Monday, August 11, 2008

CHRC Censorship and Abuse: Charts on how Section 13 is used and abused

CHRC Censorship and Abuse

Charts on how Section 13 is used and abused

As part of Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a complete analysis was done as to how the censorship law is used, by who, and how this compares to the rest of the Act.

The charts that were produced are shocking.

Section 13 is the part of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which gives the power to the fanatical CHRC to censor words on the Internet and telephone answering machines. The rest of the human rights act deal specifically with actions. It mostly surrounds how federally regulated employers treat their employees our housing.

[Enlarge chart]

This chart shows that Section 13 is only a tiny portion of the complaints received by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. While Section 13 amounts to only a small 1% of complaints received, the CHRC considers it a high priority and assigns a huge amount of their resources on these cases.

The CHRC has sent lawyers to represent them in EVERY Section 13 case that has ever been heard before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (which is highly unusual compared to any other section of the Human Rights Act, where CHRC lawyers would only be involved in a small handful of cases every year)

[Enlarge Chart]

This is a chart of all other Sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act - excluding Section 13. Of the 5603 cases the Canadian Human Rights Commission has investigated, a high percentage - 64% are dismissed or settled at this stage.

Only a small, 11% were accepted and sent on to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

[Enlarge Chart]

This is a breakdown of Section 13 complaints received by the CHRC (* See note below). Only a tiny percentage (8%) of cases received are dismissed or settled. Compare that to the previous chart where 64% of cases are dismissed or settled.

The number of 68% of all Section 13 cases being sent to the Tribunal is in stark contrast to the rest of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In all other (non-Section 13) cases, only a mere 11% are sent on to a Tribunal.

Canada ’s "human rights" legislation was only envisioned as "remedial" in nature. Remedial is defined by Princeton ’s University’s online dictionary as “tending or intended to rectify or improve”.

In a 1990 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Taylor case, the legislation was never meant to assign any “moral blameworthiness” but rather direct its attention to redress and mediation. Thanks to the social engineers that staff the Human Rights Commission, in practice it has become the complete opposite. The law is now used by special interests to silence Canadians through a series of impact prosecutions which have a direct and chilling effect on freedom of speech and thought.


As amazing as it sounds. The Canadian Human Rights Commission files are in such disarray they don’t actually know how many Section 13 complaints they have even received. The number of 100 is largely a guess on how many have been received.

M argot Blight, a lawyer representing the CHRC in the Lemire hearings, stated on the record that:

M S. BLIGHT (CHRC Lawyer): M r. Chairman, may I add for the record that I am familiar with this as counsel for the Commission, and I can advise M s. Kulaszka and yourself that the number of 100 was based on the Commission's electronic recordkeeping system, and the Commission is not, in fact, able to conclusively confirm the accuracy of that number but it is the best number that the Commission has been able to produce based upon the records that it has at this time.

Lemire Transcripts. Volume: 24 | Page: 5266-5267

[Enlarge Chart]

CHRC cases face two guideposts. The first is a decision by the CHRC to send a case to the Tribunal, the second is a hearing before the Tribunal. At both stages, cases can be mediated.

For Section 13 cases, that have been sent on to the Tribunal, only a tiny number (10%) of them are mediated. This shows that the law is political and used to punish people.

For non-Section 13 cases, the number of mediated cases is huge. Up to 86% in 2006.

That really means that. Of the 11% of CHRC cases that went to a tribunal, 86% are mediated. Only an incredibly tiny number of non-Section 13 cases actually have to undergo a Tribunal hearing.

Most Section 13 cases actually go to a hearing. 68% of all complaints sent by the CHRC, then of those sent by the CHRC, a full 90% end up at a Tribunal hearing.

As journalist Ezra Levant has pointed out. The process itself has become the punishment. And this is especially so for anyone accused under Section 13.

[Enlarge Chart]

Since 1979, a full 90% of respondents under Section 13 have not been represented by legal counsel. Most of the people dragged before Tribunals can be classed as poor to extremely poor.

This shows that the case law and precedents that now make up the history of Section 13 were done on the backs of poor people and those that could not even afford to be represented by a lawyer. Because the system is very legal and complicated, many respondents who could not afford a lawyer, chose not to even bother to appear.

Legal precedents determine how a law is used and what it becomes.

These precedents are now being used against respondents like Macleans Magazine, Catholic Insight and many others. The chill on freedom of expression by these repulsive precedents is completely unacceptable.

[Enlarge Chart]

Section 13 is not wanted by most Canadians. After the first persecution under the act. 9-10 years passed before another hearing took place.

Since 2002, all of the cases on the above chart represent only complaints by Richard Warman.

This law has now become Warman's Law.

But do any average Canadians want this law? With 200+ newspapers editorials and opinions pieces since 2007 demanding the repeal of Section 13, it is clear the answer is a resounding NO.

[80 Page PDF File on Main Stream Media articles denouncing the Human Rights Commission]

[Enlarge Chart]

This is a chart of people who have filed complaints with the CHRC and have been referred to the Tribunal.

Each of these cases have a separate and unique file number with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (IE: The CHRC class them as individual complaints)

This shows who is using the law, and how many times they have used it.

For instance, take Richard Warman. He has filed 26 complaints, which have been referred to the Tribunal.

In the case of Richard Warman his complaints are:

· Marc Lemire

· Melissa Guille

· Canadian Heritage Alliance

· Alexan Kulbashian

· Affordable Web Space

· James Richardson

· Tri-City Skins (and CECT)

· Glenn Bahr

· Western Canada for Us

· Ciaran Paul Donnelly

· Jessica Beaumont

· Terry Tremaine

· Peter Kouba

· Craig Harrison

· Bobby Wilkinson

· Canadian Nazi Party

· Alexandro Di Civita

· Elizabeth Lampman

· WCOTC ( World Church of the Creator)

· Fred Kyburz

· Tomasz Winnicki

· Eldon Warman

· John Beck

· BC White Pride

· Jason Ouwendyk

· Northern Alliance

[Enlarge Chart]

This chart is an analysis of all cases where a Tribunal decision has been rendered since 1979.

This shows who is using the law.

64% of all complainants are by organizations and people who are lobbyists for a certain viewpoint.

This chart shows that this law is being used to silence people at the behest of special interest groups.

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