP to stop this bill.
Please
note that if you're in a riding with a vacancy you might not be able to
contact your Member of Parliament. I'd encourage you to reach out to
party leaders (including the PM) if you live in one of these ridings.
Why were conspiracy to murder charges dropped in Coutts?
On Episode 28,
we give you an update on the criminal charges dropped against two men
arrested at Coutts, Alberta in February 2022, and the civil lawsuits
launched by trucker convoy participants; we explain the ruling that says
Quebec's secularism law Bill 21 is fully shielded from judicial review
by the notwithstanding clause; and we explain the interesting
inter-provincial trade angle in a lawsuit from McGill and Concordia
against the province's tuition structure.
You can also find Not Reserving Judgment on Apple, Spotify, Google, YouTube, and wherever else you find your podcasts.
"It’s a very bad political loss for [the government]"
Next, Canadian Affairs
recently ran a lovely profile on the CCF's Christine Van Geyn outlining
the extraordinary year we had at the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Check it out, and please subscribe to support our friends at Canadian Affairs!
Finally, here's what what we're reading/watching this week:
There’s a way of getting children to eat something they dislike — medicine, for example — where you bury the goods in a spoonful
of jam. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are trying this method with their Online Harms Bill C-63. But it may not go down as well as they hoped.
The stated intent of the bill is something every decent person supports: protecting children from online
victimization. Yet behind this noble aim lurks the thought police.
This is no exaggeration. This legislation authorizes house arrest and electronic tagging for a person
considered likely to
commit a future crime. It’s right there in the text: if a judge
believes there are reasonable grounds to “fear” a future hate crime, the
as of yet innocent party can
be sentenced to house arrest, complete with electronic tagging,
mandatory drug testing and communication bans. Failure to cooperate nets
you an additional year in jail. If that’s not establishing a thought
police, I don’t know what is.
What
is a hate crime? According to the bill, it is a communication
expressing “detestation or vilification.”
But, clarified the government, this is not the same as “disdain or
dislike,” or speech that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
Unfortunately,
the government didn’t think to include a graduated scheme setting out
the relative acceptability
of the words “offend,” “hurt,” “humiliate,” “discredit,” “dislike,”
“disdain,” “detest” and “vilify.” Under C-63, you can be put away for
life for a “crime” whose legal existence hangs on the distinction
between “dislike” and “detest.”
Despite this Trudeau claims to
stand against authoritarianism.
The Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that
under C-63, his criminalization would be a certainty. The legislation
appears to apply retroactively, meaning you can be hauled up before the
human rights tribunal for any material you’ve left online, regardless of
its posting date. Anonymous accusations and
secret testimony are permitted (at the tribunal’s discretion).
Complaints are free to file, and an accuser, if successful, can hope to
reap up to a $20,000 payout, with up to another $50,000 going to the
government.
Hold
on, you may be thinking, what does all this have to do with protecting
children online? So far it
seems more geared towards protecting the Liberal government online.
There is in fact a section that requires social media companies to
establish plans to protect users, including children. But if you’re
getting your hopes up, prepare to have them dashed.
All
the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new
government body called the digital
safety commission. The commission can, without oversight, require
companies to block access to any content, conduct investigations, hold
secret hearings, require the companies to hand over specific content,
and give all data collected to third-party researchers
accredited by the commission. All data. Any content. No oversight.
Does that sound crazy? There’s more.
The
ostensible purpose of putting the commission (and not the ordinary
police) in charge is so that it
can act informally and quickly (i.e. without a warrant) in situations
where material victimizing a child could spread quickly across the
internet. What that means in effect is that the commission is not
accountable and does not have to justify its actions.
As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says in its sharply worded critique of the bill, it endows government appointees
with vast authority “to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.”
Is it possible, that in the beautiful and once civilized country of Canada, leading politicians seriously
want to punish people for crimes they might (but
actually haven’t) committed? Canada already has a law that criminalizes
conspiracy, and another law criminalizing threats — so we’re not
talking
about someone who is planning murder or terrorism. Then who are we talking about? People who read the wrong websites? People who didn’t get vaccinated? People who criticize the government?
People who go to church and believe certain types of immorality will send you to hell?
