Tuesday, May 31, 2011

CHILLIWACK TIMES: This commission must go - "Inquisitions and kangaroo courts have no place in this day and age!"

 

“Inquisitions and kangaroo courts have no place in this day and age.“

 

 

 

This commission must go

 

By John Martin, (Criminologist at the University of the Fraser Valley)

Chilliwack Times May 31, 2011 8:02 AM

http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/This+commission+must/4867359/story.html

It's time to once again set our sights on the country's human rights commissions. A few years ago this was one of the most controversial issues in the country. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, and its provincial counterparts, were under intense scrutiny for their reckless attempts to impose censorship and exhibiting a horrifying disregard for due process.

Created many decades ago to address discrimination toward those seeking employment or housing, these commissions soon found themselves with little work on their hands as there just didn't seem to be enough discrimination out there to keep thousands of politically correct bureaucrats and appointees busy.

So they started seeking out other witches. Magazine publishers, stand up comedians, website operators--soon none of us were free from the over-reaching clutches of the human rights industry.

But the tables turned and soon their activities and ludicrous rulings dominated the headlines. Parliament, the Privacy Commissioner and even the RCMP investigated them. Employees of these commissions have been accused of being members in several online hate groups and routinely posting racist messages to see what type of mischief they could rouse up. And then, of course, come to the rescue and bust the owner of the domain.

But as is usually the case, news items have a limited shelf life. The commissions briefly toned down their more outrageous buffoonery and even acquitted the occasional chap unfortunate enough to be hauled before one of these kangaroo courts.

Just as they're willing to take some fallout for eliminating the gun registry and axing the political party subsidy, they should do the right thing and call it curtains on the country's human rights commissions.

Inquisitions and kangaroo courts have no place in this day and age.

 

 

[Note: The above links have been added into this story]

 

Read the full story at: http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/This+commission+must/4867359/story.html

 

 

 

[VIDEO] Levant & Shaidle on Section 13's Demise (+ the real origins of Section 13)





Great discussion with Kathy Shaidle on Ezra Levant's "The Source" on SunTV.

But the real origins of Section 13 were missed


There seems to be a bit of confusion over how Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act came about.  In her interview with Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle says that Section 13 came about due to the "old political correctness".

Unfortunately, the truth is far from being so nice and bubbly.  It is a clear fact that Section 13 was added into the Canadian Human Rights Act specifically to silence and shut up a man named John Ross Taylor.  It was nothing about political correctness, but rather Section 13 is a straight up HIT-law, used to silence, punish and bankrupt those that dare to speak out.

Here are the actual documents which prove my point.  [The following text is an article I wrote on the origins of Section 13 entitled "Genesis of Section 13 - From Taylor to 'Terrorism'" available at http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html]


In November of 1975, Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan, lobbied the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest.  
 
In a letter dated November 13, 1975, F.W. Callaghan outlined some of the problems they faced when trying to “get” a man named John Ross Taylor, who was recording messages on his telephone answering machine that members of the public could dial up and listen to. In reference to his taped telephone answering machine, Callaghan stated:

“The messages usually are topical and political and focus on a wide variety of subjects.  However, the emphasis always is racial and federal immigration policies frequently are criticized.”
 
 Callaghan continued in his letter: “The messages discuss such matters as immigration, integration and urban crime, all of which clearly are matters of public interest.”
 
Here are actual documents:
 

The real intent of Section 13 was to silence legitimate non-violent criticism of immigration, crime, multiculturalism and integration.  Ontario’s Deputy AG Callaghan summed up the true motivation behind silencing Taylor using the Human Rights Act:

“The simple forced deletion of the message which I have proposed could have a major advantage over a criminal prosecution in that, presumably, it would not be attended by great publicity whereas a criminal prosecution, through publicity and polarization, might promote the mischief which it sought to suppress.”[1]

In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.  This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.

During the initial discussions on Section 13, it became clear that there was much discussion about adding intent, truthfulness, artistic expression and other defenses to the act. But as the law wound it way through the legislative review process and at the behest of special interest groups, all defenses were removed.  After all, a good gag law can’t have any pesky defenses that the poor defendants could use to prove their innocence.  And in the case of John Ross Taylor, even Ontario’s AG conceded that what Taylor was doing on his answering machine was “topical and political and focus on a wide variety of subjects.”  Thus a defense of fair comment and political commentary in the public interest would clearly have applied to Mr. Taylor.

