- CHRC theft of internet communications
- CHRC staff signing onto questionable websites and entrapping people
- CHRC staff’s contempt for freedom of speech, including their testimony that “Freedom of speech is an American concept”
- CHRC refusing to release any documents on how much they have paid Richard Warman
- 100% conviction rate before the Tribunal
- The corrupt investigations of the CHRC, which includes dismissing a complaint because it was a “double-sided” fax
- CHRC exchanging information with Police and others, thus usurping safeguards in criminal law
- CHRC contravening the Canada Post Act, by setting up mail drops in Ottawa, to send out hate posters to receive mail under false names
- CHRC editing court transcripts to remove explosive testimony about Richard Warman, then distributing copies of the doctored transcripts to members of the media
- Decision from the Office of the Privacy Commission, chastising the CHRC for refusing to release information
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The CHRC is seeking a judicial review of the stunning decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the Lemire case, which found Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be a violation of the freedom of speech rights of all Canadians.
So far there is three parties involved:
- CHRC: Who are seeking Judicial review
- Marc Lemire: Who is opposing the CHRC and seeking a Federal Court decision declaring Section 13 unconstitutional
- Richard Warman: The original complaint who started the case against Lemire
Motion by Douglas Christie, counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Parliament's JUST committee continues their review of the censorship provisions of Section 13. Next up, the Chief Kangaroo and her cheering section
Parliament’s JUST committee continues their review of the censorship provisions of Section 13… Next up, the Chief Kangaroo and her cheering section
Tune in live on Monday from 3:30 to 5:30pm, and watch the CHRC and their cheering section at the Canadian Jewish Congress, squirm under questioning from Members of Parliament.
More information here:
- JUST Committee – Notice of Meeting
- Will Lynch underbus Warman before the Committee
- Levant on Moon
- STEYN: What a little Moon light doesn't do
- Jay Currie: First Question for the Coward Lynch
- BCF: Jennifer "J-Ly" Lynch Testifies Monday
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Meeting No. 43
Monday, October 26, 2009
3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Watch LIVE here:
Review of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Section 13)
3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Chief Commisioner
Philippe Dufresne, Director and Senior Counsel
Litigation Services Division
4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Canadian Jewish Congress
Mark Freiman, President
Bernie M. Farber, Chief Executive Officer
As an individual
Richard Moon, Professor
University of Windsor, Faculty of Law
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Feds consider striking hate speech clause
National / MPs want to protect minorities from “real harm, not perceived harm or hurt feelings”
Dale Smith / Ottawa / Wednesday, October 21, 2009
After three years of public thrashings, a controversial hate speech provision is now under the federal microscope. In a committee room in the bowels of Parliament Hill, a cross-section of MPs will debate the clause’s merits through the fall, and possibly into next year.
The provision in question, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, allows the Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding hate speech by phone or internet.
Opponents of Section 13 complain that it establishes a lower threshold for offences than the two hate speech laws that appear in the Criminal Code.
A raft of free speechers — from civil liberties groups to the Canadian Association of Journalists — decry the clause as an unnecessary intrusion on Canadians’ right to speak their minds. The issue gained visibility in 2007 after Muslim groups used Section 13 to pursue Ezra Levant and Macleans columnist Mark Steyn for publishing material they found offensive. Steyn and Levant are now avowed enemies of the clause.
But the worst blow was dealt to the provision in September, when a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declared the clause unconstitutional.
“It was a breath of fresh air,” said long-time Section 13 critic and Liberal MP Keith Martin of the tribunal decision.
Since September’s decision sets no legal precedent, the legislation remains intact until either a superior court decision strikes it down or Parliament amends the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). In the meantime, The Commons Justice Committee — the group charged with studying the provision — will investigate whether it should be struck down.
Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber is a member of the committee and a vocal opponent of Section 13.
