LEMIRE Hearing Day 3 - Media Wrap-up. National Post Editorial Board supports Free Speech
1: AM770 (
2: Globe and Mail: Ruling reserved in case to strike down section of Human Rights Act
3: National Post Editorial Board: At last a sane voice questions human rights bureaucracy
4: Globe and Mail: Lawyer spells out sweeping impact of ruling - Adverse decision would force shutdown of all Internet message boards, tribunal told
5: National Post: Hate speech law creates 'political elite': lawyer
6: National Post Editorial: Big Brother's unlikely critic
The Marc Lemire Case - Why It Matters
http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/TheWorldTonight/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10008430
(NOTE: An audio interview with Marc Lemire can be downloaded from this site)
The adjudicator has reserved his decision in the case of Marc Lemire's constitutional challenge of Section 13 (more at this post). Lemire was the subject of a human rights complaint filed under Section 13 - a complaint that was filed some five years ago. We spoke with Marc Lemire Tuesday night about his case - you can listen to that conversation via the player on the right.
Whatever one might think of Marc Lemire, he has suffered an injustice under the thumb of this complaint and the ongoing ordeal. Frankly, we never should have ever heard of Marc Lemire in the first place. Would anything really been accomplished by shutting down his websites and censoring him?
As you hear in the interview, Lemire rejects any suggestion that he's a bigot - and to be fair, the complain against him seems to stem from the words and postings of others. That said, his associations and his involvement on websites like Stormfront and Vanguard News Network are revealing (not to mention the creepy "white rights" banner included in a photo on his own website).
In any event, it shouldn't matter. Even if one finds Lemire offensive or the content on his website offensive, he's entitled to his freedom of speech - or at least should be.
This case, however, isn't just about Marc Lemire. As I've argued here, here, and here the implications of cases like this are far reaching indeed.
Take this, for instance:
Every Internet message board in the country will have to shut down if an
"It's preposterous," said
He warned that an adverse decision would prove destructive not just to a sprinkling of characters on the "lunatic fringe," but to mainstream newspapers, magazines and other institutions that have launched online message boards and chat rooms.
Mr. Christie said a single paragraph on a newspaper website, left on an Internet message board for just a minute or two, could generate a complaint that would spawn three years of human-rights litigation.
And the lawyer for the
Mr. Hadjis questioned whether it is fair, in general, to hold Web site owners accountable for what others may write in their comment sections, possibly without their knowledge, consent or endorsement.
He used the example of the CBC, which operates several chat forums for readers to discuss news stories, and asked what would happen if a hateful message somehow got past automatic filters and live editors.
Without commenting on the CBC directly, Ms. Blight said there is no "free pass" for anyone.
"No free pass for anyone" - there it is. That's why we all have a vested interest in this case.
Keep in mind that under Section 13, intent doesn't matter. So if I wrote a post about racist bigots, and someone posted a racist, bigoted comment, perhaps I would leave it there as an example of the sort of bigotry I was talking about. But since "no one gets a free pass", I could be held liable.
Or let's say that bigoted comment wasn't really from a bigot at all, but someone trying to get me in trouble. It's very easy to use an anonymous pseudonym and write whatever you want to write. It follows, then, that it would be very easy to post numerous racist comments on a blog or forum or chatroom and then turn around and declare that blog or forum or chatroom to be racist.
And what counts as offensive or bigoted? That, too, could be subjective since Section 13 speaks of content that is "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" - as we've seen in the cases of Maclean's magazine and the Western Standard, there are those who take that definition pretty far.
Mr. Christie makes an interesting point:
...(Christie) cited various historical issues that, if discussed truthfully, could conceivably expose certain groups to hatred: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, the battles of Waterloo and Tours, the Charge of the Light Brigade and the War of the Roses.
The Criminal Code restrictions on speech are sufficient - scrap Section 13.
---------------
Ruling reserved in case to strike down section of Human Rights Act
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080917.wlemire0917/BNStory/National/home
Globe and Mail Update
September 17, 2008 at 6:40 PM EDT
“The road to Auschwitz was paved with hate propaganda, Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” said Marvin Kutz – a lawyer for B'nai Brith
Mr. Lemire and his supporters have asked tribunal commissioner Athansios Hadjis to strike down Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which permits a complainant to launch a human rights proceeding against anyone has allegedly promoted contempt or hate towards an identifiable group.
They claim that the section infringes the Charter right to free speech, chilling open debate and leaving individuals vulnerable to harsh punishment simply for participating in heated discussion.