In a memorandum to cabinet presented by the then Liberal Justice Minister Ron Basford, described Section 13 as clearly remedial in nature.  “However, this amendment would not expose anyone to prosecution, would not involve penalties, and no coercive action would be taken unless the ‘good offices’ of the Commission failed to dissuade the person responsible”.[2]

Actual Documents:




On July 14, 1977, Bill C-25 “Canadian Human Rights Act,” was passed by the House of Commons and went on to receive Royal Assent.[3] Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups[4] as the complainants. [The law was not used again for close to 10 years after Taylor's case]

Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13.  These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views.

The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000.  On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called “special compensation.”  

 The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001.  Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security.  Under the guise of Bill C-36 - Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act,[6] Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with.

 This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly “combat terrorism.”[7] 
 The Preamble of C-36 states:

“WHEREAS acts of terrorism constitute a substantial threat to both domestic and international peace and security;
 WHEREAS acts of terrorism threaten Canada’s political institutions, the stability of the economy and the general welfare of the nation
 WHEREAS the challenge of eradicating terrorism, with its sophisticated and trans-border nature, requires enhanced international cooperation and a strengthening of Canada’s capacity to suppress, investigate and incapacitate terrorist activity;
AND WHEREAS these comprehensive measures must include legislation to prevent and suppress the financing, preparation, and commission of acts of terrorism, as well as to protect the political, social and economic security of Canada and Canada’s relations with its allies;” [8]

 With these changes, fanatical tribunal members now have the ability to both assess hefty fines and a “Cease and Desist” order.  These orders include a permanent lifetime speech ban, which were designed to permanently gag a victim for his entire life.  The “Cease and Desist” orders are registered with the Federal Court of Canada and become an enforceable order of the Court.   If the victim still doesn’t shut up, he could face up to 5 years in jail for contempt of court.[9]  Several victims of Section 13 have been jailed for violating the highly vague and subjective “Cease and Desist” orders.  These include John Ross Taylor,[10] Wolfgang Droege, Kenneth Barker, Gary Schipper and Tomasz Winnicki.[11] 


[Read the rest of the History of 13 at StopSection13.com]


[1] Letter from F.W. Callaghan, Ontario Deputy Attorney General to D.H. Christie, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Federal Department of Justice. November 13, 1975.
[2] Confidential Memorandum to Cabinet.  Cabinet Document 156/76.  March 12, 1976 on Bill C-72 “Canadian Human Rights Act”
[3] Canadian Human Rights Commission publication. “Hate messages and Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - Legal Milestones”  http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_initiatives/legal_milestones-en.asp
[4] Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council were listed complainants.  CHRC v Taylor, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.  T.D. 1/79. 

[5] Bill S-5: An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. (1998)  Section: Background.  http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/LS/s5-e.htm#BACKGROUND
[6] Bill C-36. Anti-terrorism Act.  Subsection 88.
[7] Bill C-36. Anti-terrorism Act.  Summary – Part 5.
[8] Bill C-36. Anti-terrorism Act.  Preamble.
[9] Federal Court of Canada – Sections 466 and 467.  [See Winnicki Contempt case,  2006 FC 873 , Para 9  http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2006/2006fc873/2006fc873.html]
[10] Canadian Human Rights Commission publication. “Hate messages and Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - Legal Milestones” Under Section: “Case Law”


Friday, May 27, 2011

One Year without Section 13 . and the sky has not fallen! The "perfect storm" is here to rid Canada of censorship legislation

One Year without Section 13 … and the sky has not fallen!

 

The “perfect storm” is here to rid Canada of censorship legislation

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/may2011_perfect_storm.html

 

 

 

May 26, 2011

Written by Marc Lemire

 

 

Exactly one year ago, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued two rulings (Henry Makow and Arthur Topham) which effectively stopped all enforcement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  Section 13 is Canada’s pernicious censorship law, which outlaws Internet postings by controversial writers, bloggers and internet commentators. Victims of Section 13 could be hit with fines up to $10,000 (to $30,000 for hurt feelings) and a lifetime gag order, which if violated could result in a prison sentence up to 5 years.