“I think our study is timely in that the Human Rights Commission has filed an appeal, so it will be reviewed by the Federal Court of Canada, and if they uphold that decision, presumably that will strike down Section 13,” says Rathgeber. “That could create a legal void, and there are many cases pending.”
“I hope at the end of the day we can table a report in Parliament that can protect the freedom of speech while still protecting groups from real harm, not perceived harm or hurt feelings,” Rathgeber says.
But Rathgeber and the Conservatives will have to face an opposition that is just as likely to want to keep the provision in place.
“We certainly wouldn’t be in favour of abolishing it,” says Liberal justice critic Dominic LeBlanc. “We think that Section 13 and the Human Rights commissions have played a useful role. We’re always open to discussions of how Section 13 might be strengthened or clarified.”
LeBlanc adds that he has spoken with the chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and is in the process of reading their recent report on the issue.
“We think there should be a measure between the Criminal Code provisions with respect to hate propaganda, and a lower threshold which would properly be in the domain of a Human Rights Commission — particularly around new technologies and information technologies,” LeBlanc says.
The NDP also supports the retention of the clause.
“My own position is, and I’ll be calling witnesses from this vantage point, is what we can do to clarify the problems,” says NDP justice critic Joe Comartin. “I think it is possible to rewrite the section, to amend it, and to put in criteria as to how you would interpret when the commission would have jurisdiction to intervene. I think that would be probably a bit more restrictive than it has historically been.”
Comartin expects the Conservatives to call witnesses that would advocate for the abolition of Section 13, starting with opponents like Levant and Steyn.
But not all Conservatives feel the need to abolish Section 13. Lesbian Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth feels that it should be retained.
“The Canadian Human Rights Act does include women, but the Criminal Code does not,” says Ruth. “So if we lose Section 13, there’s no protection for hatred against women anywhere.”
“If it is missing, then it should be in the Criminal Code,” says Martin. “The Criminal Code is there to protect us all from hate speech, and any individual, any group must be protected against true hate speech.
“If there is something missing in the Criminal Code, then again it’s up to Parliament to deal with it. It’s a wonderful opportunity to strengthen the Criminal Code aspects of hate speech while removing the flaws in Section 13 that exist right now.”
Ruth says that she has been engaging with the ministers of justice and Status of Women on that inclusion, but that their priorities at present remain the economy and tough-on-crime legislation.
The prominence of voices like Levant and Steyn in the call for repeal — along with PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Pink Triangle Press (Capital Xtra’s parent company) — is nevertheless disturbing to some supporters of the clause.
Richard Moon, a constitutional law professor at the University of Windsor, says Levant may reach some of the right conclusions, but he uses the wrong rationale.
In October of 2008, Moon published a report for the Human Rights Commission that called for Section 13 to be struck down.
“I have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances,” Moon says.
“I believe there are very good — but complicated — arguments as to why we ought to repeal Section 13, but the accusations of corruption or even those sorts of simple assertions that they have a 100 percent conviction rate — those are all grotesque distortions.”
Moon is referring to the claim in Shakedown that everyone who is accused of hate speech by Canadian human rights tribunals is convicted. Moon explains that frivolous complaints are weeded out before they reach the tribunal — only those likely to succeed actually make it to hearings.
“I’m deeply disturbed by the…smear campaign against the people who support Section 13 and the people at the Commission who are, for the most part, simply carrying out their statutory duties,” Moon says. “You can have a problem with the statute and call for its repeal without attacking civil servants who are generally implementing the law as it stands.”
A Supreme Court case is likely as a result of September’s tribunal decision declaring Section 13 unconstitutional. The last time this issue was brought before Canada’s highest court was in 1990, when a split 4-3 decision in the Taylor case declared the limits placed on free speech under Section 13 legal and constitutional.
Meanwhile, the Justice Committee will tender a report that may influence Parliamentary direction on the issue. If the report is convincing, Section 13 could be repealed by way of Parliamentary bill.
