CHRONICLE HERALD: Bad times for free speech - But axing Section 13 of Rights Act would begin to warm up chilly climate

Bad times for free speech

But axing Section 13 of Rights Act would begin to warm up chilly climate

By MARK MERCER

Canadians heard a long time ago, at least as long ago as 1990, that they are not free to speak their minds as they see fit. 1990 was the year the Supreme Court of Canada ruled constitutional Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13 says that it is "a discriminatory practice" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

It is under s. 13 that a complaint against Maclean’s magazine has been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It’s indirectly because of s. 13 that provincial and territorial human rights commissions see fit to consider complaints about what people have said or written or drawn – as in the current complaint against The Chronicle-Herald for publishing an editorial cartoon that offended some readers.

Now none of us wants that any group of people is vilified. We don’t want our ears bruised by racist epithets and we don’t want to witness displays of contempt. And yet one doesn’t have to be a free speech absolutist to see what is wrong and dangerous with s. 13. It is addressed to any matter that "is likely to expose" a person to hatred. What you say need not actually expose anyone to hatred. It need not even be intended to expose anyone to hatred.

 

Rest of article at: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1057238.html

 

 

Kulaszka Hammers Attorney General of Canada over false claims: In a Bizarre submission - Conservative Rob Nicholson's daft spokesman cries "unfairness"

Kulaszka Hammers Attorney General of Canada over false claims

 In a Bizarre submission - Conservative Rob Nicholson’s daft spokesman cries “unfairness”

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may20-08_kulaszka_hammers_AGs_bizarre_submission.html

 

In another pathetic missive from the Attorney General of Canada, Conservative Rob Nicholson’s representative – Simon Fothergill (AKA Frothing’at’the’gills), cries the blues to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over the claim that the respondent [ Marc Lemire] has been able to see their “moonbat” inspired closing argument.  

Simon Fothergill’s has become somewhat of a laughingstock in the Blogosphere [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] over the legal argument he submitted to uphold Section 13 - Canada’s notorious thought crimes provision.  Journalist and fellow “human rights” violator, Ezra Levant tore to shreds, the piece of socialist garbage passed off as a legal argument.  Based on the testimony of “hate law” über-advocate dr. Tsesis (whom Levant call the “nutty professor” and my all time favorite “moonbat”) and former B’nai Brith activist Karen Mock (whom Marc Lemire called a “hysterical zealot”)

  In today’s letter, Mr. Fothergill states:

  The Attorney General of Canada is a respondent to the constitutional challenge brought by Mr. Lemire to ss. 13, 54(1) and 54(1 .1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Attorney General has a right to reasonable notice of the case we are expected to meet, and to a reasonable opportunity to respond.

 Due to the late issuance of the Tribunal's decision to postpone the deadline, Mr. Lemire now has the benefit of the Attorney General's initial submissions when preparing his initial submissions, together with a further opportunity to reply by June 25, 2008. By contrast, the Attorney General will not receive Mr. Lemire's initial submissions until June 9, 2008, and will then have only until June 25, 2008 to reply. 

 The existing imbalance will only be exacerbated if Mr. Lemire is given until the end of August to file his initial submissions in relation to the constitutional issues.

 We reiterate that the Attorney General is a respondent to Mr. Lemire's constitutional challenge, and yet we find ourselves in the position of having filed our initial submissions while Mr. Lemire's initial submissions are not required until June 9,2008.

Given the real risk of unfairness [WTF!], and the already protracted nature of these proceedings, the Attorney General of Canada opposes Mr. Lemire's and other parties' request for a further postponement of the dates for filing written submissions and for presenting oral arguments.

(emphasis added)

See the full letter by Rob Nicolson’s – Attorney General of Canada staff

 

 [Can you imagine the NERVE…   the Attorney General complaining about a “real risk of unfairness”.   And this coming from the morons that want to make sure Truth and Intent are NO defence… DUUUH… unfairness... indeed]

   

Barbara Kulaszka Demolishes Attorney General

   

May 20, 2008

TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,

160 Elgin St. , 11^th Floor,

Ottawa , ON K1A 1J4

 

Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405

 

To the Tribunal:

I have the letter of Mr. Fothergill of today’s date, for the Attorney General of Canada, regarding my request for rescheduling final submissions to the autumn.

