Sunday, September 20, 2009

MACLEANS: Harper must act now to protect free speech (Repeal Section 13)

Harper must act now to protect free speech

The Prime Minister admits there's a problem. And he says he doesn't have a clue how to fix it.


MACLEANS MAGAZING |  The Editors on Sunday, September 20, 2009



Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them.

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society," he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O'Neill of BC Report newsmagazine." It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." He went on to complain about the "bastardization" of the entire concept of rights in modern society.

Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he's Canada's 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.

In an interview this past January with Maclean's, the Prime Minister was asked what, if anything, he intended to do to halt the encroachment on individual freedom by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the name of regulating hate speech.

It is an issue of crucial importance to this country and our strongly held traditions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

This magazine understands only too well the dangers involved in putting those rights at risk. Following a 2006 cover story by columnist Mark Steyn titled "Why the future belongs to Islam," we were visited by a group of law students from the Canadian Islamic Congress. We were given the option of handing over editorial control of our pages for a rebuttal to Steyn's piece or face a series of human rights complaints. As the first option was anathema to our obligations to our readers, the students launched their complaints.

That we were vindicated in all instances, notwithstanding the Ontario Human Rights Commission's attempt at an unofficial smear, is beside the point. Under the guise of human rights, the ability of any news organization to produce truthful and reasoned articles was questioned by a variety of government bodies. Scary stuff indeed.

So we asked Harper if he intended to correct this threat to the basic existence of a democratic society.

"The government has no plans to do so," was his casual reply. "It is a very tricky issue of public policy . . . It's probably the case that we haven't got the balance right, but I'm not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be."

To summarize: the issue of human rights commissions running amok over Canadians' basic rights and freedoms is something Harper has followed—closely and with obvious passion—for at least a decade. As Prime Minister he admits it is still a problem. And he says he doesn't have a clue how to fix it.

We do. He should repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

A wave of informed opinion and public sentiment is in agreement that the CHRC and other provincial rights bodies have become a menace to many of the freedoms Canadians consider central to our way of life. Besides, even if we are concerned with the possible proliferation of hate speech, Section 13 is wholly unnecessary.

In 1970 the Criminal Code was amended to outlaw the promotion of genocide and the distribution of hate propaganda. Penalties of fines and jail terms were established, but the rights of the accused were also protected through due process, a need to prove intent and, crucially, the defence of truth.

Parliament later created the Canadian Human Rights Commission to cover a variety of potential discriminatory practices in Canada. Section 13 of the act deals with the transmission of materials "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred." As this body was intended to be conciliatory and to rely on cease and desist orders for enforcement, its legal standards are set lower than in the Criminal Code; due process is missing, intent is not necessary to prove, and truth is not considered a defence for the accused.

The constitutionality of Section 13 was tested in 1990 in the Supreme Court's Canada v. Taylor decision. A narrow split decision found that due to the CHRC's remedial nature, it was not a threat to free speech. A dissenting opinion, however, written by current Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, worried that Section 13 was "too broad and too invasive" and so "intrudes on the fundamental freedom of expression."

Since then, the scope of the CHRC has grown in many worrisome and unexpected ways. In particular, it can now levy fines and impose other punishments. And the CHRC staff has become fixated on aggressively pursuing Section 13 cases. Approximately 11 per cent of all complaints made to the CHRC are sent to a tribunal for a hearing. The rest are dismissed or settled "out-of-court." Among Section 13 complaints, however, 68 per cent are sent to tribunal.

This means the CHRC is now engaged in punishing offenders in ways the Supreme Court never imagined. And thanks to the lower legal standard of proof and lack of due process, the accused is often unable to mount an effective defence. McLachlin's fears have become reality.

Following widespread public outrage regarding the obvious zealotry at the CHRC, and the complaints made against this magazine, last year the CHRC commissioned academic Richard Moon for an opinion on Section 13. He concluded it should be repealed. The Criminal Code already does everything necessary to keep Canadians safe from hate speech, he said, and in a way that properly protects the rights of the accused. All Section 13 does is trample on the rights of Canadians to hold views that the CHRC disapproves of.

Rather than accept Moon's sensible recommendation, the CHRC instead released its own in-house report this June. Its review of itself called for Section 13 to be maintained.

