Canadian "Human Rights" Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada to keep their precious censorship franchise
Constitutional Validity of Section 13 moves to Federal Court
Using tax-payers money, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has finally filed their challenge to the Lemire decision, which found that the thought control legislation of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional and a violation of the Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and thought.
CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law
filed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission
The CHRC's Memorandum of Fact and Law, will be vigorously challenged by supporters of freedom of speech. Section 13 is Canada's shameful thought control legislation, and a positive ruling by the Federal Court of Canada, will finally end the 33 year reign of totalitarian censorship by the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.
To date, the Attorney General of Canada, has refused to get involved at the Federal Court of Canada to uphold Section 13. The Attorney General of Canada (assigned to Lemire case by then governing Liberal Party) was active while the case was before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, but once the Tribunal ruled the law was unconstitutional, the Attorney General accepted the decision.
According to an Access to Information request filed by Marc Lemire, in late 2009, the Department of Justice raised the issue with the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet. While the actual discussion is censored due to being in the "confines of the Queen's Privy Council" it is clear that the Conservative Prime Minister and his cabinet ruled to not uphold this censorship legislation.
At the same time of this decision by Harper government, two separate House of Commons subcommittees were investigating the conduct of the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
Subcommittee on International Human Rights (SDIR)
October 5, 2009: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn eviscerate the CHRC censors
October 26, 2009: CHRC Chief Kangaroo on the hotseat and grilled by Members of Parliament
June 16, 2009: MP Russ Hiebert slams CHRC's David Langtry
June 18, 2009: Prof Robert Martin exposes the CHRC
The CHRC has shown over the years it is willing to go to any lengths and spend as much tax-payers dollars as needed to protect their censorship franchise. From claiming "National Security" to hid their online infiltration and spying campaign to hacking a private woman's Internet connection, nothing is beyond what the CHRC will do. Ethics guidelines? Not at the CHRC...
Now is the time to contact organizations who support freedom of speech and request they intervene in this case, and finally rid Canada of this shameful thought control and pre-crime legislation.
What the CHRC is trying to overturn at the Federal Court
In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that:
 Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter.
c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression
 For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
 This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.
V. CONCLUSIONI have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, 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. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board),  2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).
See full decision [here]
It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!
PayPal: Send your donation to: email@example.com
MoneyBookers: Send your donation to: firstname.lastname@example.org