Canadian Human Rights Commission EXPOSED!

Conservative MP Storseth asks for support on Section 13 repeal

2012-01-28T01:58:00.001-05:00

Storseth asks for support on Section 13 repeal

By William Stodalka | Cold Lake Sun

MP Brian Storseth recently sent out a letter to Cold Lakers and other residents in the Westlock - St. Paul riding asking for their support on his Private Member’s Bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Under that Section, media and Internet articles that others deem offensive will have to face a human rights commission.

However, this section has come under criticism by Storseth and others who say it stymies freedom of speech. “The policy is flawed and poses a risk to Canadians’ freedom of speech,” said Storseth in the letter. “Freedom of speech is too precious to keep under the thumb of censorship.” Storseth said in an interview that he sent the letter to inform members of his riding about what he was doing in Parliament.

Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was first created in 1977 to help defeat hate speech, but since the law was passed, has come under criticism from civil rights organizations, national media, and authors such as Noam Chomsky. Around 2008, Storseth said he introduced a motion for the Justice Department to re-examine the law. Later that year, a Liberal MP, Keith Martin, proposed a Private Member’s Bill similar to what Storseth proposed, but that bill did not make it to law. In 2011, Storseth proposed the current private member’s bill against Section 13. Because a private member’s bill does not come from the governing party’s caucus, or always have the governing party’s complete approval, however, most never make it into law.

But Storseth is hoping his bill, now named Bill C-304, will pass by the end of the spring session of Parliament. “I think it’s important to raise these types of issues and to bring this type of attention to them,” said Storseth. He later added, “There’s not much use to having freedom of religion or freedom of assembly if we don’t have freedom of expression to go with it.” Because of his stance, Storseth has received national coverage and endorsements from publications such as the The Toronto Star and the National Post, along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

CCLA director Cara Zwibel said that she believed that Section 13 puts a “chill” on freedom of expression. Zwibel noted that while the CHRC often deals with cases where human rights are infringed, such as a person denied an apartment because of their race or creed, Section 13 forces people to “put on a different hat” and act as something different entirely. “We’re concerned that the language around hate speech is very open to interpretation,” she noted. “What’s hate speech to one is not to another or just a genuine expression of their opinion.” She said she hoped the bill would succeed.

…

Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said that he believed that “there has been an acknowledgement that changes to the Criminal Code would be necessary in addition to passage of the (private member’s )bill.” While Fogel said he supports repealing Section 13, he believed Storseth’s bill was “not entirely adequate as an alternative to Section 13.”

Others have pointed to different possible solutions to Section 13. The Canadian Bar Association, an organization of Canadian lawyers, said that it supports Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, but that it should be amended to take care of some of the concerns people have with it, such as allowing defendants the right to see their accuser and giving the CHRC more opportunity to dismiss cases that they deem frivolous.

But Storseth said he believed that this was not good enough, and that the law should be scrapped entirely. “I think it’s beyond tinkering,” he said. “There’s too many fundamental flaws in Section 13.” Zwibel agreed. “I don’t think parliament tweaking the legislation will help in terms of protecting freedom of expression,” she said. “It’s been through the courts on a number of occasions. I think if parliament re-opens that, there will be another series of cases before the courts to deal with that, and that won’t really help freedom of expression.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission spokesman Craig Carson said that the Commission “is following the debate with interest,” but did not elaborate further. However, in an op-ed by Canadian Human Rights Commissioner David Langry, he wrote that if Section 13 were repealed, “perhaps Parliament should make it easier for police to lay a (Criminal Code) charge based on evidence.”

SEE FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.coldlakesun.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3446282

Salim Mansur: Repeal Section 13 Censorship

2012-01-24T00:38:00.001-05:00

Salim Mansur calls for a repeal Section 13 Censorship

Salim Mansur is a professor at the University of Western Ontario and a newspaper columnist for the Sun newspaper chain. Mansur is also the author of the very interesting and thought provoking book Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism.

Article from the CJNews:

…

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the concept [of Multiculturalism] into Canadian law in 1971, and support for multiculturalism spread to other western democracies. But in the last year, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain and Holland have all questioned its merits, and the Canadian public has never been as enthusiastic for it as have the country’s political and media elite, Mansur said.

“Forty years later, you can see how utterly weak those arguments were… How is the culture of the Taliban equal, when you consider how they discriminate against women and other religions?”

If support for multiculturalism continues unabated, Mansur predicted a vastly different Canada. “Fifty years from now, if all cultures are equal why not have sharia (Islamic) law in Canada” or Sikh or Hindu law for people of those backgrounds, he asked.

Today, “judges are confused,” human right commissions try to stifle free speech and students feel stifled on university campuses, he said.

The antidote to multiculturalism is promoting Canada’s own intellectual heritage. “Liberal democracy itself is a culture. It’s not some fuzzy idea. It is a culture that emanates through five centuries of historical struggle.” It places “man as the measure of all things” and the liberal struggle is the struggle for individual freedom, he said.

Adding to the “bad logic” that substituted group rights for individual ones was the “bad faith” approach by politicians who saw multiculturalism as a means to gain favour with hyphenated Canadians, Mansur said.

He called for repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which regulates online hate speech.

…

From: Multiculturalism based on ‘flawed logic:’ prof. (Canadian Jewish News)

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?q=node/89181

[VIDEO] SunTV interviews Martin Collacott: Is Immigration Harming Canada?

2012-01-19T01:57:00.002-05:00

Interesting interview with Immigration Expert Martin Collacott on massive immigration to Canada and is it harming Canada?

Brian Lilley: Government Bureaucrats Gone Wild (Canada's firearms laws)

2012-01-14T03:17:00.003-05:00

Brian Lilley: Government Bureaucrats Gone Wild

Canadian Human Rights Commission ARE LIKE THE NAZIS! Kulaszka was right to make the comparison

2011-12-17T04:03:00.001-05:00

During the Marc Lemire hearing this week, Federal Court Justice - Mr. Justice Richard Mosley - took great offense that Lemire’s lawyer Barbara Kulaszka dared to describe Canada’s internet censorship law - Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as similar to the worst repressive totalitarian regimes such as the Nazis or the Communists.

Joseph Brean writing in the National Post described the encounter as: “Ms. Kulaszka compared Section 13, and its supposed 100% conviction rate, to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which did not sit well with Judge Mosley. ‘Let's not get carried away with hyperbole. Some comparisons are offensive,’ he said. ‘Counsel should know this and restrain yourself.’”

Let’s take a look at the facts, and you can make up your own mind. Is Section 13 a law totalitarian regimes like the Communists or Nazis would love?

Are The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission like Nazis?

*The Nazis*	*The Canadian Human Rights Commission*
The Nazis targeted one race	The CHRC targets only working-class Whites, whose beliefs they disagree with. When Muslims or friends of the CHRC are investigated for posting vile hate, the CHRC dismissed the complaints as “not in the public interest”.
The Nazis used unfair courts and tribunals while limiting any possible defence	Not a single person has ever won a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (over 40 cases…) 100% conviction rate!* Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be jealous!*
The Nazis targeted the poor	98% of victims the CHRC attacks are poor. 90.7% of victims are so poor they are not able to even hire a lawyer to represent them. Victims are not able to get legal aid, and the government pays the expenses for the complainants.
The Nazis used militarist terms and concepts to forward their totalitarian agenda	The CHRC uses the language of war, of enemies, of fear and hysteria and a belief that laws of coercion will change hearts. They publically write in terms of “fighting”, of “combating” those they disagree with, in which the fighters must show “solidarity”.
The Nazis used all means at their disposal to silence their opponents.	The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity* or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices…” Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act*
The Nazis used the Gestapo to attack and silence their political opponents	The CHRC has benefited from the Police raiding people’s homes for alleged “hate”. No criminal charges are ever filed but the CHRC uses the seized material against victims before the Tribunal (In contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms) The CHRC pose as Nazis and infiltrate internet websites and message boards searching for Canadians with politically incorrect views to persecute.
The Nazis would get people fired from their employment over their beliefs	A recent victim of the CHRC (Terry Tremaine) was fired from his position at the University of Sask. for his political beliefs.
The Nazis used Krystalnacht (Night of broken Glass) to attack their enemies and used “brown shirts” to attack political opponents on the streets.	The CHRC has publicized groups with a long history of violence (ARA). This includes attempted murder, uttering death threats, assault and harassment – even advocating blowing up Domino Pizza outlets!

Dictators and totalitarian regimes around the world all have the same idea in mind, and they want to control information and stifle dissent at all cost. Under Adolf Hitler, political dissidents were imprisoned and sent to camps. In today’s communist China, the Communist politburo plots to “purify” the internet (China's top Red vows to 'purify' net – The UK Register, Jan 24th, 2007). In Saudi Arabia, internet bloggers sit in prisons. In Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s “Strategic initiatives” section sits in Ottawa and plots to “cleanse” the internet of idea’s and speech it doesn’t like. In all cases, the effect is the same. State sponsored control of information and political repression.

Because of the fanatical ideologically driven efforts of the “human rights nazis” at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada has now sunk to the level of a China, Nazi Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in terms censorship. The apparatchiks at the CHRC regularly scour websites like http://www.stormfront.org looking for anything to attack their political opponents with. If they can’t find enough to “get them”, they get their willing accomplices in the Gestapo – Canada’s misnamed “hate crimes” political police – to raid people’s homes on trumped-up “hate” charges. The police, under the guise of criminality, seize computers, books, clothes and even shoes! The items will never be used in a real court – where real rules of evidence are used – but rather are entered as evidence before Kangaroo-like show trials at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, where fairness is almost unknown to those accused of “hate”. The rules of evidence are just mere suggestions, hearsay and double hearsay evidence is just fine; where truth is NO defence (but rather a reason to convict the accused and increase the amount of the fine!); and where politically correctness reigns supreme.

CHRC Emulated Chinese Internet Control Policy

Today in communist China, dissidents like Zhang Wei, are subjected to show trials and kangaroo courts, then locked away in jails. Zhang Wei is in a Chongqing jail for six years for running “unapproved news” in his paper. In September, 2006, the Canadian Human Rights Commission admitted during a conference call with the ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal in the Lemire case, that they have strong armed upwards of 200 to 300 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) [mostly in the United States, where the CHRC does not have ANY authority], to remove content they disagree with. And amazingly this is done with no tribunal order or any determination of the material. Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be jealous!

