STEYN on his appeaance before the JUST committee investigating the Canadian Human Rights Commission: "Spare me the therapeutic platitudes"

Spare me the therapeutic platitudes

I’m supposed to be happy my room complaint is a growth experience for hotel staff?

Macleans Magazine | Nov 12, 2009

 

 

 

As readers may recall, a few weeks ago I was invited to testify at the House of Commons about the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

[…]

 

A couple of weeks later, Jennifer Lynch, QC (Queen Censor) and Chief Commissar of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, came to the House of Commons to offer her own view of Section 13. Facing very specific allegations of abuse of power and conflict of interest, she took refuge, like the Château Laurier, in soothing generalities. Indeed, as with the Assistant Manager, Housekeeping, recent difficulties seemed to have provided a marvellous opportunity for a growth experience: “... just to reassure myself as I can reassure you here today that Canadians can have pride in all of the employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the way we carry out our complex mandate.”

“Ms. Lynch, let me stop you there,” said Joe Comartin, the dogged Dipper on the Select Committee. “That’s not an answer to my question. Did you conduct a detailed investigation into these allegations?”

Since the “human rights” racket ran into its little public relations problem with the complaints against this magazine a couple of years back, Commissar Lynch’s technique has been to say at every opportunity how much she “welcomes the debate.” Indeed, she’s been so busy welcoming the debate that sadly she’s had no time to have one. Still, it came as a surprise to see her offer up the same flat bromides to the Parliament to which she is, supposedly, accountable. The Queen Censor spoke to the Select Committee with the same weirdly fixed smile on her face for the full hour. Presumably she fancies this makes her look friendly and reassuring, although movie buffs may find it alarmingly reminiscent of the guy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers who tells you in the evenly modulated voice that the process is completely painless and you won’t feel a thing. Her response to specific questions was to freeze the smile and pause just a little too long before replying, as if the random Form Response Generator was running a bit slow.

Thus, replying to a query as to why she and her colleagues hadn’t sued me and Ezra Levant for making false and defamatory statements, she paused, smiled, and responded that “with a very broad mandate, with a lot of interesting, important and exciting work, we are leaders and catalysts in advancing equality in Canada and in fact internationally.” I believe that’s Form Response #29 (e). I suppose these soporific accumulations of modish banalities are intended to send the message: “Nothing to see here. All’s well. Celebrate diversity. Go back to sleep.” But the hogwash isn’t entirely benign:

“The challenge of ensuring the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality and dignity is not new...”

Whoa, hold up there. “The right to dignity”? Where’d that come from? Unlike the first right, it isn’t one of Canada’s constitutionally enumerated “fundamental freedoms”: the word “dignity” doesn’t appear in the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” since even the authors of that comically worthless document felt unable to advance with a straight face the creepy concept of state-mandated “dignity.” True, as Commissar Lynch notes, the word appears in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but so do many others that Canada’s “human rights” regime consciously disregards—including the presumption of innocence, equality before the law, a fair and public hearing, and of course the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” At last count, Canada’s “human rights” racket is in breach of Articles 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 19, so Commissar Lynch’s fondness for the “right to dignity” is highly selective to say the least.

But, having embraced this pseudo-right, she then claims no one right trumps any other and it is her job to “balance” competing rights. This “balancing act” is a favourite shtick of the thought enforcers. Haroon Siddiqui, a lonely defender of state-regulated speech even among his Toronto Star colleagues, was musing the other day about balancing “free speech vs. freedom from hate.”

One of those is a real right. The other is a statist con. As I said in my own testimony to Parliament:

“Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the CHRC, has declared that the commission is committed to the abolition of hatred—not hate crimes, not hate speech, but hate. Hate is a human emotion; it beats, to one degree or another, in every breast. It is part of what it means to be human... To hate is to be free, and when the alternative is a coercive government bureaucracy regulating what you can say, then as Michael Ignatieff would be the first to point out, you are no longer free. I am with Mr. Ignatieff on that.”