 

The landmark ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal stopped all Section 13 cases until the final outcome in my case.  Based on the fanatical rights enforcers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission – who have so far refused to accept any criticism of their activities – my case could well go on for many more years, until the Supreme Court of Canada can rule.  Unfortunately, the CHRC has shown over and over again their willingness to throw as much tax-payers money as they can to keep their censorship franchise running.

 

Rumors have it that the Canadian Human Rights Commission screamed about how bad it would be if the Tribunal stopped enforcement of Section 13 and demanded that the Makow and Topham cases proceed regardless of the Lemire Tribunal decision, which found Section 13 to be unconstitutional.  The Human Rights “chicken little’s” warned how the sky would fall if they could not harass and censor Canadians for daring to speak out.

 

To their credit, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did the right thing after senior Tribunal member Hadjis found that Section 13 was unconstitutional.  In the rulings issued by Tribunal member Edward Lustig he highlighted the comprehensiveness of the Hadjis ruling.

 

 

[4] On September 2, 2009 the Tribunal released its decision in the matter of Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26. That case involved a complaint under s. 13 (1) of the CHRA. In his very comprehensive decision, Member Hadjis concluded:

 

"... 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."

 

[8] I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and have concluded that it would be appropriate and would properly serve the interests of justice if this matter was adjourned. While the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, 1990 3 S.C.R. 892 that s. 13 (1) of the CHRA is constitutional, the application now before the Federal Court seeks to bring clarity to this issue in view of the distinct factual and legal context giving rise to this Tribunal's decision in Warman v. Lemire. Clearly Member Hadjis' decision goes beyond the consideration alone of the penalty provisions in s. 54 of the CHRA, as he chose not to "read out" the penalty provisions and preserve s. 13 of the CHRA. It is now up to the Federal Court to determine the operability of s. 13 of the CHRA. This will achieve the clarity that the Commission has indicated and that I agree is desirable in order to allow the Tribunal to be able to determine this and other cases brought under s. 13 of the CHRA.

 

[9] For these reasons I hereby adjourn these proceedings sine die pending the final outcome in the Warman v. Lemire case.

 

 

Paragraph 8 of the Lustig decision was a real dismissal of the CHRC’s “chicken little’s” claims in their appeal to the Federal Court of Canada in my case, where they claim that Hadjis should have just dropped the penalty provisions of Section 54 and keep Section 13 as constitutional legislation.  As everyone knows who has read the Hadjis decision in my case, it was clear that he was finding that BOTH Section 13 (censorship provision) and Section 54 (fines and lifetime speech bans) were unconstitutional.

 

 

The Sky is Falling!  The Sky is Falling!

 

After a year without the enforcement of Section 13, has the sky fallen as the rights enforcers claimed it would?  Has a new Hitler seized control of Parliament? Is the “Nazi Party” on the verge of a “putsch” of Kanada?  Are Jews and homosexuals being dragged out on Yonge Street in Toronto and beaten? Have the “Nazis” seized control of the entire Internet?

 

As crazy as this might seem, just have a look at the joint legal submissions of the Canadian Jewish Congress, League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in my case.  These self-proclaimed “spokesthingys” of the Canadian Jewish community, have claimed that Section 13 is desperately needed for the “physical and psychological security” of “the Canadian Jewish community”.

 

Huh?

 

The “physical” security of the “Canadian Jewish Community”??? So, after a year without the “physical and psychological security” is the Canadian Jewish Community on the verge of being harrassed and dehumanized?  Uh no. no. no. no. no. no. and no

 

Ezra Levant wrote in 2008 that “I didn't know that I [as a Jewish Canadian] was supposed to be a caricature of a thin-skinned Jew, a neurotic Woody Allen stereotype, a perpetual victim. … There is one useful element to their psychobabble dressed up as a legal brief. It is proof, in their own writing, that section 13 is being abused in ways that were never contemplated -- let alone permitted -- by our Supreme Court when they last assessed section 13 in 1990. To protect Jewish "psychological security"? So that's all it takes to trump our fundamental freedom of speech, as enshrined in the Charter of Rights, Bill of Rights, and 800 years of common law?

