LIFE SITE NEWS: Canadian Human Rights Commission Appeals Ruling against Hate Messages Statute

Monday February 8, 2010 | Life Site News

---

Canadian Human Rights Commission Appeals Ruling against Hate Messages Statute

By Patrick B. Craine

February 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is appealing the September decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that determined the hate messages provision (section 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional.

In a factum filed with the Federal Court last month, the CHRC argues that then-Tribunal chairman Athanasios D. Hadjis exceeded his authority and erred in law when he ruled on September 2nd that section 13, as it stands now in conjunction with the 1998 penal provisions, violates the Charter-guaranteed freedom of expression.

Hadjis' decision came in the case of Lemire v. Warman.  Marc Lemire, who runs FreedomSite.org, faced a complaint from serial complainant and former CHRC employee Richard Warman in November 2003.  Warman alleged that certain postings to Lemire's website were likely to incite hatred or contempt against homosexuals and blacks, thus violating section 13.

When the Supreme Court upheld the section in 1990, Hadjis wrote, their decision was based "on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible."  The Supreme Court's decision, he maintained, “hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c)," which is the clause that allows the Tribunal to impose fines of up to $10,000.

Margot Blight, writing the factum on behalf of the CHRC, argues that, whether the CHRC's actions are conciliatory or not, those actions cannot themselves make the statute unconstitutional.  “Any question as to whether the Commission's process is sufficiently conciliatory to meet the requirements of the Charter is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction,” she wrote.

According to Blight, the penalty clauses are not intrinsic to section 13, and thus “the appropriate remedy would have been to sever and refuse to apply [them],” rather than judging section 13 unconstitutional.

Section 13 has garnered growing criticism as an infringement on freedom of speech, particularly following several high profile cases, including those brought against publisher Ezra Levant and columnist Mark Steyn.

Steyn hailed Hadjis' ruling as a "landmark decision."  "This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 and its provincial equivalents, and a major defeat for Canada's thought police," he wrote on the day of the ruling. "It's not just a personal triumph for Marc Lemire, but a critical victory in the campaign by Ezra Levant, Maclean's, yours truly and others to rid the Canadian state of this hideous affront to justice."

Lemire told LifeSiteNews that he is pleased the case will now head to Federal Court because that court is capable of overturning section 13.  As the Tribunal does not have that ability, in Lemire's case, Hadjis simply chose not to apply the statute.

“If the Federal Court agrees with the [Tribunal] that section 13 is an infringement on freedom of speech, and is unconstitutional, that will stop the [CHRC] from being able to enforce section 13 and harassing other internet posters and news magazines,” said Lemire.

Lemire's lawyers will be filing a factum with the court next week, he said, and a hearing is expected by the fall.  He said that they will be countering the CHRC's claim that Hadjis overstepped his authority, as well as offering further arguments in favour of overturning section 13.

“Restricting this type of speech is wrong and shouldn't be taking place in Canada,” he said.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Section 13 Hate Message Clause Unconstitutional Rules Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09090209.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020810.html

 

 

 

US Judge dismisses charges against Bill White for allegedly threatening Richard Warman

US Judge dismisses charges against Bill White for allegedly threatening Richard Warman

Senior United States District Judge James C Turk

Count Six of the indictment charges White with making threatening communications to Richard Warman in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). JUDGEMENT: As to Count Six, the Court concludes that there was “no substantial evidence that would permit any rational trier of facts to find the defendant guilty,” and the Court must enter a directed verdict of acquittal as to Count Six.

Here are some of the findings as made by the United States District Court. The full ruling can be seen here:  US V WILLIAM WHITE, 7:08CR00054, Issued - 2/4/2010, UNPUBLISHED

