Reeling under 10 months of media attacks on the Canadian human frights industry’s attacks on freedom of speech, Miss Blight insisted: “There have been comments that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Tribunal do not respect freedom of speech. That is not true.” She, then, referred to a September 12 decision by Federal Court rejecting a motion by Terry Tremaine for a stay of the judgement against him under Sec. 13: “The Tribunal noted the extreme and violent nature of the postings and concluded that it would offer readers reason to hate and be suspicious of minorities. It must also be noted that the Tribunal was careful to balance Mr. Tremaine’s freedom of expression right with the equality rights of all individuals in reaching this decision.” Apparently, according to the learned judge, the Tribunal took Mr. Tremaine’s freedom of expression into account and then squelched Mr. Tremaine’s liberty in order to maintain the immunity to criticism of Canada’s privileged minority groups.
Despite it’s 100 per cent conviction rate, Miss Blight said: ‘It is simply not true that the Tribunal is not concerned about freedom of expression.”
“The Commission is submitting that Mr. Warman’s rights have been violated and that the respondent be enjoined with a cease and desist order and that a fine be imposed as in Beck ($6,000),” Miss Blight demanded.
I couldn’t understand how the absent chronic complainer’s rights could possibly have been violated. So, I asked Miss Blight and she confirmed that is what she had said. From this observer’s standpoint, the only person whose rights have been violated in these proceedings are those of the respondent/victim Marc Lemire.
At noon, the prosecution’s case was taken over by Simon Fothergill on behalf of the intervener the Attorney General of Canada. One of his final acts, as Attorney General, before handing over power to the Conservatives who won the 2006 election was for former Canadian Jewish Congress head Irwin Cotler to have his department intervene in Marc Lemire’s case in order to uphold the constitutionality of Canada’s Internet censorship law, Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Interestingly, the Harper Conservatives have continued to intervene on the side of thought control and repression, despite the fact that many Conservative backbenchers are troubled by the far reaching Internet censorship powers of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Apparently backtracking in the face of extensive evidence of the Commission’s police state investigative procedures, including the assumption of false identities by Commission investigators trolling dissident website, Mr. Fothergill argued that even if their were evidence of investigative wrongdoing, such evidence would not invalidate the law.