Like other totalitarian countries, Canada has the stain on its history of imprisoning people due to their political beliefs. Just in terms of the Internet, at least four people recently have been or currently are in Canadian prisons. “Thought criminals” like Tomasz Winnicki, Terry Tremaine, Reinhold Meuller and Jean-Sebastient Presseault of Quebec for posting material on his website.

The misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission is currently undertaking an ideologically-driven war against speech and political commentary on the Internet. The CHRC’s censorship rage knows no limits. Some 46 cases have been brought since the inception of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship law), and every single one of the defendants were White. 98% of all cases involved poor defendants and only 9% could afford a lawyer to represent them. The CHRC is drunk with power, and intent on silencing all opinions they disagree with and will use “any means necessary” to enforce their politically motivated anti-White racial hatred on Canadians. And we say NO MORE!

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada):

"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

Attorney General of Canada – Rob Nicholson,

“Our government believes that Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda

... Maclean’s magazine, National Post, and even the Toronto Star says this section should go.”

(House of Commons – Parliament. Nov 2011)

>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.Freedomsite.org

Twitter: Marc_Lemire

Twitter: #Section13

DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case

Legal arguments from the Marc Lemire case before the Federal Court of Canada. Marc Lemire is the only Canadian in history to ever beat the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in Sept 2009 won his case when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada's shameful censorship legislation) was found to be unconstitutional. This booklet covers

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback

TORONTO STAR: Free speech is the key

2011-12-17T01:22:00.000-05:00

You know that Section 13 censorship is screwed when even the Toronto Star is calling for it to be scrapped!

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1102223--free-speech-is-the-key

Free speech is the key

Is a new era of freer speech about to dawn in this country? Canadians can only hope. We’ve lived with fetters for far too long.

In Ottawa, Parliament is debating a bill by Conservative MP Brian Storseth to erase obnoxious sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act that unduly restrict free speech in the name of silencing hate mongers. At the same time the Supreme Court of Canada is re-examining hate speech jurisprudence in a case stemming from Saskatchewan’s equally restrictive provincial rights code. And Federal Court is taking its own independent look at the federal act.

All this is reason to hope that the chill that has settled on our Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression over the past few decades is about to thaw.

…

The Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, prohibits publishing via the Internet “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” That can draw fines of up to $10,000 plus heavy damages. That’s a damper on spirited public discourse. The act can be interpreted to cover stereotyping and defaming, as well as hate-mongering. There’s no need to prove intent. Evidence can be accepted that would not stand up in court. And guilt doesn’t have to be established beyond doubt. All this puts an unreasonable burden on anyone unlucky enough to be hauled on the carpet.

Some provincial codes are no better. In Saskatchewan, publishing material that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of groups such as gays or lesbians can also draw harsh penalties. Belittles? Affronts the dignity? How can that be measured, let alone defended against? British Colombia’s code has its own problematic prohibitions.

Most Canadians have no sympathy for hate mongers. But an unwarranted, creeping chill is being cast over free speech, absent any real problem. Human rights commissions should concern themselves with discriminatory behaviour, not discriminatory opinions. It’s time to reaffirm free speech.

Marc Lemire on Ezra Levant's The Source on Section 13 censorship.

2011-12-15T22:35:00.001-05:00

Marc Lemire on Ezra Levant's The Source on Section 13 censorship. Plus Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation

THURSDAY DECEMBER 15, 2011: Great interview of Marc Lemire by Ezra Levant on his SunTV show ‘The Source’. The interview discusses the recent Federal Court of Canada appeal by the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission of the September 2009 decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which acquitted Marc Lemire and found that the despicable internet censorship provision, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as unconstitutional.

Chris Shafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation follows Marc Lemire and discusses the outrageous investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has been defined by the CHRC’s lead investigator – Dean Steacy, when he testified in the Lemire case that “Freedom of Speech Is an American Concept … So I Don't Give It Any Value”. While such comments are antithetical to most Canadians, it is standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says

2011-12-15T00:52:00.001-05:00

Human Rights Commission's Attempt to Save Internet Censorship Law Is "Like Putting Lipstick on a Pig" -- Kulazska Says

TORONTO. December 13, 2011. The efforts by the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission to salvage Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) was heard in Federal Court in Toronto today. The case involves Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite. His lawyer Barbara Kulaszka opened her submissions by noting: "What I heard this morning was an attempt to put lipstick on a pig."

She added: "My friends are trying to convince you that all you have to do is sever the penalties and all will be well."

On September 2, 2009, Marc Lemire won a landmark decision, indeed, the only victim ever to win an Internet censorship case. He had challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13 and won. Member (Judge) Athanasios Hadjis had ruled that 1998 amendments to the act -- imposing fines and financial penalties -- meant the law was no longer "remedial" and, thus, went beyond what the Supreme Court had upheld as constitutional, in 1990 in the Taylor case, when it ruled the old version of Sec. 13 which censored political messages on telephone answering machines.

"Sec. 13 is a violation of freedom of speech," she argued. The Internet is a different context from what this law was in 1977, when it was instituted or 1998 when penalties were added. "Taylor referred to a two minute message on a telephone. Now the whole world is on the Internet, every newspaper and all sorts of scholarly publications. If we don't have freedom of speech, we don't have anything."

Sec. 13 had a 100 per cent conviction record "worthy of the Soviet Union." The judge, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley, interrupted and told Miss Kulazska to "avoid hyperbole."

(See Flyer on the comparison between communism and the CHRC… is it really hyperbole?)

Once a complaint was laid, she argued, there is no defence -- not truth, not intent.

In arguing to salvage Sec. 13, the Commission's pricey outside counsel Margot Blight conceded that the penalties and fines were unconstitutional and would have to go. She as much as admitted there ware abuses and misdeed by Commission staff -- amply proven during the Lemire hearings. "Striking down the statute because of the activities of the Commission is draconian," she pleaded.

"The Tribunal concluded that the Commission didn't act in a sufficiently conciliatory fashion. The Commission referred the Lemire case to a Tribunal even though the impugned posts had been removed and it had declined Mr. Lemire's request for mediation." She sought the Court to remit the case back to the Tribunal for a decision on punishment on the sole count on which Mr. Lemire was found guilty -- a post by Kevin Alfred Strom on the dangers of AIDS and interracial sex.

Doug Christie, representing the Canadian Free Speech League, recalled: "On December 4, 1989, when I rose to speak in the Supreme Court in the Taylor case, I was all alone and there were 25 lawyers on the other side. Today, the sides are equal." It's dangerous, he argued, to disregard the many constitutional arguments made before the Tribunal. "We have raised other reasons why Sec. 13 is unconstitutional.”

Testimony before the Tribunal "showed that the Internet is a very different medium than telephone answering machines, there is the ability to reply or disregard the message." John Ross Taylor handed out business cards inviting people to call his message machine. Marc Lemire did no such thing, Mr. Christie explained. "There are millions of diverse blogs and websites on the Internet," he added. Back then there was only Mr. Taylor's voice asserting the truth. Now, on the Internet, there are many voices of refutation.

Complainant Richard Warman "presents himself as a victim, but he is a Nazi hunter," the Battling Barrister from Victoria insisted. "The message does not come to Mr. Warman. He finds it only after research." Mr. Christie added that the record shows that the Commission's expert witness Dr. Tsesis and Marc's expert neuropsychologist Dr. Michael Persinger both agreed that truth should be a defence; that truth is not hate. "Dr. Persinger said even hateful comments do not lead to violence.”

Mr. Christie argued that Member Hadjis's ruling was inadequate. He could have given better reasons.

Representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Ottawa lawyer Gerald Langlois, QC., insisted: "The Court should declare Sec. 13 unconstitutional… There is no effort in Sec. 13 to accommodate the right to free speech… the effect of Sec. 13 on free speech is dire," he added. Citing Madame Justice Beverley McLaughlin's dissent in Taylor -- she is now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- Mr. Langlois argued that words like "hatred" and "contempt" and sketchy and vague. "I don't think there’s a person in this room who has not felt hate or contempt for someone. This law has made some groups more equal than others," has made some minorities privileged.

Mr. Langlois challenged the judge, "if you're not going to strike down Sec. 13 give us an overview and explain how Taylor can still stand."

Ed Morgan was the President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, 2004-2007 and is an Honorary Patron of the Canadian Somali Congress. Today he was representing the “African Canadian” Legal Clinic. "Sec. 13," he argued, "is a necessary part of equality and is a necessary tool to confront anti-Black racism." [Although not a single “African-Canadian” has ever used to law in the over 30 years since the law was introduced]

Joint spokesman for interveners the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal, Marvin Kurz admitted: “I have a bit of a red face. I failed to file my book of authorities," until this morning. He argued: "The problems of hate speech and anti-Semitism and the use of the Internet to spread these ideas is of pressing concern to the Government of Canada."

The judge interrupted, "but the Government of Canada is not here," as they had been during the Tribunal. Observers suggest this means the government does not really stand behind the legislation.

Serial complaint filer Richard Warman was the only lawyer not to be gowned. He asked for his costs. He supported the Commission's position and complained that mediation in Sec. 13 cases is difficult. "The respondents deny their views are hate but insist on disseminating their White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs over the Internet."

Andrew Loken representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported Mr. Lemire and freedom of speech. Professor Richard Moon, appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, did a study of Sec. 13 and recommended its repeal in 2008, he pointed out. "The penalties under Sec. 13 encourage litigiousness."

He too noted the failure of the Attorney General of Canada to intervene to support Sec. 13.

"The Internet," he explained, "is excellent for counter speech to make your voice heard. Counter speech persuades more people than the CHRT's orders," he added. "The optimistic assumptions in Taylor that Sec. 13 would be conciliatory did not work out." The record shows that the Commission has been anything but conciliatory in Sec. 13 cases. "The CHRC has sought penalties in most Sec. 13 cases."