Yes, well. It’s not clear whether Mr. Ignatieff is still with Mr. Ignatieff on that, but that’s for him and his conscience to wrestle with. It’s tempting to give Messrs. Fine and Siddiqui a pass, and at least allow that “freedom from hate” is an understandably desirable goal. But it isn’t. It’s explicitly totalitarian. In Norfolk, England, the other day, the 67-year-old wife of a Baptist minister wrote a letter to her local council making some politely expressed objections to the (publicly funded) Gay Pride parade and in return was visited by two police officers who informed her that her letter “was thought to be an intention of hate.” An “intention” of hate? In 1956, Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi story “The Minority Report” introduced the dystopian notion of “pre-crime.” Half a century on, some of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet are embracing the concept ever more openly. As Commissar Lynch primly notes, “This approach to creating a harmonious society is not ours alone.”

I don’t want to live in state-regulated “harmony.” Not just because I have a low opinion of Jennifer Lynch, Haroon Siddiqui et al., and thus have no intention of singing harmony to their turgid tune. I don’t think they should have to harmonize with mine, either. As that incident in Norfolk suggests, when the heavy hand of government enforcers starts regulating you into harmony, all you’re allowed to sing is a crappy medley of We Are the World and the Barney the Dinosaur song. Language itself dies, until public communication is reduced to Commissar Lynch’s insipid banalities and the Assistant Manager, Housekeeping’s therapeutic platitudes. With respect to the latter, it’s not a growth experience. It’s a shrivelling experience.

To advance such pseudo-rights as “freedom from hate,” the very language is being neutered into compliance. Commissar Lynch’s performance is a preview of a world in which public discourse is conducted only in fraudulent abstractions and euphemistic evasions. Don’t buy it. When a government apparatchik tells you she’s busy creating a “harmonious society,” she’s not playing your song.

 

 

Read the entire article at: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/12/spare-me-the-therapeutic-platitudes/

 

 

Marc Lemire asks to testify before the JUST committee investigating the out of control CHRC

Oct 2, 2009

To: Miriam Burke

Clerk of the Committee

Fax: 613-996-1962

E-mail: JUST@parl.gc.ca

 

RE: Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)

 

Dear Miriam Burke;

 

My name is Marc Lemire, and I have been studying the Canadian Human Rights Commission for over 6 years.  In particular Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is under review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST).  On September 2, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in my case that Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional. 

 

As a result of my 6 year hearing, I have amassed the largest collection of critical material on the CHRC and their systemic corruption.  I would like to be a witness and give testimony on the abuses of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which I have documented before the Federal Court of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.  The documents I have collected, have lead to a criminal investigation of the CHRC, as well form the basis for most of the current controversy of the CHRC.

 

The information that I have uncovered included:

 

• CHRC theft of internet communications
• CHRC staff signing onto questionable websites and entrapping people
• CHRC staff’s contempt for freedom of speech, including their testimony that “Freedom of speech is an American concept”
• CHRC refusing to release any documents on how much they have paid Richard Warman
• 100% conviction rate before the Tribunal
• The corrupt investigations of the CHRC, which includes dismissing a complaint because it was a “double-sided” fax
• CHRC exchanging information with Police and others, thus usurping safeguards in criminal law
• CHRC contravening the Canada Post Act, by setting up mail drops in Ottawa, to send out hate posters to receive mail under false names
• CHRC editing court transcripts to remove explosive testimony about Richard Warman,  then distributing copies of the doctored transcripts to members of the media
• Decision from the Office of the Privacy Commission, chastising the CHRC for refusing to release information

 

 

 

And this is just a small list of all the material I have.

 

What steps do I need to do, to be able to give a brief or presentation to the subcommittee?

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Marc Lemire

 

http://www.Freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canadian Free Speech League files application to Intervene in Lemire case

Doug Christie's Canadian Free Speech League stands for freedom of speech!  On October 28th, 2009, they applied for Intervenor status in the Lemire case, which is a Constitutional Challenge of the internet censorship powers held by the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The CHRC is seeking a judicial review of the stunning decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Lemire case, which found Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be a violation of the freedom of speech rights of all Canadians.

So far there is three parties involved:

• CHRC:   Who are seeking Judicial review
• Marc Lemire:  Who is opposing the CHRC and seeking a Federal Court decision declaring Section 13 unconstitutional
• Richard Warman:  The original complaint who started the case against Lemire

Motion by Douglas Christie, counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League

Parliament's JUST committee continues their review of the censorship provisions of Section 13. Next up, the Chief Kangaroo and her cheering section

 

Parliament’s JUST committee continues their review of the censorship provisions of Section 13…  Next up, the Chief Kangaroo and her cheering section

 

 

Tune in live on Monday from 3:30 to 5:30pm, and watch the CHRC and their cheering section at the Canadian Jewish Congress, squirm under questioning from Members of Parliament.