Then, this year, Section 13 came under further scrutiny from within the human rights apparatus. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision in March cast a scolding eye on CHRC investigatory practices and, in particular, serial complainant Richard Warman, who acknowledged placing inflammatory messages on Internet sites under a variety of aliases. The tribunal found these actions to be "disturbing."

And earlier this month, another nail in Section 13's coffin. All complaints in a long-standing case against webmaster Marc Lemire were dropped for constitutional reasons.

After Warman spotted some allegedly offensive articles on one of Lemire's websites, Lemire removed them and repeatedly offered to seek conciliation. This was refused. It became clear to Athanasios Hadjis, the tribunal vice-chair who issued the ruling, that it was the CHRC's intent to punish Lemire, not mediate. In doing so, the CHRC had mutated far beyond what was contemplated in the Supreme Court's Taylor ruling. Section 13 now violates Lemire's basic Charter rights of freedom of expression. Since it's beyond Hadjis's powers to declare the law unconstitutional, he said he would simply choose to ignore it.

A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has thus decided Section 13 is so badly flawed and abused that it will pretend the law doesn't exist. The CHRC has remained mute on this crippling blow.

To complete the demolition of Section 13, Harper must now amend the legislation. Besides reflecting common sense and current facts, it will prove to be a popular move.

A proposal to repeal Section 13 received near-unanimous approval at a 2008 Conservative party conference, and enjoys support from several key cabinet ministers. It is also an issue that crosses political divides. Even the perennially left-wing editorial board of the Toronto Star has endorsed an end to Section 13, saying it "isn't salvageable."

While certain lobby groups courted by Harper and the Conservative party, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, are outspoken in support of Section 13, this certainly does not imply monolithic support among all minority groups. For example, many prominent Jewish advocates of human rights legislation, including Alan Borovoy, who was involved in establishing the CHRC, have spoken out about the errors of Section 13.

And Harper himself appears to accept Moon's point that the Criminal Code makes Section 13 redundant. In receiving the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award from the Canadian Jewish Congress last year, Harper called the Criminal Code an "effective legal weapon against naked hate-mongering, without compromising the elemental right to freedom of expression." If the Criminal Code is so effective, why do we need Section 13?

Of course the blame for Section 13's continued existence does not rest solely with Harper, particularly in a minority government.

Michael Ignatieff has also been a profound disappointment. As a prolific writer and celebrated thinker previous to his political career, one would expect the Liberal leader to be a passionate defender of the right of Canadians to express reasoned and informed views, regardless of whom they might offend.

And yet, he has shrugged off responsibility and left the issue to his backbench. Last year Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a private member's motion calling for the repeal of Section 13, but it languishes at the bottom of the Liberal priority list. (The top Liberal priority appears to be a motion supporting a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.) Why has Ignatieff not adopted Martin's position as official party policy? Or moved his motion up in significance?

Academic and popular opinion is solidly behind removal of Section 13. It is an unnecessary measure for protecting Canadians from hate speech, and represents a clear threat to freedom of speech. It's also clear the CHRC has expanded its powers far beyond the limits considered to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1990. And now even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has declared the law unconstitutional. The only real problem left appears to be a lack of political leadership to make the change.

Parliament needs to repeal Section 13.



Friday, September 18, 2009

Why did the CHRC attack Marc Lemire? Was it really to silence a critic and shut down his website?

Why did the CHRC attack Marc Lemire? 

Was it really to silence a critic and shut down his website?


In November 2003, serial plaintiff and former CHRC employee Richard Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against Marc Lemire.  After a six year battle before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, on September 2, 2009, Section 13 and 54 was declared unconstitutional.


A series of events occurred in 2003, which could provide the context as to why the Canadian Human Rights Commission was so desperate to shut down Marc Lemire’s website – the Freedomsite.


Back in 2003, Lemire ran one of the only Canadian internet sites that were highly critical of censorship and especially the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  The Freedomsite carried hundreds of commentaries and news items, which were exposing the CHRC’s ravenous censorship which targeted victims like Ernst Zundel, Mark Schnell, Tony Mcaleer, Tomasz Winnicki and many others.


Here are just a few events which took place, in the immediate timeframe that Richard Warman filed his complaint against Marc Lemire.  Warman filed the complaint on Nov 24, 2003.