 

 

“Physical Security” Hey we need speech laws!  Oh Actual violence? We have nothing to say

 

The Canadian Jewish Congress wants to limit freedom of speech, using the draconian Section 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act to make sure the “Canadian Jewish community” is protected from “hate speech” which will ensure that “as a last resort that harmful speech does not progress into violence.”

 

YET.   When anti-Semitic violence is actually done towards Canadian Jews by radical Muslims.  The Canadian Jewish Congress is almost silent.

 

Think about this:

 

The Canadian Jewish Congress is spending tens of thousands to oppose freedom of speech and uphold Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has lead to the censorship of such “anti-Semitic” publications as the Western Standard, Macleans and Catholic Insight. …  YET they are not going to spend any time or resources tracking down or exposing the Muslim extremists who attacked a Jew and supporter of Israel with a machete in Ottawa last year.  Is it possible the Ceej is a bit out of touch with reality?  [hmm.   Yes!]

 

Oh and not surprisingly… not a single word in the entire Canadian Jewish Congress’s submissions were about radical Muslim haters such as Al-Hayiti, I guess it is not hate (if you’re Muslim that is) to write that Gays should be "beheaded", and that Jews "spread corruption".

 

 

 

The “Perfect Storm” to blow away Section 13!

 

The Lemire case has finally been scheduled to be heard at the Federal Court of Canada in December, 2011. Unfortunately, the entire weight of removing Section 13 is now completely on my shoulders. 

 

Every Section 13 case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has been stopped pending my case.   Other cases at the Federal Court of Canada have also been stopped pending the final disposition in my case.  Several “cease and desist” (permanent life-time speech bans) orders issued by the Tribunal have also been put on hold until my case is over. This is certainly a lot of pressure, but I am up for it!  It will be a cold day in hell when I will bow down and kiss the feet of these bastard censors.

 

Also it seems doubtful that a political solution will come about either.  The Conservative government has been very quiet about Section 13, even tho many individual MPs have spoken out, and even the Conservatives Policy Convention voted overwhelmingly to remove Section 13. Stephen Harper seems to be looking at increasing censorship on the Internet.

 

Thankfully a set of events have come together to make the “perfect storm” against this censorship legislation. 

 

Firstly and most importantly, I am the only Canadian in the 35+ year history of the Canadian Human Rights Act to ever win a case before the Tribunal. This was HUGE.  To be able to win in a “kangaroo court” – setup by the censors themselves – is as decisive as any court victory could possibly be.  This means the onus is on the CHRC to overturn the ruling, and the wind is at our back. (Talk about a perverse Alice-in-Wonderland system.  At the Federal Court, I will be defending the Tribunal, while the CHRC will be slamming them)

 

Secondly, many Canadians not realize the true threat that the Canadian Human Rights Act poses and under no circumstances can it be properly administered.  From mainstream books like “Shakedown” to hundreds of articles denouncing Section 13 in the press, a climate has been fostered which will not only allow Section 13 to fall, but will welcome it with open arms.  Dozens of politicians have spoken out against Section 13, the Conservative Party convention voted 98% in favor of removing Section 13 and even bills have were introduced in Parliament to strike down the section [See M-446]. The Act has to be wiped from Canadian laws books.

 

Thirdly, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has stopped all enforcement of Section 13, which in essence means the law has no force or effect.  By the time my hearing actually gets to court in December 2011, Section 13 will not have been enforced for over a year and a half.  To be constitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 13 has to pass the proportionality test.  This test looks at the “pressing and substantial” nature of the law.  As each day passes with Section not being enforced by the Tribunal, how could anyone logically argue that Section 13 censorship is desperately needed in Canada?  Each day that passes with Section 13 not being enforced, is one day closer to the law being wiped off the legal books of Canada.

