Canadia: Paul Fromm: Update on Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott’s Re-trial for Hate Against the LGBTQ Crowd

(000228.79-:E-000157.73:N-:R-SU:C-30:V)   

[Paul Fromm sent me this. As usual a White man is not allowed to think for himself or speak his mind. He has to conform to what the Jewish scum want. Jan]

Whatcott’s Judicial Pretrial Judge was truly an honest half Indian

Honourable, Superior Court Justice, Todd Ducharme

Dear Friends,

My pre-trial took place today in front of Justice Todd Ducharme. Justice Ducharme is Canada’s first Metis Justice appointed to the Superior Court under the Liberal Government of Paul Martin in 2004. I definitely did not like Paul Martin back in the day, but fiscally and even socially, Martin was downright saintly compared to the trainwreck we have in the PM’s office now. And indeed the disparity between Trudeau and Martin can even be seen in judicial appointments.

Martin, being a Liberal may have felt he needed to tick a diversity box when he appointed Ducharme to the Superior Court bench, but at the end of the day Justice Todd Ducharme strikes me as a mixed bag who tries to do an honest job as a Superior Court Justice.

Some of Justice Ducharme’s politics, I don’t like much. The guy can reasonably be perceived as anti-oilsands and given that he partook in a mock show trial that vindicated environmental hypocrite David Suzuki, I wouldn’t put Ducharme in charge of Canada’s energy security. It is regrettable that Ducharme appears to think plant food (AKA CO2) is bringing about climate armageddon and that Suzuki (a guy who travels around the country is a diesel guzzling Prevost luxury bus) is the answer. But then again the guy was appointed by a Liberal government, so what do you expect?

Justice Duscharme has a long career in criminal law. I looked at one case where Justice Ducharme sat on the Supreme Court of Yukon bench and threw out criminal charges against an obviously guilty child predator who was also found to be in illegal possession of firearms. The ruling was regrettable but understandable. The lower court judge had no authority to allow the RCMP to search the pedophile’s residence as he wasn’t charged with anything yet, and no actual evidence of crimes being committed was presented to the court before the warrant was issued. It seems from a quick perusal of the ruling if the lower court judge was a little more patient and had he ordered the cops to follow proper procedure and gather the evidence needed to get a warrant, a proper conviction could have been attained. The reasoning of Ducharme shows me the guy has a legal mind and is oriented to following the law, rather than his own biases.

In another more recent case you can see Justice Ducharme displayed some intemperance. He told some lawyers in a pre-trial conference representing a couple who starved and beat their four year old child to death that their clients were “f–ked” and further went on to say “no one likes child killers.” His comments along with some meddling in his courtroom to try to get the couple to plead guilty to second degree murder led to the Ontario Court of Appeal ordering a second trial. In this case (unlike my own), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling actually made sense. In the end the couple were eventually convicted. Dad was convicted of second degree murder and mom of first degree murder. Maybe the judge could have done things better, but you can see from his sentiment he has some decency about him.

Which leads me to my pre-trial today. I won’t say anything about what my lawyer has been saying as she would prefer I shut my mouth when it comes to lawyer/client privilege stuff. But Justice Ducharme gave his opinion again, as he is an outspoken guy, —- deleted as per my lawyer’s request.——

Given my serious concerns about so-called hate speech prosecutions, this gives more credence to my concern that so-called “hate speech” prosecutions are highly subjective. A brief perusal of who gets prosecuted shows the victims are almost always Hitler dudes, Christians, and social conservatives. Those on the left who say unpleasant things are almost never prosecuted.

For months anti-Israel folks on Toronto’s university campuses and on major highways have been chanting “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” Being “free” clearly means Jews who are born and raised in Israel won’t be living there anymore and it seems no one in power and even a few in my friends circle want to explore the uncomfortable question about what happens to these Jews once Palestine is “free?” Anyways, being a free speech guy, I am not that zealous to criminally prosecute those chanting this disturbing chant; especially the far left 18 year old idiots who likely have no idea what they are actually chanting. But it is curious the Ontario Attorney General will sign off on prosecuting my Gospel flyer which has nothing remotely close to genocidal language in it, but for months has given a pass to this actual genocidal speech which is now a daily occurance on Toronto campuses and roadways.

None of those on the right who are convicted of so-called “hate speech” are ever actually violent. Some of those convicted, you may not like their opinions. From my perspective some opinions found to be criminal hate speech, I have actually agreed with the opinion expressed. One example is a French guy by the name of Eric Brazau who put a Saudi Arabian woman who became a Christian in a Niqab and mock beat her with a stick on a TTC subway train while reading verses from the Koran which explicitly sanctions this behaviour.

The woman who I met was a nominal Muslim before becoming a Christian and she experienced domestic violence when living in Saudi Arabia. She and her Frenchman friend wanted to make people aware of the Koranic verses which sanction wife beating. Anyways, someone on the train got offended at the skit as the Frenchman read from the Koran while lightly whacking the ex-Muslim woman (who was wearing a full burka) with a stick in the aisle of the train. The offended passenger pulled an alarm and at the next stop the pair were arrested. The Frenchman (who was an atheist) got 2 years in jail for his educational stunt. In my view Canadian justice is the worst for it.

As it stands now in my case, Superior Court Justice Goldstein and Justice Ducharme are clear they do not think my flyer is criminal hate speech. Ontario Court of Appeal Justices, Lorne Sossin He/Him, Harvesin-Young, and Copeland think my flyer “might be hate speech” and that a second trial is needed with evidence from a homosexual activist academic to make sure we know for sure. Conservative lawyers like Tom Schuck know for certain my flyer is not hate speech and homosexual activist lawyers like Doug Elliot know for certain my flyer is the worst kind of hate speech.

Interestingly, my former Lawyer John Rosin is ambiguous. The guy won me an acquittal for which I am forever grateful, but after multiple arguments on this topic over a period of a number of years, I don’t actually know his personal opinion on my flyer. Mr. Rosen did legal work for groups like The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which is definitely a pro-censorship lobby group. There is no doubt our world views are somewhat different.

The above diversity of opinions on what is “hate speech” and what isn’t shows we really need to get rid of our hate speech laws as they are written. Trudeau loves censorship and hates social conservatives. The needed change won’t happen under his leadership and the types of judges he appoints are unlikely to see the need to allow a greater latitude of speech in this country. Hopefully, after the next election, more freedom oriented judges can be appointed to the bench and hopefully Trudeau’s censorship bills can be repealed.

I will be a guest on Last call radio tomorrow at 11:00 am (Toronto time), which is 9:00 am (Edmonton time). You can listen or call in if you wish by following this link: https://rumble.com/c/LastCallRadio

I declined a plea agreement and my next hearing is scheduled for Toronto Superior Practice Court at 9:00 am, Monday, July 15th.

In Christ’s Service,

Bill Whatcott