P.23: Because there was no dispute as to these factual allegations, the Court must only review the findings of the jury to determine whether a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the charged communications, would have considered them to be a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual. Although a court must be deferential to the conclusions of the jury, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this Court must conclude that no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime [charged] beyond a reasonable doubt” when presented with this evidence. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. It is clear, when the evidence is viewed in its cumulative context, that White’s actions did not amount to a “true threat” and must, therefore, be deemed protected speech under the First Amendment. P.23: In reaching this determination, the Court notes, first, that much of the evidence and violent language attributed to White was taken from blog postings and articles published on the internet. Contrary to the call made to Kathleen Kerr and the email to Jennifer Petsche, most of the language referring to violence against Richard Warman was not directed or communicated directly to Warman. … P.25:  Under Watts, however, the widely disseminated nature of these postings has analytical significance beyond the “intent to communicate” analysis indicated above. Like in Watts, these internet postings were made for and to a group of like-minded individuals, much like the group that petitioner in Watts addressed at the anti-war protest. Accordingly, though no one knows whether the audience laughed as they did in Watts, it is an appropriate assumption that the audience of like-minded individuals would have treated these statements as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition” to Warman. P.25: Additionally, the violent language on the blog postings themselves indicate no express or implied intent to perpetrate violence against Richard Warman, […] P.26: Permitting a conviction on such evidence as presented here would eviscerate the protections that the Supreme Court has steadfastly endorsed with respect to the mere advocacy of violence and forever blur, impermissibly, the line between protected and prohibited speech. P.27:  However, when these words are considered, in the context of widely disseminated, publicly available internet postings, made to an audience of like-minded individuals, and with “a backdrop of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open,” Watts, 394 U.S. at 707-08, they cannot be considered a true threat. Instead, these words are merely “vehement, caustic and…unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Id. These assorted internet posts, even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, can not be deemed sufficient evidence to prove that White intended to communicate “a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence” toward Richard Warman. Black, 538 U.S. at 344. P.28: Similarly, one of the articles inside the magazine discussing Richard Warman can only be classified as gloating, in keeping with the caption over Richard Warman’s picture, “Yeah, We Beat This Prick.”13 Viewed cumulatively and in context, the entirety of the magazine can only be interpreted as White’s attempt to thumb his nose at Warman and ridicule Warman’s failed efforts to block a website run by White. Thus, the analytical magnitude of the fact that the email and magazine were directly communicated to Warman is significantly reduced. P.31: Consequently, the government has established neither that White made a true threat, nor that he unconstitutionally incited violence.  His speech and actions are, therefore, protected under the First Amendment. This Court, therefore, viewing the conclusions of the Jury under the deferential standard of Rule 29, finds that no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” after considering the email or magazine sent to Richard Warman. [Bolding added – not in original]

Judge drops 1 of 4 charges against neo-Nazi

By Laurence Hammack | The Roanoke Times

A federal judge today dismissed one of four charges that neo-Nazi leader William A. White was convicted of in December.

"The court finds that there is no substantial evidence which would permit any rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty," U.S. District Judge James Turk wrote in an opinion.

The jury verdict dismissed by Turk alleged that White had threatened Richard Warman, a human rights attorney from Canada who often brings civil actions against white supremacists.

White, the self-proclaimed commander of the Roanoke-based American National Socialist Workers Party, wrote on his Web site that Warman should be killed.

But unlike the other threats for which White was convicted, most of White’s comments were not communicated directly to Warman, Turk wrote in his 32-page opinion.

 […]

Rest at: http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/235407

STEYN: Guy Earle - Regular Guy, broken man and "Marc Lemire ... wound up inflicting more damage on the Human Rights racket than anything else"

 

Steyn: “Marc Lemire, whose bloody-minded refusal to sit there and take it wound up inflicting more damage on the [‘Human Rights’] racket than anything else.”

 

 

 

After listening to Guy Earle, I really do feel sorry for the situation he has found himself in.  He was just going about his life, and then someone hits him with a Human Rights Complaint.   I certainly can relate to some of the feelings that Earle is having.  I was just in my mid-20’s when I got hit with a Section 13 complaint by Richard Warman.  Once you’re hit with a human rights complaint you don’t really have many options.   Even if you apologize and give up, that doesn’t stop the meat grinder process from grinding on.

 

Mark Steyn has often written that the “process is the punishment.”  Anyone that has been a victim of the “Human Rights” process, know how true those words really are. I am now a 7 year victim of an out of control process, and it’s not even close to being over. Thanks to the Human Rights Commission, we are now heading to Federal Court, and in a strange perverse role-reversal, I now find myself in the position of arguing that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was correct and made a proper decision. 

 

Talk about the Alice in Wonderland world of “human rights”.  For 6 years, I was in front of the Tribunal arguing they were a violation of our Charter rights, were out of control, and misguided.  I went even further and analyzed every single Section 13 case to document and prove how the Tribunal (up until me) had a 100% conviction rate.   Now it’s me who has to go to Federal Court and say the Human Rights Tribunal was right!   Sometimes, I really need to pinch myself, just to make sure I did not fall asleep and slipped into some sick and twisted nightmare.