 

Fourthly, the Attorney General of Canada has outright refused to stand by this law at the Federal Court of Canada.  The Attorney General of Canada (AG) played a key role in my Tribunal hearing, and they attended every single day of the hearing.  They made many submissions and strenuously argued in favor of keeping Section 13.  But after the Tribunal threw out Section 13, the AG accepted the decision and no longer would defend the law.  An Access to Information request filed by myself in 2009 showed that upwards of 30 lawyers and others at the Dept. of Justice reviewed every aspect of my case, and specifically chose to accept the Tribunals ruling.  This is a huge signal to the Federal Court justices who will eventually hear my case.  This is Federal legislation and not even the Federal Attorney General (who is tasked with enforcing all laws in Canada) wants to defend it.

 

Fifthly, several high profile civil liberties organizations have intervened in my case.  Both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the BC Civil Liberties Association have intervened in my case and submitted very good legal arguments in favor of striking down Section 13.  These two organizations join the Canadian Free Speech League and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, who also intervened in my case while it was at the Tribunal level.  The inclusion of these civil liberties associations send a clean signal to the Federal Court that my case has far reaching implications and that freedom of speech is being infringed.

 

And lastly, even before I have set a single foot in court, I have won half the case.  The Canadian Human Rights Commission has conceded that the penalty provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act (which allows heavy fines) is unconstitutional.  The CHRC was fanatic at the Tribunal to keep Section 54 (fines) but after the Hadjis ruling which found Section 54 was unconstitutional, the CHRC was forced to concede that ... yes indeed it was.  This means that of my constitutional challenge against Section 13 and 54, I have won half of it already, since no matter what happens, the penalty provisions of Section 54 will be struck down.  It brings a smile to my face when I read these anonymous hate-bloggers who pound away at their keyboards that I have “no chance” in ever winning.  While they spread their filth and lies, I sat quietly and worked away in the background and have already won half my case.

 

 

My Kick-Ass Lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka

 

Above all else, the real “perfect storm” against Section 13 is my courageous lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka.  Her in-depth knowledge of this law and never back down style has singlehandedly taken down Section 13. Barbara’s legal submissions were clear, concise and brilliantly written.  She is the only lawyer to ever win a Section 13 case in the 35 year history of this law.  That really is an amazing accomplishment!  And she didn’t win in front of some impartial jury of her peers – no – she won in a place setup by censors, for censors and staffed by censors, who must have an “interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights”.

 

Barbara Kulaszka is one hell of a lawyer and very well respected by her peers.  Thanks to her work, Section 13 is on the verge of being thrown out.  She is one person that really deserves the Order of Canada, to recognize her significant achievements and remarkable service on behalf of all freedom minded Canadians.

 

 

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

 

To keep up to date, please bookmark my website, which will has updates on Section 13 censorship, freedom and my case.  The URL is http://www.freedomsite.org

 

 

Marc Lemire

Human Rights Activist

May 26, 2011

 

 

 

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

I need your help at the Federal Court

 

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the Federal Court of Canada challenge to defeat Canada’s internet censorship legislation, has consumed an immense amount of time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my wonderful children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spend a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.

 

My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

 

Every victory we've attained against the "Human Rights" juggernaut has come at great expense. Nothing has come easy.  In fact, the “Human Rights” Commission has done everything in their power to stop exposure of their twisted censorship agenda.

 

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. I wish to thank all those that have donated to this worthy cause. Please donate directly to us so that I can send out a personal thank you. If you have donated to another organization or individual please contact me so I can thank you directly and send you a copy of our special booklet that is for our supporters only.

 

 

 

How you can help:

 

 DONATE NOW to Marc Lemire’s Challenge:  Via PayPal

 

 

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

 

Be part of the Freedom 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

 

 

 

 

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

 

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, May 13, 2011

Mark Steyn comments on the WikiLeaks Cables on Section 13 and how bad government research is

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267202/your-tax-dollars-wik-mark-steyn

 

Your Tax Dollars at Wik

By Mark Steyn 

Posted on May 13, 2011 12:54 PM

 

 

Now that Wikileaks has leaked all the shocking surprise stuff (the Saudis are duplicitous snakes! Berlusconi has an eye for the ladies! the Pope is Catholic!) they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The other day I myself turned up in their latest hold-the-foot-of-page-37 stunning revelation. In a cable to the State Department from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, some diplomat named Jacobson explains Canada’s free speech battles. Sample paragraph:

2. (U) In 2003, Ontario attorney Richard Warman had filed separate human rights complaints against white supremacist Marc Lemire, journalist Mark Steyn, and Maclean,s magazine with CHRC, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for the dissemination of allegedly anti-Semitic and anti-gay hate speech in an article published by Maclean,s and on postings to Lemire,s websites. At the provincial level, the cases were ultimately dismissed — in Ontario, for lack of jurisdiction, and, in British Columbia, for failure to meet the standard of hate speech (reftels).

