Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Kulaszka Hammers Attorney General of Canada over false claims: In a Bizarre submission - Conservative Rob Nicholson's daft spokesman cries "unfairness"

Kulaszka Hammers Attorney General of Canada over false claims

 In a Bizarre submission - Conservative Rob Nicholson’s daft spokesman cries “unfairness”


In another pathetic missive from the Attorney General of Canada, Conservative Rob Nicholson’s representative – Simon Fothergill (AKA Frothing’at’the’gills), cries the blues to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over the claim that the respondent [ Marc Lemire] has been able to see their “moonbat” inspired closing argument.  

Simon Fothergill’s has become somewhat of a laughingstock in the Blogosphere [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] [here] over the legal argument he submitted to uphold Section 13 - Canada’s notorious thought crimes provision.  Journalist and fellow “human rights” violator, Ezra Levant tore to shreds, the piece of socialist garbage passed off as a legal argument.  Based on the testimony of “hate law” ├╝ber-advocate dr. Tsesis (whom Levant call the “nutty professor” and my all time favorite “moonbat”) and former B’nai Brith activist Karen Mock (whom Marc Lemire called a “hysterical zealot”)

  In today’s letter, Mr. Fothergill states:

  The Attorney General of Canada is a respondent to the constitutional challenge brought by Mr. Lemire to ss. 13, 54(1) and 54(1 .1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Attorney General has a right to reasonable notice of the case we are expected to meet, and to a reasonable opportunity to respond.

 Due to the late issuance of the Tribunal's decision to postpone the deadline, Mr. Lemire now has the benefit of the Attorney General's initial submissions when preparing his initial submissions, together with a further opportunity to reply by June 25, 2008. By contrast, the Attorney General will not receive Mr. Lemire's initial submissions until June 9, 2008, and will then have only until June 25, 2008 to reply. 

 The existing imbalance will only be exacerbated if Mr. Lemire is given until the end of August to file his initial submissions in relation to the constitutional issues.

 We reiterate that the Attorney General is a respondent to Mr. Lemire's constitutional challenge, and yet we find ourselves in the position of having filed our initial submissions while Mr. Lemire's initial submissions are not required until June 9,2008.

Given the real risk of unfairness [WTF!], and the already protracted nature of these proceedings, the Attorney General of Canada opposes Mr. Lemire's and other parties' request for a further postponement of the dates for filing written submissions and for presenting oral arguments.

(emphasis added)

See the full letter by Rob Nicolson’s – Attorney General of Canada staff


 [Can you imagine the NERVE…   the Attorney General complaining about a “real risk of unfairness”.   And this coming from the morons that want to make sure Truth and Intent are NO defence… DUUUH… unfairness... indeed]


Barbara Kulaszka Demolishes Attorney General


May 20, 2008

TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,

160 Elgin St. , 11th Floor,

Ottawa , ON K1A 1J4


Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405


To the Tribunal:

I have the letter of Mr. Fothergill of today’s date, for the Attorney General of Canada, regarding my request for rescheduling final submissions to the autumn.

I must correct Mr. Fothergill, who writes that the “Attorney General has a right to reasonable notice of the case we are expected to meet” and complains that due to the Tribunal’s decision to postpone deadlines, “ Mr. Lemire now has the benefit of the Attorney General’s initial submissions when preparing his initial submissions”.

The exact opposite is true.

The respondent filed his initial motion on the constitutional issues on December 6, 2005, over two years ago. The motion and supporting argument is some 24 pages long.

It is the Attorney General and opposing parties who have had the benefit of knowing the respondent’s position for two [and a half] full years before having to make a response.

Richard Warman and the Commission and the Attorney General and the Canadian Jewish Congress and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre knew exactly what the respondent was arguing and therefore what evidence he was interested in obtaining during the hearing. 

It was because of this initial motion that the Attorney General and the other interested parties intervened in the case.

The arguments which I will be filing will be Supplementary to the initial 2005 argument and will be based on the evidence from the hearing and the issues arising from such evidence. But the basic arguments made in 2005 remain unchanged as the basis of the respondent’s case.

The Attorney General has suffered no prejudice whatsoever.

Today I received the application by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association for interested party status.  This is Canada ’s most active and important civil liberties association today.

None of the material complained of on the Freedomsite remains on the site. I remind all parties that most of the material was removed even before Mr. Lemire had notice of the complaint. The rest was removed in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the matter after the complaint was received.

This case involves major constitutional issues and has disclosed evidence of violations of Canadians’ rights by the Commission. There is no need for a rush to judgment when the evidence is incomplete and major civil liberties associations are applying to provide this Tribunal with their submissions and expertise.

I would urge the Tribunal to set aside the dates set for June until all matters concerning disclosure, further calling of evidence and interested party applications are resolved.


Yours truly,

Barbara Kulaszka




  The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Active and Past cases: 46  |  Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37


·         NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case

·         98% of cases have poor or working class respondents

·         90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers

·         $99,000 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.



Groups, Writers and MPs that Support a Repeal of Section 13:


Liberal MP Keith Martin

Liberal MP Dan McTeague

Conservative MP James Rajotte

Conservative MP Bruce Stanton

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert

Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson

Conservative MP Lee Richardson

Ezra Levant

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Rex Murphy)


PEN Canada

CDN Association of Journalists

Mark Steyn (Macleans Magazine)

Calgary Herald

Western Standard Magazine

London Free Press

B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune

Sask Leader-Post

Deborah Gyapong

Calgary A M 770

Halifax Chronicle Herald (Paul Schneidereit)

Globe and Mail

National Post

David Warren (Ottawa Citizen)

Eye Magazine ( Toronto )

Toronto Star

Toronto Sun

Interim Magazine

Sault Ste. Marie – SooToday

Winnipeg Free Press

Oak Bay News

Victoria News

Catholic Insight Magazine

Catholic Register




Constitutional Challenge of Section 13











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

152 Carlton Street 

PO Box 92545 

Toronto, Ontario 

M5A 2K1