 

More information here:

 

• JUST Committee – Notice of Meeting
• Will Lynch underbus Warman before the Committee
• Levant on Moon
• STEYN:  What a little Moon light doesn't do
• Jay Currie:  First Question for the Coward Lynch
• BCF: Jennifer "J-Ly" Lynch Testifies Monday

 

 

 

----------

 

 

 

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

 

Meeting No. 43

Monday, October 26, 2009

3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

 

Watch LIVE here:

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=5206

 

 

________________________________________

 

Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Section 13)

 

Witnesses

 

 

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

 

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Chief Commisioner

Philippe Dufresne, Director and Senior Counsel

Litigation Services Division

 

 

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

 

Canadian Jewish Congress

Mark Freiman, President

Bernie M. Farber, Chief Executive Officer

 

As an individual

 

Richard Moon, Professor

University of Windsor, Faculty of Law

 

 

 

XTRA!: Feds consider striking hate speech clause

Feds consider striking hate speech clause

National / MPs want to protect minorities from “real harm, not perceived harm or hurt feelings”

Dale Smith / Ottawa / Wednesday, October 21, 2009

After three years of public thrashings, a controversial hate speech provision is now under the federal microscope. In a committee room in the bowels of Parliament Hill, a cross-section of MPs will debate the clause’s merits through the fall, and possibly into next year.

The provision in question, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, allows the Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding hate speech by phone or internet.

Opponents of Section 13 complain that it establishes a lower threshold for offences than the two hate speech laws that appear in the Criminal Code.

A raft of free speechers — from civil liberties groups to the Canadian Association of Journalists — decry the clause as an unnecessary intrusion on Canadians’ right to speak their minds. The issue gained visibility in 2007 after Muslim groups used Section 13 to pursue Ezra Levant and Macleans columnist Mark Steyn for publishing material they found offensive. Steyn and Levant are now avowed enemies of the clause.

But the worst blow was dealt to the provision in September, when a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declared the clause unconstitutional.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” said long-time Section 13 critic and Liberal MP Keith Martin of the tribunal decision.

Since September’s decision sets no legal precedent, the legislation remains intact until either a superior court decision strikes it down or Parliament amends the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). In the meantime, The Commons Justice Committee — the group charged with studying the provision — will investigate whether it should be struck down.

Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber is a member of the committee and a vocal opponent of Section 13.

“I think our study is timely in that the Human Rights Commission has filed an appeal, so it will be reviewed by the Federal Court of Canada, and if they uphold that decision, presumably that will strike down Section 13,” says Rathgeber. “That could create a legal void, and there are many cases pending.”

“I hope at the end of the day we can table a report in Parliament that can protect the freedom of speech while still protecting groups from real harm, not perceived harm or hurt feelings,” Rathgeber says.

But Rathgeber and the Conservatives will have to face an opposition that is just as likely to want to keep the provision in place.

“We certainly wouldn’t be in favour of abolishing it,” says Liberal justice critic Dominic LeBlanc. “We think that Section 13 and the Human Rights commissions have played a useful role. We’re always open to discussions of how Section 13 might be strengthened or clarified.”

LeBlanc adds that he has spoken with the chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and is in the process of reading their recent report on the issue.

“We think there should be a measure between the Criminal Code provisions with respect to hate propaganda, and a lower threshold which would properly be in the domain of a Human Rights Commission — particularly around new technologies and information technologies,” LeBlanc says.

The NDP also supports the retention of the clause.

“My own position is, and I’ll be calling witnesses from this vantage point, is what we can do to clarify the problems,” says NDP justice critic Joe Comartin. “I think it is possible to rewrite the section, to amend it, and to put in criteria as to how you would interpret when the commission would have jurisdiction to intervene. I think that would be probably a bit more restrictive than it has historically been.”

Comartin expects the Conservatives to call witnesses that would advocate for the abolition of Section 13, starting with opponents like Levant and Steyn.

But not all Conservatives feel the need to abolish Section 13. Lesbian Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth feels that it should be retained.

“The Canadian Human Rights Act does include women, but the Criminal Code does not,” says Ruth. “So if we lose Section 13, there’s no protection for hatred against women anywhere.”