Also intervening on Marc Lemire's behalf was Jason Gratl representing the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. "It is not just permitted but required of the Tribunal to examine the effects of the legislation. Mr. Hadjis looked at the practical effect of the Act on those subjected to its decisions."

The Court was filled with supporters of freedom of speech. Many gathered around and congratulated Marc Lemire, Miss Kulazska, and Mr. Christie as the Court adjourned.

Mr. Justice Mosley reserved his decision.

>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.Freedomsite.org

Twitter: Marc_Lemire

Twitter: #Section13

DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback

Live Blogging of the Lemire Hearing Deciding the fate of section 13 - Canada's Internet Censorship Law

2011-12-13T01:50:00.001-05:00

LIVEBLOGGING OF THE HEARING:

You can follow the hearing via the internet at the following sites:

· TWITTER: Marc_Lemire

· Freedomsite: http://www.freedomsite.org

· StopSection13: http://www.StopSection13.com

Discussions of the hearing at:

· TWITTER: #Section13

· FreeDominion: http://www.freedominion.ca

The Fall of Section 13: Information on the Lemire case

2011-12-12T02:35:00.004-05:00

It is now just two days until the Federal Court of Canada hearing in the Marc Lemire case, which will review the constitutionality of Section 13 (internet censorship). In 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acquitted Marc Lemire and threw out the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. After 2 years, the hearing is finally taking place in the Federal Court. This hearing will determine if the Internet will continue to be censored by the out of control fanatics at the CHRC.

Here is all the background information on the case and how the follow the hearing on the Internet. The hearing will be live blogged on the Freedomsite and via Twitter. Discussions on the case are going to be hosted on Twitter also.

HEARING INFORMATION:

December 13 and 14, 2011

Federal Court of Canada

180 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario

Starts 9:30am daily.

LIVEBLOGGING OF THE HEARING:

You can follow the hearing via the internet at the following sites:

· TWITTER: Marc_Lemire

· Freedomsite: http://www.freedomsite.org

· StopSection13: http://www.StopSection13.com

Discussions of the hearing at:

· TWITTER: #Section13

· FreeDominion: http://www.freedominion.ca

JUDGE OF HEARING:

The hearing will be presided over by Mr. Justice Richard Mosley. (Contrary to incorrect information reported in the media)

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF HEARING:

The schedule is not written in stone, but it appears that on Tuesday Dec 13^th it will be the CHRC and the Section 13 supporters. On Wednesday Dec 14^th it will start off with Lemire, and then groups opposed to Section 13 censorship.

1. CHRC Submissions on Appeal

2. Groups supporting the CHRC

a. B’nai Brith Canada

b. ~~Canadian Jewish Congress~~ (according to the National Post they are not attending)

c. Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre

d. African Canadian Legal Clinic

3. Richard Warman in support of the CHRC

4. Marc Lemire

5. Groups supporting Lemire

a. BC Civil Liberties Association

b. Canadian Civil Liberties Association

c. Canadian Free Speech League

d. Canadian Association for Free Expression

6. Reply submissions of the CHRC (Applicant)

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

These are the Factums of the main parties. They set out the legal arguments of each group and their requests of the Court.

· Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law [A must read!]

· Motion Record of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

· Motion Record of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

· Written Representations of the Canadian Free Speech League

· CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law

· African-Canadian Legal Clinic

You can get a professionally printed copy of the Lemire Memorandum of Fact and Law, which is reprinted in the book: Dismantling Tyranny.

PARTIES INVOLVED IN CASE:

Marc Lemire: Originally charged in 2003 for allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities to “hatred and/or contempt”. Found innocent in 2009 but the censorship fanatics at the CHRC appealed the decision to the Federal Court. As of Dec 2011, Marc Lemire has been persecuted by the thought control fanatics for over 3,000 days and since 1977 is the only Canadian to ever win a Section 13 case

Barbara Kulaszka: Civil Liberties lawyer who has represented Lemire for over 7 years. She is the only lawyer in Canada to ever win a Section 13 case. Barbara’s legal arguments have been published around the world, and she is very well respected by her peers. Known for her courage and legal skill.

Margot Blight: Represents the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They appealed the decision.
Douglas Christie: Long time barrister for freedom in Canada. Represented the very first victim of Sec. 13. Counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League.
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association: Civil lib association from BC. Tried to intervene in Lemire case during the “human rights” tribunal.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Long time supporters for freedom of speech in Canada.
Canadian Association for Free Expression: Also intervened during the Lemire tribunal.
Canadian Jewish Congress, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, B’nai Brith: The Censorship Musketeers

· ‘African-Canadian’ Legal Clinic: Their lawyer was the former head of the Can Jewish Congress.

MORE INFORMATION:

	FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011 (Adobe PDF Format)
	FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011 (Microsoft Word Format)
	FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011 [Page 1] [Page 2] (JPEG Format)

HOW YOU CAN HELP OUT:

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has endless money to keep their censorship franchise running. I have beaten the CHRC at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; and with your help, we will beat them once and for all at the Federal Court of Canada as well! I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. No organizations are assisting with the bill at all. As you know, I don’t send out a newsletter monthly asking for help. I only send them out when I have exhausted all my resources and really need your help to continue. This is one of those times! I currently have a large amount of bills and expenses to fight this case, and really need your help to continue. We are on the verge of beating the CHRC for good!

Send your cheque or money order to:

Marc Lemire

762 Upper James St

Suite 384

Hamilton, Ontario

L9C 3A2

Or donate online at: http://www.stopsection13.com/support.html

BOOK ON THE MARC LEMIRE CASE

DISMANTLING TYRANNY:

The Marc Lemire Case

Dismantling Tyranny: The Marc Lemire Case, details the upcoming battle at the Federal Court of Canada over Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. After a 6 year legal fight, in September 2009 I was the first person in the history of Canada to win a Section 13 case at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found me innocent of allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities “to hatred and/or contempt” and found the law under which I was hauled before the Tribunal as unconstitutional under Canada’s laws. The fanatical censors at the CHRC – caring little about tax-payers money – appealed the Tribunal decision to the Federal Court of Canada, in a lame attempt to keep their censorship franchise afloat.

Dismantling Tyranny details exactly what is wrong with Section 13 and Internet censorship. It is a broad look at how the dirty side of censorship really works, from the suppression of freedom of speech (which the CHRC considers an “American concept”) to spying on Canadians. This 80 page book covers the facts of censorship from both a legal and moral position and is a must read for anyone that has been following the utter fall from grace these disgusting censors so richly deserve.

Dismantling Tyranny is available in paperback and Ebook formats. You can order online from one of the mainstream book distributors like Amazon.com or Lulu.com or directly from me. If you want a copy of the book prior to the December 13-14 Federal Court hearing, order it directly from me via my website. You can get either a professionally printed paperpack, or a copy in Adobe PDF format. For the paperback version, I send them out nightly, and if you get your order in soon, you should be able to have it prior to the hearing. If you order the Ebook format, it will be emailed to you within a few hours.

Order a copy of the book online at: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dismantling_tyranny.html

>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<

Follow the case live at:

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.Freedomsite.org

Twitter: Marc_Lemire

Twitter: #Section13

DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback

COURT DATE:

Dec. 13-14, 2011

Federal Court

Toronto, Ontario [..more]

FLYER ON CASE:

[Adobe PDF] [Microsoft Word] [...more]

The FATE of Section 13 to be decided in Federal Court - December 13-14, 2011

2011-12-08T01:04:00.001-05:00

The FATE of Section 13 Censorship to be decided in Federal Court

December 13-14, 2011, Toronto, Ontario

The fate of Canada’s Internet censorship legislation will be decided in a Toronto court room next week. The fate of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada’s vicious Internet censorship legislation) will be heard on December 13 and 14^th, 2011 in the Federal Court of Canada. While there is much discussion about a possible political resolution, the facts are clear: whatever happens next week at the Federal Court will either kill Section 13, or put it on ice for another few more years until the spineless politicians deal with it, via Bill C-304 in Parliament.

The fate of Section 13 will be heard at:

Tuesday December 13 and Wednesday December 14, 2011

Federal Court of Canada

180 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario

Starts 9:30am daily

All hearings are open to the public

The hearing is an appeal by the Canadian Human Rights Commission against a Sept 2009 decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Lemire case, which found Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be unconstitutional legislation. This means that the Tribunal found Section 13 to be an affront to Canadian values and to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees all Canadians the right to freedom of speech and expression. Lemire won the case against him, and became the only person in the over 30 year reign of the Human Rights Act to EVER win a Section 13 case. The specific case against Marc Lemire (the merits) was not appealed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the serial complainant Richard Warman. The appeal by the CHRC is only to determine if Section 13 is constitutional legislation or not [See CHRC’s factum here and Lemire’s response]

The fate of Section 13 hangs in the balance of this appeal. While the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Section 13 to be an affront to Canadians and threw out the law as unconstitutional, the Tribunal does not have the power to actually strike down a law in Canada. The Tribunal however has refused to hear any new cases and stopped all pending Section 13 cases in the system. The Federal Court of Canada on the other hand, DOES have the power to strike down a law in Canada, which is why this hearing will decide the fate on Section 13 once and for all.

The hearing next week will be the definitive battle for freedom in Canada. Will Canadians continue to be subjected to the fanatical reign of censorship by the out of control “human rights” commission or not? The battles lines have been drawn and the hearing set. The fate of Section 13 hangs in the balance!

Supporting Freedom of Speech	Defending Section 13 censorship
Marc Lemire	Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Free Speech League	Canadian Jewish Congress
BC Civil Liberties Association	B’nai Brith Canada
Canadian Civil Liberties Association	Simon Wiesenthal Centre
Canadian Association for Free Expression	African-Canadian Legal Clinic

MARC LEMIRE CASE

In 2003, serial complainant Richard Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against Marc Lemire. The complaint alleged that Lemire “exposed” a long list of privileged minorities to “hatred and/or contempt” in violation of the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Act. Lemire fought the ridiculous case against him for over 6 years, across close to 30 court days and in 5 cities.

