Here is part four of the Section 13 Exposed! series.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, is Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation, where truth is no defence, intent is no defence, in fact, there are zero defences! Recently in the Lemire case, Section 13 has been found to be unconstitutional. The censorship enforcers appealed to the Federal Court of Canada.
These articles on Section 13 will document all the different angles of Internet censorship and the threat it poses to freedom and liberty in Canada.
Canada’s needs freedom of speech on the Internet, and the fanatical CHRC wants to silence thought and speech. To date, they have spent millions to keep their censorship franchise running. With the most recent ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to stop all enforcement of Section 13 – Marc Lemire’s case is the only active Section 13 case in all of Canada! Unfortunately, all the weight of the state censors will now be brought to bear.
Please send what you can to assist in the Lemire case. The Lemire case will be the definitive challenge to internet censorship. Your help is desperately needed.
Part #1: SECTION 13: A Sword not a Shield! The Aggressive Nature of Internet Censorship
Part #3: Intimidation and Chilling Effects - The attacks on writers like Mark Steyn and rigged CHRC decisions
The Process is the Punishment
The chill on freedom of speech is worsened by the process which surrounds an accusation of “hate.” For the person laying the hate complaint, all which is required is the mere cost of a postage stamp. That sets off a lengthy punitive investigation process by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which many consider to be the real punishment.
The CHRC moves at a glacial pace, extracting the most amount of money and stress possible from the victims. It begins with dozens of letters back and forth, and then months of waiting. Because the process is confusing and legal in nature, most victims require the services of a lawyer. Even if the case is thrown out in the end, the victims are generally still out thousands of dollars, with no way to be able to recover the costs.
In the recent case of a complaint made against Catholic Insight Magazine, the magazine reported that it cost them $25,000 in legal fees although in the end the CHRC chose not to proceed with the case.
The Christian Heritage Party, were subjected to a hate complaint over comments allegedly exposing homosexuals to hatred and/or contempt. While the case was never accepted, the
CHP reported on their website that they spent $50,000 in defending themselves.  Blogger Ezra Levant has frequently stated that his hate case cost upwards of $100,000 to defend against. And for all these cases, it was just in the investigation phase!
In the case of Macleans magazine, which was represented by two prominent lawyers through three separate complaints and a 5-day hearing before the BC Human Rights Tribunal – the costs were staggering. According to Mark Steyn, speaking on Calgary’s AM770, Macleans Magazine and Rogers Media Inc. spent upwards of $1,000,000 to defend against the human rights complaints.
Since the inception of Section 13, the process has always been used by special interest groups as a risk-free method to attack their political enemies. Once the CHRC accepts the complaint and sends it onto a Tribunal, the CHRC (using tax-payers money) will always send lawyers, who act as prosecutors during the hearings. The CHRC has acted as prosecutor in every single Section 13 case to ever go to a tribunal. In some Tribunal hearings, like the Lemire case, the complainant can freely leave after his testimony and the CHRC, using tax-payers money funds the entire case, which in that case meant 23 more days!
In some of the most recent Section 13 cases, the complainant has been called as a witness by the CHRC, thus has all their expenses paid. This could easily mean expenses such as travel, hotel, meals and a per diem. For a complainant, there are almost zero out-of-pocket expenses, with the taxpayers of Canada footing the bill for the prosecution.
The average Section 13 hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is 8.95 days. An average lawyer would charge $1,500 per day, plus at least double that in preparation.
For an average hearing, where the victim is represented by counsel, he is looking at a bill of $13,500 for the hearing and $27,000 for preparation, bringing the total legal cost of an average hearing to: $40,500.
While the legal costs are oppressive, that’s not the end of it. If there is a finding of guilt, a lifetime gag order will be issued, along with fines up to $10,000. If retaliation or other special measures were asked for, that fine could be increased to $30,000.
Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal
There are two important but deceiving guide posts in a human rights complaint. The first is an “investigation” by the CHRC.
The second step is a “hearing” before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal), also known to the poor accused as the frying pan and the fire.
Consider these statistics:
· As of December 2009, the Tribunal has ruled on 39 Section 13 cases. Of those, only a single person has EVER won.
· Every single respondent found guilty now suffers under a lifetime speech ban (Cease and Desist order) and, if not followed, the victims could face up to five years in prison.
· 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents.
· 90.7% of respondents were not represented by legal counsel and there is no form of legal aid available
· Almost $100,000 has been awarded in fines and “special compensation” to complaints.
To date, the Tribunal has operated as a rubber stamp for whatever actions the CHRC endorses: Of the over fifty cases that have been referred to Tribunal, not a single person has ever been found innocent. No court of law boasts such a track record except for Stalin’s show trials or the notorious Chinese Struggle sessions.
The Canadian Human Rights Act allows for the rules of Tribunal hearings to be “interpreted” (IE: made up) as they go along, and all questions of law are interpreted by the Tribunal members as they feel fit. Amazingly this even includes the constitutionality of its own enabling legislation.