  • In September of 2003, several messages were posted on written by Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, which set out the activities of Mr. Warman in laying a complaint against a London man named T. Winnicki and Bell Canada and his libel action against a group called Northern Alliance. These messages and the others detailed in the paragraphs following also were sent out on the Freedomsite mailing list, of which Mr. Warman was a subscriber.


  • In October of 2003, a message was posted on announcing a protest which was being organized by the Canadian Association of Free Expression against the government funding of ACensorship Advocates@, including Mr. Warman, in Victoria, British Columbia. A second message was posted on October 28, 2003 giving an account of the protest in Victoria, BC, where Mr. Warman and Mr. Adler of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre spoke about the Internet.


  • On October 29, 2003, a message was posted on which announced that CAFÉ would be holding a protest of the actions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, including one of its employees, Richard Warman, in suppressing free speech on the Internet.


  • On October 31, 2003, a message was posted on which provided a summary of a press conference given in the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa by Paul Fromm regarding the what it termed the Aextensive campaign of harassment against dissident websites by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and by one of its lawyers, Richard Warman...@  Two men, Tom Kennedy and Jason Oewendyk, appeared with Mr. Fromm at the press conference and were described in the summary as Avictims of Richard Warman.@ The message outlined various activities of Mr. Warman in attempting to shut down meetings and websites.  [Note:  Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against Ouewendyk and sued Fromm for Libel.  Melissa Guille was also present at the press conference, and Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against her]


  • On Nov. 2, 2003, a message was posted on entitled AWarman on the Warpath - Threatens CAFÉ@ which stated that Richard Warman had served Paul Fromm and CAFÉ with a Notice under the Libel and Slander Act of Ontario alleging that words defamatory of Mr. Warman had been posted on the The notice demanded that a retraction be published on the and on the freedomsite email announcement list.


  • On Nov. 2, 2003, a message was posted on the which was the text of the CAFÉ press conference in Ottawa in the Parliamentary Press Gallery on Internet censorship.


  • On Nov. 12, 2003, a message was posted on entitled ACAFÉ complaint against CHRC lawyer Richard Warman.@ The message set out a letter which Paul Fromm, director of CAFÉ, had sent to Chief Commissioner Mary Gusella by fax on Nov. 11, 2003 in which Mr. Fromm lodged a formal complaint against Mr. Warman who worked as a investigator for the Commission. The complaint alleged that Mr. Warman was Ausing his position at the Commission to carry on an ideological vendetta against people whose views he disagrees with...@  Mr. Fromm listed Mr. Warman=s recent activities and demanded an investigation of his behaviour which he stated harmed the integrity of the Commission.


  • On Nov. 11, 2003, the same day Mr. Fromm faxed his letter of complaint to the Commission, Mr. Warman visited the Freedomsite website message board, looking for and finding messages which he would include in the complaint against Marc Lemire. He returned to the site on November 15 and 23, 2003 to find further matters to include in the complaint.


  • On Nov 24, 2003, Richard Warman filed a Section 13 complaint against Marc Lemire with his employer – the Canadian Human Rights Commission.



Was Marc Lemire attacked to simply shut him up and his website down?


You decide.





What happened next?


The Commission did not follow the normal procedure used in screening complaints in handling this complaint. For instance, Mr. Warman was not required to contact Mr. Lemire in order to see if the matter could be settled privately.  Attempts at mediation by Mr. Lemire failed.  (See Lemire decision.  Para 284 and 289)


The Commission itself had an interest in shutting down a website active in criticizing one of its investigators activities and which was leading to controversy about the Commission and its activities under section 13.


On the day Mr. Fromm=s complaint was lodged with the Commission, Mr. Warman logged onto the Freedomsite Message Board and started printing off material which would be used in his Section 13 complaint against Lemire.


On Jan. 2, 2004, a message was posted on entitled AComplaint Against Warman filed with Law Society.@ The message was the text of a complaint filed by Mr. Gordon Watson concerning Mr. Warman=s activities in stopping meetings of the Tax Honesty Movement on the grounds of anti-Semitism.


On March 18, 2004, a message was posted on announcing that Mr. Warman had sued Paul Fromm and CAFÉ and setting out a copy of the Statement of Claim.


On March 25, 2004, the respondent Mr. Lemire received notice of the complaint of Mr. Warman.





