The Bible ruled “HATE” according to the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
What was posted on the Internet:
Quote: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Quote: If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Ruling:
…Ms. Beaumont claimed, during her testimony, that she based this comment on her interpretation of a passage in the Bible, adding that she did not care if Jews would be offended by her ideas. However, irrespective of whether she “cares” or not, s. 13 of the Act dictates that the repeated communication via the Internet of matter that is likely to expose targeted groups to hatred or contempt constitutes a discriminatory practice. Whether the person communicating the matter was in fact its author is immaterial. The mere act of communicating the material or causing its communication attracts liability under the Act.
CHRT Decision: Warman v.
Testimony of Richard Warman on the Bible
CHAIRPERSON (Member Hadjis): Mr. Warman, do you see any problem with the fact that the Bible was cited in those web pages that you -- the extracts of which you entered into evidence yesterday?
MR. (Richard) WARMAN: The context in which it was cited and the surrounding material led me to believe that it should be included in a complaint pursuant to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Transcripts Warman v.
Biased and Unfair TRUTH is NO Defence 100% Convictions Lifetime Speech bans
Censors ... HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!
The Slippery Slope of Censorship at the
Canadian “Human Rights” Commission
The following quotes have been found to be a violation of Section 13 of the dictatorial Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) The following is taken directly out of the
[Para. 16] This message was posted on a sub-forum entitled “Let Muslim women keep hijabs on”. The discussion related to a news report that then Prime Minister Paul Martin believed that the practice at Montreal’s airport of requiring Muslim women to remove headscarves as they pass through security screening should be stopped. Ms. Beaumont posted the following comment in this regard:
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.
I don’t care if it’s a religious thing or not, if you don’t want to follow our rules, even if it is taking off your scarf thing for one lousy picture, then stay out of my effing country!
[Para. 22] This message was posted on a sub-forum entitled “No Need to Feel Threatened”. One of the participants in this discussion suggested that there was nothing wrong with having “nonwhite” friends. Ms. Beaumont replied to this suggestion as follows:
I just don’t feel the need to be-friend non-whites, as they can do nothing for me, nor would I like to associate with them. I am fine with my own kind, and always will/have been. Theres my f*cking answer. Good enough? If not, PM [private message] me, well debate this some more.
[Para. 29] This message is found on a sub-forum that asked participants what they considered were five things that concerned them as “white Canadian Citizens”. Ms. Beaumont answered the question as follows:
2. Freedom Of Speech (and everything else)
3. People need to wake up, and grab a sense of morality.
4. People who support “gay marriages” although are not gay, even if they are…. IT’S SICK!
5. Basis of/for Deportation for illegal immigrants (this needs to be followed through with A LOT faster, and more watched)
For the above quotes and 24 other comments, Jessica Beaumont was fined: $4,500 and given a Permanent lifetime speech ban (Cease and Decist) from ever posting comments similar. If she posts again, she may face up to 5 years in prison!
This decision by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is yet another nail in the coffin of free speech on the Internet for Canadians brave enough to identify themselves by their own names on Internet websites. It marks an unblemished record of convictions since the 1970’s. No one, yes no one, in the 39 years of thought control Section 13 (1) which once applied to only telephone answering machines but under the guise of “anti-terrorism” was passed by Parliament and now covers the Internet, has ever been acquitted. This fact, as much as anything, bears out the fact that Section 13 is nothing but political thought control.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission in Internet cases always picks on victims who are White, right of centre, usually young and almost always poor. The persecution of Jessica Beaumont was no different. She was too poor to retain a lawyer, makes only $10/hour and fined $4,500 with only 120 days to pay!
Canadian Human Rights Commission:
Active and Past cases: 46
Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37
Total complaints received by CHRC: 100
· NO respondent has ever won a section 13 (internet censorship) case before the tribunal.
· 100% of cases have Whites as respondents
· 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
· 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
· So far, $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.
· 48.8% of all cases are by Richard Warman
Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of
"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,
What is “Section 13” of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
"Section 13" is
“Contempt” is so vague it can literally cover almost all forms of criticism. According to past Tribunal ruling, truth is no defence, it only matters if someone's feelings were allegedly hurt. There are ZERO defences. The head Internet investigator for the CHRC, when asked about Freedom of Speech testified that: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."
If found guilty of a Section 13 violation:
*Permanent (lifetime) speech ban will be registered with the Federal Court. If found in violation could face up to 5 years in prison
*Fines of up to $50,000 per named respondent