[Email message to the members of the Ottawa Transit Commission, 19 November 2013.

This text has not

previously been published.]

[Index: Canadian politics, 9/11]

Date: November 2013]

Free Speech on Ottawa Transpo:

Letter to Ottawa Transit Commission

Michael Keefer

To: Councillor Diane Deans, Councillor Shad Qadri, Councillor Stephen Blais,
Councillor Rainer Bloess, Councillor Keith Egli, Councillor Katherine Hobbs,
Councillor Tim Tierney, Councillor Marianne Wilkinson, Mr. Blair Crew, Mr. Justin
Ferrabee, Mr. Mark Johnson, Ms. Emily Rahn, Mayor Jim Watson
Cc: OttawaOutreach@AE911Truth.org

Date: 19 Nov 2013, 19:56.

Dear Ottawa Transit Commission Members,

I am writing to convey to you my support for the ReThink911 advertising

campaign, which I believe is performing an important service of public information. I
would like also to ensure that you are aware of a recent decision of the Supreme Court
of Canada which has a direct bearing on this matter.
I address you as an expert in the subject matter under consideration. I have
published on the material evidence relating to the events of September 11, 2001, in
essays that have appeared in a peer-reviewed book and in peer-reviewed scholarly

journals, and also in papers delivered at scholarly conferences in Canada, Mexico, and
Finland. I have lectured on matters relating to 9/11 at universities in Sweden and
Germany, as well as at several Canadian universities, and have made media appearances
on the subject, including on Steve Paikin's TVO program The Agenda.
Although I am not aware of the precise wording of the ReThink911 ads, I am
familiar with other public information materials produced by this campaign and by the
originating organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The material of theirs
that I have seen and read has been unfailingly evidence-based, scientifically accurate,
and sensitive to the suffering of victims of the crimes of 9/11 and the concerns of family
members.
Any suggestion that the ReThink911 ads might violate standards of community
acceptability would be mistaken, for the following reasons:
1) Materials-science analyses published by physicists, chemists, and
engineers have demonstrated that the official account of the destruction
of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 contained in such texts as
The 9/11 Commission Report and the reports published by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is false. (It is now, for
example, an unchallenged fact that for more than two seconds of its
collapse, WTC 7 was in a condition of free-fall acceleration. The only
hypothesis that can explain this fact is one of planned demolition.)
Significantly, the materials-science analyses to which I refer have not
been challenged in peer-reviewed studies.
2) A growing body of scholarly opinion in the United States (as
evidenced by scholarly books and peer-reviewed essays published in
journals of established reputation) is moving to the view that the
appropriate analytical framework for contextual study of the events of
9/11 is one in which these events are understood to belong to the category
of state crimes against democracy.
3) It may be possible to find journalists, demagogues, and even some
academics who are willing to apply abusive terms like conspiracy
theory to the scientific and scholarly work alluded to above. You will
discover, in nearly every case, that such people are not acquainted with
the scientific and scholarly work in question, and have no comparable

publications in the field to their own credit. What weight should their
opinions carry?
4) The fact that studies in some particular area are regarded by
significant numbers of people as unsettling or controversial does not
mean that they can be labelled as violating standards of community
acceptability. Large numbers of people in the United States, possibly
even a majority, reject the conclusions of evolutionary biologists and
climate scientists. Would that put biology and climate science outside the
standards of community acceptability?
Perhaps more importantly, I believe there have been suggestions that OC
Transpo should change its advertising standards so as to make it more difficult for
public education campaigns like ReThink911 to place public transit ads.
It is crucial for you to understand that such a change would be a direct violation
of Canadian law. On July 10, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision
in the case B.C. Transit v. Canadian Federation of Students. That decision applies
directly and unambiguously to the present situation.
Grace Pastine, Litigation Director for the British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association (BCCLA), which appeared as an intervener in the case, commented when
the decision was announced that the Supreme Court has squarely rejected the notion
that Canadians need to be shielded from political debate in public spaces. It also sends a
strong message to all government-related bodies that control speech in public spaces
that they must not violate Charter rights, including the freedom of expression.
Chris Sanderson, the lawyer who appeared for the BCCLA in the case, remarked
that This decision is significant in at least two respects. First, it clearly establishes that
the government cannot shirk its Charter obligations by conferring powers on another
entity. Second, the judgement contains a ringing endorsement of a long held BCCLA
position that it is not the business of government to approve or disapprove of what
Canadians say unless the government can demonstrate that to do so is justifiable in a
free and democratic society, something the government was unable to show in this
case.
Given that such a clear precedent has been established by Canada's highest
court, I urge you to do the obvious and straightforward thing, and to act according to the
rule of Canadian law.

Yours sincerely and respectfully,

Michael Keefer
Professor Emeritus
School of English and Theatre Studies
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1