Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Great News: Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu supports Free Speech and Bill C-304 (An Act to remove the censorship powers from the fanatical CHRC)

Earlier today I received a fantastic letter from Toronto area Conservative MP Corneliu Chisu (Pickering-Scarborough) who support Bill C-304, an Act to Protect Freedom of Speech, and strip the censorship powers away from the fanatics of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


It is very impressive to see a Toronto-area Conservative MP stand-up for Freedom of Speech and seconding Bill C-304.  Unfortunately, Bill C-304 is a private members bill, and not (yet) a government bill, so it has a limited chance to even pass. According to the Parliament of Canada Website, since 1910 only 235 private members bills have ever passed. (789 private members’ bills were introduced during the last Parliament, and only four received Royal Assent, of which one established the National Holocaust Memorial).  But the wind is in the sails for freedom, and numerous Conservative AND Liberal MPs have spoken publically about freedom of speech and removing the ravenous censorship provision Section 13. (In fact it was Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin who first proposed a motion in the House of Commons to remove Section 13) 


Here is the letter I received today:



Mr. Lemire,


Thank you for your letter that you sent to our Ottawa office regarding your request for Mr. Chisu to support C-304.


I am pleased to inform you that not only will Mr. Chisu be supporting the bill, but in fact he is a seconder for C-304 as well.




Matthew van Vorstenbos

Legislative Assistant

Corneliu Chisu, MP Pickering-Scarborough East



What is wrong with Section 13 of the CHRA?


Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.


Vague concepts such as speech or writing “likely to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure for the extremists at the CHRC.


Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a rational to increase the amount of fines! Intent or fair comment are also not defenses.  In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence.


On September 2, 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in the Lemire case that Section 13 was unconstitutional and in violation of the Charter. In the decision the Tribunal slammed the CHRC for being aggressive and confrontational. In 2008, the CHRC’s own hand-picked expert – Richard Moon of the University of Windsor – wrote a substantial report on Section 13 with his main recommendation being to repeal it.


Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.


1: The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are not fair, and make arbitrary decisions based on who an accused is – rather than on a fair and impartial application of the statute they enforce. High profile victims, such as Macleans Magazine, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are given a free pass, while others, less prominent and lacking the resources to hire legal council are relentlessly prosecuted. Friends of the CHRC are given a free pass to promote hate with impunity, while others are dragged through 8 years of prosecutions. This creates a major chill on freedom of expression since there is no discernable “line” between speech that is prohibited and speech that is “acceptable” to the CHRC.

2: The CHRC pays no heed to constitutionally protected rights such as Freedom of Expression. In place they use imaginary “rights” such as the “right to be free from contempt”. There is no such right in our Charter. Lead investigators at the CHRC have testified that “freedom of speech is an American concept” which does not apply to Canadians. The CHRC only believes in “group” rights, and not the rights of individuals to “speak truth to power”, hence the 100% conviction rate.

3: The CHRC is out of control has recently been under a series of investigations. CHRC investigators have been criminally investigated by the RCMP for the criminal theft of telecommunications services; The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has ruled against the CHRC on multiple occasions. In the meantime, the CHRC continues to apply the law in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

4: In contravention of their mandate or the law, the CHRC has engaged in clandestine spying operations on Canadians, including using neo-Nazi aliases to engage Canadians in conversations.  The CHRC has even gone as far as posting questionable material on neo-Nazi internet websites. The CHRC shockingly attempted to claim it would injure “National Security” when information on their neo-Nazi accounts was subpoenaed by the Tribunal.

5: The entire process is paid for by taxpayers on behalf of the complainants. The defendants must pay their costs personally. There is no legal aid and there is no way to claim costs, even if the defendants are found innocent.


It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of history. I have made some shocking allegations against the CHRC in this letter, and am more than willing to provide detailed documentation on each and every point I made in this letter.  If you would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.



-Marc Lemire

Freedom Activist