Section 13(1), Marc Lemire and Me

It would be nice to have history record that only two lawyers stood up for free speech in Marc Lemire's case. Barbara Kulaszka and I were those two lawyers. Even though Barbara invited the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene, they never did.

It would be nice if people recognized that I have appeared for free speech cases in the Supreme Court of Canada more than any other lawyer in Canadian history. I argued for free speech in the orginal case of John Ross Taylor where the Supreme Court of Canada for the first, last and only time upheld section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I stood there against about 15 other lawyers on the other side. I appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada in Zundel's case twice, in Keegstra's case, in Tony McAleer's case, and in Keegstra's case again. I argued before the Supreme Court of Canada in Malcolm Ross. In all but Zundel's Case, I lost, usually by 4 to 3 or 5 to 4.

But now the tide is turning. The slippery slope I warned them about has now demonstrated that power over the speech of political adversaries is a deadly combination, prone to abuse. After Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's cases, it became a "dangerous" law because it stifled "good people" not "neo-Nazis" and "racists." It would be nice if the media and the people recognized I was right all along. It would be nice to be recognized as the one who for the principle, and alone, stood for what is right.

It will never happen.

But why should I care? What part of me now cries out for justice, for me? For consolation for the pain of a thousand defamations? I'll tell you: the part that is not authentic, that's what part.

The day that I or anyone lives not for the truth of what they believe, for the truth itself, for the principle, they have become a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. They have ceased to be who they really are. They have become a plaything of the fickle fortunes of the mass mind. They have become a mere actor, playing for applause. They are living for approval and not of their God or the truth, but for the fleeting popularity of the latest public opinion poll. They have lost the power to lead because they are not authentic. They are not sincerely true to the facts and truth they possess. They lose track of who they are, much like actors do in becoming their role.

So what am I saying? Have I become irredeemably lost because I long to be recognized, approved of, admired and extolled as a man of courage and wisdom? No, because I recognize this is an area of weakness and foolishness in myself. Everyone of us every day has to struggle with the temptation to be what others want us to be, rather than what we ought to be. We must strive to be our authentic self, which is the best person we can be.

I believe authenticity is not just spontaneity and mindless pursuit of adulation. It is the constant struggle to re-examine our motives, to assess our principles in light of our behaviour, to seek to overcome the part of ourselves which is always saying, "Surrender! The fight is too hard, the way is too lonely! No one will understand, or appreciate you! See, you are hurting those who love you. Give up your long-suffering principles and become like the rest of them!"

This voice is always there. It tempted the greatest of persons and it speaks to me. But the authentic person will struggle against this, as we all must do, all our lives.

The Integration of Two Fundamental Themes

If you watch my YouTube videos -- and I hope you do -- you will see what appear to be two themes which are unrelated. The first is the theme of attacks on freedom by the New World Order. This may cover day-to-day topics from the United Church boycott motion to a Tim Hortons boycott in Rhode Island. Always, the free speech theme observes the state's intrusion by regulation into the free communication of ideas, analysis, music or poetry, and basically the control of communication through such altruistic camoflage as "human rights," "fighting terrorism," "preventing disturbances," "regulating markets," "preserving the environment," "combatting climate change," "stabilizing banking," and "sustainable development," to name a few.

My fight against all these euphemisms and their tyrannical implementation is in favour of freedom of thought, belief and opinion. It is essentially populist, believing as Lord Randolph Churchill said, "Properly informed, trust the people."

As a corollary, I believe we must trust the people to inform themselves.

In contrast to this, in my second theme, I continually end my comments with the seemingly incongruous words, "We must Free the West." By that I mean Western Canada must separate and form a new nation.

These two themes are really just one. Canada is an experiment in mind control, mass manipulation and indoctrination. The socialists have given up on communism and in Canada they practice coercive environmentalism and multiculturalism.

In Canada, with its controlled parliamentary system and phony elections, change is really impossible. Other countries control their populace using similar strategies. Government from the top down is the New World Order.

So for the sake of individual freedom, smaller nations must emerge by peaceful means to assert that the ultimate purpose of the state is to secure and preserve the liberty of the individual. By a common understanding of this necessity, free speech and Western Canadian separatism are mutually supporting themes, in which I believe, and to which I have dedicated much of my life. This is my authenticity.

How to be Free, Nevertheless

Public Speaking

Once a person has received what they believe to be an authentic message, a moral duty arises to attempt to communicate it. The most intimate, effective and authentic method of communication is public speaking. This is true for me.

In the absence of an audience I have resorted to YouTube videos because it is the closest thing to being there. Observation of a speaker's presence is essential to understanding, but a video is the next best thing. Through this means, we are raising a whole new generation of speakers and performers who would otherwise never have an audience. They have a virtual audience, conceived in their mind and eventually realized. Thereby, the monopoly of the public mind, held by the mainstream media, is broken.

The only sad deficit is the sensation missed by the performer in the absence of approbration by a real audience. By real, I mean physically present. However, if a speaker is effective in virtual reality the possibility exists of a real audience in physical reality. A level playing field gives them an equal opportunity. This is the ultimate freedom.

Please see and give me your comments on my YouTube videos at channel DHChristie.

Who I Am