Calvin Cumberland now has a criminal record and served seven months under house arrest because he published information claiming an employee of Revenue Canada worked for "an insidious organization that caus[es] people's deaths." He went on to say, "Protect yourself from organized crime. If you are approached by this man be prepared to defend yourself".
This was a strategic move in Cumberland's effort to publicize the unfairness of income tax, a legitimate political position shared by many Canadians. He chose the tactic of postering after the taxman had refused to accept a zero income tax return and had come to Cumberland's house.
Calvin Cumberland committed no violence and was cooperative with the court: the taxman claims he suffered all manner of emotional trauma as a consequence of having his picture posted, claiming it was an attack on his character and reputation and he felt his personal safety was in jeopardy.
It seems clear that Revenue Canada, who has been notorious for successfully using severe bullying tactics in the past has now added whining about imaginary threats to its arsenal of tactics.
Organized crime? You bet. With the full power of the state to back it up.
Canada: Home Of The Free!!
Just a joke!!
The Government gets in and messes up my site now and then!!!
They do have the best hackers,,,,, ask me,,, I know!!!
We all have been told that income tax is illegal. Although the government is vindictive, and they will beat you into submission. Just keep reading and you will see the facts. We think that we have a free country but we are wrong!!!!!
Calvin Cumberland; Convicted of criminal libel without any direct evidence, and sentenced to spend seven months incarcerated under house arrest.
Judge Platana said that there was no direct evidence.
Links to: War Crimes trials Nuremberg, proves that what they have done to me is Criminal | Zundel Site | Income Tax Unconstitutional | 1950 Ruling: proves that the collection of federal tax is illegal.
"Over the past 25 years, there has been a fairly significant change in attitude about speech. The sometimes thorny distinction between talk and action has been methodically blurred. It is the fashion today to believe that it is the role of criminal laws to protect the weak by weeding out hateful and hurtful ideas -- racist ideas, sexist ideas, homophobic or unpatriotic ideas -- and to salve hurt feelings.
The so-called liberal intellectuals who gave us hate speech laws want to foster sensitivity, toleration, self-esteem, rejection of prejudice and bias through intolerance.
The truth is that speech does not give a damn about your feelings and happily tramples them in the name of finding the truth. Speech allows and sometimes even encourages offensive speech -- and in a true liberal democracy the only legitimate way to decide who is right is by public criticism.
But the prevailing belief today is that people who hold wrong and hurtful opinions should be punished for the good of society and even put in jail. This is a very dangerous principle that "one shall not hurt others with words". It is a menacing principle not just to civil liberties, but to everyone's liberal inquiry, a principle to create a society where the primary rules are: be nice, think nice, say nice. Today, there is "a social right" not to be offended. Words that wound, or "assaultive speech" are now the subject of a social imperative in Canada and a crime.
I happen to believe that no one should be punished for the beliefs that he or she holds or opinions that he or she states because to believe incorrectly should never be a crime and criticism, however unpleasant, is not violence. Our obligation to a liberal society is the obligation to put up with criticism from any quarter, and at any time. We have a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned. No hypothesis should ever be laid to rest by suppressing it. The only way to kill a bad idea is by exposing it and trumping it with better ones.
The criminal prosecution of hate mongers in the criminal courts is simply not an appropriate means by which we may prevent their vile filth from being disseminated. Oliver Wendel Holmes recognized that we must extend freedom of speech not only to those with whom we agree but to those whom we hate. He said, "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." In other words, truth will prevail not as a result of the prosecution of the hate mongers and liars, but because those who know the truth are free to express their ideas and demonstrate the lie.
Pre-Hitler Germany had group defamation laws, and prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. In fact, during the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. We are all witnesses to the ultimate impact of these prosecutions on the fabric of a free society. Freedom of speech should forbid any attempt to ban the pro-Zionist book by Leon Uris, The Haj because it maligned Arabs. Freedom of speech should forbid the member of Parliament Pierette Venne from standing up and calling for the criminal prosecution of Mordecai Richler for publishing Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country as inviting hatred against Quebec, calling Quebec's history "anti-Semitic". If there were no hate crime laws in Canada, this shameful request could never have been made.
The principle of free thought is not only free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for thought we hate. As Holmes said, "When a choice must be made, it is better to allow those who preach racial hate to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of the government to decide what its citizens must say and hear."
David Ahenakew has said particularly nasty things about Jews. I think Ahenakew is a repugnant, rabid, hate monger, anti-Semitic and filth of the lowest order. His stock in trade is hate, evil myth, slander and falsehood. I should be able to say the same thing about an identifiable group of neo-Nazi anti-Semites. And he should be able to say what he wants to say and suffer the disgrace, humiliation and obloquy that he has suffered throughout Canada.
Ahenakew has been charged with the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. In my view, to charge him, to try him, and to acquit him would be worse than not trying him at all. As Professor Kent Roach pointed out in the National Post, "It is very difficult to get a successful prosecution in part because courts require proof of willful promotion of hatred which is a very high level of fault ... It has to be something that goes beyond criticism." What will the Order of Canada do if he is acquitted? A trial is not a foregone conclusion. People forget that there are always two results possible in a courtroom, guilty or not guilty. Mr. Ahenakew is entitled to defend himself and be acquitted if a judge finds that his intention in saying the harmful words was a personal opinion and not the willful promotion of hatred, or if a judge has a reasonable doubt as to whether it was a personal opinion. That's the law. If he is acquitted, I do not believe the Order of Canada can disrespect or ignore the acquittal. I don't know what more damage can occur to Ahenakew than has already occurred, but I do know that locking him up for mere speech is antithetical to the liberal notions of a real democracy.
I would urge the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan to reconsider and withdraw the charge immediately.
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., is a Toronto criminal lawyer.