Section 48.3(9) of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:
In conducting an inquiry, the judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that the judge considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case.
During the course of a hearing, the Tribunal can accept any evidence it chooses. Hearsay, double hearsay and even triple hearsay is not a problem. Defendants are not allowed to question the motives or intentions of their attackers – that in itself can lead to additional fines and “special measures.”
Throughout the whole Tribunal inquisition; the defendants have to pay for everything themselves, while often the complainants have any out of pocket expenses covered by the tax-payers.
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Tribunal members (“judges”) are loftily required to have a “sensitivity to human rights” — whatever that means. While most tribunal members are lawyers, a legal background is not a prerequisite. Yes, shockingly a Tribunal member with no legal training could sit in judgement of the constitutionality of their own enabling legislation. It’s real Alice in Wonderland – Human rights style.
Depicting the typical injustice awaiting victims of the CHRC: in the 2006 Bahr case in Alberta, Julie Lloyd, a radical lesbian activist was appointed to sit as “judge” over a case where “sexual orientation” was one of the key grounds of alleged discrimination. Not surprisingly, the respondent was found liable and although Mr. Bahr was poor, he was fined $10,000.
Tribunal member Julie Lloyd is a prominent and outspoken lesbian, married to another woman, who has worked for years as a lawyer for homosexual clients and organizations to further the homosexual rights agenda. Lloyd is also a spokeswoman for Equal Alberta, a gay rights organization. She has received the Maureen Irwin Award in recognition of service to the Lesbian and Gay Communities of Edmonton and is an inductee to the Edmonton Pride Committee Hall of Fame. 
Lloyd strongly opposed a private member's bill in Alberta which would permit religious or secular opponents of same sex marriage who are marriage commissioners or teachers from having to marry same sex couples or teach about same sex marriage. She dubbed this tiny concession to those opposed to same sex marriage “hatred" and “unconscionable.”
"It sends the message that hatred and intolerance are legitimate when directed against this minority group. This is unconscionable," said Julie Lloyd, a lesbian who is an Edmonton-based human rights lawyer and a member of Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal. She warned the precedent of such a bill, if passed, would encourage others in the public sphere to see discrimination against gays and lesbians as a uniquely permissible offence. "People are allowed to have their private opinions. But they are not allowed discriminate against minorities in the public sphere," she said.
Human Rights Tribunal Member Julie Lloyd quotes on Sexual orientation:
“Alberta opens door for gay parent adoption
EDMONTON (CP) - April 21, 1999
The Alberta government is introducing legislation to change wording in the Adoption Act so that gays and lesbians can adopt children. The move, announced Wednesday by Social Services Minister Lyle Oberg, was immediately applauded by gay rights activists. "I think that would be wonderful," said Julie Lloyd, spokeswoman for Equal Alberta.”
Lloyd Likes Litigation
("Come Out, Come Out Wherever You Are: Is the Coming-Out Process Getting Any Easier for Gay Youth in Alberta?" Vue Weekly, 13-19 June 2002).
Prominent local lawyer Julie Lloyd, who represented the plaintiffs in the recent same-sex pension case, agrees. And to her, inclusion is a moral issue above and beyond someone’s particular sexuality. "The constant struggle of our society is a struggle towards inclusion," she says. "Lesbian and gay people are the reviled population now, but there are going to be other communities coming down the road. Cruelty and exclusion happen a lot; there could be whole other groups of people suffering in the same way." Lloyd is encouraged by the way courts and human rights tribunals are starting to recognize the societal costs of discrimination in schools.
… "This spirit of litigation warms my heart," says Lloyd, "and it¹s being driven by all these young kids."
“New Alta law giving same-sex couples same rights as married couples on
April 30, 2003 - EDMONTON (CP)
Alberta's new law giving same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples will come into force June 1. The Adult Interdependent Relations Act, passed last fall in the legislature, amends 68 provincial laws and some provincial regulations.
The law will mean gay and lesbian couples will have marriage-like obligations and rights, such as financially supporting one another or being eligible for insurance coverage that is currently available only to married people. "I anticipate that this goes a long way to resolving any difficulties or obstacles that have been in the way of lesbian and gay relationships," said lawyer Julie Lloyd, one of the province's most outspoken proponents for same-sex couples' rights.”
“Phair: "Hate" protections sought by Tories
Bill 208, the "Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statutes Amendment Act," would have allowed marriage commissioners to opt out of civil same-sex marriages, and give teachers the right to refuse to discuss same-sex marriage. Since same-sex marriage became the law of the land under Paul Martin’s ill-fated government, provincial Conservatives had asserted marriage commissioners would be permitted to "opt-out" of such ceremonies, but no legal provisions existed to support that assertion.
Morton’s bill would have changed that. While most private members’ bills tinker with specific aspects of existing legislation, Bill 208 however, proposed a widespread shift, affecting not just schools and marriage, but Alberta’s own, hard-fought-for Human Rights Act. Premier Ralph Klein said he supported the bill, because it affirmed existing government policy.
