From the very beginning Canadians were scared of the thought control enforcers having any ability to censor the Internet and true to their totalitarian nature, the CHRC just ignored the will of Canadians to pushed their own ideological hate agenda
They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn.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.
Ottawa Citizen December 7, 2007
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.
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
Canadians never asked for and never wanted censorship of the Internet by the notorious thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
From the early stages of the internet, Canadians clearly wanted freedom and were very vocal in demanding it. While the Canadian Human Rights Commission pompously pretends to represent “Canadian Values”, they actually care little about what Canadians think, unless it fits their narrow single minded world view.
Back in 1994, Senior Policy analyst on Section 13 (Internet censorship law) for the Canadian Human Rights Commission – Harvey Goldberg sent out an E-Mail to Canadians, asking what Canadians thought of the CHRC’s censorship of the internet.
Harvey Goldberg sent out the following E-Mail to gauge Canadians attitudes:
I work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I am currently doing research on the use of the Internet for the propagation of hate material. The purpose of the research is to determine what measures could be considered to control the use of the Net for this type of purpose.
I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has any views, information or comments on this subject or who know of anywhere on the Internet where this matter is discussed.”
Sent in December, 1994 ae763@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
As is the usual bias and leftist world view of Mr. Goldberg, he frames the question with “white-supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, gay bashers and other elements of the extreme right.”
In response, Harvey Goldberg received an absolute flood of E-Mail by Canadians who were disgusted of the thought that the rights-enforcers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission would in any way have the power to censor the Internet. Little did those Canadians ever believe that by 2007, close to $100,000 and over 46 named respondents would be targeted by the Commission, with every single person ever brought to a Tribunal would be found guilty.
Here are just some of the responses received by Senior Policy advisor of the CHRC Harvey Goldberg: (The complete 80 pages of responses the CHRC tried to hide can be found here)
Date: Sun Dec 25 22:28:20 1994
up there in
Date: Mon Dec 26 14:27:26 1994
Some Internet users definitely abuse of the system and the anonymity it provides. The I'net has been in operation for a number of years now and has become the worldwide communication tool that it is without government(s) intervention(s). Please keep it that way. This time
does not need to take the lead. The I'net users have methods and practices to deal with hate material leave that community deal with its users and keep "Big Brother" out of it.
Date: 26 Dec 94 20:53:58 GMT
I have a strong opinion. the moment you attempt to stop anyone form using the internet be they communist, socialist, national socialist, gay basher, people with diverse sexual tastes, people with obscure religious backgrounds ... I will do everything in my power to oppose you, including
break the laws of the government of the
Censorship is just plain wrong.
Date: Mon Dec 26 18:54:35 1994
The control of the Internet by governmental agencies is of concern to me as a matter of principle. As a matter of personal opinion, although I am a Jew, I would rather take my chances with the anti-Semites than with government control. Besides, I want to know what they are up to.
Indeed, no idea can be eradicated by law. It can only be eradicated by better ideas. That was the philosophy behind the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and I subscribe to it.
Date: Mon Dec 26 23:20:35 1994
This was only a matter of time, eh? It's been a long time since we had to use this phrase, but this is a good time-
Don't tread on us.
Keep your suppression of speech ideas to yourself, please and thank you.
Date: Tue Dec 27 02:41:21 1994
Well, what can I say? I have met many racists on the internet. Black and White. It NOT just a White thing. Although you little intro seems to imply that-it is. Well, for one, you can try and try but it won't go away. Hate is immortal.
Date: Tue Dec 27 05:16:52 1994
Any action that the CHRC might undertake to
stop the deniers from publicizing their views on the Internet will also stop the very people who are exposing their lies. I don't imagine that this is an effect desired by the CHRC. And I am afraid I still harbour the liberal view that lies are best countered with truths rather than with suppression. I take grave offense at some of the things
that the deniers have to say, but I would find it even more offensive to have my delicate sensibilities protected at the cost of free speech.
Although it is a lesser consideration, policing the Internet is impractical to the point of impossibility. My news service at the
able to police the Internet unless you hired a lot of people to do nothing all day but read an awful lot of dull postings, and a lot more people to analyze whether newsgroups showed a pattern of postings which warranted action by the CHRC.