MACLEANS: It took a while but Section 13 is dead (Mark Steyn takes on the CHRC and censors)

It took a while but Section 13 is dead

Sep 17, 2009 by Mark Steyn |




“Nice to see you all,” said Athanasios Hadjis, the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal’s vice-chair (i.e., judge), as he surveyed his courtroom in Ottawa last year. “More of an interest than there was before.”

Indeed. The packed benches that greeted him were a rare sight at a CHRT trial, and especially at the Marc Lemire trial, where the prosecutors—the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission—had demanded that everyone other than them be banned from the courtroom, including the defendant, who would be graciously permitted to watch proceedings by video. That doesn’t sound quite like the right to confront your accuser in open court. But hey, given all the other safeguards of Canada’s judicial inheritance the Dominion’s “human rights” regime trashes, what’s one more faggot on the bonfire of liberties?

Judge Hadjis was, by that stage, in the fifth year of the Canadian state’s investigation of Marc Lemire, webmaster of and accused Section 13 hate-monger, and appeared from my seat in court anxious to throw the book at him. “We’re done,” he said at several points during the day, swatting aside some intervention or other. Jurisprudentially, Judge Hadjis was outta there and eager to add Mr. Lemire’s scalp to the CHRT’s trophy room. In that long ago spring of 2008, the rules were very simple: under the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, to be accused of a Section 13 thought crime was to be convicted. In the entire history of Section 13, every defendant brought before the CHRT had been found guilty. It would be unfair to compare this to the justice systems of Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot, since even those eminent jurists felt obliged to let someone off once in a while just for appearances’ sake. Only in Canada was a 100 per cent conviction rate merely reassuring proof of the Dominion’s humane progressive commitment to “human rights.”

This month the wheels fell off the racket. On Sept. 2, Athanasios Hadjis in effect acquitted Marc Lemire of all charges but one. This unprecedented verdict is, as Joseph Brean reported in the National Post, “the first major failure of Section 13(i)” in its history. Was Mr. Lemire the beneficiary of a unique dispensation from the CHRT? No. Judge Hadjis pronounced the accused guilty of a Section 13 infringement on one narrow charge—an Internet post headlined “AIDS Secrets” that (in David Warren’s words) “went on rather tendentiously about blacks and homosexuals” and was written by someone other than Mr. Lemire. Nevertheless, the court declined to punish the defendant even for this infraction on the following grounds:

“I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.”

Before I attracted the attention of the thought police, I wasn’t entirely up to speed on state censorship in Canada, and I asked my friend Ezra Levant what he knew about this Section 13 business. He sent me a printout with the history of every single case. Two things stood out: first, while the plaintiffs had the costs of the case paid for by the taxpayer, almost all of the defendants had been too poor to have legal representation. That’s an inversion of basic justice. Second, one man had been the plaintiff on every single Section 13 case since 2002—Richard Warman. That didn’t pass the smell test.

The list had been compiled by someone called Marc Lemire, a man who’d been caught in the “human rights” crosshairs for half a decade. You might not care for his opinions, but that, as they say, is a matter of opinion. That he has been traduced by the Canadian justice system is a matter of fact. But he’s a dogged type, and he pushed back, and he got the goods on his abusers. He demonstrated that evidence exhibits were switched in mid-trial by the CHRC. He proved that Warman and CHRC investigator Dean Steacy were themselves members of and posters on white supremacist websites under various aliases. Indeed, in a remarkable conflict of interest, Warman, as the plaintiff, was permitted to stroll into the CHRC, the investigating body, and share passwords and Internet aliases with Steacy.

But Mr. Lemire was too obscure a figure to get any publicity for the CHRC’s procedural abuses and kinky penchant for playing dress-up Nazis on the Internet at taxpayer expense all too long. One day, as I was rummaging agog through what he’d uncovered, I came across a ruling by Judge Hadjis agreeing to the CHRC’s motion to close Mr. Lemire’s hearing to the public. I stopped, rubbed my eyes, and reread it slowly: secret trials? In Canada? Over some unread Internet posts? Apparently so. Minor servants of the Crown in dull desk-bound jobs had decided that they were really cyber-007s whose top secret work was vital to national security. I emailed Ken Whyte and said I’d been overcome by a sudden yen to attend Judge Hadjis’s court. Our counsel, Julian Porter, Q.C., filed a motion to open up the secret trial. He did what lawyers are supposed to do—he cited precedent (CBC vs. New Brunswick, Ambard vs. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago) and eminent jurists from Viscount Haldane to Chief Justice Dickson. In response, the CHRC offered feverish fantasies insisting that their work was too dangerous to be exposed to open court. Judge Hadjis caved, and rescinded his secret-trial order.

