Sunday, February 28, 2010

Canadian Human Rights Commission calls B'nai Brith's 'Audit of Antisemitic Incidents' of "dubious scientific validity"


Canadian Human Rights Commission calls B’nai Brith’s ‘Audit of Antisemitic Incidents’ of “dubious scientific validity


Last week, B’nai Brith Canada issued their 2009 “Audit of Antisemitic Incidents”.  As usual B’nai Brith claims that Anti-Semitism "is on the rise."  On February 25 2010, The National Post took B’nai Brith to task over their annual audit / fundraising campaign. But the National Post are not the only people in town to call into question the legitimacy of B’nai Briths annual reports.

According to the National Post’s Feb 25, 2010 article:

Like a lot of groups, B'nai Brith spends a lot of ink promoting itself and seeking donations. In this spirit, it boasts that Statistics Canada and other "authoritative sources around the world" view its audit as "the single most credible study of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism and patterns of prejudice in Canada."

Who knows what Statistics Canada really thinks, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission has spoken out on B’nai Briths audits!

Internal memorandums and reports, released under the Access to Information Act, show that the Canadian Human Rights Commission laugh and dismiss the supposedly “credible” audits released yearly by B’nai Brith Canada.

 


 


The internal Canadian Human Rights Commission documents show them calling the B’nai Brith annual ‘Audit of Antisemitic Incidents’:

·        “of dubious scientific validity...”

·        “As a barometer of racist activity the audits are of dubious validity…”

·        Despite its questionable validity, the Audit received a considerable amount of media attention.”




CHRC Documents

 

 

  

  

  



[Click to enlarge any image]



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


Harvey Goldberg, CHRC

Most of the reports were written by Harvey Goldberg, who is the main policy analyst of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and is the man behind the CHRC’s main censorship tool – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Next time the B’nai Brith claims that “anti-Semitism” is on the rise, and Canada is some intolerant Jew-hating country … take it with a grain of salt!  As according to the CHRC it is of “dubious scientific validity.”!



One size doesn't fit all

National Post 
Marie-France Coallier, Canwest News Service
 
The greatest flaw in B'nai Brith's annual audit of alleged anti-Semitic attacks on Canadian Jews and Jewish institutions is that it lumps the entirely trivial in with the truly appalling. An Internet blog posting blaming Jews for the H1N1 pandemic, for instance, is given equal importance alongside repeated death threats made to a rabbi. An 11-year-old boy "caught passing anti-Semitic notes at school" is seen as on a par with a man who pulled a knife on a Jewish father and his son while hurling racist epithets at them.

This fact alone makes B'nai Brith's final tally -- 1,264 anti-Semitic "incidents" in 2009 -- largely meaningless. This newspaper alone gets dozens of hateful spam emails from random bigots every week. That sort of thing is inevitable in a country of more than 30 million people. If we were to "report" all of these episodes to B'nai Brith, the organization's tally could easily double, or even triple. But that wouldn't mean that anti-Semitic hatred "is on the rise," as the group claims every year.

If B'nai Brith wants Canadians to appreciate the importance of the information in its 28-year-old census of anti-Jewish attacks, it has to stop using this one-size-fits-all approach, and begin highlighting the relatively small number of truly alarming assaults. Raising the hue and cry over the desecration of a cemetery is sensible. Raising the hue and cry because adolescent classmates haze each other with juvenile religious taunts is not.

Jews themselves often speak of one another in terms that closely resemble anti-Semitism. The radical left-wing activists at the Toronto-based group "Independent Jewish Voices," for instance, have promoted blood libels against Israeli troops that resemble the worst species of anti-Semitic Palestinian propaganda. Should those episodes be included in B'nai Brith's report, too?

Like a lot of groups, B'nai Brith spends a lot of ink promoting itself and seeking donations. In this spirit, it boasts that Statistics Canada and other "authoritative sources around the world" view its audit as "the single most credible study of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism and patterns of prejudice in Canada." But as with any victimization study, no matter how "authoritative," it is based on self-reported incidents. B'nai Brith says its statistics show "a more than fivefold increase in [anti-Semitic] incidents over the past decade." What it really shows is a fivefold increase in the number of people willing to call B'nai Brith about their bad experiences --in large part thanks to the group's own heavy investment in its own brand: As annual audits such as this become better known, they will attract more and more callers, driving up the statistics even if no more episodes take place than in the previous year.