Any action that the CHRC might take beyond mere research and momitoring would do more harm than good to the cause of human rights, and I doubt whether any agressive action will be able to withstand constitutional
challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Pate: Tue Dec 27 20:26:00 1994
Are you serious? Who on earth led you to believe that it would be either (a) desirable or (b) possible- to "control" the internet?
Do you really believe that you speak for a majority of Canadians?
Do you have no respect for free speech?
Are you afraid of something?
Your message could not have core at a worse time, and you have set
CHRC Tries to HIDE these E-Mails from Marc Lemire and Defence Team
Interestingly enough, the above E-Mails to Harvey Goldberg were given to CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna, but as typical for disclosure from the Commission … IT NEVER WAS GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT, nor was any privilege claimed. The E-Mails come from an Access to Information request by lawyer
This is just another obstructionist example of the CHRC trying everything to stifle Marc Lemire’s constitutional challenge and withhold relevant documents, that has been ordered to be disclosed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling dated August 16, 2006 (Para: 43 (m)].
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. In the documents that I produced to you, these e-mails -- yes, there were many responses.
MS. KULASZKA: You never produced these documents?
MR. GOLDBERG: I certainly did produce these documents. They were in my disclosure. Excuse me. Let me correct myself. I'm sorry, I apologize. I produced these documents for Mr. Vigna. I don't know if they were disclosed by the Commission.
MS. KULASZKA: Mr. Goldberg, I want you to take a look through tab 14 and I want you to think very carefully. Did you produce these documents for Mr. Vigna?
MR. GOLDBERG: I just said I produced these documents for Mr. Vigna. I do not know whether the Commission disclosed them, but I produced them.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So your assertion here is these documents -- well, witness says he gave them to Mr. Vigna. Your assertion is that Mr. Vigna never disclosed these documents.
MS. KULASZKA: Correct.
Warman v Lemire Transcripts, Volume 24, Page 5250
Testimony of Harvey Goldberg on Attitudes of Canadians
MS. KULASZKA: Would you agree that the general tenor of the replies you got were that people did not want the Commission to control the Internet. They were quite angry at you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
Warman v Lemire Transcripts, Volume 24, Page 5252
MS. KULASZKA: Going back to R-17,just where you are. We'll go to the third problem of "enforcing Section 13, resistance by many Internet users to limitations on freedom of expression." Is that still true today?
MR. GOLDBERG: I would say it's less so, but it -- certainly Internet service provider, like all Canadians, including the Commission, are cognizant of the need to balance freedom of speech or freedom of expression with freedom from hatred, so I would expect that it is certainly a concern of Internet service provider today.
MS. KULASZKA: It's a concern of what?
MR. GOLDBERG: That it is still a concern of Internet service provider.
MS. KULASZKA: No, it's talking about Internet users.
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, I would think that many -- yes, I would think that many Internet users have concerns about freedom of expression, yes.
Warman v Lemire Transcripts, Volume 25, Page 5549-5550
Who Is Harvey Goldberg?
Harvey Goldberg works for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and is from the Policy and Planning branch. Goldberg is the main force behind Internet censorship and Section 13.
Testimony of Harvey Goldberg - June 15, 2007
Warman v Lemire Transcripts, Volume 23
MR. CHRISTIE: Would you place yourself on the left of the political spectrum?
MR. CHRISTIE: I wasn't asking that. I asked him how would he place himself on the left wing of the political spectrum.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You're right on the line. Go ahead.
MR. CHRISTIE: Can you answer that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I would say place myself on the left of the spectrum.
MR. CHRISTIE: Do you identify yourself as a Jewish person?
MS. BLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I object to this simply on the basis of relevance. Totally and completely irrelevant.
MR. CHRISTIE: There's nothing wrong with that. Do you identify yourself with the Jewish people, for instance?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
(Three Interveners against Marc Lemire are Jewish organizations [Who claim to represent Canadian Jewry], including the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre)
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
· Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:
The Freedom-Site has been constantly online since 1996
Your Donations = Our Survival
Please send what you can to help keep our website operational