So now he’s caved again, and the jurist who thought nothing of lifetime publication bans is a born-again champion of constitutional freedom. Whatever.

See the full article here:




Thursday, September 17, 2009

Stephen Boissoin challenges Human Rights Industry in Alberta

Stephen Boissoin is a pastor in Red Deer Alberta, and back in 2002 wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate, wherein he made comments about homosexuals and “homosexuality’s wicked agenda.”   As a result of this letter, a local busybody filed a “hate” complaint against Mr. Boissoin with the Alberta “Human Rights” Commission.  After a lengthy hearing in 2007, a human rights Tribunal found Mr. Boissoin promoted hate, and ordered him to pay $7,000 in “damages” and ordered him to apologize.


Thankfully, Mr. Boissoin appealed this ridiculous decision by the Human rights censors.


On September 16th and 17th, the appeal is being held at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench.


Let hope Mr. Boissoin can scrap the censorious Alberta law and ring the bell for Freedom in Alberta, just like Marc Lemire was able to by defeating the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.



If you would like to assist Mr. Boissoin in his legal challenge, PayPal donations can be made at:




More information on the legal challenge to Alberta’s censorship law:






Thursday, September 10, 2009

The CHRC in a State of Confusion over Lemire Decision. What will happen now?

The CHRC in a State of Confusion


With the recent Lemire decision to find that Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional; the Canadian Human Rights Commission fanatics are in a complete state of confusion.


In a letter written on September 9, 2009 by Chief Persecutor Daniel Poulin, he states that the CHRC has yet to interpret the decision in the Lemire case.  Could this mean the CHRC plans to just ignore the Lemire decision, and continue with their campaign of censorship and subterfuge?


Letter by CHRC lawyer – Daniel Poulin

Dear Tribunal and Parties,

The present follows a number of emails and letters from the parties and interveners in the present case regarding the Charter issue and more particularly the recent decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Warman v Lemire.

At this time, I have yet to receive specific instructions from the Commission as to the position to be taken in interpreting the decision of Warman v Lemire.  Consequently, I am unable to make submissions on that matter at this time.  As soon as I have receive instructions, I will communicate with the parties to express the Commission's position.

Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission DANIEL.POULIN@CHRC-CCDP.CA



It appears that Daniel Poulin has been moved into the position of Chief Persecutor, after an unfortunate breakdown of “Mental Serenity” by Giacomo Vigna.



What will happen now in the Lemire case?


The countdown has been initiated.  From the time of the decision, there is a 30 day window for an appeal. 


As of today, there are only 23 days left for an appeal of the Lemire decision.   The final date for any appeal, has to be commenced before Oct 2, 2009.


The only ones that can appeal this decision are:


  • Canadian Human Rights Commission:   Will they throw more tax-payers money down the drain to prop up their censorship franchise?
  • Attorney General of Canada:  A letter writing campaign has been started by FreeDominion and conservative bloggers to have the AG accept the decision of the Tribunal.  The AG, Rob Nicholson, has also voted to rid Canada of Section 13 at the 2009 Conservative Policy Convention
  • Richard Warman:  Highly doubtful that Warman would actually spend any of his own money to appeal the decision



23 days and counting….








Click here to donate to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defence Fund

Every single cent raises goes directly to this case and the legal defence fund.



Booklets on Lemire case are available for order online:


  • Hate Laws Debunked:  Exposing the junk science behind "hate" legislation[$15]
  • Challenging the Internet Censors:  Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act [$15]
  • In Defence of Freedom:  Marc Lemire Vs. The Canadian "Human Rights" Enforcers [$20]




Freedomsite Blog

Canadian Human Rights Commission Exposed!





Conservative MP Rob Anders - Hammers Section 13 Censorship [A MUST read!]

Conservative MP Rob Anders has done a great service to his constituents, and put out a series of flyers which expose the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the fanatical censors they are.

