Biased and Unfair … Have the Tribunals become Kangaroo Courts?
In a ruling released today by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,
In another shockingly short decision written by Athanasios D. Hadjis, the Tribunal boots out the BCCLA:
 As was noted in that ruling as well, nothing prevents the BCCLA from sharing any specific arguments that it feels are relevant to the constitutional issue with those parties in this case who are challenging the constitutionality of ss. 13 and 54.
 The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association’s request is therefore denied.
CHRT | 2008 CHRT 22
A copy of the complete ruling can be found [here]
The BC Civil Liberties Association applied for Interested Party status on
The BCCLA put forward very strong legal positions which supported freedom of speech and the Charter of Rights. Just a few weeks ago, the BC Human Rights Tribunal granted the BCCLA standing. The BCCLA has unique expertise, which would have been invaluable to any tribunal that was mandated to seriously judge our most fundamental freedoms and constitutional guarantees.
The BCCLA’s position was succinct and powerful. The BCCLA “would argue that sections 13 and 54 of the Act infringe ss. 2(b), 7 and 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that these infringements cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.”
The BCCLA’s submission continued:
• Section 13 of the Act unreasonably infringes on freedom of expression as guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter.
• Sections 13 and 54(1)(c) create a criminal offence without providing the respondent with the defences common to analogous criminal offences or requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof of a culpable mental state (or mens rea), or a strict application of the rules of evidence and accordingly violate the respondent's rights under ss.7 and I I(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Section 13 creates an arbitrary distinction whereby an individual may be denied his/her rights under ss. 2(b) and 7 on the basis of using the internet or intranet as a medium of expression as opposed to other forms of media.
• The infringements of ss. 2(b), 7 and 11(d) are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter because the measures adopted are not rationally connected to the objective of the legislation and they fail to impair the abridged rights as minimally as possible.
This decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is the second to throw out Interested Party applications for those who are seeking to declare unconstitutional the censorship provisions of the “Human Rights” Act. The first was from the well respected, Canadian Constitutional Foundation.
The refusal of the Tribunal to allow the Canadian Constitution Foundation to have interested party status was also deeply prejudicial to [
Journalist and Blogger Ezra Levant described the CCF as “The CCF is a registered charity, with a sterling record of defending minority rights, ranging from Japanese-Canadian fishermen to a Nisga'a chief. Not only is the CCF comprised of true constitutional experts -- it even has Eugene
Hadjis --- A reasonable apprehension of BIAS?
The CJC was granted interested party status, over the protest of the victim –
On May 21, 2008, in a written submission on the Apprehension of Bias motion,
With the increasingly prejudicial rulings by the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, many in the public have openly questioned the veracity of
As for the judge, Athanios Hajdis was brisk but impatient. He knows how he's going to rule, and he appears eager to add
According to several blog reports, the Tribunal chair, Athanasios Hadjis, was visibly impatient, repeatedly saying "this case is closed". In real courts, it's up to the two sides to announce "we rest our case," not for a bored judge to merely declare it. But don't bother Hadjis with such trifles. He's not a judge, so why should he pretend to act like one?
Journalist and blogger Ezra Levant described Hadjis’s decision to not allow the Canadian Constitutional Foundation interested party status as “a repulsive blend of arrogance, laziness and prejudice.” Levant continued, “let's be honest: Hadjis is bored, and doesn't want to waste time going through the motions of a fair hearing, and the CCF means he potentially has hours of extra reading to do.”
Ezra Levant analyzed the real reason behind why Hadjis doesn’t want to allow in other interested parties:
On the other team we have
It's impressive how well that rag-tag team has done in the face of such overwhelming odds. But I don't think that a neutral observer would say that Lemire's team is "more than able" to match the force against them.
[The fact is, arrayed against Lemire are not only the entire resources of the federal Justice Department, but the eight-figure budget of the CHRC with a 170-person staff; and the other intervenors against him -- including two lawyers from the enormous firm Blake Cassels & Graydon.]
Pound for pound, it just hasn't been a fair fight. Which is exactly why Hadjis doesn't want the legal eagles from the CCF -- or anyone else, like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- coming in. Not just because, with the likes of Eugene
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal a Kangaroo Court?
Because of the unfair rules and questionable decisions by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, journalists from coast to coast have often referred to these quasi-legal Tribunals as “kangaroo courts” and “star chambers”. Every major newspaper in
Over the last few years, in a series of cases, human rights commissions have stretched the meaning of their codes to invariably rule against the right to free expression and in favour of those who claim their feelings have been hurt. Slowly, precedents have built up that are intimidating people into keeping silent. Now, media organizations routinely censor themselves for fear of being dragged in front of a tribunal, even going so far as to get people to sign forms where they promise not to offend anyone.
Western Standard | Censure the censors |
London Free Press | Freedom of the press attacked |
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 judgments on the basis of no fixed law.
Ottawa Citizen | Suing for silence |
Nonetheless, even in this craven environment,
These days in
Ottawa Citizen | The new totalitarians |
Human rights commissions are obsolete bodies whose moment has passed. That they can be exploited by a narrow lobby seeking to impose its doctrine upon other
Canadians is a serious problem.
Calgary Herald | Shut down the human rights commissions |
The liberticidal monster should have been strangled at birth -- but better late than never. By now Human Rights Commissions are populated with officials who speak disparagingly of "fundamentalist liberals" and describe free speech as an "American idea" with no weight in this country. They're dragging magazine and writer into their rank dragon's den for allegedly suggesting that Islamic culture is incompatible with
George Jonas | Turning out the lights on liberalism |
Created in the late 1970s,
Truro Daily News |