Even if (unlike yours truly) you’ve no interest in the subject of the cable, it’s a fascinating glimpse of the level of expertise you get from America’s handsomely remunerated foreign service. Almost every single fact in that paragraph is wrong: Richard Warman has never filed complaints against me or Maclean’s. He has never filed complaints before the Ontario “Human Rights” Commission or the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal. The Maclean’s article was accused not of anti-Semitic and anti-gay hate speech but of “Islamophobia.’ The British Columbia case was not dismissed: It went to trial, and the troika of judges eventually found us not guilty. Etc.

Assuming that anyone in the State Department is remotely interested in the topic, almost everything they took away from this embassy cable would be wrong. What’s the point of paying some lavishly tenured over-pensioned striped-pants deadbeat to sit around the chancery all day cutting bits out of newspapers if you’ve got more chance of getting an accurate picture of what’s going on from plucking a random unpaid blogger out of a 12-second Google search? Or are you entirely confident that when it comes to, say, the Iranian nuclear program or jihadist sympathies in the Pakistani military that the level of expertise will be any greater than in Canadian “human rights” analysis?

As a U.S. taxpayer, I’m naturally revolted at having to pay for the above “briefing.” The tragedy of America’s impending collapse is that, by any rational measure, at least three-quarters of its spendaholic binge has been entirely wasted. That embassy cable is a small but telling example.

 

 

 

 

Thursday, May 12, 2011

** Internet Censorship case finally gets Court Date -- Lemire case to be heard December 2011

Internet Censorship case finally gets Court Date
Lemire case to be heard December 2011


December 13 and 14, 2011
Federal Court of Canada
180 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario


After a year and a half, the Federal Court of Canada has finally set a date to hear the Canadian Human Rights Commission frantic appeal to save their censorship enforcer status via Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.   Section 13 is the notorious internet censorship provision, which allowed the state to issue a lifetime speech ban and heavy fines against writers, bloggers and commentators on the internet who express opinions which fanatics define as “hatred and/or contempt”.

Back in September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) issued a landmark decision in the Lemire case that Section 13 censorship is an affront to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The CHRT found that Section 13 was unconstitutional and refused to apply the provisions against freedom activist Marc Lemire.

This sent the censors into frantic damage control mode.  Because of all the negative publicity the CHRC was receiving, the CHRC hired spin doctor firm Hill and Knowlton to advise them [See Hill and Knowlton CHRC Docs].  The response was two fold, firstly the CHRC hired a hand-picked expert to look at Section 13 and draft a report.  That was Dr. Richard Moon, who issued his report in Nov 2008 and called for the repeal of Section 13.  That was totally unacceptable to the censorship enforcers, who promptly tossed his report out and proceeded to write their own.  While that was going on, the Human Rights Tribunal also threw out Section 13 in the Lemire case. To save face and their censorship empire, the CHRC frantically appealed for judicial review in the Federal Court on the last possible day. [See CHRC appeal documents]

Once the Lemire case reached the Federal Court of Canada, a series of parties intervened on both sides of the issue.  To support Section 13 and its censorship powers were three self-appointed Jewish groups, including the Canadian Jewish Congress, the B’nai Brith, Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the “African-Canadian Legal Clinic” represented by the former head of the CJC. Supporting freedom of speech, four organizations were granted intervener status, including the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Free Speech League and the Canadian Association of Free Expression.