These are a must read, and nicely boil down many of the arguments which were recently used by Marc Lemire and his lawyer Barbara Kulaszka to have this disgusting censorship law declared unconstitutional.

[Discussion on this flyer on FreeDominion]


And surprise surprise... the reaction from the grievance hucksters?

Calgary MP’s brochure raises Muslim ire

CALGARY — A political pamphlet from a Conservative MP that urges changes to federal human rights legislation has raised the ire of Calgary’s largest Muslim organization, which views the dispatch to residents as inflammatory and divisive.

David Liepert, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Calgary, contends Calgary West’s Rob Anders crossed the line and made inaccurate statements unfairly targeting the Muslim community in a pamphlet that arrived earlier this month at some homes in the riding. The longtime MP, however, disputes the contention that his pamphlet is inflammatory.

In an Anders’ communique, one of 10 different versions mailed out, he claims: “It is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Muslim activists,” and “under Section 13 of the so-called ‘human rights’ code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Muslim imams and liberal activists.”

“He’s basically spread misinformation among his constituents about a large proportion of his constituency because there are many Muslims living in his area,” Liepert said Tuesday.

“Any time you have a politician who, for political gain, targets a minority group with disinformation, it’s something that I think needs to be addressed.”

The Muslim Council of Calgary, which represents 10 mosques and 60,000 Sunni Muslims, has voiced its concerns to Anders’ office. The group has also invited the MP to attend a mosque in the riding Friday to discuss the matter and for Ramadan iftaar, a fast-breaking dinner.

Anders hasn’t yet decided whether to accept the invitation. He said he stands by the text of his pamphlet. “We were very careful to be very factual.”

The MP is attempting to drum up support to scrap Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which deals with complaints about hate messages disseminated over telephone or the Internet.

“It’s fair-minded of us to question Section 13 and its restrictions on the freedom of speech, particularly in light of the decisions that have down as of late,” he said, citing human rights complaints against Ezra Levant, a former publisher of the Western Standard magazine, and Maclean’s magazine.

Anders also pointed to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision this month that found Section 13 is an unconstitutional violation of the charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.

Rest at:

CATHOLIC INSIGHT: Open letter to the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice - Don't Appeal Lemire decision



Open letter to the Honourable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice
By Fr. Alphonse de Valk

Hardcopy Issue Date:
Online Publication Date: Sep 9, 2009, 13:12

September 09, 2009


The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

284 Wellington Street

Ottawa, Ontario

Canada  K1A 0H8



Dear Mr. Nicholson,


            We believe that you and the staff at the Department of Justice are now well acquainted with the Wednesday, September 2, 2009 ruling of Mr. Athanasios Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that:


“I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.”


The same section of the code has also been used to penalize the expression of viewpoints based on religious beliefs, including the case against Catholic Insight Magazine


It is welcome news that an adjudicator of the tribunal has found Section 13 inconsistent with the freedom of speech guarantee in the Charter, but we are looking forward to action by Parliament to strike down the provision.


Critics of Section 13(1), including many newspapers, regard it “as an unwarranted chill on our Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression that imperils spirited public discourse.” (Toronto Star, Sept. 4)


This ruling strengthens the case for Parliament to get the CHRC out of the business of policing hate speech to the criminal courts.


As a letter to the editor put it: “In our zeal to become the most virtuous nation on the planet, we have enshrined a ‘justice system that is anything but just; that shuns many of the values we hold so dear—truth as a defence, due process, the presumption of innocence, etc” (National Post, Sept. 4).


The time has come for action. With the rest of the delegates at the last Conservative Convention you voted in support of a policy amendment to delete Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, first we expect you not to appeal the Hadjis ruling in an effort to resurrect this oppressive legislation. Second, we look forward to new legislation that will a) define hate literature much more restrictively and b) leave it to federal Courts to interpret that legislation.


As we pointed out in an earlier letter, in view of its horrendous anti-Christian bias—self-admitted in its own history published in January 2009—the CHRC and the CHRT should be abolished.




