Here is the submission written by courageous defender of free speech – Barbara Kulaszka. In a submission on how the entire Tribunal is biased, she lays out the foolishness of having members “sensitive to human rights” and what that really means for victims like me. This submission is in response to a motion by the Canadian Association for Free Expression for
Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405
To the Tribunal:
This is the response of the motion filed by the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.:
1. Reasonable Apprehension of Bias:
The motion by CAFÉ raises the problem of the inherent and systemic bias of members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. People are appointed to the Tribunal because they have “sensitivity” to human rights pursuant to section 48.1 of the CHRA. Thus, the activity of the Chair in this case working with ethnic organizations and being part of ethnic organizations is not seen as a negative but as a reason why he would be appointed to this position.
There is a “human rights industry” and people who are part of this milieu are appointed to the Tribunal.
This does not mean that members are bad people or malicious towards others but it leads to a bias that simply is not recognized by its members.
Making arguments for freedom of speech in this milieu is like someone going to a feminist conference and arguing for the benefits to society of women staying home, making nutritious food for their children from scratch and home-schooling them. They would not be laughed out of the conference, they would be tarred and feathered as “dangers” to the progress of women’s rights. The feminists would not recognize their own biases or arrogance.
The respondent supports CAFÉ’s submissions that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias because of this, but he also recognizes that all members of the Tribunal would have equally biased backgrounds as a result of the appointment requirements. There is therefore no benefit to another member hearing either the motion or the case.
However, the actions of this Tribunal since January have caused increasing concern to the respondent.
The entire burden of arguing for a resumption of the hearing was put on the respondent. Only one day was scheduled for the hearing. A massive disclosure was made by the Commission after March 25th, yet this Tribunal constantly reiterates that the “case is done.”
The Commission announced blithely at the
I note for the record that I received more disclosure from the Commission last week.
The refusal of the Tribunal to allow the Canadian Constitution Foundation to have interested party status was also deeply prejudicial to the respondent and to the Canadian public. Section 13 is a violation of freedom of speech, as held in
This case became in essence a new case when the Commission decided, in the face of a judicial review before the Federal Court, to reveal that it has been using pseudonyms to post messages on message boards and to contact respondents and, further, to reveal its relationship with police services.
This resulted in the opening up of new disclosures and new avenues of evidence regarding issues which go to the heart of the constitutional arguments. The Commission is exchanging information with the police in a manner which could violate the rights of Canadians under section 7 and section 11 of the Charter.
The respondent is entitled to pursue this evidence, both through disclosure and the calling of evidence.
It is the hope of the respondent that the Tribunal will recognize that the Commission’s failure to abide by the Tribunal’s rules regarding disclosure in all of the section 13 cases, and the revelation of this fact on
Have The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission become just like the
Have The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission become just like theNazis ?
The Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Nazis targeted one race
The CHRC targets only working-class Whites, whose beliefs they disagree with
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…)
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.
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…”
The Nazis used the Gestapo to attack political opponents
The CHRC has benefited from the Police raiding people’s homes for alleged “hate”. No criminal charges come but the CHRC uses the seized material against victims before the Tribunal
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
The Nazis used Krystalnacht (Night of broken Glass) to attack their enemies