“If it is missing, then it should be in the Criminal Code,” says Martin. “The Criminal Code is there to protect us all from hate speech, and any individual, any group must be protected against true hate speech.

“If there is something missing in the Criminal Code, then again it’s up to Parliament to deal with it. It’s a wonderful opportunity to strengthen the Criminal Code aspects of hate speech while removing the flaws in Section 13 that exist right now.”

Ruth says that she has been engaging with the ministers of justice and Status of Women on that inclusion, but that their priorities at present remain the economy and tough-on-crime legislation.

The prominence of voices like Levant and Steyn in the call for repeal — along with PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Pink Triangle Press (Capital Xtra’s parent company) — is nevertheless disturbing to some supporters of the clause.

Richard Moon, a constitutional law professor at the University of Windsor, says Levant may reach some of the right conclusions, but he uses the wrong rationale.

In October of 2008, Moon published a report for the Human Rights Commission that called for Section 13 to be struck down.

“I have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances,” Moon says.

“I believe there are very good — but complicated — arguments as to why we ought to repeal Section 13, but the accusations of corruption or even those sorts of simple assertions that they have a 100 percent conviction rate — those are all grotesque distortions.”

Moon is referring to the claim in Shakedown that everyone who is accused of hate speech by Canadian human rights tribunals is convicted. Moon explains that frivolous complaints are weeded out before they reach the tribunal — only those likely to succeed actually make it to hearings.

“I’m deeply disturbed by the…smear campaign against the people who support Section 13 and the people at the Commission who are, for the most part, simply carrying out their statutory duties,” Moon says. “You can have a problem with the statute and call for its repeal without attacking civil servants who are generally implementing the law as it stands.”

A Supreme Court case is likely as a result of September’s tribunal decision declaring Section 13 unconstitutional. The last time this issue was brought before Canada’s highest court was in 1990, when a split 4-3 decision in the Taylor case declared the limits placed on free speech under Section 13 legal and constitutional.

Meanwhile, the Justice Committee will tender a report that may influence Parliamentary direction on the issue. If the report is convincing, Section 13 could be repealed by way of Parliamentary bill.

“It is Parliament’s responsibility to deal with the Act — it’s not the Tribunal or the commission’s responsibility,” Martin says.

“The important thing is for Parliament to have the courage to go and make the changes of Section 13(1) that will protect one of our true fundamental rights — the right of freedom of speech — while making it very clear that hate speech belongs in the Criminal Code.”

 

The 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award

The 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
October 13, 2009

Last Saturday in Victoria, BC, Connie and I proudly accepted the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award from the Canadian Free Speech League. It was a personal pleasure for me to receive an award named for one of my literary heroes. I encountered the writings of George Orwell decades ago and they effected me so profoundly that they set me on paths of political thought that I continue to travel to this day.

This award is particularly appropriate in view of the Orwellian world Connie and I have had thrust upon us. A world where the State believes it can eradicate human emotions, where truth is not a defense and convictions are assured, where lawfare is an effective means of political coercion, and where people who speak out for our freedom of speech and political thought are labeled by censors as followers of one of history's greatest tyrants and mass murderers. (No, not socialism's Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. That other guy.)

A variety of speakers at the annual meeting told the 125 people in attendance about their experiences of being crushed by the state. Marc Lemire did a power point presentation that gave an all too brief overview of what he has been through and brought everyone up to date on the latest developments in his case and the CHRC's appeal of the Hadjis ruling on the constitutionality of Section 13. A representative of the battle against the long gun registry spoke and a B.C. couple told a heart-wrenching story of having all their children seized by the B.C. government after a misdiagnosis of shaken-baby syndrome. Arthur Topham spoke of B'nai Brith's CHRC attack on him and we heard a story from a gentleman who has been locked in a battle with the government of B.C. over busking, of all things.

We also received a generous cash award which will go to our legal defense. The battle will go on.

We will never look up to the face of Big Brother, and love him.

-----------

Conservative Website Hosts Mark and Connie Fournier Win 2009 George Orwell Free Speech Award

VICTORIA, October 10. While many Canadians travelled to see friends and relatives for the Thanksgiving weekend, over 125 free speechers from as far away as Hawaii jammed a hall for food, fellowship and the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Awards.