In 2009 Lemire was found innocent and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal also found Section 13 (internet censorship) and Sec. 54 (fines) to be unconstitutional legislation. In October 2009, the fanatical CHRC appealed the case to the Federal Court to save their taxpayer funded censorship franchise. The Lemire case exposed the corrupt underbelly of censorship and documented how out of control the censors were.

1: During the Lemire hearing, the chief Internet investigator at the CHRC – Dean Steacy testified that “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept.”

2: The CHRC was exposed as an out of control government agency that creates online accounts on neo-Nazi websites to promote hate and entrap respondents. It was also revealed that the CHRC has registered Postal Boxes under false names in the Ottawa area. (Contravention of the Postal Act)

3: In order to cover their tracks online, the CHRC has hacked into a private woman’s wireless internet account. The RCMP and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has investigated the CHRC for criminal theft of internet communications.

4: The CHRC has submitted court transcripts to the Tribunal where devastating key testimony was oddly ‘missing’.

5: The CHRC invoked ‘National Security’ laws to attempt a cover-up and hide the misdeeds of their employees on internet message boards. They only admitted to spying on Canadians after an appeal to the Federal Court by Lemire.

6: The CHRC was so despicable, that during the hearing they actually tried to have Lemire banned from his own hearing (Ottawa May 2007) claiming that national security was at stake if Lemire and the public saw the CHRC’s witnesses.

7: The Tribunal hearing was stacked against Lemire with 16 different lawyers representing taxpayer funded organizations and government bodies. The CHRC had at least 6 lawyers!

>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<

Follow the case live at:

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.Freedomsite.org

Twitter: Marc_Lemire

Twitter: #Section13

DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback

COURT DATE:

Dec. 13-14, 2011

Federal Court

Toronto, Ontario [..more]

FLYER ON CASE:

[Adobe PDF] [Microsoft Word] [...more]

FLYER: The Marc Lemire Appeal at the Federal Court of Canada, December 13-14, 2011

2011-12-06T03:45:00.001-05:00

FLYER

The Marc Lemire Appeal at the Federal Court of Canada, December 13-14, 2011

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Flyer-FC-Appeal_Dec2011.html

If you are planning to attend the December Federal Court hearing, which will decide the fate of Section 13: Canada's shameful internet censorship legislation, please download a copy of the flyer, which explains the case, the parties involved and the location of the hearing. This is a brief summary of what the Marc Lemire case is about, what's wrong with Section 13 censorship and how to follow the hearing on the internet.

You can print a copy of the double-sided flyer on any printer and pass them around to your friends or bring a copy to the hearing.

Download Flyer

FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011

(Adobe PDF Format)

FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011

(Microsoft Word Format)

FLYER: Stop Section 13: Federal Court Appeal Dec 2011

[Page 1] [Page 2]

(JPEG Format)

>> Donate online here <<

http://www.StopSection13.com | http://www.freedomsite.org | http://blog.freedomsite.org | http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

Support the Marc Lemire Appeal - The best chance ever to defeat Section 13 Censorship!

2011-12-04T23:26:00.001-05:00

This is our best chance to defeat censorship!

I really need your help to continue the fight

Dear Freinds;

Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has endless money to keep their censorship franchise running. I have beaten the CHRC at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; and with your help, we will beat them once and for all at the Federal Court of Canada as well!

For the December hearing, I am planning a massive information campaign, which will wake up thousands of Canadians. With your financial support, I am going to produce a series of Internet videos which will explain what the fight for freedom is all about, and how censorship affects us all. Both of my websites – The Freedomsite.org and StopSection13.com will be updated with documents from the hearing. During the hearing I am going to blog the entire event live on the Internet through both my websites and host a special Twitter site about the hearing. (Twitter: marc_lemire and #Section13)

In order to be able to effectively coordinate the defence team, I have rented an office space within minutes from the downtown Toronto court house (We have dubbed it the Freedom War-Room), which will allow Barbara Kulaszka, myself and the other lawyers working for freedom, the ability to work in a secure and professional environment where we can do on the spot research, printing and preparation for the hearing. This invaluable room will be equipped with special secure computers, printers, a fax machine and Internet access. It’s hard to believe the massive amount of work that goes into these hearings, but with a shoestring budget we have been able to constantly counter the millions spent by our opponents … and WIN.

A major national newspaper is planning to cover my hearing in a big way. They have begun preparing for the hearing – a month in advance (!) and want to run a series of articles on the players involved in the fight for freedom, along with daily front page coverage. A TV network in Toronto is also very interested in covering the event, and I suspect that a good part of their coverage during my hearing will be about my case.

The "Human Rights" juggernaut has an unlimited amount of time and money to harass political dissidents. As an example; just to file the appeal against me, the CHRC spent close to $85,000 … and since that time I estimate another $85,000. That’s a total of $170,000 … and that is just one of the five tax-payer funded interveners that I have to face at the Federal Court. We can’t outspend them, but we WILL outwork them!

My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters 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 racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. 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 when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. No organizations are assisting with the bill at all. As you know, I don’t send out a newsletter monthly asking for help. I only send them out when I have exhausted all my resources and really need your help to continue. This is one of those times! I currently have a large amount of bills and expenses to fight this case, and really need your help to continue. We are on the verge of beating the CHRC for good!

Yours in freedom!

Marc Lemire

>> Donate online here <<

Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Marc Lemire

762 Upper James St

Box 384,

Hamilton, Ontario,

L9C 3A2

Canada

http://www.StopSection13.com | http://www.freedomsite.org | http://blog.freedomsite.org | http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case [Book just published]

2011-12-01T02:36:00.001-05:00

Dear Friends of Freedom;

I have just published my latest book Dismantling Tyranny: The Marc Lemire Case, which details the upcoming battle at the Federal Court of Canada over Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. After a 6 year legal fight, in September 2009 I was the first person in the history of Canada to win a Section 13 case at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found me innocent of allegedly “exposing” privileged minorities “to hatred and/or contempt” and found the law under which I was hauled before the Tribunal as unconstitutional under Canada’s laws. The fanatical censors at the CHRC – caring little about tax-payers money – appealed the Tribunal decision to the Federal Court of Canada, in a lame attempt to keep their censorship franchise afloat.

Visit the ordering page at: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dismantling_tyranny.html

	DISMANTLING TYRANNY: *The Marc Lemire Case* Legal arguments from the Marc Lemire case before the Federal Court of Canada. Marc Lemire is the only Canadian in history to ever beat the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in Sept 2009 won his case when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada's shameful censorship legislation) was found to be unconstitutional. This booklet covers the December 2011 appeal by the fanatical censors at the CHRC to the Federal Court of Canada.
Order your copy today! > Order directly from Marc Lemire using PayPal < EBOOK (PDF via email) \| Paperback
Paperback: $15.00		EBOOK: $10.00 (Immediate download)

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

You can also order a copy of the book by sending $18.00 ($15 book + $3 shipping) to:

Marc Lemire

762 Upper James St

Suite 384

Hamilton, Ontario

L9C 3A2

CANADA

Product Details

ISBN	978-1-105-30450-7
Edition	First Edition
Published	November 30, 2011
Language	English
Pages	80

Binding	Perfect-bound Paperback
Interior Ink	Black & white
Dimensions (inches)	6.0 wide × 9.0 tall

Catholic Civil Rights League: Dump censorship of Section 13

2011-11-24T23:08:00.001-05:00

CCRL urges support for Bill C-304

OTTAWA, On November 23, 2011 – The Catholic Civil Rights League encourages all MPs to support Bill C-304, “An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act”, which was read and debated last night in the House of Commons. The private member’s bill, introduced in September by MP Brian Storseth (CPC-Westlock-St. Paul), seeks to repeal Section 13 of the federal Human Rights Code banning hate speech over the Internet.

Because Section 13 has been used to penalize the peaceable expression of opinion based on religious belief, the League has a long record of support for efforts to rescind or significantly rewrite it to protect religious freedom. The League was pleased to learn that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson expressed support for Bill C-304 during parliamentary debate.

“Given that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the League believes that provisions in the Criminal Code provide the most effective way to address harm that may arise from public expression,” says Joanne McGarry, League executive director. “Among other things, courts provide a more level playing field for the complainant and the accused. Human rights tribunals were designed to address complaints of discrimination in the workplace and the provision of goods and services; decisions that could involve the limitation of a Charter right should be left to the courts.”

The League is encouraging its members to express support for Bill C-304 to their MPs.

- Saskatchewan hate speech provision must be struck, says League, August 11, 2011
- Review of Section 13 greatly needed, says League. February 13, 2009

About CCRL

Catholic Civil Rights League (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization and has chapters across Canada. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

For further information:
Joanne McGarry, Executive Director, 416-466-8244; joanne.mcgarry@ccrl.ca

From: http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=5231

CATHOLIC REGISTER: Toss Section 13 !

2011-11-24T22:57:00.001-05:00

Toss Section 13

Written by Catholic Register Editorial

Tuesday, 22 November 2011 15:12

Bills introduced from the backbenches of Parliament are typically cast adrift unless the government opts to throw them a life preserver. So we applaud Justice Minister Rob Nicholson for tossing a lifeline to a private member’s bill that seeks repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13 comprises the paragraphs of an otherwise worthwhile act that makes hate speech a punishable offence. Hateful language, however transmitted, is abhorrent and society has an obligation to combat it robustly. But Section 13, which evolved from legislation in the 1960s to silence racist telephone hotlines, is manifestly flawed and its repeal is long overdue.

Thus Bill C-304, introduced by Tory backbencher Brian Storseth last month, has won the support of the government and now seems almost certain to proceed eventually to a final vote in Parliament next year. The Conservatives voted almost unanimously to scrap Section 13 at a 2008 policy convention. So Storseth’s bill appears a safe bet to pass under the Tory majority.

“Our government believes that Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda,” Nicholson told Parliament. “We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes.”

The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to safeguard human rights but Section 13, expanded in 2001 to include the Internet, grossly infringes on the basic right of free expression. The enforcement of Section 13 by tribunals is subjective and based on arbitrary definitions of hate speech. It can be wielded like a club to punish and muzzle any person or organization, including faith groups, whose message is deemed discriminatory by any individual who wants to file a complaint.