Similarly, the number of hate speech complaints observed likely reflects a technological expansion of the number of places hateful speech can be uttered. Five years ago, few Canadians used Facebook. Now, millions do. A single anti-Semitic status update from a single bigot can attract dozens of follow-up responses. Every one of them counts as an anti-Semitic "episode" according to B'nai Brith's dilatory calculus.

It is true that violence in the Middle East has led to an increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric in some contexts, particularly on Canadian campuses. But B'nai Brith's claim that anti-Semitism in this country is a widespread and rising problem flies in the face of reality. This is probably the least anti-Semitic country in the entire world -- including Israel -- and it becomes more tolerant, not less, with every passing year.

B'nai Brith does all sorts of fine work. But its survey of anti-Semitic incidents shouldn't blindly group all attacks together, regardless of their severity. Instead of scaring Jews into thinking that they are living in a state of anti-Semitic siege, B'nai Brith should update its mandate and methods to reflect the tolerant Canadian reality.



Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Marc Lemire files at the Federal Court to oppose Internet censorship from the misnamed Canadian "Human Rights" Commission

 
On February 15, 2010, Marc Lemire filed his Memorandum of Fact and Law, which documents the ravenous censorship and corruption of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.



As filed at the Federal Court of Canada


Summary of Lemire's submissions to the Federal Court:



  • The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal reached the proper decision to find Sec. 13 and 54 unconstitutional


  • The Tribunal made the correct decision to look at “the real and factual context in which s. 13 existed”.


  • The evidence showed beyond doubt that s. 13(1) is not used in a remedial fashion


  • CHRC shares information with Police (and never informs the victims), which is an infringement on the rights of Canadians


  • Even the Tribunal don't see Sec. 13 as remedial and routinely makes orders which are “symbolic” value as a “public denunciation” of the respondent’s actions. This imports the moral condemnation and stigma which Taylor believed was absent from human rights legislation.


  • When the Human Rights Act was established it was directed to telephone hotlines, and Bell Canada received  "common carrier" status and thus could not be harassed.   Yet in the Internet age, ISPs do not have "common carrier" status and thus are subjected to on-going harassment campaigns and threats of legal action to disconnect customers.


  • Internet is a democratizing medium which allows public discourse by people who previously had no means to participate meaningfully in public debates or issues.


  • Newspapers, radio and TV stations and magazines are published on the Internet so that any limitation on freedom of expression on the Internet includes limitations on freedom of the media and the press


  • By failing to provide the basic defences of fair comment, responsible journalism, truth and lack of intent to s. 13(1), in a communications context where the press and media publish daily, the provision is no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of expression including that of the press.


  • Failure to provide the defence of Truth makes Section 13 fail meet the proportionality test of section 1 of the Charter.


  • "hate" is subjective and vague.  It is a subjective human emotion and has no place in law


  • So-called "hate" speech does not cause any “psychological distress” or harm in those voluntarily exposed to it on the Internet.


  • Canada has a general population that deals well with expression, values the right to expression and does not experience the harm that is said to justify s.13(1). Canadians overwhelmingly prefer open debate, not censorship.
     



       
[Click to enlarge]



Background:

In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was an unconstitutional violation of Canada's Charter of Rights.

The 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]

On January 25, 2010, using tax-payers money, the Canadian Human Rights Commission challenged the Lemire decision, which found that the thought control legislation of the Canadian Human Rights Act was unconstitutional and a violation of the Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and thought.

The battle ground for freedom has now moved to the Federal Court of Canada.

NO SURRENDER!
-Marc Lemire





I need your help for the Appeal!
 


 

PayPal:   Send your donation to:   admin@stopsection13.com
MoneyBookers:  Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com
     

 
 
 
 
 





 


 


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

NATIONAL POST: Internet rendered hate law 'outdated'

 

Internet rendered hate law 'outdated'

Section 13 Review
Joseph Brean,  National Post 


The 20-year-old legal reasoning behind Canada's human rights hate speech law is now "utterly outdated" because of the "interactive, dynamic and democratizing" effects of the Internet, according to arguments in Federal Court.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits online messages that expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt, was designed in the 1970s for telephone hate hotlines. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it a justifiable limit on freedom of expression, in part because a telephone hate message "gives the listener the impression of direct, personal, almost private, contact by the speaker, provides no realistic means of questioning the information or views presented and is subject to no counter-argument within that particular communications context."