There’s
something Trudeau and his minions don’t seem to realize. With the
Online Harms Bill, as with
the reckless invocation of the Emergencies Act and the debanking of
protestors, they are making a mockery of the rule of law and of the
public order they are sworn to uphold.
This article was originally published on The
Spectator’s UK website.
Premiered Mar 2, 2024MCINNES COOPERIt is finally here: the long-anticipated Online Harms bill. It was tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2024 as Bill C-63. It is not as bad as I expected, but it has some serious issues that need to be addressed if it is going to be Charter-compliant. It also has some room for serious improvement and it represents a real missed opportunity in how it handles “deepfakes”, synthetic explicit images and videos.
The bill is 104 pages long and it was just released, so this will be a high level overview and perhaps incomplete. But I will also focus on some issues that leapt out to me on my first few times reading it.
In a nutshell, it does a better job than the discussion paper first floated years ago by not lumping all kinds of “online harms” into one bucket and treating them all the same. This bill more acutely addresses child abuse materials and non-consensual distribution of intimate images. I think the thresholds for some of this are too low, resulting in removal by default. The new Digital Safety Commission has stunning and likely unconstitutional powers. As is often the case, there’s too much left to the regulations. But let’s get into the substance.
Read the bill and track its progress here: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill...3.74K subscribers
My latest calls to Commissioner Raymond Théberge
and his General Counsel and John Kulik General Counsel for McInnes
Cooper McInnes & Cooper and many others this morning
Fraser, David
<david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com>
Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:40 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thanks for your e-mail. I am away from my desk until Monday, July 26, 2021.
If your matter is urgent, please re-send it with URGENT in the subject line.
Veuillez
noter que je suis absente jusqu'au 16 août 2021, sans accès à mes
courriels. Si cela ne peut attendre mon retour, je vous invite à
communiquer
par courriel avec mon adjointe Irène Ghobril à Irène.Ghobril@justice.gc.ca. Merci.
Please
note that I am away until August 16th, 2021 with no access to my
e-mails. If it cannot wait my retrun, you can contact by e-mail my
assistant
Irène Ghobril at Irene.Ghobril@justice.gc.ca. Thank you.
Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
<Premier@ontario.ca>
Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:40 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read, reviewed and taken into consideration.
There
may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the need to
address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci
pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de nous avoir
fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous
tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans
certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère responsable
afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées
de la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)
<Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:47 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Due to the volume of incoming
messages, this is an automated response to let you know that your email
has been received and will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry more appropriately
falls within the mandate of a Ministry or other area of government,
staff will refer your email for review and consideration.
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
En raison du volume des messages
reçus, cette réponse automatique vous informe que votre courriel a été
reçu et sera examiné dans les meilleurs délais.
Si votre demande relève plutôt
du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre secteur du gouvernement, le
personnel vous renverra votre courriel pour examen et considération.
If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at (506) 453-2144 or by email
For safety issues regarding place of employment/employer please call WorkSafe NB 1-800-999-9775.
Compassionate requests
Please call the Canadian Red Cross 1-800-863-6582.
Non-health questions
Please call 1-844-462-8387. The email address is
helpaide@gnb.ca.
For questions related to travel restrictions during COVID-19
Please call 1-833-948-2800.
MENTAL HEALTH
CHIMO Helpline 1-800-667-5005
Hope for Wellness Helpline 1-855-242-3310
Canadian Border Services Agency
CBSA has instituted a COVID-19 hotline regarding border crossing concerns/questions at
1-800-461-9999.
Employment Insurance Hotline
Please call 1-833-381-2725.
Renseignements généraux
Pour
obtenir des renseignements généraux et des réponses aux questions les
plus fréquentes sur la COVID-19, veuillez consulter le site
GNB/COVID-19
ou Canada.ca/coronavirus
ou composer le 1-833-784-4397.
questions de sécurité
Pour
les questions de sécurité concernant les lieux de travail ou les
employeurs, communiquez avec Travail sécuritaire NB au 1-800-999-9775.
DEMANDES POUR RAISONS DE COMPASSION
Veuillez téléphoner à la Croix-Rouge canadienne au 1-800-863-6582.
Questions non liées à la santé
Veuillez composer le 1-844-462-8387 ou envoyer un courriel à l’adresse
helpaide@gnb.ca.