However, Mr. Kurz argued that Section 13 is a vital weapon in the Internet age, when minorities can be mocked, belittled and threatened instantaneously with a single key-stroke.
“It isn't a matter of scare-mongering to say that the Holocaust wasn't a unique event in history,” Mr. Kurz said. “Allowing the spread of hate is what permits the next level to occur. Society needs to deal with it in a civil context first, so that it doesn't get to a criminal context.”
Steven Skurka, a lawyer for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies and the
“We support the right to offend and the right to be offensive,” Mr. Skurka said. He said that Section 13 only comes into play after healthy debate has been manipulated into the active promotion of hatred toward a vulnerable group.
“Our ultimate submission is that hate propaganda does nothing to advance freedom of expression and is antithetical to the values of
A lawyer for the federal Justice Department, Simon Fothergill, endorsed the notion that hate speech can have a tangibly negative effect on those who hear it.
“Hate speech does, indeed, cause crime – and crime of a very serious nature,” he said.
Mr. Fothergill said that it is absurd to suggest that it impossible to debate major historical events without running the risk of offending a particular religion or cultural group: “There's so much one could say without ever getting close to that line,” he said.
He also laughed off the notion that Internet messages boards will become impossible to operate if Section 13 complaints are allowed to continue. Webmasters or operators can place disclaimers on their site and apologize for offensive material that inadvertently gets on their site, he said.
“If you are operating a website that deals with [offensive] subject matter … you might want to take extra precautions,” he added.
“Every religion is going to start using it,” she warned. “Just look at the first Muslim complaint in 30 years. Everyone went nuts. The media woke up, and said: ‘It isn't just Ernst Zundel and his creepy right-wingers being attacked. They are going to come after us.'
“You're going to be caught in the cross-hairs,” she cautioned.
An intervenor who supports Mr. Lemire – Paul Fromm – told Mr. Hadjis that virtually all of those targeted in Section 13 complaints have been modestly educated, “lower-class” individuals who tended to phrase objections to immigrants or particular groups in crude, hyperbolic “bar talk.”
“Not everyone can speak like an Osgoode Hall-educated lawyer, with nuances and exceptions, and so on,” Mr. Fromm said.
He also denounced a CHRC lawyer for saying earlier this week that racial jokes ought to be fair game for Section 13 complaints: “My response is that to condemn jokes is going pretty far down the road to the old
Mr. Fromm also criticized the fact that 100 per cent of the Section 13 complaints referred to tribunals by the
However, Mr. Kurz said that Mr. Fromm's “scurrilous attack on the tribunals' integrity” was misplaced. Rather, the CHRC success rate shows that it only targets material that contains “incredibly awful” elements of hatred, Mr. Kurz said.
Mr. Kurz also argued that a recent complaint by Muslim groups against was dismissed by the Commission not because it had been cowed by a public and media backlash, but because it was without merit.
Mr. Hadjis has reserved his ruling.
National Post Editorial Board: At last a sane voice questions human rights bureaucracy
Posted: September 17, 2008, 9:30 AM by Kelly McParland
Mr. Lemire is challenging section 13 of the
But more importantly, the test of s. 13’s status as a “reasonable” infringement on free expression when it comes to telephone message machines needs to be performed anew with the Internet in mind. According to established constitutional law, the government must show that the section is rationally connected to its objective of protecting minorities, and that it does not have serious unintended chilling effects on expressive freedom. We can think of several examples plucked from this year’s headlines that go straight to this question: Anyone who has followed the human rights industry’s prosecution of Maclean’s and Western Standard magazines cannot seriously contend that speech has not been chilled in this country by censorious bureaucrats armed with s. 13 (and its provincial equivalents).
It’s unclear how s. 13 could be salvaged. On one hand, any limit to free expression that is likely to be ineffective or applied selectively, as the CHRT’s Internet witch hunts arguably are, will not and should not survive Charter scrutiny. And, as Mr. Hadjis points out, the same is true of any statutory measure which leaves too large a “grey zone” for Internet commenters to fall into, or which imposes an unfair burden on Webmasters who must police long comment threads or large forums for anonymous hatred.
However offensive his views are to
National Post
Lawyer spells out sweeping impact of ruling
Adverse decision would force shutdown of all Internet message boards, tribunal told
JUSTICE REPORTER
September 17, 2008
Every Internet message board in the country will have to shut down if an
"It's preposterous," said
He warned that an adverse decision would prove destructive not just to a sprinkling of characters on the "lunatic fringe," but to mainstream newspapers, magazines and other institutions that have launched online message boards and chat rooms.