The Internet "radically changed" that context, by allowing for instant rebuttal and discussion, according to lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.

Parliament's decision in 2001 to expand Section 13 to include the Internet -- and therefore almost every word published in Canada, whether by a blogger or a media conglomerate -- is "such a fundamental change" that Federal Court is "not only justified but required" to revisit the question of Section 13's constitutionality, especially because it does not allow for the traditional legal defenses of truth or fair comment.

The Internet "provides every means of questioning information and of counter-arguing, the two vital factors missing in the telephone message context," Ms. Kulaszka wrote in her legal submissions for Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org. The memorandum gives a glimpse of the battlefield terrain for the upcoming Federal Court review of Mr. Lemire's acquittal last year on hate speech allegations at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

CHRT chairman Athanasios Hadjis brought Canada's perennial hate speech debate to a crisis by ruling that Mr. Lemire had, in fact, violated Section 13 in a single instance out of many alleged, but that the law itself was unconstitutional. He found that a 1998 amendment to add the possibility of a $10,000 punitive fine created a conflict with Section 13's supposedly remedial and conciliatory purpose.

Ms. Kulaszka describes that one violation -- for posting an anti-black and anti-gay article called AIDS Secrets, written by an U.S. neo-Nazi -- as "a discussion of matters of public interest on AIDS which should not have been subject to censorship."

In a hate speech debate that has many threads -- from Muslim integration and the "gay agenda" to neo-Nazism and the Danish cartoons -- the case against Mr. Lemire is the main event, a politically toxic, eight-year human rights slugfest that began on an obscure, far-right Internet chatroom sometime in 2002, and now seems likely to set a new Canadian direction on hate speech.

The CHRC is expected to argue that, by severing the penalty provision, Section 13 can be saved.

Ms. Kulaszka argues in her brief this cannot be the case, because the penalty and victim compensation provisions "reflect the intent and objective of Parliament to chill, punish, and deter expression as set out in [Section 13]. They are the pith and substance of what Parliament wanted to attain in the legislative scheme around [Section 13]."

She argues even human right tribunals do not see Section 13 as purely remedial, citing decisions that describe "cease and desist" orders against hate speech respondents as having "symbolic" value as a "public denunciation."

"This imports the moral condemnation and stigma which [the Supreme Court of Canada] believed was absent from human rights legislation," she writes.

Her brief also argues that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which acts as a gatekeeper for the tribunal, did not take the remedial and conciliatory approach described in law, but rather refused repeated attempts at mediation, even though Mr. Lemire's alleged hate messages had been removed from the Web.

She argues the word "hate" is "meaningless" because of its unpredictable and "limitless" application, including "jokes, books, essays, historical commentary, message board postings, cartoons and poems."

"Any word that requires the services of an expert and a lawyer sitting by the computer is not a definable word."

She describes CHRC hate speech investigators as having "regularly communicated with police forces about respondents," obtaining information such as "Crown briefs setting out the most personal information," telephone records searches, motor vehicle records, police surveillance, witness statements, evidence seized under warrant, and information from the Canadian Police Information Centre.

She mentions the possibility of agreements between the federal government and provinces to share personal information, which "means Canadians subject to a [Section 13] complaint may have any information they provide to the CHRC sent to police forces across the country without their knowledge or consent or any warnings whatsoever."

She also criticizes the extrajudicial pressure that can be put on Internet service providers to take action against information on their servers that could be said to violate Section 13 .

"The use of censorship to stop psychological harm is a blunt instrument" that in fact has the opposite effect, she wrote, because it "leads to division, not harmony, as each strongly self-identified groups starts using complaints to assert its interests."

"Canada has a general population that deals well with expression, values the right to expression and does not experience the harm that is said to justify [Section 13]. Canadians overwhelmingly prefer open debate, not censorship," Ms. Kulaszka wrote.

Monday, February 8, 2010

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

 

 

 

Thursday, February 4, 2010

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


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.
 […]




Wednesday, February 3, 2010

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/