Since the inception of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it has been described by many as a “Kangaroo Court”.
As a glaring example, to date there has been 37 cases the Tribunal has ruled on and not a single person EVER has been found innocent. Of those 37 cases, 100% of respondents have been White, 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents and 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers . With the recent Beaumont Decision, where Bible quotes were found to be hateful, a total of $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003. 35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
Depending on who you are, you either allowed to criticize the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or they are going to deport you to
Here is a stark example. Ernst Zundel referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as a hick tribunal and a kangaroo court. He was denied any real due process of our law and shipped to
On the other hand if you writing for the Ottawa Citizen newspaper and call the CHRT a Kangaroo Court. No worries…..
 Mr. Zündel described the CHRC as a Canadian "hick" (AND KANGAROO) Tribunal, mentioning that it had no control over him when he was living in the
Kangaroo added – Zundel Security Certificate Decision
David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen:
They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgements on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.
Others Canadians thoughts on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as a “Kangaroo court”
Terry Tremaine – Victim of the CHRC.
 According to the Commission's evidence, which was not challenged, Mr. Fromm has made contemptuous comments directed at the Canadian judicial system, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, members of the Tribunal and towards the Commission. He has described the Tribunal as "a Soviet style kangaroo court" and its decisions as "Stalinist lunacy". He has also stated that the Tribunal's decisions in hate speech cases are leading
What is a kangaroo court? It's a tribunal where truth is no defence, where opinion is on trial, where fines can be unlimited, where there is no trial by jury, where the judge - called an adjudicator - is judge, jury and prosecutor, where there is no right of appeal within the framework of the Act, where normal rules of evidence don't exist, and where impressions count for more than fact.
The Late Doug Collins - Collins Defies Human Rights Tribunal
Many people that have seen the Tribunal in action have referred to it as a Kangaroo Court. They conduct Show Trials on behalf of the Commission.
The Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal has ruled:
Truth is no defence
Intent is no defence
Fair comment is no defence
In fact there are ZERO defences available
Any evidence is allowed (hearsay, double hearsay)
They do not need to show any proof of actual harm of the messages complained of Standard of proof is very low and is based on a “balance of probabilities” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”
The Freedomsite: Tribunal Decisions
LifeSite (non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997)
KANGAROO HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS IN LIMBO AFTER BIAS CHALLENGE
The human rights tribunals are notoriously biased in promoting homosexuality. The commission has place homosexual activist lawyers as judges in many cases. Provincial Human Rights Tribunals (increasingly identified by critics as "kangaroo courts") in
It's time to abolish the Far-Left kangaroo courts, the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal (and the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission as well, and other Far-Left state apparatus nodes created by the corrupt, crooked, Far-Left Liberal Party of Canada to appease Leftists so they'd vote Liberal and not NDP).
When they start to take away our rights and threaten to throw us in prison for exercising them, we know it's time to get rid of these Far-Left fascist organizations. They have no place in the Free World and are little different from the kangaroo courts of the Non-Free World.
Paul Fromm testifying at the Marc Lemire hearing:
MR. KURZ: Fine. Going on. You also included near the end of in your posting, talking about the tribunal system:
"But that's the protection the industry gives to one of their own in the Soviet-style human rights tribunal kangaroo courts of
That's how you felt at that time about the human rights tribunals, correct?
MR. FROMM: That's way I felt about that one, yes.
MR. KURZ: And you still feel that way, correct?
MR. FROMM: Still feel that way about that one.
Warman v. Lemire Transcripts, Volume 19, Page 4328-4329
Richard Warman testifying at the Marc Lemire hearing:
MS KULASZKA: He [ZUNDEL] refers to human rights tribunals as kangaroo courts. That's got nothing to do with exposing anyone to hatred, does it?
MR. WARMAN: I believe it shows a pattern of contempt for the laws that Canadian citizens have laid down through Parliament in order to protect human rights.
MS KULASZKA: Isn't that the role of the press?
MR. WARMAN: I'm sorry?
MS KULASZKA: Isn't that the role of the press, they are not supposed to be obedient to the government or to simply praise them? Isn't that their role, to question --
MR. WARMAN: It's not my belief that holding open human rights' laws to contempt and the laws that have been passed through Parliament is necessarily automatically part of a free press, and certainly not in this case.