“It is Parliament’s responsibility to deal with the Act — it’s not the Tribunal or the commission’s responsibility,” Martin says.
“The important thing is for Parliament to have the courage to go and make the changes of Section 13(1) that will protect one of our true fundamental rights — the right of freedom of speech — while making it very clear that hate speech belongs in the Criminal Code.”
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
October 13, 2009
Last Saturday in Victoria, BC, Connie and I proudly accepted the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award from the Canadian Free Speech League. It was a personal pleasure for me to receive an award named for one of my literary heroes. I encountered the writings of George Orwell decades ago and they effected me so profoundly that they set me on paths of political thought that I continue to travel to this day.
This award is particularly appropriate in view of the Orwellian world Connie and I have had thrust upon us. A world where the State believes it can eradicate human emotions, where truth is not a defense and convictions are assured, where lawfare is an effective means of political coercion, and where people who speak out for our freedom of speech and political thought are labeled by censors as followers of one of history's greatest tyrants and mass murderers. (No, not socialism's Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. That other guy.)
A variety of speakers at the annual meeting told the 125 people in attendance about their experiences of being crushed by the state. Marc Lemire did a power point presentation that gave an all too brief overview of what he has been through and brought everyone up to date on the latest developments in his case and the CHRC's appeal of the Hadjis ruling on the constitutionality of Section 13. A representative of the battle against the long gun registry spoke and a B.C. couple told a heart-wrenching story of having all their children seized by the B.C. government after a misdiagnosis of shaken-baby syndrome. Arthur Topham spoke of B'nai Brith's CHRC attack on him and we heard a story from a gentleman who has been locked in a battle with the government of B.C. over busking, of all things.
We also received a generous cash award which will go to our legal defense. The battle will go on.
We will never look up to the face of Big Brother, and love him.
VICTORIA, October 10. While many Canadians travelled to see friends and relatives for the Thanksgiving weekend, over 125 free speechers from as far away as Hawaii jammed a hall for food, fellowship and the 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Awards.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Richard Warman has filed a notice of appearance in the CHRC appeal of the Lemire ruling that found Section 13 to be unconstitutional.
Court Number :
Style of Cause :
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. RICHARD WARMAN ET AL
Proceeding Category :
S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Type of Action :
( 8 records found )
Recorded Entry Summary
Affidavit of service of Céline Girouard sworn on 09-OCT-2009 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of doc 5 upon all parties by telecopier on 09-OCT-2009 filed on 09-OCT-2009
| || || || || || |
Notice of appearance on behalf of the respondent - Richard Warman filed on 09-OCT-2009
| || || || || || |
Affidavit of service of Barbara Kulaszka sworn on 07-OCT-2009 on behalf of Respondent confirming service of doc 3 upon Defendant AGC by mail on 07-OCT-2009 filed on 07-OCT-2009
| || || || || || |
Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 07-OCT-2009
| || || || || || |
Memorandum to file from Bob Lemoine dated 02-OCT-2009 that Marc Cossette (Registry Officer) has advised me today that he has contacted the office of the Canadian Free Speech League in response to their letter of 2-OCT-2009 and advised them that a motion for leave is required to intervene placed on file.
| || || || || || |
Letter from Mr. Douglas H. Christie of the Canadian Free Speech League dated 02-OCT-2009 advising the court of their intention to continue intervening in this matter received on 02-OCT-2009
| || || || || || |
Service copy of Doc. No. 1 with proof of service upon respondent Attorney General of Canada on 02-OCT-2009 filed on 02-OCT-2009
| || || || || || |
Notice of application and 2 copies with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on 01-OCT-2009 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney General of Canada Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes
The last database update occurred on 2009-10-10 12:57
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The CHRC is appealing the recent ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which found their internet censorship law to be unconstitutional and an affront to Canadian justice.
As typical for the out of control and fanatical CHRC - they are willing to do and spend anything to keep their censorship franchise running.