I must correct Mr. Fothergill, who writes that the “Attorney General has a right to reasonable notice of the case we are expected to meet” and complains that due to the Tribunal’s decision to postpone deadlines, “ Mr. Lemire now has the benefit of the Attorney General’s initial submissions when preparing his initial submissions”.

The exact opposite is true.

The respondent filed his initial motion on the constitutional issues on December 6, 2005, over two years ago. The motion and supporting argument is some 24 pages long.

It is the Attorney General and opposing parties who have had the benefit of knowing the respondent’s position for two [and a half] full years before having to make a response.

Richard Warman and the Commission and the Attorney General and the Canadian Jewish Congress and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre knew exactly what the respondent was arguing and therefore what evidence he was interested in obtaining during the hearing. 

It was because of this initial motion that the Attorney General and the other interested parties intervened in the case.

The arguments which I will be filing will be Supplementary to the initial 2005 argument and will be based on the evidence from the hearing and the issues arising from such evidence. But the basic arguments made in 2005 remain unchanged as the basis of the respondent’s case.

The Attorney General has suffered no prejudice whatsoever.

Today I received the application by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association for interested party status.  This is Canada ’s most active and important civil liberties association today.

None of the material complained of on the Freedomsite remains on the site. I remind all parties that most of the material was removed even before Mr. Lemire had notice of the complaint. The rest was removed in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the matter after the complaint was received.

This case involves major constitutional issues and has disclosed evidence of violations of Canadians’ rights by the Commission. There is no need for a rush to judgment when the evidence is incomplete and major civil liberties associations are applying to provide this Tribunal with their submissions and expertise.

I would urge the Tribunal to set aside the dates set for June until all matters concerning disclosure, further calling of evidence and interested party applications are resolved.

 

Yours truly,

Barbara Kulaszka

 

  ----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Active and Past cases: 46  |  Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37   ·         NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case ·         98% of cases have poor or working class respondents ·         90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers ·         $99,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003. ·         35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.

 

 

Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin Liberal MP Dan McTeague Conservative MP James Rajotte Conservative MP Bruce Stanton Conservative MP Russ Hiebert Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson Conservative MP Lee Richardson Ezra Levant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)

PEN Canada CDN Association of Journalists Mark Steyn (Macleans Magazine) Calgary Herald Western Standard Magazine London Free Press B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune Sask Leader-Post Deborah Gyapong Calgary A M 770 Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

Globe and Mail National Post David Warren (Ottawa Citizen) Eye Magazine ( Toronto ) Toronto Star Toronto Sun Interim Magazine Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday Winnipeg Free Press Oak Bay News Victoria News Catholic Insight Magazine Catholic Register

 

 

 

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

 

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law 

and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

 

·         Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street 

PO Box 92545 

Toronto, Ontario 

M5A 2K1 

Canada

 

BREAKING NEWS: BC Civil Liberties Association seeks Intervener Status in support of Lemire's Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

BC Civil Liberties Association seeks Intervener Status in support of Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may20-08_BBCLA_applies_for_interested-party-status.html

 

 

 

Canada's foremost Civil Liberties organization has applied for Interested party status.

A copy of their Motion can be downloaded here:  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/motions/BCCLA_interested_party_application.pdf

  

Here is a few points:

 

2. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association ("BCCLA") specifically seeks leave to make written and oral submission on the proper interpretation and constitutional status of sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the "Act"). As well, the BCCLA seeks standing to introduce evidence and to receive and reply to all other parties' arguments and evidence regarding the proper interpretation of sections 13 and 54 and seeks standing to cross-examine witnesses. At present, the BCCLA does not seek standing to call witnesses.   Position of the BCCLA Regarding Section 13 of the Act   3. If the BCCLA were to receive intervenor standing in this matter, we would argue that sections 13 and 54 of the Act infringe ss. 2(b), 7 and 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that these infringements cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.   Position to be Taken by the BCCLA if Granted Leave to Intervene   18. The BCCLA's submissions will present its views of the proper interpretation and constitutional status of sections 13 and 54 of the Act. The BCCLA's position is:   • Section 13 of the Act unreasonably infringes on freedom of expression as guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter.   • Sections 13 and 54(1)(c) create a criminal offence without providing the respondent with the defences common to analogous criminal offences or requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof of a culpable mental state (or mens rea), or a strict application of the rules of evidence and accordingly violate the respondent's rights under ss.7 and I I(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   • Section 13 creates an arbitrary distinction whereby an individual may be denied his/her rights under ss. 2(b) and 7 on the basis of using the internet or intranet as a medium of expression as opposed to other forms of media.   • The infringements of ss. 2(b), 7 and 11(d) are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter because the measures adopted are not rationally connected to the objective of the legislation and they fail to impair the abridged rights as minimally as possible.   20. Consequently, the BCCLA will submit that s. 13 of the Act is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Charter in its capacity to restrict freedom of expression in a private context and s. 54(l)(c) of the Act is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Charter in its capacity to criminalize certain communications broadcast by internet and intranet media. The BCCLA will submit that ss. 13 and 54(1)(c) of the Act should be struck on the basis that they are unconstitutional.

 

Full copy of the BCCLA motion [here]

 

 

 

Press Release Sent May 20, 2008 by the BCCLA

 

NEWS RELEASE Tuesday May 19, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             CENSORSHIP ON TRIAL: CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION APPLIES TO INTERVENE IN IMPORTANT FREE SPEECH CASES The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is applying for leave to intervene in two important free speech cases before the federal and British Columbia human rights tribunals. At issue in both cases is whether the expression of controversial, even hateful expressions can be censored by the state via tribunals that traditionally protect the value of equality by sanctioning discrimination.  BCCLA President Rob Holmes: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental democratic value. Citizens of a democracy should be trusted to form their own judgments about the views expressed by others, including controversial and offensive comments. The BCCLA will seek to protect basic Charter rights so that opinions on all matters, including religion, can continue to be debated freely and without fear through all media of communication.”   Federally in Warman v. Marc Lemire and Freedomsite, the complaint focuses on anti-Semitic postings on a website run by Marc Lemire. In Elmasry and Habib v. Rogers Publishing Ltd., the complainants object to an article by Mark Steyn’s entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam” that was published in McLean’s magazine in 2006.   Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and British Columbia’s Human Rights Code have provisions that prohibit the publication of material that is likely to promote hatred or contempt against an individual or group because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or group. The BCCLA is Canada’s leading defender of free expression. The Association takes the position that citizens have a responsibility to condemn hateful speech and that the remedy to obnoxious, hurtful speech is to promote counter expression rather than permit state censorship.  BCCLA Vice-President Jason Gratl and Micah Rankin of Hunter Litigation Chambers represent the Association.   Robert Holmes, President 604-681-1310   Grace Pastine, Litigation Director 604-630-9751 www.bccla.org

  

But the big question still remains.. where is Borovoy and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.  He has been getting press from coast to coast talking about the CHRC,  but where is he?   In they won’t intervene at the most important juncture on a serious challenge of the validity of Section 13..   IF NOT NOW…. WHEN?

 

---

 

Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin Liberal MP Dan McTeague Conservative MP James Rajotte Conservative MP Bruce Stanton Ezra Levant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy) Catholic Insight Magazine Catholic Register Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

PEN Canada CDN Association of Journalists Mark Steyn (Macleans Magazine) Calgary Herald Western Standard Magazine London Free Press B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune Sask Leader-Post Deborah Gyapong Calgary AM 770   Lawyer Karen Selick

Globe and Mail National Post David Warren (Ottawa Citizen) Eye Magazine (Toronto) Toronto Star Toronto Sun Interim Magazine Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday Winnipeg Free Press Oak Bay News Victoria News

 

 

 

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

 

 

 

 

 

LEVANT HAMMERS CHRC! RCMP launches investigation into CHRC tactics

 

I just got contacted by the national bureau of CTV over the RCMP investigation of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

 

-Marc

 

 

 

RCMP launches investigation into CHRC tactics

http://ezralevant.com/2008/05/rcmp-launches-investigation-in.html

By Ezra Levant on May 20, 2008 12:32 AM |

 

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The conduct in question was revealed at an extraordinary hearing on March 25th, a hearing the CHRC desperately tried to keep closed to the press.