Mr. Christie said a single paragraph on a newspaper website, left on an Internet message board for just a minute or two, could generate a complaint that would spawn three years of human-rights litigation.
His comments came in a closing submission to tribunal commissioner Athanasios Hadjis, who must decide whether Mr. Lemire should be held liable for posted material that ridiculed and belittled Jews, blacks, Italians, homosexuals and other groups.
Mr. Christie also warned against closing an important valve on heated expressions of dissent: "If you don't allow the ventilation and expression of extreme views, the alternative is extreme action," he cautioned.
"This is one of the most important decisions that could ever be made by this tribunal," Mr. Christie added. "What is at stake is control of the media of communications. The effect of this legislation is to create a political elite who can alone communicate their views - and decide who else can do so."
He also disparaged the
Mr. Christie branded it a "politically convenient" decision issued by bureaucrats who had been cowed by a fierce attack mounted by mainstream media over the Steyn complaint.
"They dismissed the complaint and waved it around, saying: 'See? Aren't we fair?' "
The lawyer accused the commission of steadily throttling free speech, and said that every historical debate worth having - from the rightness of the Crusades to Genghis Khan's sacking of portions of
"What controversial statement isn't seen as vile by somebody?" he asked. "Different religious groups are now aware that they can use this law for their own religious ends.
"It's so easy. It's a beautiful system for destroying your enemies. ... But the truth is more important than anyone's hurt feelings."
However, Mr. Christie also warned that the very groups who launch complaints to silence their critics may soon find that the tables have turned on them, should their opponents choose to adopt the same tactic.
A lawyer for Mr. Lemire,
She also attacked the complainant in the Lemire case - Richard Warman - for allegedly making a career out of filing complaints that tie up in costly litigation those whose politics he dislikes. Ms. Kulaszka said Mr. Warman has targeted 26 individuals in his complaints.
Noting that Mr. Warman used to work as an investigator for the commission, Ms. Kulaszka accused him of coaching one of his successors in how to investigate and to use material against Mr. Lemire.
Hate speech law creates 'political elite': lawyer
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=794950
OAKVILLE - Canada's human rights hate speech laws can, and eventually will, prohibit discussion of any historical conflict in which religion or race played a role, according to a leading defender of Canada's most notorious far-right figures.
Doug Christie, addressing the hate speech hearing of freedomsite.orgWeb master Marc Lemire on behalf of the
"We believe what is at stake is control of the media, because now the Internet is the home for Maclean's magazine, the National Post, and not just what used to be called the lunatic fringe," Mr. Christie said.
Mr. Christie is best known as a defence advocate in high-profile cases such as those against anti-Semitic teachers James Keegstra and
Mr. Lemire is accused under this law concerning messages posted by other people on the long-defunct chat forum of his Web site; for a satirical poem about immigrants he posted on a U. S. white supremacist Web site; and for his alleged involvement with jrbooksonline.com,a clearing-house for historical articles on white supremacist or anti-Semitic themes, such as Henry Ford's The International Jew. Although Mr. Lemire's name was once listed as an administrative contact, he says he set the site up for an unidentified American.
Mr. Christie said the
"True belief is intolerant and conflict is inevitable where people believe different things," he said.
In a rhetorical flourish, he cited various historical issues that, if discussed truthfully, could conceivably expose certain groups to hatred: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, the battles of
Mr. Christie compared Richard Warman, a former
He said the
Final submissions in Mr. Lemire's case are expected to conclude today, nearly five years after the complaint was filed.
Big Brother's unlikely critic
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=794956
Mr. Lemire is challenging section 13 of the
But more importantly, the test of s. 13's status as a "reasonable" infringement on free expression when it comes to telephone message machines needs to be performed anew with the Internet in mind. According to established constitutional law, the government must show that the section is rationally connected to its objective of protecting minorities, and that it does not have serious unintended chilling effects on expressive freedom. We can think of several examples plucked from this year's headlines that go straight to this question: Anyone who has followed the human rights industry's prosecution of Maclean's and Western Standard magazines cannot seriously contend that speech has not been chilled in this country by censorious bureaucrats armed with s. 13 (and its provincial equivalents).
It's unclear how s. 13 could be salvaged. On one hand, any limit to free expression that is likely to be ineffective or applied selectively, as the CHRT's Internet witch hunts arguably are, will not and should not survive Charter scrutiny. And, as Mr. Hadjis points out, the same is true of any statutory measure which leaves too large a "grey zone" for Internet commenters to fall into, or which imposes an unfair burden on Webmasters who must police long comment threads or large forums for anonymous hatred.
However offensive his views are to