Questions liées aux restrictions de voyage pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 :
Composez le 1-833-948-2800.
SANTÉ MENTALE
Ligne d'aide CHIMO : 1-800-667-5005
Ligne d’écoute d’espoir : 1-855-242-3310
Agence des services frontaliers du Canada
L’Agence
a mis en place une ligne d’information sur la COVID-19 pour les
questions concernant la traversée de la frontière, le 1-800-461-9999.
LIGNE D’INFORMATION SUR l'assurance-emploi
Composez le 1-833-381-2725.
Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada
To:
"Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
pascale.giguere@ocol-clo.gc.ca, Marc.Dalton@parl.gc.ca,
Mario.Beaulieu@parl.gc.ca, JKitchen@jccf.ca,
Douglas.Smith@otc-cta.gc.ca, Doug.Smith2@gnb.ca, toby@law-democracy.org,
lukacs@airpassengerrights.ca, louise-helene.senecal@aircanada.ca,
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, Newsroom
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Norman Traversy
<traversy.n@gmail.com>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"Mike.Comeau" <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, "hugh.flemming"
<hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs"
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, Office
of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>
Cc:
motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com, david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com,
ti@transparency.org, info <info@gg.ca>, "Ian.Shugart"
<Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca>
Methinks as soon as Mary Simon is sworn she should have her minions
study my documents on file in Federal Court closely before I sue the
Queen again at least these two files found on a couple of my Scribd
accounts should make the Bloc and the Conservatives it up ad pay
attention before the lady drops the writ for your boss Mr Prime
Trudeau The Younger N'esy Pas Madame Telford?
Document Information
Original Title:Dumb DannyBoy Bussieres formerly of the GRC
Description:Former COR Party members should notice this barring
document is SIGNED (Chucky Leblanc's is NOT) It is definitely in
breach of the CHARTER because it is in ENGLISH ONLY. Get it yet
Premier Gallantt and mindless David Coon?
Mary Simon to be officially installed as governor general today
Ceremony begins at 10 a.m. ET and CBC will stream it live
Darren Major · CBC News · Posted: Jul 26, 2021 4:00 AM ET | Last
Updated: 12 minutes ago
?Official Languages Commissioner Raymond Théberge joins Power &
Politics to discuss his investigation of the process that chose Mary
Simon as the next governor general."
Tuesday, 8 August 2017
RE CBC censorship and My last call to David Fraser of McInnes & Cooper
about such things he yaps about constanty within CBC
Well the comment section started out pretty could with CBC acting in
an ethical fashion and not blocking any comments of mine until a
couple of their favourite Trolls pounced on me. As soon as I responded
the blocking began almost instantly. I registered my indignation and
those comments were blocked as well so I quit for the day.
I had had enough of David Fraser and his bullshit today. Trust that I
will try to call the other two lawyers mentioned within this article
tomorrow.
"The Canadian Transportation Agency and an air passenger rights
activist are engaged in an online battle that pits freedom of
expression against a government agency's right to delete negative
comments from its social media accounts.
Gabor Lukacs has won 24 of 27 court cases against airlines, which were
taken to the agency. Recently, he posted "5 Reasons not to Trust the
Canadian Transportation Agency" on the agency's Facebook page.
The post compares the number of air passenger complaints in recent
years to the dwindling number of enforcement actions against airlines.
It also names some agency employees, including Doug Smith, its chief
dispute officer.
The post includes a discipline history of Smith from the Law Society
of Upper Canada in 2004, when he was suspended from practising law."
The Other DOUGLAS SMITH
Regional Manager
Fredericton Criminal Law Services (Regional Office )
New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission
Contact Information
Phone : (506) 444-2800
Fax : (506) 462-2290
Email : Doug.Smith2@gnb.ca
Transportation agency accused of censorship after deleting online criticism
'This is a form of censorship ... and this is a violation of freedom
of speech,' says air passenger advocate
By Yvonne Colbert, CBC News Posted: Aug 08, 2017 6:00 AM AT
44 Comments
Ben Smith
lol same as on this site... and we own the CBC too.
Life under the Liberals.... always harder for some reason.