The Lemire case is the definitive challenge to Section 13.  Literally all other Section 13 cases in Canada have been stopped pending a final decision, this includes all current cases before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, cases recently decided by the Tribunal (orders deferred until Lemire decision) and other cases at the Federal Court of Canada. [Kulbashian v CHRC/AG - 2007 FC 354]




WikiLeaks releases Diplomatic Cables on Section 13 !




This challenge of Internet censorship is making world-wide news.   The website WikiLeaks recently released secret diplomatic cables sent from the Canadian Embassy in Ottawa to all Canadian Embassies and to the American Secretary of State.  The cable was sent on October 13, 2009 is entitled “CANADA: FREE SPEECH V. HATE SPEECH HEADED TO FEDERAL COURTS” and is shocking at how biased and bad the research is.  A majority of the information in the diplomatic cable is incorrect, misleading or outright false.  A copy of the Wikileaks diplomatic cable can be seen at: http://www.wikileaks.fi/cable/2009/10/09OTTAWA789.html

It is really shocking to see how bad the research in this diplomatic cable was.  For instance in the first paragraph, the cable claims that “In 2003, Ontario attorney Richard Warman had filed separate human rights complaints against white supremacist Marc Lemire, journalist Mark Steyn, and Maclean,s magazine with CHRC…”.  Of course the smear of “white supremacist” against Lemire is crazy, but the claim that Richard Warman filed a complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine is totally wrong.  What idiots are doing research over at the Canadian Embassy?

The diplomatic cable later claims that “There is little public debate over or political interest now in overhauling Canada's federal and provincial human rights legislation -- including Parliamentary abrogation of Section 13 language on penalties -- despite the earlier spike of interest in the Maclean's case.”  Contrary to the absurd claims in the diplomatic cable, there is a TON of public debate and interest to overhaul Canada’s Kangaroo courts.   Just a few days after this cable was sent, Parliaments Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights called a major review of Section 13, and hauled the CHRC’s Chief Commissioner to testify. 

Since this diplomatic cable was sent out … hundreds of articles have appeared in the mainstream media and blogs, denouncing the Canadian “human rights” commission and their censorship regime. 

Here are just a few articles:





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



Further reading on Section 13:


  • Marc Lemire’s constitutional challenge of Section 13
  • The Marc Lemire case:  A battle for freedom of speech
  • Political Strategy to Repeal Section 13: Spearheaded by Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin with Bill M-446 (An act to repeal Section 13) Support has been overwhelming from the media, opinion journalists and Canadians.  At present, two separate House of Commons Sub-Committee's are currently investigating the out-of-control "Human Rights" Commissions.
  • Victims of Section 13: Writers, webmasters, magazines, Christians, the entire list of victims. From the very first - John Ross Taylor, to the latest victims including Macleans Magazine, Catholic Insight Magazine, FreeDominion, Marc Lemire, Melissa Guille and many others.
  • Books and Videos on Section 13:  Booklets on CHRC censorship, the constitutional challenge, Debunking Hate Laws, internet censorship and much much more.
  • Support the legal challenge of Section 13: The hardest fight is the legal one.  The legal team challenging Section 13 needs your help to continue.  Please click on this link and donate.  Your Donations = OUR Survival!
  • The FreedomSite Blog: Documenting the chilling effects of Censorship and repression of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The blog is run by Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite
  • Canadian Human Rights Commission EXPOSED! Exposing the Misnamed “Human Rights” Commissions in Canada. They are the single largest threat to freedom of speech in Canada. The Ottawa Citizen has called them a “Kangaroo Court” and “Star Chamber”. It’s time to abolish both the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal




-----------------------------------------
I need your help at the Federal Court


Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the Federal Court of Canada challenge to defeat Canada’s internet censorship legislation, has consumed an immense amount of time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my wonderful children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spend a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.

My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

Every victory we've attained against the "Human Rights" juggernaut has come at great expense. Nothing has come easy.  In fact, the “Human Rights” Commission has done everything in their power to stop exposure of their twisted censorship agenda.

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. I wish to thank all those that have donated to this worthy cause. Please donate directly to us so that I can send out a personal thank you. If you have donated to another organization or individual please contact me so I can thank you directly and send you a copy of our special booklet that is for our supporters only.



How you can help:



Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

Be part of the Freedom 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




It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!
 
Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act