How you can help:
British Columbia representative of B'nai Brith maliciously edits internet post to attribute it to Marc Lemire
British Columbia representative of B’nai Brith maliciously edits internet post to attribute it to Marc Lemire
Harry Abrams caught red-handed by Mark Fournier of FreeDominion
For the past few months, the British Columbia representative of B’nai Brith Harry Abrams, has been on a mission to try to smear me on the FreeDominion message board.
Not satisfied with having his arguments demolished over and over again, Abrams decided to get a little creative and take matters into his own hands.
Here is the post by Mark Fournier which documents how B’nai Brith’s man, Harry Abrams, edited a post to the FreeDominion message board, in a lame attempt to smear Marc Lemire. Interestingly, B’nai Brith has a bit of history with allegedly defaming people.
Harry, Harry, Harry...You've been hanging around the CHRC for much too long and you've picked up some very nasty habits.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
CHRC Jennifer Lynch's Speech to CBA in Dublin Ireland - Lynch claims there is a "reverse chill" against the CHRC
CHRC Jennifer Lynch’s Speech to CBA in Dublin Ireland - Lynch claims there is a “reverse chill” against the CHRC
Lynch claims bloggers have created a “reverse chill” and begs CBA lawyers for help to keep her censorship franchise alive
Access Request Documents – Lynch’s Dublin Speech
On October 5, 2009, Marc Lemire received a response to an Access to Information request he filed back on August 20, 2009. The request by Marc Lemire was for “Speaking notes and background documents of Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch speech given on August 15, 2009 before the Canadian Bar Association's meeting in Dublin Ireland. Would like the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association, and any CHRC correspondence over this appearance. Also requesting the supporting documentation used in Lynch's speech, including the "anonymous letter she received stating that she should be shot dead."”
In the speech by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission – Jennifer Lynch – she claimed that a “reverse chill” exists for the defenders of Human Rights Commissions, and that journalists like Mark Steyn “have successfully created a ‘chill’ that makes it difficult for anyone to defend those bodies without also becoming a target.”
Lynch asked lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association to come to the CHRC’s aid, and write “letters to correct misinformation.” [Guess Lynch’s message was received].
Bloggers and writers wrote extensively on the ludicrous claims by Jennifer Lynch. Mark Steyn wrote in a piece entitled “Jennifer Lynch: Please send reinforcements!” that “Oh, dear, what’s the country coming to? Defenders of state censorship are too cowed to speak out in favour of not letting people speak out? You could hardly ask for a better snapshot of the degradation of “human rights” in contemporary Canada than the chief censor whining to a banqueting suite full of government apparatchiks that the ingrate citizenry are insufficiently respectful of them. The bureaucrats at the top table control hundreds of millions of public dollars. Jennifer Lynch represents state power; Ezra and I represent a bunch of impecunious bloggers”
Ezra Levant summed up the Lynch speech as “What Lynch really meant in Dublin and at her previous hate-filled rant in Montreal is that she doesn't believe she ought to be accountable. Mere scrutiny, for her, is chilling. Mere opposition and criticism is being targeted. But no-one has sued her; no-one has commanded her to appear to answer for her private political thoughts. At most, she was invited to answer questions by her bosses, at a Parliamentary committee, to merely answer questions about her staff's outrageous conduct -- but she refused to attend, and now attacks the MP who invited her, Russ Hiebert, as one of her 1,200 enemies on her official enemies list, compiled at taxpayers' expense.” [They're laughing at you in Dublin, Jennifer]
Deborah DumbPong, after hearing about the Lynch speech criticized that “Cry me a freakin' river, Jennifer. You said it. This is all about defending your jobs, not about defending "vulnerable minorities." Her total lack of ability to put herself in the shoes of those bodies like hers have persecuted is astonishing. She thinks she's David when she's Goliath.”
STOP CENSORSHIP … STOP SECTION 13!