"It sends the message that hatred and intolerance are legitimate when it’s directed against this minority group. This is unconscionable," said Julie Lloyd, a lesbian who is an Edmonton-based human rights lawyer and a member of Canada’s Human Rights Tribunal. She warned the precedent of such a bill, if passed, would encourage others in the public sphere to see discrimination against gays and lesbians as a uniquely permissible offence.
"People are allowed to have their private opinions. But they are not allowed discriminate against minorities in the public sphere," she said. …..Lloyd was unequivocal "Remember that gays and lesbians had to fight through the courts to have the government include sexual orientation into the human rights legislation. That was six, seven, years ago that fight finally ended. This bill brings us right back to that problem," she said.
Is there any fairness?
Julie Lloyd is a member of the Human Rights Tribunal and has been and continues to be a prominent spokesperson for homosexual rights and the homosexual agenda. It appears that she perceives any dissent from the homosexual “rights” agenda that she has personally fought for is discrimination and as such, a moral issue and ultimately as hatred. Her clearly expressed and strongly held views seems to indicate that she believes that any deviance from this agenda, as pursued by the groups she has represented, amounts to hatred.
On May 25, 2006, Glenn Bahr a CHRC victim who was accused of making negative comments regarding homosexuality came before Julie Lloyd. In an oral motion to the Tribunal, he asked Julie Lloyd to recuse herself from his case.
The answer Bahr received from Lloyd: Hell NO! 
Further reading on Section 13:
· Part #1: SECTION 13: A Sword not a Shield! The Aggressive Nature of Internet Censorship
· Part #3: Intimidation and Chilling Effects - The attacks on writers like Mark Steyn and rigged CHRC decisions
- Marc Lemire’s constitutional challenge of Section 13
- The Marc Lemire case: A battle for freedom of speech
- Political Strategy to Repeal Section 13: Spearheaded by Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin with Bill M-446 (An act to repeal Section 13) Support has been overwhelming from the media, opinion journalists and Canadians. At present, two separate House of Commons Sub-Committee's are currently investigating the out-of-control "Human Rights" Commissions.
- Victims of Section 13: Writers, webmasters, magazines, Christians, the entire list of victims. From the very first - John Ross Taylor, to the latest victims including Macleans Magazine, Catholic Insight Magazine, FreeDominion, Marc Lemire, Melissa Guille and many others.
- Books and Videos on Section 13: Booklets on CHRC censorship, the constitutional challenge, Debunking Hate Laws, internet censorship and much much more.
- Support the legal challenge of Section 13: The hardest fight is the legal one. The legal team challenging Section 13 needs your help to continue. Please click on this link and donate. Your Donations = OUR Survival!
- The FreedomSite Blog: Documenting the chilling effects of Censorship and repression of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The blog is run by Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite
- Canadian Human Rights Commission EXPOSED! Exposing the Misnamed “Human Rights” Commissions in Canada. They are the single largest threat to freedom of speech in Canada. The Ottawa Citizen has called them a “Kangaroo Court” and “Star Chamber”. It’s time to abolish both the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal
I Desperately need your help to continue
Fighting the fanatics at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and defending freedom of speech for ALL Canadians is not an easy task. In particular, the Federal Court of Canada challenge to defeat Canada’s internet censorship legislation, has consumed an immense amount of time and resources. This has meant sacrificing a lot of cherished things in my life that I used to take for granted such as spending precious time with my wonderful children. It's also very costly and has incurred heavy debts given that I'm facing a "Human Rights" juggernaut that has a limitless budget. It has already spent millions and is prepared to spend a lot more of your tax dollars to keep their thought control machine running.
My courageous lawyer
Barbara Kulaszka and myself have demonstrated what two dedicated researchers can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's fanatics. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such a racket. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit if we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.
Every victory we've attained against the "Human Rights" juggernaut has come at great expense. Nothing has come easy. In fact, the “Human Rights” Commission has done everything in their power to stop exposure of their twisted censorship agenda.
I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. I wish to thank all those that have donated to this worthy cause. Please donate directly to us so that I can send out a personal thank you. If you have donated to another organization or individual please contact me so I can thank you directly and send you a copy of our special booklet that is for our supporters only.
How you can help:
Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge
Be part of the Freedom team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law
and protect Freedom of Speech in
· Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:
It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!
Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
 Repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. January 2009 issue of Catholic Insight Magazine. http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_870.shtml
October 10 2008. AM770 (CHQR) . The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge. http://emedia.am770chqr.com/podcasts/worldtonightreduxoct10.mp3 Calgary
 In August 2008, the CHRC did not take part in a hearing against Jason Ouwendyk. This was because Mr. Ouwendyk was under bankruptcy protection, and as such the CHRC could not extract any fines from him. The CHRC did take part in the case all through out the tribunal process, just elected to not attend the actual hearing.
 The average of 8.95 days is derived from taking the last 20 Section 13 hearings which equals 179 days.
 From the Canadian Association for Free Expression website. http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=121&Itemid=35
 CHRT Decision - 2006 CHRT 46. Rendered on:
May 25, 2006