 

-Marc Lemire

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regular Guy, broken man

 

Steynposts

Tuesday, 02 February 2010

Guy Earle is the stand-up comic being dragged through British Columbia "human rights" hell by two drunken lesbians who decided that his put-down of their heckling was "homophobic". His trial begins in Vancouver on March 29th. If you read his latest update here, it's clear that Mr Earle is in a bad way: The HRC is being used as a tool for personal gain from a group that has no class, scruples or understanding. Of all the Canadian installations, wouldn't you want the HRC to have some kahoonies? Ah but... this is a make work project for their people, isn't it? They don't care that two years of my life is GONE. There is no concept of the damages they cause, the opportunities I've lost... Wow, you thought I was bitter BEFORE? Well, now I've become so bitter I can't perform. In a lot of ways, they've won already.   And, in case you doubt that, listen to him in this interview with one of the few media guys to be following this story, CHQR's Rob Breakenridge. Mr Earle sounds like a man on the verge of an on-air breakdown. Different people react to "human rights" torture in different ways: Ezra Levant and I are oppositional by nature and by profession. You take a swing at us, we'll swing back. Go ahead, "human rights" punks, make our day. So is Marc Lemire, whose bloody-minded refusal to sit there and take it wound up inflicting more damage on the racket than anything else. But most victims of Canada's thought police aren't like that: They're just regular folks trying to get on with their lives without catching the eye of the state enforcers, and, in that sense, Guy Earle is far closer to the gay guy with acute sinusitis forced to close down his b-&-b or the health-club owner taken to the cleaners by a pre-op transsexual who wanted to use the ladies' showers. These are fellows leading fully compliant Trudeaupian lives who nevertheless find they've managed to attract the attentions of an ever more whimsical tyranny.

…

 

Rest at:  http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128/

 

 

 

Scaramouche!: The Queen is not Amused

Canadian "Human Rights" Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada to keep their precious censorship franchise

NATIONAL POST: Chair's ruling on Section 13 incorrect: rights body

Chair's ruling on Section 13 incorrect: rights body

Facing appeal

Joseph Brean, National Post

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2493145

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal chairman Athanasios Hadjis over-stepped his authority and erred in law when he declared Section 13, Canada's controversial hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Hadjis's decision to acquit far-right webmaster Marc Lemire last fall after a six-year hate-speech case brought by activist lawyer Richard Warman is the subject of an upcoming appeal in Federal Court, brought by the CHRC.

A major factor in Mr. Hadjis's decision was that Mr. Lemire immediately removed the offending material on learning of the complaint, but Mr. Warman rebuffed efforts at conciliation, and the CHRC continued to push the case toward a tribunal hearing.

In a memorandum filed with the court, CHRC lawyer Margot Blight argues that the manner in which the CHRC pursues hate speech is "irrelevant" to the constitutionality of the law that forbids it, Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"Any question as to whether the Commission's process is sufficiently conciliatory to meet the requirements of the Charter is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction," the memo reads.

Ms. Blight also argues that the proper course of action, based on Mr. Hadjis's reasoning, was to "sever and refuse to apply" Section 13's penalty provisions, not declare the whole thing unconstitutional.

Mr. Warman, a former employee of the CHRC, brought a complaint against Mr. Lemire in 2003, after monitoring his website for almost a year.

He alleged that postings on the discussion forum, mostly written by other people, contravened Section 13 in that they were "likely to expose" identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt."

In all but one case, Mr. Hadjis decided that these postings either did not contravene Section 13, or that Mr. Lemire cannot be held responsible for what others posted on his website.

In the final case, Mr. Hadjis decided that a racist and homophobic article by a U.S. neo-Nazi called "AIDS Secrets" did violate Section 13, but because he also found the law itself unconstitutional, he declined to make any order. [See Lemire’s response to the “Aids Secret” article]

His decision did not invalidate Section 13 -- only a court or Parliament can do that --but it did suggest the need for high-level clarification. The Supreme Court of Canada last upheld Section 13 as a justifiable limit on free expression in 1990, in part on the basis of its remedial and non-punitive purpose. Eight years later, the penalty provision was added by Parliament, allowing for fines of $10,000.

Mr. Hadjis decided this amendment means Section 13 "can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature."

In the factum, Ms. Blight argues that the activities of the CHRC in pursuing its hate speech mandate were not properly before him for judgment. And even if his reasoning about penalties is sound, he failed to consider two other options: an order against Mr. Lemire to cease the discriminatory practice, or a compensation payment to the complainant, Mr. Warman.  [I am not sure where Brean is getting this stuff about a compensation payment to Warman.  There is not a single word about Warman in the CHRC’s factum.  And the CHRC did not request any penalty against Lemire at the Tribunal.  In fact the CHRC has admitted that the fine provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional]

Having concluded that Mr. Lemire violated Section 13, the factum states, "the Tribunal was obliged to turn its mind to [an order or compensation], and determine whether one or more of the remedial orders described therein ought to be made in the circumstances. It is submitted that the matter ought to be remitted to the Tribunal for that purpose."  [This is not about compensation; it is actually about the Tribunal issuing a life time speech ban against Lemire]

On September 2 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acquitted Marc Lemire of all but 1 posting, and found that Section 13 and 54 was unconstitutional!