Rev. Alphonse de Valk,







Send your letter to the Attorney General and demand he respect the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Lemire case, to find Section 13 of the Canadian Human Right Act unconstitutional




McGill Tribune: EDITORIAL: Tribunals aren't the way to deal with hate speech

EDITORIAL: Tribunals aren't the way to deal with hate speech

Posted: 9/9/09

If something can't be done consistently and fairly, then it shouldn't be done at all. That's the message the Canadian government needs to hear about prosecuting hate speech through flawed human rights tribunals, and, thankfully, it's a message that might be starting to get through.

Last week the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - which gives human rights tribunals the power to issue penalties of up to 20,000 dollars against people who publish hate speech on the Internet - violates Section 2 of the Charter of Human Rights (namely, the right to freedom of speech) and is therefore unconstitutional. In effect, the Tribunal stripped itself of its own punitive powers, and we applaud them for that decision.

Dealing with hate speech through human rights tribunals is a terrible idea. Section 13 gives plaintiffs with no injury or relationship to the alleged hate speech the right to sue publishers or authors in front of appointed tribunals that can then issue punitive punishments (including fines of up to 10,000 dollars payable to the government or 20,000 dollars to an identified victim). The system allows only well-connected and wealthy complainants to see their case through to a verdict, which has resulted in one lawyer, Richard Warman, being responsible for the lion's share of Section 13 cases. Even if a complaint is judged to be invalid, the complaint process often takes years, and is both financially and emotionally exhausting for the defendant.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and newspaper editorial boards across the country have often criticized these tribunals in the past. We'll reiterate some of their arguments here: defendants lack the ability to defend their writing as truthful, scholarly, or as a work of journalistic intent; identical complaints are often heard simultaneously by provincial human rights tribunals in different jurisdictions; and some investigative practices - such as posting messages on discussion groups in order to investigate targets - are questionable at best.

But worst of all, the process is inconsistent and is essentially censorship. Very few hate speech cases are pursued in real courtrooms under the criminal code of Canada, and that's because there's a very fine line between preventing hate speech and censorship. We should allow the courts, not tribunals, to decide where that line lies.

Unfortunately, in the words of H.L. Mencken, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels." And while stripping human rights tribunals of their power to prosecute hate speech may allow some willfully ignorant and unpleasant writing to go unpunished, that's the price we must pay for freedom of speech.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

FREEDOMINION: Write to Rob Nicholson - Don't resurrect Section 13 !

Write to Rob Nicholson - Don't resurrect Section 13!



Marc Lemire and Barbara Kulaszka have done their part and Section 13 has been declared unconstitutional. Unless the ruling is appealed, Section 13 is now effectively dead and it will not be enforced by the CHRT.

Now it is OUR TURN!

Rob Nicholson voted with the rest of the delegates at the last Conservative Convention in support of a policy amendment to delete Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is time to remind him of his vote and to tell him that we expect him to NOT appeal the Hadjis ruling in an effort to resurrect this oppressive legislation.

It would be best to send a snail mail letter to this address:

The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0H8

However, if you are pressed for time, please, at least take the time to send an email:

Or phone his office: (613) 995-1547

His Constituency Office contact information is as follows:

2895 St. Paul Avenue, Unit 11 (Main Office)
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2J 2L3

Telephone: (905) 353-9590
Fax: (905) 353-9588

200 Garrison Road Unit 13
Fort Erie, Ontario
L2A 5F6

Telephone: (905) 871-9991
Fax: (905) 871-5046

If you don't do anything else to help in this battle, PLEASE take the time to do this!!





Marc Lemire on RoadKill Radio - Tonight 7:30 to 8:30pm (PST)

Sept 8th, 2009 -
This week on RoadKill Radio!


Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Victory for Free Speech thanks to MARC LEMIRE!!!  YaY Marc!  You guessed it right - Mr. Lemire will be joining KARI SIMPSON and TERRY O’NEIL tonight to talk about bringing down Section 13.  It is a fascinating story you won’t want to miss!! (Click here for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision)


Next TED HEWLETT, President of BC Parents and Teachers for Life and a champion to many for his work on behalf of parental rights and the right’s of the unborn will be in-studio to talk about the increasing opposition to the Corren Agreement (see article).  This is a must listen to segment! Learn about what is going on in our schools, educate you family, your friends and find out what you can do to stop this insane use of your tax-dollars and abuse of public education!! (Click here for the BC Parents and Teachers for Life Website)

It all happens this Tuesday, 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. Pacific time. Listen live at or check out the archived show later.