Speech promoting hatred or inciting violence is rightly classified as a criminal offence. But expressing opinions, however objectionable, that merely offend another person should not be unlawful in a free society. As constitutional lawyer Iain Benson argues, Section 13 fails to make that distinction between real hate speech and “hurt” speech.

Three years ago, constitutional expert Professor Richard Moon was asked by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to study Section 13. He concluded that it was tantamount to censorship and recommended its repeal. The next year, a human rights tribunal ruled that Section 13 violated the Charter right of free expression, a decision that will be reviewed next month in federal court.

Storseth’s bill pre-empts that court hearing and places the matter in Parliament, where it belongs. Laws should be made in Parliament where they can be transparently enacted by elected officials, not arbitrarily decided in courts by unelected judges.

Unfortunately, a minority parliament failed to act following Moon’s 2008 report, but Storseth’s bill is providing an overdue opportunity to finally make things right.

Article from: http://www.catholicregister.org/columns/item/13390-toss-section-13

PEN Canada endorses Conservative MP's bill to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

2011-11-21T22:49:00.001-05:00

PEN Canada endorses Conservative MP's bill to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

TORONTO, Nov. 21, 2011 /CNW/ - PEN Canada today announced its support for Conservative MP Brian Storseth's private member's bill calling for the repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) which deals with hate speech.

"The best defense against so-called 'hate speech' is not government enforcement of vague prohibitions, but an educated and alert citizenry and vigilant and responsible media," said Charles Foran, President of PEN Canada.

This is not the first call for the repeal of Section 13, which makes it a discriminatory practice to communicate by telecommunication, including the internet, "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."

In 2008, the Canadian Human Rights Commission hired constitutional law expert Professor Richard Moon of the University of Windsor to examine section 13. He recommended that it be repealed, a recommendation that was never acted on. In his report, Professor Moon wrote: "We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes and defames the members of an identifiable group and to hold institutions such as the media accountable when they engage in these forms of discriminatory expression."

"The right of free expression is guaranteed as a "fundamental freedom" by subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" said Philip Slayton, Chair of PEN Canada's National Affairs Committee, "section 13 of the CHRA is inconsistent with the right of free expression in Canada and is wrong in principle."

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, established by the CHRA, has wide powers if it substantiates a discriminatory practice, including ordering the person responsible for the practice to compensate the victim and pay a penalty of up to $10,000.

PEN Canada is an organization of writers and others that defends freedom of expression both at home and abroad.

For further information:

Brendan de Caires: 416 703 8448 ext 21 | bdecaires@pencanada.ca

SOURCE: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/881669/pen-canada-endorses-conservative-mp-s-bill-to-repeal-section-13-of-the-canadian-human-rights-act

LEVANT: No More Witch Hunts

2011-11-21T01:55:00.001-05:00

No more witch hunts

Persecuted sure to win reprieve from ridiculous, costly hate laws

By Ezra Levant ,QMI Agency

For 34 years, Canada has had a disgraceful censorship law that violates our human rights.

In 1977, Pierre Trudeau rammed through the Canadian Human Rights Act — an Orwellian name for a law that actually destroys real rights.

The entire law is a corruption of justice — it creates a kangaroo court, run by non-judges, that does not follow the same rules and procedures of real courts, but has massive powers to punish and fine people who aren’t politically correct.

But the worst part of the law is Section 13, the censorship provision. Section 13 creates a word crime — the crime of publishing or broadcasting anything that can cause hurt feelings.

Back in 1977, that law was focused on telephone lines and answering machines. But 10 years ago, it was expanded to include the Internet.

So it even covers things like whatever you post to your Facebook page. Section 13 says “it is a discriminatory practice ... to cause to be ... communicated ... any matter that is likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt.”

So if you publish anything on Facebook, or on your cellphone voice message, that might make one person feel bad about another, you’ve just broken the law.

Truth is not a defence to being charged with “hate” under Section 13. Fair comment is not a defence. Religious belief is not a defence. Telling a joke is not a defence. The law has nothing to do with truth or the right to have an opinion. It’s about whether or not you’ve offended someone or hurt their feelings.

Section 13 is an insane law. So un-Canadian, so contrary to our traditions of liberty that go back centuries, inherited from the United Kingdom.

It’s no surprise that this law had a 100% conviction rate in Canada for the first three decades of its existence. This federal law was copied by provincial legislatures. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan all have censorship provisions, too.

…

Last week, the federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, stood up in the House of Commons and answered a question about Section 13.

The question was about a private member’s bill, put by Brian Storseth, an MP from northern Alberta. Storseth has introduced a private member’s bill, C-304, to repeal Section 13. But private member’s bills have little chance of passing without the endorsement of the government.

But Nicholson did endorse it. He called on all MPs to support it, too. Bill C-304, Storseth’s bill, is now effectively a government bill. And with a Tory majority in both the House and Senate, this bill is as good as done.

No more witch hunts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. No more persecuting their political and religious enemies.

This is the best thing the Harper government has done in five years. Freedom is on the march.

READ THE FULL STORY AT: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/18/no-more-witch-hunts

SUN NEWS: Hate speech law on the chopping block

2011-11-18T00:06:00.001-05:00

Hate speech law on the chopping block

By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau

First posted: Thursday, November 17, 2011 05:30 PM EST

OTTAWA - Canada's human rights commissions could soon be de-fanged.

New legislation would repeal Section 13, the hate speech portion of Human Rights Act.

“Our government believes Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combating hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons during question period.

“I say to the opposition: get onside with the media, MacLean's magazine, National Post, and even the Toronto Star says this section should go.”

Quebecor and its media properties, including Sun News Network and QMI Agency, also want the section scrapped.

Tory backbencher Brian Storseth drafted the private member's bill, C-304.

“This is a great first step,” Storseth told The Source host Ezra Levant on Sun News Network. “Free speech is something we all hold very dear to our hearts and something we all have a necessity for.”

…

“The entire Canadian Human Rights Act ought to be repealed. It's worse than just useless,” said Levant. “You don't even have to cause hurt feelings — just to have published something likely to cause hurt feelings. What an insane law, so un-Canadian, so contrary to our traditions of liberty that go back centuries, inherited from the United Kingdom,.”

With a Conservative majority in the House and the Senate, the bill will likely become law quickly, after 32 years accusations and convictions over allegations of hate speech.

“No more witch hunts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, no more persecuting their political enemies, said Levant.

FULL STORY AT: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/17/hate-speech-law-on-the-chopping-block

BREAKING: Over 20 Conservative MPs come out to support the Repeal of Section 13

2011-11-17T02:02:00.001-05:00

BREAKING: Over 20 Conservative MPs come out to support the Repeal of Section 13

Back on September 30^th, 2011 Conservative MP Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul) introduced Private Members Bill C-304 “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)”. This bill would repeal the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and strip the censorship powers from the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission and remove their ability to censor content on the Internet. At the time Mr. Storseth introduced his bill; he received a very warm welcome from freedom lovers all over Canada and also received very supportive editorials in the mainstream media. (here), (here), (here), (here), (here). Even Calgary’s Catholic Bishop came out to support the bill.

Unfortunately Bill C-304 is not a government bill, so it has a limited chance to even pass. According to the Parliament of Canada Website, since 1910 only 235 private members bills have ever passed. (789 private members’ bills were introduced during the last Parliament alone, and only four received Royal Assent). But this private members bill is a bit different! Earlier today, Bill C-304 was to receive second reading before the House of Commons in Ottawa. It appears to have been bumped from today’s agenda due to the jobs Act, but as part of the introduction of the private members bill, a list of “seconders” (supporters) was attached to Bill C-304. The “seconders” are Members of Parliament who have read the act and publically declared their support for it. Such a lengthy list of seconders is literally unheard of for a private members bill.

Private member’s Bill C-304 has the announced support of:

Mr. Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell)
Mr. Sorenson (Crowfoot),
Mr. Toet (Elmwood—Transcona),
Mr. Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex),
Mr. Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Mr. Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound)
Mr. Richards (Wild Rose), (…more)
Mr. Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt),
Mr. Bruinooge (Winnipeg South),
Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Mr. Calkins (Wetaskiwin)
Mr. Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East), (…more)
Mrs. Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul),
Mr. Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake),
Mr. Payne (Medicine Hat)
Mr. Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale)
Mr. Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville)
Mr. Tweed (Brandon—Souris)
Mr. Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale)

(The Journals Branch of the House of Commons limits the number of seconders for a bill to 20 members .. so dozens more may support this Bill, but are not listed)

Conservative MPs from coast to coast are lining up to support the repeal of radical censorship by the “Human Rights” Commission using Section 13. With so many Conservative MPs speaking out for freedom, and the base of the Conservative Party overwhelmingly supporting the repeal of Section 13, why is the Prime Minister Stephen Harper not taking on Bill C-304 and making it a government bill?

While Harper might be speaking out, his MPs certainly are. Wild Rose MP Blake Richards issued a great press release on November 11, 2011 where he denounced Section 13 and it’s danger to freedom of expression. He wrote that: “A section of Trudeau-era legislation that purports to defend human rights but which actually undermines one of those basic liberties – the freedom of expression … I support the bill by my Conservative colleague Brian Storseth, the M.P. for Westlock-St. Paul, to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 is as flawed as it is subjective on the very issue of hate that it claims to combat, and it needs to go.”

Richards continues: “Section 13 subjects citizens’ Charter freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression to the whims of those who want to suppress ideas they disagree with or find personally distasteful or offensive, but which do not necessarily constitute hate. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that Section 13 does not target expression that some may find offensive, but that hasn’t stopped Human Rights tribunals from accepting aggrieved persons’ sense of being offended as a basis for convictions.”

Conservative MP Blake Richards sums up his press release with “Section 13 of the CHRA needs to be done away with and I will be voting in favour of repeal”

Bravo to Richards and to the other Members of Parliament who are standing up for freedom and seeking to dismantle the tyranny of censorship, which Section 13 enforces.

-Marc Lemire

November 16, 2011

I need your help for the Appeal!