Gabor Lukacs
@Ben Smith
CBC is is not a governmental body. It is not subject to s. 2(b) of the Charter.
Darryl McBride
@Gabor Lukacs The CBC is tax payer funded and should be subject to the charter.
David Raymond Amos
This comment is awaiting moderation by the site administrators.
@Gabor Lukacs It is a Crown Corp that has a particular mandate to be
non partisan
David Raymond Amos
This comment is awaiting moderation by the site administrators.
@Darryl McBride I agree Furthermore what does CBC call it when they
block my comments?
could you please explain what you were getting at in your call just
now? I was in the middle of something else, wasn't able to understand
it all and then the line just cut out.
Thanks,
d.
Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
John Kulik Q.C.
Partner & General Counsel
McInnes Cooper
tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
1969 Upper Water Street
Suite 1300
Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.
After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
to speak to one of your staff for the first time
Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
suggested that you study closely.
This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
Date: 20151223
Docket: T-1557-15
Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
December 14, 2015)
The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
in its entirety.
At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
(now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
he stated:
As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
You are your brother’s keeper.
Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.
In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
[1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
is no order as to costs.
“B. Richard Bell”
Judge
Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
"FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
83 The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
five years after he began his bragging:
January 13, 2015
This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
December 8, 2014
Why Canada Stood Tall!
Friday, October 3, 2014
Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
Stupid Justin Trudeau?
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 204
Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5
Joseph Hickey, Executive Director
Tel: (613) 252-6148
Email: joseph.hickey@ocla.ca
Jason Erb interviews Arthur Topham on Exposing Faux Capitalism, October 16, 2014
October 16, 2014 by FauxCapitalist
On a special October 16, 2014 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism, I
interviewed Arthur Topham, who has been charged as a political thought
criminal for allegedly violating Canada’s Criminal Code provisions for
“willfully promoting hatred,” for his writings at his site,
RadicalPress.com.
In this interview, the issues we discussed included:
- The Ontario Civil Liberties Association supporting his case and
calling for a repeal of all “hate crime” provisions in the Criminal
Code and circulating a petition calling for the B.C. Attorney General
to revoke her consent for the prosecution of Arthur Topham.
– He was charged with a crime after the Human Rights Commission was no
longer to hear so-called hate cases in 2012.
– The tight control of the media and the blackout on mass media
coverage of his case ever since November 2012 with a single National
Post article.
– The phony media, with so-called liberal newspapers like the Toronto
Star not making counter-point arguments to the supposed right-wing
National Post newspaper on their article.
– The inconsistencies in the charge and with his prosecution.
– The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees those charged “to be
tried within a reasonable time,” yet he was charged in 2012, and his
trial has finally been scheduled for October 2015.
– The political nature of the crime, with the Attorney General of the
province having to sign off on it.
– The selective application of the law, with others not prosecuted,
despite doing similar or more things than Arthur Topham did.
>>>> ---- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "McKnight, Gisele" McKnight.Gisele@kingscorecord.com
>>>> To: lcampenella@ledger.com
>>>> Cc:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:53 PM
>>>> Subject: David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Hello Lisa,
>>>>
>>>> David Amos asked me to contact you. I met him last June after he became
>>>> an independent (not representing any political party) candidate in our
>>>> federal
>>>> election that was held June 28. He was a candidate in our constituency
>>>> of
>>>> Fundy (now called Fundy-Royal).
>>>>
>>>> I wrote a profile story about him, as I did all other candidates. That
>>>> story appeared in the Kings County Record June 22. A second story,
>>>> written
>>>> by one of my reporters, appeared on the same date, which was a report
>>>> on
>>>> the candidates' debate held June 18.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall David Amos came last of four candidates in the election.
>>>> The winner got 14,997 votes, while Amos got 358.
>>>>
>>>> I have attached the two stories that appeared, as well as a photo
>>>> taken by reporter Erin Hatfield during the debate. I couldn't find the
>>>> photo
>>>> that ran, but this one is very similar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A1-debate A1-amos,David for MP 24.doc debate 2.JPG
>>>>
>>>> Gisele McKnight editor
>>>> Kings County Record
>>>> Sussex, New Brunswick
>>>> Canada
>>>> 506-433-1070
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Raising a Little Hell- Lively Debate Provokes Crowd
>>>>
>>>> By Erin Hatfield
>>>>
>>>> "If you don't like what you got, why don't you change it? If your
>>>> world is all screwed up, rearrange it."