	Warman/CHRC Allegation	Result?
	JRBooksonline Website	Acquitted!
	Stormfront Posting	Acquitted!
	Messages posted on the Freedomsite message board by Craig Harrison	Acquitted!
	Messages posted on the Freedomsite message board by persons other than Mr. Lemire or Mr. Harrison	Acquitted!
	Messages posted on the Freedomsite message board by Mr. Lemire	Acquitted!
	The “Controversial Columnists” section of the Freedomsite website
	The Doug Collins Column	Acquitted!
	“Ottawa is Dangerous” Article	Acquitted!
	AIDS Secrets column	Liable

[279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.

[290] Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression

[295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

V. CONCLUSION

I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

---

It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

 

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

 PayPal:   Send your donation to:   admin@stopsection13.com

MoneyBookers:  Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com

     

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

 

 

 

Canadian "Human Rights" Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada to keep their precious censorship franchise

Canadian "Human Rights" Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada to keep their precious censorship franchise

Constitutional Validity of Section 13 moves to Federal Court

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan25-2010_chrc_files_factum_at_fc.html

Using tax-payers money, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has finally filed their challenge to the Lemire decision, which found that the thought control legislation of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional and a violation of the Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and thought.

  

CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law filed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

 The CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law, will be vigorously challenged by supporters of freedom of speech.  Section 13 is Canada's shameful thought control legislation, and a positive ruling by the Federal Court of Canada, will finally end the 33 year reign of totalitarian censorship by the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.

 To date, the Attorney General of Canada, has refused to get involved at the Federal Court of Canada to uphold Section 13.   The Attorney General of Canada (assigned to Lemire case by then governing Liberal Party) was active while the case was before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, but once the Tribunal ruled the law was unconstitutional, the Attorney General accepted the decision. 

 According to an Access to Information request filed by Marc Lemire, in late 2009, the Department of Justice raised the issue with the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet.  While the actual discussion is censored due to being in the "confines of the Queen's Privy Council" it is clear that the Conservative Prime Minister and his cabinet ruled to not uphold this censorship legislation. 

  

[See enlarged version]

[See enlarged version]

  

At the same time of this decision by Harper government, two separate House of Commons subcommittees were investigating the conduct of the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission. 

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)	Subcommittee on International Human Rights (SDIR)
Committee Homepage October 5, 2009: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn eviscerate the CHRC censors October 26, 2009:  CHRC Chief Kangaroo on the hotseat and grilled by Members of Parliament	Committee homepage June 16, 2009:  MP Russ Hiebert slams CHRC's David Langtry June 18, 2009: Prof Robert Martin exposes the CHRC

The CHRC has shown over the years it is willing to go to any lengths and spend as much tax-payers dollars as needed to protect their censorship franchise.  From claiming "National Security" to hid their online infiltration and spying campaign to hacking a private woman's Internet connection,  nothing is beyond what the CHRC will do.  Ethics guidelines?   Not at the CHRC...

Now is the time to contact organizations who support freedom of speech and request they intervene in this case, and finally rid Canada of this shameful thought control and pre-crime legislation.

What the CHRC is trying to overturn at the Federal Court

In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that:

  

[290] Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter. c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression [295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter. [279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter. V. CONCLUSION I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7). See full decision [here]

---

It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

 

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

 

PayPal:   Send your donation to:   admin@stopsection13.com

MoneyBookers:  Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com

     

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

SHANOFF: Freedom of expression makes gains in 2009

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/2009/12/27/12275556-sun.html

 

Year-End Review 2009: Part 2

Here's the second half of my year-end review of the top legal stories/developments for 2009.

Winnipeg Sun | December 27, 2009

1. Chalk 2009 up as another good year for freedom of expression in Canada.

Last Tuesday the Supreme Court of Canada gave the media a new defence with which to defend defamation lawsuits. It's called the "responsible communication" defence and allows the media to defend itself even if some of the facts reported can't be proven to be truthful. It won't allow the media to run roughshod over reputations but it should encourage more investigative reporting.

2. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did the unthinkable. It declared that Section 13, the hate speech section, of the Canadian Human Rights Code, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let's hold our applause for the decision as it's been appealed to the Federal Court of Canada and we still have a patchwork of 11 human rights codes in Canada leading to the strange situation where the same complaint may be filed in multiple jurisdictions. Section 13 is currently under review by Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

You can catch Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, both previous subjects of unsuccessful hate speech complaints, making their submissions to this Committee earlier this year on YouTube.  [YouTube videos are at:   Part 1 | Part 2]

While there's reason for optimism that we will be rid of Section 13 one day, there is still a large movement to have the United Nations impose a ban on defamation of religion. That's scary stuff.

Defamation laws are there to protect people, not ideas or beliefs. Our rights will be diminished if we have to contend with defamation of religion laws. But then, section 13 comes pretty close to having homegrown defamation of religion laws.

…

 

See full article at:  http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/2009/12/27/12275556-sun.html