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.

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

http://www.StopSection13.com | http://www.freedomsite.org | http://blog.freedomsite.org | http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

Wild Rose MP Blake Richards Press Release: FLAWED 'SECTION 13' A DANGER TO EXPRESSION AND HAS TO GO

2011-11-16T23:25:00.001-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOVEMBER 11, 2011

FLAWED ‘SECTION 13’ A DANGER TO EXPRESSION AND HAS TO GO

A section of Trudeau-era legislation that purports to defend human rights but which actually undermines one of those basic liberties – the freedom of expression – could be repealed under a Private Member’s Bill that’s now before Parliament.

I support the bill by my Conservative colleague Brian Storseth, the M.P. for Westlock-St. Paul, to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 is as flawed as it is subjective on the very issue of hate that it claims to combat, and it needs to go.

Originally conceived in response to a spate of recorded hate messages that circulated in Toronto, Section 13 has since been identified by many experts – including the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) itself – as problematic on several fronts.

For one thing, it targets the dissemination of hate messages without ever clearly defining what constitutes hatred or contempt. It considers acts of hate or contempt as “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”. That is so vague that it would be laughable if not for the fact that it carries real consequences.

Section 13 subjects citizens’ Charter freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression to the whims of those who want to suppress ideas they disagree with or find personally distasteful or offensive, but which do not necessarily constitute hate. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that Section 13 does not target expression that some may find offensive, but that hasn’t stopped Human Rights tribunals from accepting aggrieved persons’ sense of being offended as a basis for convictions.

Hate speech is already prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada. And a court of law is where such matters should be tried. In a courtroom, rules of procedure, the defence of truth, and evidence of intent or willfulness on the part of the accused apply. But no such provisions are afforded the accused in the quasi-judicial process set out by Human Rights Tribunals, where Section 13 cases most often land.

It is widely acknowledged that Section 13 conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees to freedoms of expression and beliefs.

An independent review of the CRHC in 2008 called for the repealing of Section 13. The CRHC itself, in a September 2009 ruling, was forced to find the Section 13 hate speech provision unconstitutional.

For all of these reasons, Section 13 of the CHRA needs to be done away with and I will be voting in favour of repeal

For more information, please contact Blake Richards, M.P., at (403) 948-5103

http://www.blakerichards.ca/documents/Wild%20Rose%20Report%20-%20CRHC%20Section%2013%20-%2011122011.pdf

---- COCHRANE EAGLE ARTICLE ----

Richards wants to scrap section on hate speech

November 16, 2011
By: Lindsay Seewalt

Wild Rose MP Blake Richards, is voting in favour of the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

Dating back to the Trudeau era, this section was implemented to defend human rights from hate speech. According to Richards, the legislation in fact undermines the basic liberty of freedom of expression due to its vague definition.

“For one thing, it targets dissemination of hate messages without ever clearly defining what constitutes hatred or contempt,” said Richards in a press release.

“It considers acts of hate or contempt as ‘any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt’. That is so vague that it would be laughable if not for the fact that it carries real consequences.”

Richards continues on to explain that Section 13 subjects citizen’s Charter rights to those individuals who wish to suppress ideas they may find distasteful, but do not actually constitute hate.

Hate speech is already prohibited by the Criminal Code of Canada and it has been widely acknowledged that Section 13 is in conflict with the guarantee of the freedoms of expression and beliefs under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The repeal of Section 13 was the result of an independent review of the CHRC in 2008 and the CHRC found the hate speech provision unconstitutional based on a ruling in September 2009.

The Wild Rose MP is in favour of the popular consensus that Section 13 is dated, vague in definition and needs to be removed from the CHRC according to his Nov. 11 Wild Rose Report.

See full story at: http://www.cochraneeagle.com/2011/11/richards-wants-to-scrap-section-on-hate-speech/

The NDP gets it all wrong on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

2011-11-15T01:21:00.000-05:00

Here is a letter from Hamilton area NDP MP on Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act – Canada’s censorship legislation.

On one hand, it is good to see that even the NDP has “specific concerns regarding the [Canadian Human Rights] Commission” but it is unfortunate that the NDP is so far off they think that the CHRC is about “understanding and eliminating hatred and racism in our country.” Sadly, many NDP Members of Parliament have not opened their eyes and looked at how corrupt the CHRC have become. [I did try to enlighten them]

Here is a small example:

The CHRC is not about eliminating hate or racism at all … they are only concerned with attacking a certain group of Canadians – whom THEY hate. For friends of the CHRC, they are free to put as much hate material on the internet as they like. The CHRC will cover it up, protect and dismiss any complaints against them. But if you’re on the CHRC enemies list, watch out. The Immigrant Poem will get you hauled before an EIGHT year hearing.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

At the CHRC:

· If you’re Muslim, you can post that Gays should be “beheaded”.

· If you’re a self-proclaimed “anti-racist” organization it’s fine to communicate that the “JEWSmedia hushes up MURDERS of Whites committed by NIGGERS ALL THE TIME AND EVERYWHERE! Not only in the U.S. of A."

· BUT if you’re a young White woman whom the CHRC hate, you get hauled before a Kangaroo court for saying: “That drives me nuts, I take photos for the citizenship, passports, pr (permanent residence), visa cards etc. and as I have been told from human resourses that the ears MUST be visable, which means, if your hair covers your ears, it has to be tucked back.”

Does that sound like the CHRC has ANY interest in “eliminating hatred and racism in our country”? Or does it sound more like they are motivated to eliminate their political opponents?

Thank you for your letter about the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The NDP is fully committed to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its guarantee for freedom of expression coupled with the right of government to guarantee minority rights and ensure that discrimination is eliminated.

The ability of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate alleged incidents where hate material or speech has been widely disseminated is crucial to guaranteeing Charter rights for all, and for understanding and eliminating hatred and racism in our country.

The call to delete Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act would eliminate the Commission’s power to investigate complaints. Hate crimes consist of any matter that is likely to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt because they as individuals or as a group are identifiable on the basis of a “prohibited ground of discrimination”. Section 13(1) guarantees the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the power to investigate the communication of those crimes by any means of telecommunications under the power of Parliament.

Nonetheless, the NDP does have specific concerns regarding the Commission, including the issue of the appointments made to the Commission, such as the appointees’ level of experience and educational background on human rights judicial reviews. My NDP colleagues and I are constantly working to ensure there is a fair process that guarantees fundamental principles like freedom of expression.

Thanks again for writing. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your views on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Chris

Chris Charlton, MP Hamilton Mountain
Chief Opposition Whip
HAMILTON OFFICE:

232-845 Upper James St.
Hamilton, ON L9C 3A3

(t) 905.574.3331 (f) 905.574.4980

OTTAWA OFFICE:

457-D Centre Block | House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
(t) 613.995.9389 (f) 613.992.7802

BTW, the CHRC spends it time looking at the race of every employee hired by the federal government to weed out what they have deemed “systemic discrimination”. If a Federal Dept hired mostly one racial group (IE: Whites) it would be a massive hate crime and the government agency would be hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission to explain why they are so racist as to only hire one racial group.

BUT, since 1977 the Canadian human Rights Commission has ONLY ever accepted a “hate speech” complaints against White Canadians. When complaints are filed against Muslims and others, the CHRC summarily dismisses them. But every single complaint against a “white”, “Christian” and/or “conservative” has been accepted. TALK ABOUT SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION!

I need your help for the Appeal!

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

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

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

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

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

762 Upper James St

Box 384,

Hamilton, Ontario,

L9C 3A2

Great News: Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu supports Free Speech and Bill C-304 (An Act to remove the censorship powers from the fanatical CHRC)

2011-11-02T02:10:00.001-04:00

Earlier today I received a fantastic letter from Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu (Pickering-Scarborough) who support Bill C-304, an Act to Protect Freedom of Speech, and strip the censorship powers away from the fanatics of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

It is very impressive to see a Toronto-area Conservative MP stand-up for Freedom of Speech and seconding Bill C-304. Unfortunately, Bill C-304 is a private members bill, and not (yet) a government bill, so it has a limited chance to even pass. According to the Parliament of Canada Website, since 1910 only 235 private members bills have ever passed. (789 private members’ bills were introduced during the last Parliament, and only four received Royal Assent, of which one established the National Holocaust Memorial). But the wind is in the sails for freedom, and numerous Conservative AND Liberal MPs have spoken publically about freedom of speech and removing the ravenous censorship provision Section 13. (In fact it was Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin who first proposed a motion in the House of Commons to remove Section 13)

Here is the letter I received today:

Mr. Lemire,

Thank you for your letter that you sent to our Ottawa office regarding your request for Mr. Chisu to support C-304.

I am pleased to inform you that not only will Mr. Chisu be supporting the bill, but in fact he is a seconder for C-304 as well.

Regards,

Matthew van Vorstenbos

Legislative Assistant

Corneliu Chisu, MP Pickering-Scarborough East

What is wrong with Section 13 of the CHRA?

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “likely to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure for the extremists at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a rational to increase the amount of fines! Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence.

On September 2, 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in the Lemire case that Section 13 was unconstitutional and in violation of the Charter. In the decision the Tribunal slammed the CHRC for being aggressive and confrontational. In 2008, the CHRC’s own hand-picked expert – Richard Moon of the University of Windsor – wrote a substantial report on Section 13 with his main recommendation being to repeal it.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.

1: The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are not fair, and make arbitrary decisions based on who an accused is – rather than on a fair and impartial application of the statute they enforce. High profile victims, such as Macleans Magazine, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are given a free pass, while others, less prominent and lacking the resources to hire legal council are relentlessly prosecuted. Friends of the CHRC are given a free pass to promote hate with impunity, while others are dragged through 8 years of prosecutions. This creates a major chill on freedom of expression since there is no discernable “line” between speech that is prohibited and speech that is “acceptable” to the CHRC.

2: The CHRC pays no heed to constitutionally protected rights such as Freedom of Expression. In place they use imaginary “rights” such as the “right to be free from contempt”. There is no such right in our Charter. Lead investigators at the CHRC have testified that “freedom of speech is an American concept” which does not apply to Canadians. The CHRC only believes in “group” rights, and not the rights of individuals to “speak truth to power”, hence the 100% conviction rate.