>>>>
>>>> The 1979 Trooper song Raise a Little Hell blared on the speakers at
>>>> the 8th Hussars Sports Center Friday evening as people filed in to
>>>> watch the Fundy candidates debate the issues. It was an accurate, if
>>>> unofficial, theme song for the debate.
>>>>
>>>> The crowd of over 200 spectators was dwarfed by the huge arena, but as
>>>> they chose their seats, it was clear the battle lines were drawn.
>>>> Supporters of Conservative candidate Rob Moore naturally took the blue
>>>> chairs on the right of the rink floor while John Herron's Liberalswent
>>>> left. There were splashes of orange, supporters of NDP Pat Hanratty,
>>>> mixed throughout. Perhaps the loudest applause came from a row towards
>>>> the back, where supporters of independent candidate David Amos sat.
>>>>
>>>> The debate was moderated by Leo Melanson of CJCW Radio and was
>>>> organized by the Sussex Valley Jaycees. Candidates wereasked a barrage
>>>> of questions bypanelists Gisele McKnight of the Kings County Record
>>>> and Lisa Spencer of CJCW.
>>>>
>>>> Staying true to party platforms for the most part, candidates
>>>> responded to questions about the gun registry, same sex marriage, the
>>>> exodus of young people from the Maritimes and regulated gas prices.
>>>> Herron and Moore were clear competitors,constantly challenging each
>>>> other on their answers and criticizing eachothers' party leaders.
>>>> Hanratty flew under the radar, giving short, concise responses to the
>>>> questions while Amos provided some food for thought and a bit of comic
>>>> relief with quirky answers. "I was raised with a gun," Amos said in
>>>> response to the question of thenational gun registry. "Nobody's
>>>> getting mine and I'm not paying 10 cents for it."
>>>>
>>>> Herron, a Progressive Conservative MP turned Liberal, veered from his
>>>> party'splatform with regard to gun control. "It was ill advised but
>>>> well intentioned," Herron said. "No matter what side of the house I am
>>>> on, I'm voting against it." Pat Hanratty agreed there were better
>>>> places for the gun registry dollars to be spent.Recreational hunters
>>>> shouldn't have been penalized by this gun registry," he said.
>>>>
>>>> The gun registry issues provoked the tempers of Herron and Moore. At
>>>> one point Herron got out of his seat and threw a piece of paper in
>>>> front of Moore. "Read that," Herron said to Moore, referring to the
>>>> voting record of Conservative Party leader Steven Harper. According to
>>>> Herron, Harper voted in favour of the registry on the first and second
>>>> readings of the bill in 1995. "He voted against it when it counted, at
>>>> final count," Moore said. "We needa government with courage to
>>>> register sex offenders rather than register the property of law
>>>> abiding citizens."
>>>>
>>>> The crowd was vocal throughout the evening, with white haired men and
>>>> women heckling from the Conservative side. "Shut up John," one woman
>>>> yelled. "How can you talk about selling out?" a man yelled whenHerron
>>>> spoke about his fear that the Conservatives are selling farmers out.
>>>>
>>>> Although the Liberal side was less vocal, Kings East MLA Leroy
>>>> Armstrong weighed in at one point. "You're out of touch," Armstrong
>>>> yelled to Moore from the crowd when the debate turned to the cost of
>>>> post-secondary education. Later in the evening Amos challenged
>>>> Armstrong to a public debate of their own. "Talk is cheap. Any time,
>>>> anyplace," Armstrong responded.
>>>>
>>>> As the crowd made its way out of the building following the debate,
>>>> candidates worked the room. They shook hands with well-wishers and
>>>> fielded questions from spectators-all part of the decision-making
>>>> process for the June 28 vote.
>>>>
>>>> Cutline – David Amos, independent candidate in Fundy, with some of his
>>>> favourite possessions—motorcycles.
>>>>
>>>> McKnight/KCR
>>>>
>>>> The Unconventional Candidate
>>>>
>>>> David Amos Isn't Campaigning For Your Vote, But….