This year's recipients were Mark and Connie Fournier, the former owners of freedominion.ca, a conservative website in existance since 2001. They have the unique distinction of being the victims of no fewer than three defamation suits at the hands of the ultra litigious Richard Warman, the chronic Canadian human rights complaints filer. For the past three years, the Fourniers and many of their posters have fought a staunch battle for free speech and found themselves being spied on by blind Canadian human rights investigator (don't ask how -- we don't know and he won't tell), even before a complaint was filed against their site.

One of their libel suits in currently stalled as the Fournier's are appealing a court decision forcing them to divulge the names of eight John Doe's, or anonymous posters of their website, to Richard Warman. The Fournier's are standing four square for privacy of people on their site. Their lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, calling from Ontario, warned: "This appeal is very important for freedom of speech and people posting anonymously on the Internet." She also praised Marc Lemire for "his tremendous stamina and sacrifice over the past six years to overturn Sec. 13. It always falls to individuals to carry the heavy burden," she said.

Hosted by Douglas Christie and his Canadian Free Speech League, the Orwell dinner featured webmaster Marc Lemire. Marc gave a powerful power point presentation of the struggle against Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and his recent victory, when Member Athanasios Hadjis ruled the Internet cewnsorship section unconstitutional. The CHRC is appealing (seeking judicial review) of this decision. Marc revealed further CHRC dirty tricks, including a cozy relationship with Canada Post which resulted in the closing of at least one person's post office box on nothing more than the allegation that he'd run afoul of Sec. 13.

Mr. Christie warned: "The fight for free speech is not the fight of a generation or even a lifetime."

Also present was webmaster Arthur Topham of Quesnel who is being victimized by Harry Abrams, a Victoria B'nai Brith operative, and B'nai Brith in a Sec. 143 complaint about his criticism of Zionism and Israel. Both the CFSL and CAFE have "interested party" or intervenor status in this upcoming battle,. scheduled to open in Victoria, December 14.

Representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Paul Fromm, the 1994 George Orwell Award winner, explained the travails of math lecturer Terry Tremaine, another Warman victim, who faces a preliminary hearing in Regina, October 19 on Warman-instigation Sec. 319 "hate law" charges about postings Mr. Tremaine made about Jews and national socialism. He was prosecuted under Sec. 13 on another Warman complaint and fined $4,000 and gagged for life (a "cease and desist" order) in 2006. Warman's complaints led to his losing his job at the University of Saskatchewan.

Richard Warman files notice of appearance for the CHRC appeal of Section 13 constitutionality

 

Richard Warman has filed a notice of appearance in the CHRC appeal of the Lemire ruling that found Section 13 to be unconstitutional.

 

 

 

 

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1640-09

 

 

 

Court Number :	T-1640-09
Style of Cause :	CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. RICHARD WARMAN ET AL
Proceeding Category :	Applications	Nature :	S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Type of Action :	Non-Action

( 8 records found )

Doc	Date Filed	Office	Recorded Entry Summary
6	2009-10-09	Ottawa	Affidavit of service of Céline Girouard sworn on 09-OCT-2009 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of doc 5 upon all parties by telecopier on 09-OCT-2009 filed on 09-OCT-2009
5	2009-10-09	Ottawa	Notice of appearance on behalf of the respondent - Richard Warman filed on 09-OCT-2009
4	2009-10-07	Toronto	Affidavit of service of Barbara Kulaszka sworn on 07-OCT-2009 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of doc 3 upon Defendant AGC by mail on 07-OCT-2009 filed on 07-OCT-2009
3	2009-10-07	Toronto	Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 07-OCT-2009
-	2009-10-02	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from Bob Lemoine dated 02-OCT-2009 that Marc Cossette (Registry Officer) has advised me today that he has contacted the office of the Canadian Free Speech League in response to their letter of 2-OCT-2009 and advised them that a motion for leave is required to intervene placed on file.
-	2009-10-02	Ottawa	Letter from Mr. Douglas H. Christie of the Canadian Free Speech League dated 02-OCT-2009 advising the court of their intention to continue intervening in this matter received on 02-OCT-2009
2	2009-10-02	Toronto	Service copy of Doc. No. 1 with proof of service upon respondent Attorney General of Canada on 02-OCT-2009 filed on 02-OCT-2009
1	2009-10-01	Toronto	Notice of application and 2 copies with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on 01-OCT-2009 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney General of Canada Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes

The last database update occurred on 2009-10-10 12:57