3: The CHRC is out of control has recently been under a series of investigations. CHRC investigators have been criminally investigated by the RCMP for the criminal theft of telecommunications services; The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has ruled against the CHRC on multiple occasions. In the meantime, the CHRC continues to apply the law in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

4: In contravention of their mandate or the law, the CHRC has engaged in clandestine spying operations on Canadians, including using neo-Nazi aliases to engage Canadians in conversations. The CHRC has even gone as far as posting questionable material on neo-Nazi internet websites. The CHRC shockingly attempted to claim it would injure “National Security” when information on their neo-Nazi accounts was subpoenaed by the Tribunal.

5: The entire process is paid for by taxpayers on behalf of the complainants. The defendants must pay their costs personally. There is no legal aid and there is no way to claim costs, even if the defendants are found innocent.

It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of history. I have made some shocking allegations against the CHRC in this letter, and am more than willing to provide detailed documentation on each and every point I made in this letter. If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

-Marc Lemire

Freedom Activist

www.freedomsite.org

www.stopsection13.com

Good news for FREEDOM! Hyper-linking on Internet is NOT Libel

2011-10-20T00:05:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court of Canada released a ruling in the case of Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, which clarifies the law that hyper-linking to an article on the internet is not defamation. This is a good sign from the Supreme Court of Canada that they are taking freedom of speech seriously and as a bed-rock right to Canadian values.

More information:

Internet link is not libel, Canada’s top court rules

Postmedia News Oct 19, 2011 – 10:22 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 19, 2011 12:20 PM ET

By Tobi Cohen

OTTAWA — Simply posting a hyperlink to defamatory information does not in itself constitute publication, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday, effectively upholding lower court rulings in B.C.

In a slightly nuanced, albeit unanimous ruling, the high court found the defamatory material can only be considered published when the hyperlinker actually repeats the defamatory content.

The judgment states:

“Such an approach promotes expression and respects the realities of the Internet, while creating little or no limitations to a plaintiff’s ability to vindicate his or her reputation,”

The case involves Wayne Crookes, a B.C. businessman and Green Party member who argued a smear campaign had been mounted against him.

He sued a number of parties for defamation and asked Jon Newton, who owns and operates a website focused on Internet and free speech commentary, to remove a pair of hyperlinks that connected users both directly and indirectly to some of the allegedly defamatory material.

Both the trial judge and B.C. appeals court ruled hyperlinks were like footnotes or references and not a republication of material.

FULL STORY AT: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/19/internet-link-is-not-libel-canadas-top-court-rules/

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

Hyperlinkers off the hook... almost

11:32 am, October 19th, 2011

SUN NEWS NETWORK

KRIS SIMS | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

OTTAWA - Creating an online link to defamatory content created by someone else does not constitute publishing that content.

In a decision that could have chilled the way the Internet works, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that bloggers and Twitter users are not breaking the law by merely linking to another site that contains libelous or defamatory material.

"The Internet, in short, cannot provide access to information without hyperlinks," wrote Justice Rosalie Abella. "Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and as a result, freedom of expression."

While the decision was unanimous, two justices warned that framing or endorsing the link as the truth or accurate could still land an Internet linker in court.

"Combined text and hyperlink may amount to publication of defamatory material," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Morris Fish. "If the text communicates agreement with the content linked to, then the hyperlinker should be liable for the defamatory content."

The case stems from a dispute in British Columbia where Wayne Crookes claimed he was defamed by two different links on site run by Jon Newton.

Civil Liberties organizations, Internet advocates and media lawyers all argued against Crookes, saying outlawing linking would hobble the pace of information online.

Both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that simply making a link does not endorse or publish the original defamatory material.

The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld those lower court decisions.

FULL STORY AT: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/10/20111019-113233.html

We have a right to free speech - EVEN if the Rights Fanatics consider it "An American Concept"

2011-10-19T21:42:00.002-04:00

The Ottawa Citizen has a good editorial on the important right to free speech. This is the same right, which the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismiss as "an American concept".

We have a right to free speech

The Ottawa Citizen
October 13, 2011

The dubious idea that human rights commissions should be able to tell Canadians what they can and cannot say is now subject to two important challenges.

One is the case before the Supreme Court involving William Whatcott, who distributed odious anti-gay flyers in Saskatchewan nearly a decade ago. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fined him $17,500; that decision was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, and the case has now made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Whatcott's flyers, T-shirts and posters are offensive, disgusting and wrong.

But the right to free speech is meaningless if it only applies to inoffensive statements, politely expressed. It is the clash of wrong ideas against right ones - not their suppression - that improves our civilization and our democracy. Canadians must be free to disagree on every subject. There is a right to free speech in this country; there is no right not to be offended, and there never should be.

Laws against inciting violence - like laws against conspiracy or libel - are reasonable, tightly defined limits to speech, in cases where the speech itself creates a demonstrable harm.

By contrast, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code prohibits any publication "that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground."

And Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits telecommunication of "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."

In practice, and thanks to some clarification from the courts, the application of these vague prohibitions has been tightened somewhat. But the fundamental problem remains, that quasi-judicial panels are able to chill any form of expression they deem hateful.

There is a bill before the House of Commons now that would make several changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, including the repeal of Section 13. It is a private member's bill, but the member in question is Brian Storseth, an Alberta Conservative, and there is reason to hope that he will be able to convince a majority of MPs to support it.

The arguments of homophobes are easy enough to demolish in the open, using facts and sense. There's no need to drive such arguments underground. Expose them to the light and they wither.

See the full article at: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/have+right+free+speech/5541510/story.html

[NOTE: Section 13 itself faces multiple challenges. On the legal side, Section 13 was found to be unconstitutional by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Fanatical CHRC are appealing the case, which is set to be heard in December, 2011. On the political side, there is the bill by Brian Storseth.]

Canadian "Human Rights" Commission slammed in New Zealand.

2011-10-16T23:19:00.001-04:00

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has become an international embarrassment. Newspapers as far away as New Zealand are slamming the CHRC and their censorship track record.

“In the name of promoting equality, the various Canadian human rights enforcement agencies have tilted their procedures strongly towards convictions”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/5796591/Human-rights-take-a-wrong-turn

Human rights take a wrong turn

Last updated 09:22 17/10/2011

Manawatu Standard

OPINION: You will probably be surprised to learn that I sport a tattoo on my right shoulder, acquired during the course of an impulsive adolescence. While I do not deny being partly motivated by the desire to impress a girl, the form of the tattoo a clairseach, or Irish harp was intended as a nod to my Irish ancestry.

Despite my Easter Uprising name, my roots in this country stretch back five generations. I can scarcely claim to be Irish in any meaningful way. The tattoo was a symptom, I think, of that yearning for heritage, for whakapapa, which affects the descendants of settlers worldwide. All people are hard-wired to honour their ancestors.

Despite consciously putting such navel gazing behind me, I have not had the tattoo removed. I probably never will. It is literally a part of me and, if nothing else, serves as a useful reminder of the indelible consequences acting on temporary passions can sometimes have.

Someone who understandably felt much more strongly about a more authentically ethnic tattoo was Claire Haupini, who was a causal worker for Spit Roast Catering Company in Auckland. Mrs Haupini has a moko that runs along her left arm and is a motif of her Iwi heritage. When her employer required she wear a long-sleeved uniform (also worn by other female staff members), she became upset that it covered the moko.

In years gone by, Mrs Haupini would have had two options. The first would be to cover her moko while working and the other would be to seek employment elsewhere. Today, however, there is a third option: complain that your human rights have been breached.

Ms Haupini, represented by the Human Rights Commission, took the matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. After a three-day hearing, the claim was decisively dismissed. The tribunal agreed, in essence, that the company had not discriminated against Mrs Haupini as a Maori, but as a tattoo wearer (not a protected ground under the Human Rights Act) and agreed that any tattoo wearer in the employ of the company would have received the same request. This was the right outcome and a commonsense decision.

We are conditioned to respond positively to the language of human rights, but the reality is that the ideal of human rights can easily be appropriated as a tool of oppression. Nowhere is this more the case than in Canada where human rights law has been outed in recent years as a vehicle for activists to inflict illiberal punishments on those with whom they disagree.

In the name of promoting equality, the various Canadian human rights enforcement agencies have tilted their procedures strongly towards convictions. Parties not involved in the alleged offences, for instance, may file complaints. Standards of proof are relaxed in such a way that denies natural justice and procedural fairness to defendants, who receive no government funding despite the fact that plaintiffs were fully funded.

Truth is no defence to allegations of hate speech and on this score, the Canadian Human Rights Commission boasted until recently a conviction rate of 100 per cent a record unmatched even by Joseph Stalin's show trials.

Perhaps most outrageously, some remedies included plaintiffs being forced to make confessions and recantations of their opinions. One Alberta pastor who was forced to renounce his beliefs also received a lifetime speech ban on the subject of gay marriage, including in sermons and private emails.

That this should be allowed to occur in what is usually considered to be a free country is a disgrace. That much of New Zealand's human rights law is modelled on Canada's, and that Canadian human rights jurisprudence is usually praised in the nation's law schools, should give pause for concern. Since 2002, for example, the Human Rights Commission, via the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, has been empowered to provide ``free'' (i.e. taxpayer funded) legal representation to selected plaintiffs.

So despite winning, the company is up for a reported $40,000 in legal fees, not to mention the time and effort expended in fighting the claim. Mrs Haupini, by contrast, pays nothing. The company reports that the commission offered it a $10,000 settlement to end the claim. Faced with such an opponent, how tempting would it be to settle rather than to persevere with vindicating your rights?

There are many celebrated figures in the history of the law who incurred great cost in the course of defending unmeritorious claims on a matter of principle. We owe these people a debt. Ordinary people and businesses, however, can seldom afford such vindication.

Reportedly, Spit Roast Catering Company will now seek to recover some of its costs from the Human Rights Commission. Although I am not sure that the law will permit such an action, I am confident justice demands it.