MS KULASZKA: But it's not a violation of section 13, correct?
MR. WARMAN: Madam, really, I've answered the question.
Warman v. Lemire Transcripts, Volume 6, Page 1183-1184
CHRC trying to ban Paul Fromm from representing Terry Tremaine: (And using the fact Fromm referred to them as Kangaroo Courts to try to have him banned)
MS WARSAME: Mr. Fromm's prolific internet postings contain derisive commentary directed at the Canadian judicial system, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Canadian judges, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Members and the Commission.
Mr. Fromm has described the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as "a Soviet style
4 kangaroo court."
Mr. Fromm has referred to decisions of the Tribunal as "Stalinist lunacy". That can be found in Exhibits "F" and "K" of Mr. Warman's affidavit.
Mr. Fromm accused the Canadian courts and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal of being "increasingly corrupt". That can be found in Exhibit "H" of Mr. Warman's affidavit.
Mr. Fromm feels that Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions in hate speech
cases are leading
Warman v. Tremaine Transcripts, Volume 1, Page 15-16
MS WARSAME: It is our submission, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Fromm has clearly manifested a blatant disrespect for the law. He has described the Tribunal as a
"kangaroo court". He make disparaging personal and professional remarks about Tribunal Members.
Mr. Fromm has described decisions of the Tribunal as "Stalinist lunacy." The Commission, therefore, submits that it is clear from comments made by Mr. Fromm that he views the Tribunal and the judicial system as a whole with contempt.
Warman v. Tremaine Transcripts, Volume 1, Page 26
December 9, 2007
Suing for silence
The right to free expression of opinion and belief -- though constrained in its extremes during wartime -- is not something that can be negotiated in a free country. For it is the most fundamental right -- the queen bee in the hive, as it were. Every other freedom depends on this freedom. Take it away, and we no longer have a free country.
A misunderstanding about this is at the root of much conflict between East and West. When cartoonists were invited by a Danish provincial newspaper to present their graphic notions of the Prophet Mohammad, there were riots right across the Muslim world. Danish, or what were believed to be Danish, targets were struck. (The right to riot, with the attendant rights to assault, vandalism, pillage, arson and so forth, are not among our fundamental rights.) Boycotts were placed on Danish products, and diplomats from
The Danes, and the few allies who would stand with them in the heat, found themselves hopelessly explaining that in Denmark the government does not tell journalists what to write, or cartoonists what to draw. It is not in the power of a government to do that -- the courts are there to prevent a government from trying -- and the system can't be changed without overthrowing everything. You might not like what is expressed -- and you have the freedom to express your revulsion, even ignorantly -- but you have, and ought to have, no power to silence the people with whom you disagree.
This is an idea quite incomprehensible in
We, in the West, do not legislate for the Dar al-Islam (the Muslim realm). On the contrary, we endure the fallout from countries in which, because the right to free speech is not secure, opposition to authority must be expressed through violence.
I make this hard point because it is necessary to understand. “Freedom of expression” did not develop in the West from purely idealistic motives. Nor is it necessarily a pretty thing. Like so much in civil society, we put up with it because the alternative is worse, and we'd rather cope with free speech, than with the free intimidation that results from its suppression.
And I make this point in light of the case that has been brought against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine, before Human Rights Commissions for Canada, British Columbia, and Ontario, by the Canadian Islamic Congress, led by Mohamed Elmasry. The first two commissions have already agreed to hear the case, and thus rule on whether Mark Steyn had the right to express the opinions and beliefs in his bestselling book, America Alone, and specifically in the excerpt entitled, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” which ran in Maclean's last year. According to the complaint, by expressing his opinions and beliefs, Mark Steyn “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and Islamophobia.”
That not all Muslims agree, has been made clear by members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, who have entered the fray in defence of Steyn and Maclean's. But that is a tactical side issue.
For more than twenty years, in this column and elsewhere, I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgements on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, “the process is the punishment” in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.
My hope is that this case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's will be fruitful. It will be, if it inspires enough people -- especially journalists, of all political persuasions -- to express outrage at what has been done; and inspires
© Ottawa Citizen