Article about the Lemire case from the Canadian Free Speech League.
Marc Lemire - Section 13 Case
The appeal by the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the finding of member Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the case of Marc Lemire goes to the Federal Court Trial Division on December 13th and 14th in Toronto.
You are invited to attend this important challenge which will probably determine the future of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the section which prohibits criticism of any identifiable group and does not allow truth as a defence.
Marc Lemire’s case, the first major challenge to Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (subsequent to the John Ross Taylor case) is now proceeding to the Federal Court trial division, where it is slowly but surely getting to the point of argument and will be argued in December. In the mean time, there are no human rights complaints being processed under Section 13(1) and this is largely due to the heroic efforts of Marc Lemire and his counsel, Barbara Kulaszka.
This case could once and for all disable a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act which has been used with universal success against any and all who put forward anti-immigration points of view with any consideration of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. The recent events in Norway clearly establish that where there is no talk, there can be violence. The position of the Canadian Free Speech League is that it is always better to allow people to ventilate their ideas about immigration rather than have them suppressed by legislation and ultimately expressed by means that are other than rational. If we believe in the right of the people to vote in elections, we should believe in the right of the people to discern between right and wrong on the issue of immigration.
The Lemire case will enable, if Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is struck down, those who have different points of view from the liberal establishment to express those points of view (rationally or irrationally), with the result that the public may engage in a debate about many important issues where both sides need to advance their arguments freely, without the encumbrance of Section 13(1), which prevents one side of the argument from being expressed.
[Links added to text]