* Liam Hehir is a lawyer at Palmerston North firm Fitzherbert Rowe.

Whatcott case - SCC hearing today. Freedom of Speech at issue

2011-10-12T01:18:00.001-04:00

The Bill Whatcott case is going to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada today. Bill Whatcott ran into some trouble with the fanatics at the Sask “Human Rights” Commission, here is Karen Selicks review of the case - http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/03/karen-selick-supreme-court-can-still-choose-to-defend-free-speech/

The SCC describes the legal issues as

“Human rights - Freedom of conscience and religion - Freedom of expression - Freedom from discrimination - Hate propaganda - Respondent distributing flyers containing crude, harsh and demeaning comments about potential sexual practices of same sex partners - Whether the appellate court was correct in holding that the flyers did not violate s. 14(1)(b) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1 (the “Code”) - What is the correct process, and which contextual factors should human rights administrative decision-makers and courts consider, when applying hate propaganda provisions of human rights legislation so that free expression is not unduly limited, the right to be free from discrimination is protected and the State’s obligations to protect citizens from incitement to hate is met - Does “sexual orientation” include sexual practices and, if so, to what extent - Is it possible to “love the sinner, hate the sin” so that hateful messages directed at conduct do not violate hate propaganda provisions of human rights legislation.

The Respondent, on behalf of the Christian Truth Activists, distributed four flyers in the mailboxes of various homes in Saskatoon and Regina in 2001 and 2002. Four persons who received the flyers filed complaints alleging that the material in them “promotes hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation” in violation of s. 14(1)(b) of the Code. The Applicant appointed a Tribunal to hear the complaints. The Tribunal concluded that the flyers contravened the Code. The Respondent appealed, arguing that he was exercising his right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and that the flyers do not violate the Code. Alternatively, he argued that if the materials exhibit hate, it is directed towards sexual behaviour, which is not a prohibited ground. If sexual behaviour is a prohibited ground within the meaning of sexual orientation, he argued that it is overbroad and should be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with s. 4 and 5 of the Code and s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

You can watch a webcast of the case on the Supreme Court of Canada’s website at: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/webcast-webdiffusion-eng.aspx?cas=33676 (Webcast starts at 9:00am)

Documents on the case (known as Factums) can be downloaded at: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/fac-mem-eng.aspx?cas=33676

Windsor Star: Leave Censorship to the Criminal Code - Scrap Section 13

2011-10-05T01:00:00.000-04:00

"Section 13 suppresses the basic right to freedom of speech in our society that is guaranteed under the charter of rights and freedoms," he said. "We need to have some reasonable tests of harm in our society and I believe the Criminal Code looks after that and ensures that Canadians aren't targeted by hatred."

Storseth should have the support of the Harper government, and we assume many Liberals will also be on board. In 2008, just after law professor Peter Moon concluded the section should be removed, then Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced his own private member's bill seeking to have the hate-speech section repealed.

Moon had prepared the report at the request of the human rights commission, but his recommendation was never followed. Martin's bill went nowhere.

Over the last decade, the process has been proven flawed and unfair.

First, the human rights tribunal decides if a complaint is valid or frivolous, and it doesn't have to explain its reasoning. Nor is there a presumption of innocence going in to a hearing.

A complainant pays nothing to appear; a defendant is responsible for all his or her costs.

Those laying a complaint can remain anonymous, which means the accused never gets to exercise the fundamental right to stand before the accuser.

And successfully appealing a decision is virtually impossible for a defendant.

Full story at: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Criminal+Code/5497727/story.html#ixzz1ZpEL702p

Calgary's Bishop Henry supports bill to curb controversial Section 13

2011-10-05T00:47:00.001-04:00

Calgary’s Bishop Henry supports bill to curb controversial Section 13

Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News

OTTAWA - Calgary Bishop Fred Henry has come out in support of a bill introduced by a Conservative MP that would strike the controversial Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Henry, who faced human rights complaints in 2005 for writing a pastoral letter defending traditional marriage, said Section 13 and its provincial counterparts “need to either be eliminated or subjected to an extensive re-write.”

Section 13 deems discriminatory any action “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” if they are “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

Brian Storseth introduced Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) into the House of Commons Sept. 30. The bill would repeal Section 13 as well as section 54, the penalty clause associated with it.

“I am a firm believer that freedom of speech is one of the building blocks of our society,” Storseth said in an interview. “It is one of the core freedoms all the freedoms are built on. What is freedom of assembly if you don’t have freedom of speech?”

Henry faced complaints based on a similar clause in the Alberta Human Rights Act. He said Bill 13 exposes religious leaders to human rights complaints for expressing firmly held religious views on moral issues. It also causes publishers to be hauled before “the kangaroo court of a tribunal hearing” for printing cartoons, and censors comedians for “making remarks that might offend somebody’s sensitivities.”

“In Canada, we do not arrest people who are likely to break the law. The law must actually be broken,” the bishop said. “To hurt someone’s feelings doesn’t constitute discrimination, nor hatred.”

Henry believes he was actually the aggrieved party when charges were levelled against him.

“I believe that the complaints that were lodged against me were an attempt to intimidate and silence me, and in point of fact, the lodging of these complaints constituted a violation of my right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom, and has revealed a multitude of problems with the Alberta Human Rights Commission and its processes,” the bishop said.

The complaints were eventually dropped.

The bishop also objected to the process human rights commissions employ when people face complaints under these sections.

“Based on my experience, it is not difficult to point out a number of imbalances and flaws in (rights commissions’) current operations such as the presumption of guilt until you can prove your innocence, the open-ended time lines for dealing with a complaint and unjust incurring of financial expenditures for the defendant in the simple event of a complaint being lodged,” he said.

“However, there is no punitive action imposed on the complainant as his or her legal fees, if there are any, are covered by the commission.”

FULL STORY AT: http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/13072-mp-introduces-bill-to-curb-section-13-of-human-rights-act

LEVANT: PM's chance to defend freedom of speech

2011-10-05T00:24:00.000-04:00

After five years in power, the Conservative government finally has introduced a bill to repeal the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

That provision — called section 13 — gives the government the power to censor anything on the Internet “likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt”.

So it covers a Facebook link that you share that has an off-colour joke. Or a comment that you make on a blog that isn’t quite politically correct.

Finally, the Conservative government has taken the first baby step to repealing it.

Well, that’s not quite accurate. The Conservative government and the Justice Minister haven’t done a thing. But a backbench MP from the northern Alberta riding of Westlock-St. Paul has. Last Friday, Brian Storseth introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-304, called “An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Protecting Freedom).” Normally when a private member’s bill is introduced, it’s merely a symbolic act — pretend busy-work that’s little more than a press release, that has little chance of being passed, and often doesn’t even get a chance to be debated.

But Storseth’s C-304 isn’t at the end of a long line. It’s near the front — it’s 15th in line. So it’s quite likely that the bill will actually be debated, as soon as November, and voted on this year.

It should be a slam-dunk. Freedom of speech is so important to our society, it’s bigger than left wing versus right wing, or conservative versus liberal.

During the Conservatives’ two terms of minority government, they were afraid of offending the small group of Canadians who make their living by being professionally offended by things.

Literally a thousand lawyers and bureaucrats across Canada collectively take about $200 million from taxpayers to “work” in human rights commissions. And then there are all the lawyers-of-fortune and other shakedown artists and hangers-on out there who don’t work directly for the industry, but who have a stake in it.

Of course these censors have a political agenda of their own. They don’t believe in diversity — diversity of opinion, that is. All the people prosecuted by the Canadian government under section 13 fit a pattern. To use the language of the complaining left, the human rights commission engages in racial profiling. One hundred per cent of the people prosecuted under section 13 have been white and Christian. And 90% of them have been too poor to afford a lawyer.

Full story at: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/03/pms-chance-to-defend-freedom-of-speech

[VIDEO] Ezra Levant & MP Brian Storseth: Get Rid Of Section 13

2011-10-03T23:41:00.002-04:00

Stop Section 13! http://www.StopSection13.com

.

OTTAWA CITIZEN: Conservative MP's bill takes aim at hate speech provisions

2011-09-30T23:12:00.001-04:00

Conservative MP's bill takes aim at hate speech provisions

By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News September 30, 2011 7:01 PM

"Everybody has some concerns" about the regulation of hate speech: Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

OTTAWA — A Conservative backbench MP from Alberta believes a majority of his caucus colleagues will support his private member's bill that would repeal controversial sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act banning hate speech over the telephone or Internet.

Tory MP Brian Storseth introduced Friday in the House of Commons a bill that would scrap Section 13 of the human rights code dealing with complaints regarding "the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet."

He said he believes the current human rights code fails to protect freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and insists Canadians are better off if the government repeals sections 13 and 54 — the latter section deals with associated penalties.

The code as it currently reads allows too many frivolous cases to proceed against citizens, he said, when hate speech that could generate harm against an individual or group is already covered by the Criminal Code.

"Freedom of speech is the freedom that all other freedoms are built on. It cannot be restrained to the politically correct," Storseth, MP for Westlock—St. Paul, said Friday as he introduced Bill C-304.

"The best way to fight bigotry is to ensure that we protect and enhance our fundamental freedoms in this great country of ours."

Conservative caucus chairman Guy Lauzon said the private member's bill "hasn't even come near caucus." However, he figures Storseth has canvassed a large number of Tory MPs for their support — otherwise he probably wouldn't have introduced the bill.

"There's no point putting something forward if it's not going to carry, so I'm sure that Brian has done that," Lauzon said. "Personally, I like his bill."

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AT: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Conservative+bill+takes+hate+speech+provisions/5485327/story.html

St. Catharines MP Rick Dykstra to continue push to reform CHRC and Section 13

2011-09-28T23:50:00.001-04:00

" He would like to continue to push for reforms to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as he did in Parliament in 2008 when he asked for an examination of the commission’s operations and mandate. In the motion, he also asked for a review of the commission’s “application and interpretation” of a controversial section of the Human Rights Act dealing with promoting hatred through electronic means.

“It’s clear that section doesn’t work,” said Dykstra.

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/1111581--sweeping-changes-with-crime-bill-dykstra

H/B: BCF