The Canadian Human Rights Commission was recently in the Federal Court of Canada, trying to have Terry Tremaine found in contempt of a cease and desist order registered with the Federal Court. A recent decision of the court dismissed the CHRC’s motion and ordered them to pay Mr. Tremains costs.
The cease and desist order came out of a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, under the notorious Section 13 (thought control) legislation. In that case the Tribunal found that Mr. Tremaine had violated Section 13 and was ordered to stop posting messages of a similar type.
After the Tremaine judgment of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal – the law itself – Section 13 was found to be unconstitutional in the Lemire case.
Even with Section 13’s constitutionality is in limbo, that didn’t stop the CHRC from trying to enforce the cease and desist order against Tremaine. If Section 13 does stand to be unconstitutional, then in effect, the CHRC is trying to shut Tremaine up with the contempt powers of the Federal Court of Canada, but using a law that should not exist on our books. Of course, such overwhelming discrepancies make little difference to the “alice in wonderland” human rights justice that awaits those caught up in the system.
The Federal Court ruling can be found at: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc1198/2010fc1198.html
 The Canadian Human Rights Commission has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry Tremaine has deliberately flaunted an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to cease communicating matters that are likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt on prohibited grounds. He is in contempt of the order of the Tribunal – indeed, he brags about it and admitted it before me. The issue, however, is whether he is in contempt of this Court. I reluctantly conclude he is not. The only reason he is not is that the Commission failed to bring to his attention the fact that it had registered the Tribunal’s order with this Court.
 The charges of contempt, as set out in the show cause order, must be dismissed since all of the events occurred before Mr. Tremaine had knowledge of court registration.
 I also accept Mr. Tremaine’s defence that the order did not make it sufficiently clear that he was ordered to remove, or at least exercise his best efforts to have removed, from the Internet the material found hateful by the Tribunal, and material of like nature posted up to that time. The order was with respect to “material of the type which was found to violate section 13(1)”, not the material which was actually found to violate section 13(1). “Material of the type” is not the same material.
UPON A SHOW CAUSE HEARING that Mr. Tremaine be found in contempt of court;
FOR REASONS GIVEN;
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The motion is dismissed, with costs against the Canadian Human Rights Commission.