An officer of Bell Canada, appearing under a subpoena, testified that the CHRC had hacked into a private citizen's Internet account, to cover their electronic tracks as they surfed anti-Semitic websites under the alias "Jadewarr". You can read the transcript of the hearing here -- a transcript the CHRC did not release to the public.

The victim of the CHRC's illegal hacking, Nelly Hechme, told reporters that she was "completely shocked" by the CHRC's conduct. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who has jurisdiction over the CHRC, is now investigating the matter.

But not even the CHRC's most passionate critics could have imagined that the Mounties would be investigating the CHRC.

According to this letter written two weeks ago by the Ottawa Police Service, a criminal complaint filed against the CHRC by Marc Lemire has now been referred to the RCMP's Integrated Technological Crime Unit. Here is the key excerpt from that letter:

After a full consideration of all aspects of the matter, it is our opinion that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have discussed this matter with the RCMP and the matter has been assigned to Cpl Stephane Turgeon.

I expect that the RCMP will be in touch with you...

So what happens now?

Can the Conservative government really keep using its old talking points, including these two, to avoid dealing with the issue?

·         The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act, according to procedures specified by the law, without interference from the government.

·         The Department of Justice continues to monitor the Commission and Tribunal to ensure that our human rights system remains effective.

Just how bad does it have to get before the government stops saying that the CHRC follows "procedures specified by the law"? We've got the Privacy Commissioner and the RCMP investigating now. What does it take to get the government's attention -- a NATO airstrike?

 

And how about the claim that the government is "monitoring" the CHRC to ensure that it "remains effective". Effective at what? Hacking Internet accounts? Shredding their records and deleting their hard drives? Staying out of jail? What exactly about the CHRC's conduct could be called "effective"?

 

Question: when the RCMP investigates CHRC staff, will the CHRC pay for their criminal lawyers? If so, is that an indication that those CHRC staff hacked the website in the course of their duties?

 

Until two weeks ago, the Conservative government had plausible deniability about the CHRC's corruption. But not any longer. The Justice Department's 50-page defence of the CHRC's prosecutions under section 13 moved the government from "neutral" into the "pro-CHRC" camp. That was bad policy. And now an RCMP investigation means the government has to do much more than just defend a bad law -- it means it has to defend a scandal. That's bad politics.

 

The Conservatives have had an excuse for not cleaning up the CHRC's stables: for six months, they've been preparing for an imminent election. Now that Stephane Dion has all but acknowledged that won't happen at least until the fall, it's time for the Conservatives to act, and to act swiftly.

 

I've got a three-word action plan when it comes to the CHRC: Fire. Them. All.

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

 

 

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Active and Past cases: 46  |  Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37   ·         NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case ·         98% of cases have poor or working class respondents ·         90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers ·         $99,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003. ·         35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.

 

 

 

Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html

 

Liberal MP Keith Martin Liberal MP Dan McTeague Conservative MP James Rajotte Conservative MP Bruce Stanton Ezra Levant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy) Catholic Insight Magazine Catholic Register Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

PEN Canada CDN Association of Journalists Mary Steyn (Macleans Magazine) Calgary Herald Western Standard Magazine London Free Press B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune Sask Leader-Post Deborah Gyapong Calgary AM770

Globe and Mail National Post David Warren (Ottawa Citizen) Eye Magazine (Toronto) Toronto Star Toronto Sun Interim Magazine Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday Winnipeg Free Press Oak Bay News Victoria News

 

 

 

Constitutional Challenge of Section 13

http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE: on Criminal Complaint against Canadian Human Rights Commission for Stealing innocent woman's internet connection

 

Update on Criminal Complaint against Canadian Human Rights Commission for Stealing innocent woman’s internet connection

 

 

On April 2, 2008, Marc Lemire filed a criminal complaint against the Canadian Human Rights Commission for theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection. In that complaint, Marc Lemire is alleging that:

 

Dean Steacy and/or other Commission employees willfully connected to the wireless access point owned by Nelly Hechme, in order to hide their online identity.  Then impersonating Mrs. Hechme, via her internet connection, browsed to Stormfront.Org website and printed documents that were submitted as evidence of material fact before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.