>>>>
>>>> By Gisele McKnight
>>>>
>>>> FUNDY—He has a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket, a chain on his
>>>> wallet, a beard at least a foot long, 60 motorcycles and a cell phone
>>>> that rings to the tune of "Yankee Doodle."
>>>>
>>>> Meet the latest addition to the Fundy ballot—David Amos.
>>>>
>>>> The independent candidate lives in Milton, Massachusetts with his wife
>>>> and two children, but his place of residence does not stop him from
>>>> running for office in Canada.
>>>>
>>>> One has only to be at least 18, a Canadian citizen and not be in jail
>>>> to meet Elections Canada requirements.
>>>>
>>>> When it came time to launch his political crusade, Amos chose his
>>>> favourite place to do so—Fundy.
>>>>
>>>> Amos, 52, is running for political office because of his
>>>> dissatisfaction with politicians.
>>>>
>>>> "I've become aware of much corruption involving our two countries," he
>>>> said. "The only way to fix corruption is in the political forum."
>>>>
>>>> The journey that eventually led Amos to politics began in Sussex in
>>>> 1987. He woke up one morning disillusioned with life and decided he
>>>> needed to change his life.
>>>>
>>>> "I lost my faith in mankind," he said. "People go through that
>>>> sometimes in midlife."
>>>>
>>>> So Amos, who'd lived in Sussex since 1973, closed his Four Corners
>>>> motorcycle shop, paid his bills and hit the road with Annie, his 1952
>>>> Panhead motorcycle.
>>>>
>>>> "Annie and I rode around for awhile (three years, to be exact)
>>>> experiencing the milk of human kindness," he said. "This is how you
>>>> renew your faith in mankind – you help anyone you can, you never ask
>>>> for anything, but you take what they offer."
>>>>
>>>> For those three years, they offered food, a place to sleep, odd jobs
>>>> and conversation all over North America.
>>>>
>>>> Since he and Annie stopped wandering, he has married, fathered a son
>>>> and a daughter and become a house-husband – Mr. Mom, as he calls
>>>> himself.
>>>>
>>>> He also describes himself in far more colourful terms—a motorcyclist
>>>> rather than a biker, a "fun-loving, free-thinking, pig-headed
>>>> individual," a "pissed-off Maritimer" rather than an activist, a proud
>>>> Canadian and a "wild colonial boy."
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, the man who is running for office has never voted in his
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> "But I have no right to criticize unless I offer my name," he said.
>>>> "It's alright to bitch in the kitchen, but can you walk the walk?"
>>>>
>>>> Amos has no intention of actively campaigning.
>>>>
>>>> "I didn't appreciate it when they (politicians) pounded on my door
>>>> interrupting my dinner," he said. "If people are interested, they can
>>>> call me. I'm not going to drive my opinions down their throats."
>>>>
>>>> And he has no campaign budget, nor does he want one.
>>>>
>>>> "I won't take any donations," he said. "Just try to give me some. It's
>>>> not about money. It goes against what I'm fighting about."
>>>>
>>>> What he's fighting for is the discussion of issues – tainted blood,
>>>> the exploitation of the Maritimes' gas and oil reserves and NAFTA, to
>>>> name a few.
>>>>
>>>> "The political issues in the Maritimes involve the three Fs – fishing,
>>>> farming and forestry, but they forget foreign issues," he said. "I'm
>>>> death on NAFTA, the back room deals and free trade. I say chuck it
>>>> (NAFTA) out the window.
>>>>
>>>> NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement which allows an
>>>> easier flow of goods between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
>>>>
>>>> Amos disagrees with the idea that a vote for him is a wasted vote.
>>>>
>>>> "There are no wasted votes," he said. "I want people like me,
>>>> especially young people, to pay attention and exercise their right.
>>>> Don't necessarily vote for me, but vote."
>>>>
>>>> Although…if you're going to vote anyway, Amos would be happy to have
>>>> your X by his name.
>>>>
>>>> "I want people to go into that voting booth, see my name, laugh and
>>>> say, 'what the hell.'"
Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani speaks during a
press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on the new online harms
bill on Feb. 26. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Former
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, says
she expects the Online Harms Bill will be challenged in court. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)
No comments:
Post a Comment