We will be taking your EMAIL questions and calls!


CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167

WHERE: Listen live -

WHEN: Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 7:30 – 9:30 pm (PST)

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions, Your Outrage is welcome!


Sunday, September 6, 2009

[VIDEO] Lawyer Douglas Christie Speaks about the Lemire Section 13 decision

OTTAWA CITIZEN: Kafka comes to Canada

Kafka comes to Canada

By David Warren ,

The Ottawa Citizen

September 4, 2009

It is hard to say whether the decision announced Wednesday by Athanasios Hadjis, the quasi-judge of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, is a victory for free speech in Canada. He ruled that Marc Lemire, webmaster of, should not be punished for exercising his right to free speech, nor for allowing others who contributed unmoderated comments for exercising theirs.

He found only one act of Lemire’s sufficiently bitter to constitute “hate speech” — namely his posting of an article entitled “AIDS Secrets” by an American neo-Nazi, that went on rather tendentiously about blacks and homosexuals. But he let that pass, too, on the interesting argument that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is in conflict with our Charter of Rights, which unambiguously guarantees free speech. Either that, or his argument was that the CHRT has no right to punish anybody for anything: I have even more difficulty than other reviewers in making out the reasoning in this 107-page document.

Hadjis is only a quasi-judge, and his decision can be appealed to a proper court. He had no authority to strike down Section 13(1), as he seems to realize, but by deciding the case as if he had this authority, he was being true to the traditions of the “human rights” bureaucracies, which live in a kind of statutory alternative universe, where logic no more exists than due process, and the law is what the bureaucrats say it is from day to day.

But since the net effect was to release Lemire from six years of Kafkaesque investigation and persecution by the CHRC — and by Richard Warman, the lawyer who acted as complainant — I suppose I’m in favour of it. Moreover, it is the first Section 13 censorship case in the history of the tribunal in which the quasi-defendant has been quasi-let-off; as well as the first procedural setback for Warman, who has personally brought most of the previous cases and personally benefited from several of the judgements.

I wrote “Kafkaesque” advisedly, for one of the things to which this case drew attention was the wild methods used by the CHRC and its outriders in their “investigations.” These included, in the Lemire case, hacking into an uninvolved private citizen’s e-mail account, then using it to post their own incredibly offensive, bigoted remarks at, in the naïve belief that this would not be exposed once a Bell technician was called in.

Defenders of free speech have highlighted this affair, from transcripts of previous CHRC proceedings. It revealed levels of bizarre and malicious stupidity beyond the usual bureaucratic reaches, and it is to our shame as a country that a full investigation of the CHRC’s methods has yet to be launched.

The decision of quasi-judge Hadjis cannot be read as a remedy for such things. The commission has felt in no way bound by past tribunal decisions, and is under no new legal compulsion to abandon fishing expeditions for “hate speech.” Indeed, as Hadjis is himself very much part of the system — a veteran of multicultural lobbying from Montreal — his decision can more easily be read as a tactical feint on the part of “human rights” operators, to free themselves from another high-profile case so they can get back to prosecuting all the little people, whose cases will never command national attention, in dark and comfortable obscurity.

The charges brought against Mark Steyn through the B.C. “human rights” bureaucracy, and against Ezra Levant through Alberta’s, had already exposed “human rights” commissions to much light, of exactly the sort they least wanted. They have already achieved their chilling effect, by warning every journalist in Canada who fails to toe a politically-correct line that he, too, could be dragged through their machinery for years, at huge and unrecoverable cost to himself, even if the case is later casually dismissed. This having been achieved, they needed to cut their losses.

A more charitable interpretation, offered by Levant on his website Thursday, is that Hadjis has himself become disgusted with that “human rights” industry, and alarmed by its threat to Canadian freedom.

While a better remedy may be available in a legitimate court of law, it is up to the cowards in our Parliament to do something about Section 13 itself, which, as we now know with the benefit of more than three decades of hindsight, opened a huge can of worms.

Yet there is no prospect of action in Parliament, for the simple reason that if any were attempted by the minority government, the Liberal party and many taxpayer-funded left-wing lobby groups would also swing into action, tarring the defenders of free speech as enemies of “human rights,” according to their own strange and Orwellian redefinition of the latter term.

David Warren’s column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday.