Friday, June 24, 2011

Those who Fear Debate. Are those who LEGISL-HATE

Thanks to Author Topham

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Extinguishing the Human Wrongs Commissions!

 

Extinguishing the Human Wrongs Commissions!

 

Show #105, Part 3 à http://roadkillradio.com/wp-content/mp3/2011/roadkill_105c.mp3

 

9:00 – 9:30 pm: JOHN MARTIN, Professor of Criminology at University of the Fraser Valley explains why Canada must end, destroy… extinguish our so-called Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Check out his recent column here.

 

 

Thursday, June 16, 2011

"Human Rights" Extremists Meet in Calgary - yet deny Marc Lemire ... so much for "inclusion". [Edmonton Police - Canada's Number 1 Hate Group!]

 

"Human Rights" Extremists Meet in Calgary - yet deny Marc Lemire ... so much for "inclusion".

 

 

Kevin Libin wrote an interesting article in the National Post on Jun 15, 2011 entitled “Human rights conference sensitive and oblivious at once”.  The article is a funny read about how extreme the “human rights” maniacs have really become. From not wanted to “offend” anyone while eating a banana to quiet rooms (padded perhaps?).  SunTV’s Ezra Levant interviewed blogger Kathy Shaidle on “The Source” this week about the CASHRA conference. [See video here]

 

Back in March 2011, I learned that the Alberta “Human Rights” Commission was hosting the annual CA$H-ra conference.  This is an annual lavish conference where “human rights” bigwigs meet and slap each other on the back, celebrating how amazing they are for making Canada such a socially inclusive society. Of course, they get no real support from Canadians, so the tax-payers are on the hook for footing the bill for this lavish weekend.  I reviewed what the conference was about, and found a speakers track entitled “Hate and Bias Incidents and Crime: From incident to prosecution”.  This seemed like a very interesting discussion, and since it was just a bunch of Police Officers speaking, I figured I would provide the other side of the issue.  I had a great speech written [see below], which would cover the avalanche of hate material which members of the Edmonton Police Service and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have posted online.  You would think that a group of people interested in “fighting hate and bias crime” would jump at my offer to expose Alberta’s largest racist group.

 

On March 4 2011, I wrote to the 2011 CA$Hra conference organizer, Jasvir Chatha-Bains of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and offered my expertise free of charge.

 

 

From: Marc Lemire [mailto:marc@lemire.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:35 PM
To: Jasvir Chatha-Bains; CCS Human Rights; CCS Education Community Services
Subject: ** CASHRA 2011 - Request to Speak on Hate and Bias Crime

 

TO:  Jasvir Chatha-Bains

Alberta Human Rights Commission

Phone 403-297-3276 (Calgary office)

Fax 403-297-6567

E-mail:  jasvir.chatha-bains@gov.ab.ca

 

 

March 4, 2011

 

 

Dear Mr. Chatha-Bains,

 

I understand that you are part of the organizing committee for the CASHRA (Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies) 2011 conference in Calgary, Alberta. 

 

According to the website: http://www.cashra2011.ca, a very important component of the conference will be looking into Hate and bias incidents and crime.

 

As a person who has been involved in Federal human rights cases for the past 6 years, I would like to be able to speak on the topic of hate and bias crime on the Internet, with particular regards to Alberta and Edmonton.  In particular, I believe I would be a very good panel guest for the June 14 panel entitled “2d. Hate and Bias Incidents and Crime: From incident to prosecution (HB, ECE)”.  I am a computer expert, and have been involved heavily in the litigation of Section 13 of the federal Canadian Human Rights Act.

 

I have expert level knowledge on hate and bias crime incidents, particularly from a Federal standpoint (Section 13 of the CHRA) and also from Section 318/319 of the Criminal Code.   My research on the Edmonton Police Service and Canadian Human Rights Commission would certainly be of interest to CASHRA, and would offer a unique perspective on hate and bias crime incidents, with a particular regard to the Internet.

 

Looking forward to your response.

 

 

-Marc Lemire

Human Rights Activist

 

 

 

On March 8th 2011, Mr. Chatha-Bains of the Alberta Human Rights Commission responded to my request by saying that “Thanks very much for your email and interest in this conference.  I have forwarded your email on to Cam Stewart, who is leading the Hate and Bias Stream portion of the conference and he will be in touch.”

 

The following day, the Alberta Human Rights Commission turned me down as a speaker.

 

From: Jasvir Chatha-Bains [mailto:jasvir.chatha-bains@gov.ab.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 1:50 PM
To: Marc Lemire
Subject: RE: ** CASHRA 2011 - Request to Speak on Hate and Bias Crime

 

 

Hello Marc,

 

Thanks for your interest in speaking at the CASHRA 2011 conference. I forwarded your email to the staff responsible for the hate and bias stream and they informed me that at this time, we have secured all the speakers for this panel discussion. If there is an opening, we will be in touch.


Regards,

Jasvir

 

Jasvir Chatha-Bains (403) 297 3276

Human Rights and Citizenship Culture and Community Spirit 310, 525 11Ave. SW, Calgary, AB T2R 0C9 jasvir.chatha-bains@gov.ab.ca

 

 

 

As typical for the thought police, “Inclusion”, “tolerance” and “diversity” are always a one way street.  If you agree with them, you are “included” and you’re “tolerant” and “diverse”.  If you disagree, well… you know their usual tactics…  “racist”, “hater”, “bigot”, etc, etc, etc.

 

It’s funny how so many in the “human rights” industry have absolutely no problem with hate – so long as it’s for them.  Hate magically becomes love and intolerance magically becomes tolerance.  For instance, 8 years ago, I posted the “immigrant poem” (without a single ethnic slur, and questioning Canada’s immigration system), I got hauled before kangaroo courts for 8 years (and it’s still going on!) which cost me enormously to defend.  Yet when Stephen Camp of the Edmonton Police Service calls a local newspaper a “kike publication” and slams Native Canadians as “redskined …animals” he is hailed as a hero by the human rights crowd.

 

The hypocrisy of the Human Rights Enforcers is both shocking and disturbing and these are the self-appointed arbiters who seek to lecture Canadians on what is right and wrong in Canada!  To say their moral compasses are totally broken is an understatement.  If they ever had any “moral authority” to “fight hate”, it certainly can’t be claimed now.

 

Here are just a few select Internet postings by the Apostles of Tolerance and Anti-Racism at the Edmonton Police Service:

 

  • “Anybody read the Edmonton Journal dated January 22? I know it's a kike publication but...”

 

  • About candidates running for Edmonton mayor he wrote: “I think noce is Italian/Jew, and Mandel is a jew as well.”

 

  • “With any luck they will end up like the nogs in the states who predominantly kuill each other.”

 

  • In Reference to Native people he wrote: “how can u hold the little redskin responsible he's only an animal...”

 

  • “Our corrupt government is nothing but a puppet to this so called multicultural agenda.”

 

  • “This post again re emphasises the point that our tax dollars are waisted on keeping Zundel behind bars, while Muslim extremists are allowed re entry into Canada , and free to come and go as they please.”

 

  • “It is a wee bit freaken contradictory when parents tell their kids not to use drugs, and at the same time our scum sucking government is handing out all the tools adults need to smoke crack.”

 

 

I let the Alberta Human Rights Commission know about the racist internet posting by the Edmonton Police, and provided sworn transcripts where police officers admit to posting the comments – after initially denying and trying to block disclosure.  I sent them a copy of the postings, and made sure they knew what these so-called “hate crime” units were really up to, and that is not about stopping hate at all, but rather they are biggest promoters of it.  After all, with no hate around they would lose their million dollar budgets and actually have to do real police work. 

 

In spite of the documented racism from the Edmonton Police Service, the Alberta Human Rights Commission proudly had a member of the Edmonton police as a lead speaker for “Session 2d. Hate and Bias Incidents and Crime: From Incident to prosecution”.  Knowing the history of the Edmonton Police, I was surprised the talk was not entitled “How to Post Racist Material for Fun and Profit”, then again, he would really be speaking to the choir, as I suspect some of the agencies at the conference are fully aware how profitable it is [YES, I am talking to YOU – Canadian Human Rights Commission!].

 

In the end, I guess it is not really any wonder that the Human Rights Commissions would refuse to hear from me.  After all, I have expert knowledge of institutional false flag “anti-Racist” operations across Canada, which has lead to most of the online hate we see today.  While it is shocking that so much hate is generated by these hate-finder generals, it can’t be simply ignored and swept under the rug. It can now be said and demonstrated – that the biggest and most politically connected racists are police officers, government bureaucrats and others hanging off government purse strings.

 

And all this under a “conservative” government!  What the hell is going on in Ottawa?

 

Marc Lemire

http://www.freedomsite.org

 

 

 

---------------------

Here was part of what I would have said to the CASHRA Conference

 

 

The Edmonton Police Service

Canada’s #1 Hate Group!

 

 

The Edmonton Police Service is one of the best examples of a false flag operation which has been exposed to the light of day. Police officers posted an avalanche of hate material online. The same officers later received awards and were praised for their work.  The officers were held up as “experts” on hate, and went on speaking tours around Canada and the United States.

 

The Edmonton Police Services Hate and Bias Crime unit was created in 2003, after years of active lobbying by a police officer named Stephen Camp.  As a result of his actions, Heritage Canada gave a start-up grant to the Edmonton Police of $180,000 and the unit was started with Stephen Camp appointed to head the two man unit.

 

According to a 2009 Access to Information request,[1] the Edmonton Police Hate/Bias Crime unit costs tax-payers a substantial amount of money each year.  In 2003 a total of $676,563 was spent.  In 2004 the number was almost the same at $649,043. For 2005, the number went down a bit to $456,942.  From 2003 to 2005 the total cost to taxpayers for the Hate Crimes unit was $1,782,548.

 

The Edmonton Police also disclosed in the Access to Information request that from Jan 1 2003 to Dec 31 2005 that “The EPS Hate Crimes unit advised there were total of 3 arrests for the time period you specified.”  This equates to $594,183 per arrest.

 

The tiny number of 3 arrests is really the key piece of information, and explains why the Edmonton Police Service needed to setup a false flag operation.  The Edmonton Metro area has a population of over one million people, and in a three year period there were only a total of 3 arrests.  What possible need would Edmonton have to keep a half-million dollar hate crimes unit around for the possibility of one arrest a year?

 

The answer to the clear lack of any “hate” in Edmonton was the birth of codename: Estate.

 

“Estate” was an internet pseudonym that the Edmonton Police created to ferment hate in Edmonton. The police used this account to infiltrate a website called “Stormfront,” and then unleashed a constant stream of invective and hate towards Jews, Indians, Whites, Blacks and anyone else they felt like it.

 

The evidence showing that “Estate” was an account used by the Edmonton Police Service came out in the Human Rights Tribunal hearing of Glenn Bahr.

 

The Edmonton Police would often post negative comments about decisions they made, and ridicule them.  For instance this post: “Remember the Edmontn LRT incident, where a gang of thug injuns attacked and beat a group of whites. Even when it was mentioned that they were yellin, "let;s f..k up the whities" the hate cops refused to say it was a hate crime. This is all about victimizing the white race. The cops should be investigatied for their discriminatory practices against our race. Maybe a complaint to Canada Human Rights.[2]

 

On native sentencing circles, the Edmonton Police wrote: “The co accused will be sentenced by Sanderman on March 2 after recommendations are made by a native sentencing circle’. - What a joke! Lets save us (the working class) the cost of  forever incarcerating this retarded little ch-g. These native sentencing circles are unreal. If your and indian you can blame the white man forever for everything and anything; our spineless system will try and make it up to you by letting you get away with whatever you want. If it were on teh news that a couple of injun guards (and like I said earlier it is likely and implssibility) got their asses kicked by a white inmate all hell would break loose. Then again; how can u hold the little redskin responsible he's only an animal... I liked the approach of the two cops from Saskatoon convicted of dropping the troublesome indian off outside of town in the cold. They requested having access to the sentencing circle process but were denied as they are not native...so they fried at sentencing. In't injustice for the whites who built this country.[3]

 

In terms of gay pride day in Edmonton, Sgt. Stephen Camp wrote: “I think I need a vacation from Edmonton. First, our outlet for free speech goes down the tubes with the hate pigs illegally bustin up his house. Now this week in Edmonton, there is Gay Pride Week. I gotta get out of here!”  Camps remarks here are very enlightening, since Camp was responsible for implementing a crazy policy with the Edmonton Police service, where new police recruits were forced to suffer the indignity of pretending to be homosexuals, including holding hands and then cruising around the city. 

 

Edmonton’s 365Gay website reported on January 2, 2004 that “Edmonton police are taking to heart the old adage ‘to know what it's like to be me walk a mile in my shoes’. In a step believed to be the first of its kind anywhere in the world new police recruits are now required to spend a day in a non-gay area ‘pretending to be gay’.”  The article continues “Last week the first ‘exercise’ was held for two new cops. The officers, wearing civvies walked hand in hand down a typical commercial street. ‘I'm trying to get them to understand what it's like to be in that kind of a situation in this city,’ says Const. Steve Camp, who came up with the idea.[4]

 

Canada’s Muslim community and Sharia law, were also a constant target of Sgt. Stephen Camp.  In one posting Camp wrote: “Did anyone see the CBC newscast on Islamic Law in Canada. The notorious Liberal Federal Gov't has allowed disputes, and other matters to be resolved through a tribunal from the Islamic community, based on their own religious beliefs. The libs say it is to divert the caseload from our courts. To me, all criminal and civil matters should be resolved through the Canadian Courts, and not based on some foreign, radical, backward, medieval and extreme religous beliefs. My kids are going to be living in a Muslim Country at this rate. Praise freaken Allah, eh![5]

 

Camp later followed up with this post: “Sharia Law has been a thorn in my side for a year. I can't get over this opressive law. The main point of contention is that women will be influenced by their family to agree to arbitration, and continue to be manipulated in a male dominalted Muslim society...right here in Canada. Hard to believe, eh. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be ignored. Imagine if whites were doing this. We would be labeled, ridiculed, arrested.

Our corrupt government is nothing but a puppet to this so called multicultural agenda. Meanwhile our white community continue to play by the rules and laws. And what are we getting for it....continual oppression.

I hope our government stands up to this law. However I am not holding my breath. I think this could be a good point to rally against. What do u think Paul? After all isn't this importation of immigrant law which is contradictory to Canadian Law? I don't think enough people know about this.[6]

 

Sgt. Camp even went as far as fundraising for people that he personally arrested!  Sgt. Camp rallied members of Stormfront to start up a “[white nationalist] bail fund” in order “to help out our brothers that are being screwed by zog hate cops.[7] The term “zog” was defined in a recent Tribunal decision as: “ZOG is the acronym for ‘Zionist order government’, which refers to the theory that Jewish people control the governments in all countries of the world.”[8]

 

In 2006, Glenn Bahr filed a Section 13 (hate speech) complaint against the Edmonton Police with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  The CHRC refused to even accept the complaint! 

 

In a letter dated August 10, 2006, the CHRC held that the Edmonton Police and Stephen Camp were performing their duties pursuant to Section 25 of the Criminal Code, and as such, no action could be taken under the human rights act.  Therefore Camp was given carte Blanche to promote hate – free from any sanctions or regulations.

 

Stephen Camp was an incessant self-promoter.  On each and every occasion he made an arrest, a call was put out to the media.  Like some pirates displaying the bounty they just stole, the Edmonton Police would setup a room where they would display the private goods that were seized during the raid. 

 

In the case of Glenn Bahr, the Edmonton Police setup a media display showing items seized during a May 7, 2004 raid which included many of Mr. Bahrs private possessions.  This included: clothing, flags, books, his computer, even a wrist watch.  (Note that none of the material the police showed had anything to do with a criminal offense.  It is not yet illegal in Canada to have books, t-shirts, flags or even wrist watches, no matter how offensive and controversial they are)

 

Camp has also been quoted in numerous newspaper articles, where he often inflates himself up to the level of an “expert” on hate and bias crime.  As a result of the publicity he received, Camp was often asked to speak at events across Canada and the United States.  In 2005, he spoke to a group in New York called the International Network against Cyber Hate (INACH) at the headquarters of the ADL.

 

Stephen Camp the “Hero”

 

Arising out of the publicity surrounding the arrests by Stephen Camp and for “fighting hate” in Edmonton, Camp was showered with awards and even given a promotion within the Edmonton Police Service.

 

Among the awards given to “hate fighter” Stephen Camp and the Edmonton Police Service were: 

 

  • 2005 International Association of Chief’s of Police Motorola Webber Seavy Award finalists for quality of law enforcement,
  • The International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP) Civil Rights Award,
  • Edmonton Pride Award.

 

Richard Warman, a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and serial Section 13 complainant, has praised the Edmonton Police hate crimes unit on several occasions.   In the 2005 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents report, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada Warman wrote that “The wealth of action and success by the Edmonton Police hate crimes unit in addressing the problem of hate, both on the Internet and elsewhere within Edmonton, stands as a model for best practices in effective community policing.” [9]

 

In June 2005, Mr. Warman wrote a letter to the Edmonton Journal, where he said “I've dealt with Stephen Camp and Dave Huggins of the EPS hate-crimes unit a number of times and have found them to be dedicated, effective role models on how to ‘get the job done right.’” [10] In the Canadian Jewish News, Warman was quoted as saying “just shows how on top of things the Edmonton [Police] hate crime unit is. They really have become the poster child of what a hate crimes unit can do.[11]

 

Effectiveness of the Edmonton Hate Squad

 

The ultimate question of any police unit is how effective is it, does the unit meet professional standards and are taxpayers getting value for the money. On all three counts, the Edmonton Police hate and bias crime unit is left wanting.

 

Official Edmonton Police records show that over a three year period, they made a total of three arrests.  Based on media reports, the breakdown in arrests are:  2 for Glenn Bahr and 1 for a person named Reinhard Gustav Mueller (who also called himself Reni Sentana-Reis)

 

As noted previously, the case against Glenn Bahr was stayed and Mr. Bahr proclaimed 100% innocent.  That leaves all of one arrest over a three year timeframe.  The last arrest was against Reinhard Gustav Mueller.  That case did result in a conviction, but Mueller was of questionable mental serenity.

 

According to various newspaper reports Reinhard Gustav Mueller had a website called “Federation of Free Planets.”  Mueller believed that “ancient writing declared him a spiritual leader called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and that he has authority over the destiny of the Jewish people.”  Mr. Mueller also testified that “he is of ancient Egyptian descent and ‘has authority recognized by all high councils of this galaxy.’ In addition, Mueller has assumed the titles of Grand World Councillor, Lion of Judah, Starship Commander Dexter and Guardian of the Arab Prophetess Uthrania Seila.” [12]

 

Mr. Mueller apparently came to this knowledge from the silver filings in his wife’s teeth, which act as a radio receiver for him to pick up signals from outer space. 

 

The Edmonton Sun reported that Mueller “claims [he] can receive communications from extra-terrestrials [and] have been persecuted by various spy agencies over the last decade because of the powers they hold.[13]

 

So, yes the Edmonton Police did actually get one conviction.  But was this charge a result of some fine sleuthing and professional investigation by Stephen Camp and his anti-hate posse?  No! The Edmonton Police actually didn’t do a thing.  Mueller himself went to the police to complain that someone left a box of molotov cocktail explosives on his lawn.  When police asked why, Mueller said it was because various spy agencies were upset about his anti-Jewish website.

 

The Edmonton Police were so desperate to get their first (and only) conviction; they ignored the fact that Reinhard Gustav Mueller was most likely insane and not fit to stand trial. 

 

Not surprisingly, professional Jewish organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress praised the conviction of this poor man. CJC Chief Executive Officer Bernie “Farber applauded the sentence on Friday, calling it a precedent-setting longest sentence given to an Internet hate-monger.” [14]

 

What did tax-payers get for their $1.7 million bucks?  One conviction of a person with questionable sanity. Police financed and setup the WCFU, a group they would claim was a hate group. And an avalanche of hate filled internet postings by police officers pretending to be “nazis” in order to justify their budget and very existence.

 

 

 

 

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] FOIPP Act request by Marc Lemire, fulfilled on April 28, 2009 by Sharon Yeung, disclosure analyst of the Edmonton Police Service FOIPP unit.

[2] “Estate” posting to Stormfront website on 02-12-2004, 12:31 PM http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=886598#post886598

[3] “Estate” posting to Stormfront website on 01-28-2004, 02:16 PM

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=855402#post855402

[4] Cops Walk A Mile In Our Shoes posted at 365Gay.com (Also gaywired.com)

[5] “Estate” posting to Stormfront website on 08-06-2004, 02:03 PM

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1197630#post1197630

[6] “Estate” posting to Stormfront website on 10-12-2004, 04:11 PM

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1341044#post1341044

[7] “Estate” posting to Stormfront website on 02-06-2004, 02:46 PM

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=874721#post874721

[8] CHRT Decision.  Warman v. Winnicki.  2006 CHRT 20. Para 99.

[9] 2005 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents.  Article by Richard Warman entitled: HATE ON THE INTERNET: The Canadian Scene

[10] Edmonton Journal, Jun 23, 2005: "City police hate-crimes officers are outstanding"

[11] Canadian Jewish News, Dec 22, 2005: “Jury convicts Edmonton man in Internet hate case

[12] Jewish Independent: Edmonton man guilty of spreading anti-Semitism. Dec.30-05

[13] Edmonton Sun: 'Most vile and hateful' hate crime against Jews. Sept 01 2006

[14] Edmonton Journal: Hate-monger gets 16 months. September 02 2006

[VIDEO] Lawyer Doug Christie Faces Prostate Cancer






Free Speech Lawyer Douglas Christie speaks about the value of others and the interconnectedness of friends as he faces his diagnosis of prostate cancer. A frank assessment of the spiritual consequences of a diagnosis of prostate cancer. 

[Marc Lemire:  I wish the best for Doug Christie, and hope that he is ok during this difficult time for him and his wonderful family.]

Saturday, June 4, 2011

Documents referred to by Marc Lemire during the Ezra Levant's 'The Source' Interview


Documents referred to by Marc Lemire during the Ezra Levant’s ‘The Source’ Interview

On June 2, 2011, I appeared on Ezra Levant’s ‘The Source’ TV show on the Sun network.  You can see the interview repost on Youtube.  [http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/june3-2011_lemire-on-suntv.html]
During the course of the show a large amount of information was discussed. I promised in my posting yesterday, that I would provide links to everything I discussed, and second to correct any mistakes I might have made.
Here are the source documents which I referred to during the interview, and some additional information.  The following links follow the timeline of the interview.


During the interview, I mentioned that my opponents called no information that I am somehow racist or a leader in the nazi movement and instead just spewed filth and innuendo my way.
 Here is what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said on this:
[25]… Mr. Warman did not present any additional evidence other than to suggest that Mr. Lemire must be the communicator given his alleged "lengthy overall involvement of the neo-Nazi movement". Mr. Warman also argued that the website's material is consistent with the hate messages found on the Freedomsite website, which Mr. Lemire readily admits owning and operating.
[26] It is arguable if I have any evidence before me actually documenting Mr. Lemire's "lengthy overall involvement" in the "neo-Nazi movement", but even if I had such evidence, and even if the Freedomsite website were shown to be "consistent" with JRBooksonline, I do not see how these factors would help establish prima facie that Mr. Lemire was the person responsible for the posting of the material on the JRBooksonline was Mr. Lemire.
 I wrote an article a while back on this topic also: Marc Lemire: Not a Nazi or White Supremacist.  After a 6 year investigation the CHRC could not find SINGLE word I have written which violates Section 13.



CSIS Agent Grant Bristow
(Yes he is speaking in front of a Nazi Swastika flag, this is not a modified picture)
Ezra Levant mentioned that Grant Bristow was a CSIS agent who started the Heritage Front.  I made some comments about how Bristow funded the Heritage Front and turned it towards violence.   Here is a posting I made about Grant Bristow, and included five speeches that Bristow gave, where he screamed “White Power” and raised money for the Heritage Front to fight a Section 13 complaint made against them.

  
Levant asked me if I was a criminal and I pointed out that of course I am not a criminal, and further that my opponents have went to the police about me, and the police did nothing.  Here is the exchange between my lawyer and the person who laid the complaint with the Toronto Police about me.

2007/02/01 - Pg 616
7 MS KULASKZA: Did you ask the police
8 to conduct an investigation? [ABOUT LEMIRE]
9 MR. WARMAN: Yes, I did.
10 MS KULASKZA: What police force did
11 you approach?
12 MR. WARMAN: The Toronto Police
13 Force.
14 MS KULASKZA: Metro Toronto?
15 MR. WARMAN: Well, I believe it's
16 called the Toronto Police Service.
2007/02/01 - Pg 619
4 MR. WARMAN: No, I had already done
5 that, not -- well, I --- it was simply further material
6 related to the original complaint that had already been
7 laid.
8 MS KULASKZA: Regarding the
9 Freedomsite?
10 MR. WARMAN: Yes. Well, against
11 Mr. Lemire in general, but regarding the Freedomsite
12 originally.

It’s clear that Warman filed a complaint with the Toronto Police, who did nothing with the complaint and didn’t even contact me.

During the interview, I stated that Richard Warman was hanging around my website for up to a year before filing the complaint.    Here is the source, from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the decision in my case:
[67] Mr. Warman testified that he visited the Freedomsite website and its message board, beginning as early as December 2002. He viewed material that he believed violated s. 13 of the Act, and decided to draft a human rights complaint, which he signed on November 23, 2003.


During the interview I mentioned that I tried to mediate the complaint constantly.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal made mention of my mediation attempts frequently
[284] Mr. Lemire repeatedly asked formally through his legal counsel for an opportunity to mediate or conciliate a settlement to the complaint, to no avail. Mr. Warman testified that he refused to participate in any settlement discussions because the JRBooksonline.com website (which, as I mentioned earlier, had not even been mentioned in the human rights complaint) continued to be available on the Internet, and he was convinced that Mr. Lemire was responsible for its content. Of course, Mr. Warman was not obliged to participate in a mediation session, but the Commission still had the authority to appoint a conciliator, pursuant to s. 47 of the Act.
[289] As I have pointed out several times in this decision, Mr. Lemire had not only "amended" his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him. The process understood by the Supreme Court was not what Mr. Lemire experienced.


During the interview, I mentioned that I thought that my hearing went for 35 hearing days. The actual number is 29 hearing days at the Tribunal.
Here are the actual dates (as counted by the Tribunal and referenced at the bottom of the decision) 
January 29 to February 2, 2007
February 5 to 9, 2007
Toronto, Ontario

February 19 to 23, 2007
February 26 to 28, 2009
March 1, 2007
Mississauga, Ontario

May 9 to 11, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario

June 25 to 27, 2007
Oakville, Ontario

March 25, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

September 15 to 17, 2008
Oakville, Ontario

The total Tribunal hearing days was: 29
When I mentioned around 35, that also included the Federal Court appeal I did, along with days the CHRC demanded cross-examination on my witnesses (meaning we had to go down to an examiners office, and have the CHRC grill my witnesses)


Here are their names:

CHRC lawyers:
Giacomo Vigna
Margot Blight
Monette Maillet
Ikram Warsame
Ian Fine
Phillipe Dufresne

Richard Warman
 
Simon Fothergill For the Attorney General of Canada
Alicia Davies For the Attorney General of Canada
Charlotte Kanya-Forstner For the Canadian Jewish Congress
Marvin Kurz For the League of Human Rights of B'Nai Brith
Michael Mosten For the B’nai Brith Canada
Leo Adler For the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre
Steven Skurka, a lawyer for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies and the Canadian Jewish Congress
Joel Richler for the Canadian Jewish Congress
Ryder Gilliland for the Canadian Jewish Congress




Since 1979, a full 90% of respondents under Section 13 have not been represented by legal counsel.  Most of the people dragged before Tribunals can be classed as poor to extremely poor.
This shows that the case law and precedents that now make up the history of Section 13 were done on the backs of poor people and those that could not even afford to be represented by a lawyer.  Because the system is very legal and complicated, many respondents who could not afford a lawyer, chose not to even bother to appear.
Legal precedents determine how a law is used and what it becomes. 
 These precedents are now being used against respondents like Macleans Magazine, Catholic Insight and many others.  The chill on freedom of expression by these repulsive precedents is completely unacceptable.




Yes you won’t find the “Immigrant Poem” on my website, but you can find it here, on the website of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Scroll down to paragraph 50.



You heard the poem on Ezra Levant's TV show!   Now here are the wacky submissions of the CHRC!  (read the poem and make up your own mind)
 I referred to the submissions of the CHRC as fanatical on the Immigrant poem.    Here is what they actually said (from the Tribunals decision):
[58] Mr. Warman testified that the message he took from the poem was that non-white immigrants, and perhaps specifically non-white immigrants from Pakistan, are presented as "denigrating stereotypical examples" of persons abusing the welfare system, who end up bringing their extended families to Canada and further drain the system. The word "trash" is used to describe the families of immigrants. These immigrants are shown as people who make a "hobby" of "breeding". They bring down property values in neighbourhoods where they end up "driving out" white residents. White Canadians are branded as fools who allow this to happen, and if they do not like the situation, they are exhorted to "get lost".
[59] The Commission argues that the poem develops a "gross caricature of Pakistani and other East Asian immigrants to Canada" that amounts to extreme ill will and utter contempt, and which exposes persons from these groups to hatred or contempt within the meaning of s. 13.
[60] Mr. Lemire counters, in response, that the poem is a "biting and satirical commentary on how immigrants are treated in Canada at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer". He submits that the poem constitutes "core political commentary regarding Canadian immigration policies". Mr. Klatt testified that through a search using the "Google" search engine, he was able to find the Canadian Immigrant Poem, posted presumably by persons other than Mr. Lemire, on at least 397 other websites including the "Discover Vancouver" and "Country Living, Country Skills" websites. Mr. Lemire argues that this demonstrates that many Canadians find that the poem expresses something about Canada's immigration policies with which they agree - policies that are subject to criticism. I am not convinced, however, that merely because a text appears on numerous web pages, it necessarily reflects a commonly held view or that it does not constitute a hate message within the meaning of s. 13.
[61] Mr. Warman believes that the poem does, in fact, constitute a hate message. He claims that it bears some of the hallmarks of hate messages identified in the body of s. 13 jurisprudence over the years (see Warman v. Kouba, 2006 CHRT 50 ("Kouba"), at paras. 22-81, for a summary of these hallmarks). In particular, Mr. Warman contends that the poem treats immigrants as a powerful menace that will deprive white Canadians of their livelihood. This hallmark, however, is derived from decisions like Citron. The respondent in that case was found to have expounded theories of secret conspiracies by Jews designed to extort money and tremendous power and control on a global scale. The Tribunal found that the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews found in the documents in evidence separated that material from material that might be permissible under the Act. I do not find a similar tone or an extreme denigration of person(s) to be present in the poem that was posted by Mr. Lemire on Stormfront.org.
[62] Mr. Warman submits that the poem also bears the hallmark of "highly inflammatory and derogatory language", which creates a tone of extreme hatred or contempt (Kouba at para. 67). He points to words such as "trash" and "breeding", as well as "dummies" (although that term appears to be ascribed to "white Canadians"). He also points to the suggestion in the poem that non-white immigrants defraud the welfare system and that they cannot speak English properly. These expressions are certainly provocative, as well as insulting, but they do not come close to the sort of extreme language that has been identified in s. 13 jurisprudence as being likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt. The poem does not contain any of the ugly racial and ethnic epithets that have so often been present in the material adduced in other s. 13 cases.
  
 Here is what my actual submissions were on the “Immigrant Poem”

56.  The “Immigrant Poem” does not expose any group to hatred. It is a biting and satirical commentary on how immigrants are treated in Canada at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. It constitutes core political commentary regarding Canadian immigration policies. While the poem refers to Pakistan, there is no indication that the speaker is Pakistani. The poem speaks of “Canadian dummy” and “Canadian crazy” and “too damn good for the white man race.” No such references appear regarding the ethnic groups listed in the complaint. The poem is a commentary on the alleged stupidity of Canadians regarding its immigration and welfare policies. Criticism of immigration policies, are not covered by the CHRA.
57.  The poem does not expose any groups to hatred and/or contempt. The Taylor decision requires that messages be “intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group".  This poem does not circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium or enmity against any protected group under the Act.
58.  It is telling that Rizk testified that she included the poem in her report simply to show what Warman had given her.
59.  Bernard Klatt produced the searches for the “Immigrant Poem” he did on Google which were filed at Exhibit R-2, Tab 22; Vol. 8, p. 1585-1590] As of December, 2006, The “immigrant poem” was available on at least 397 websites.  Those websites included:  Phade.Ca, VivelaCanada.ca, Free Dominion, Camera Country F-Body Group, DodgeDakotas.com, CompuServe.com and Warp Reality.  (Exhibit R-2, Tab 22, Pages 1-4)
60.  Specific printouts of the “Immigrant Poem” were included from the websites “Discover Vancouver” and  “Country Living, Country Skills”  (Exhibit R-2, Tab 22, Pages 5-13) Many Canadians obviously find the poem expresses something about Canada’s immigration policies that they agree with.  Immigration is determined by the policy of Canada’s elected governments in a democratic system. These policies are subject to criticism. The inclusion of this poem in the complaint shows the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
61.  It is submitted that the immigrant poem has not been proven to be posted by the respondent on a balance of probabilities. Moreover, the poem could not be found by anyone other than the complainant on the day it was allegedly posted. There is no evidence it was accessed by anyone other than two alleged posters and the complainant. There was no likelihood it would expose anyone to hatred. Lastly, the poem does not meet the test set out in Taylor for “hatred and contempt.” This test sets a very high bar which this poem does not meet.

 Even titles are racist according to CHRC  (immigrants get free limo service)
I mentioned that the CHRC went after me for posting “racist titles”  one of the racist titles was called “immigrants get free limo service”.  I had forgotten, but the CHRC actually wanted to hold me liable for posting the Canadian Human Rights Act (!)
  
Canadian Human Rights Commission Letter 
- November 8, 2006
Written by English-language word guru - Giacomo Vigna
 
 7. The titles in themself of the literature announced in the website, it is respectfully submitted, indicate prima facie, that the literature announced and found can be considered to be a violation of section 13. Here are a series of but some examples from the said website: {SIC)

See schedule "A" annexed hereto




Yes this is no joke.  Check this out:  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan25-07_CHRA_is_hate.html
 I know this sounds unbelievable, but here are the actual submissions from the CHRC.  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/chrc_letters/Nov8-06_CHRA_is_hate.pdf




Here are the submissions I made on the harassment of Internet Service Providers by the CHRC. 

Once section 13 was enacted, the common carrier status of telephone companies forced those wishing to shut down telephone hotlines to complain to the CHRC and undergo the procedure set out in the statute which included a public hearing and an opportunity for the respondent to make submissions and tender evidence.

This situation has now changed with the extension of section 13 to computer communications, including the Internet. As ISPs do not have any common carrier protection, they were quickly targeted by the CHRC and by NGOs such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC), the intervenors in this case.

The first public controversy which arose concerning the liability of ISPs for alleged hate messages involved Bernard Klatt , the Internet expert called by the respondent.

In the 1990’s Klatt had an ISP business which hosted a number of websites. Klatt received a telephone call from Sol Littman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre who asked him to remove certain websites he was hosting.  Before Klatt had a chance to too look at the material, the SWC held a press conference. Klatt’s hometown of Oliver was painted as Canada ’s “Hate Capital.”  B’nai Brith’s lawyers contacted B.C. Telecom in an attempt to pressure it to disconnect Klatt’s service. Newspapers portrayed Klatt as being an enabler of white supremacists and the SWC subsequently attempted to have him charged criminally under s. 319 of the Criminal Code.

Klatt’s position was that he had no legal expertise to determine whether something was hate or not and neither did the SWC. He therefore refused to take down the websites. His position was in line with that of Electronic Frontier Canada which had a policy supporting common carriage requirements for all network providers. [Facts, p. 178-182]

When Klatt shut down his ISP business, another ISP took over his dialup clients but refused the controversial websites as it was a “community business” and didn’t want to get into controversy. [Facts, p. 180-181]

Klatt’s experience was the first shot in what has become a concerted effort by the CHRC and its “stakeholder” groups such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, to pressure or coerce ISPs into removing websites unilaterally without need for a hearing before the CHRT.

In the mid-1990’s, the CHRC began approaching ISPs even though section 13 at that time was limited to telephone messages. It had announced in public speeches by the Deputy Chief Commissioner that it considered it had jurisdiction over the Internet and would accept complaints about material transmitted over it. [Facts, p. 108-109]

In 1994 and 1995, officials of the CHRC wrote to and met with the administrators of the National Capital FreeNet “to discuss how to deal with the use of the NCF for the posting of messages which may contravene section 13...”  A protocol was suggested to NCF for dealing with hate messages whereby the CHRC would notify NCF of messages considered to be hate messages and NCF would take appropriate action. This could include warning the offending member or terminating or suspending membership. Suggestions were made that user agreements contain a clause prohibiting the use of the NCF to communicate hate on the prohibited grounds and that this would “limit your liability.” [Facts, p. 114-116]

The CHRC has continued this pressure on ISPs and expanded it to include foreign websites having no relation to Canada and over which they have no jurisdiction. Letters written to foreign websites and ISPs asked to take “appropriate” action. [Facts, p. 116-117]

A letter was written to an American ISP hosting the Zundelsite with the result the website was removed as being contrary to the ISPs acceptable use policy. [Facts, p. 117] This was done even though the Zundelsite is legal in the United States .

CHRC senior policy analyst Harvey Goldberg testified there were no policies with respect to the sending of letters to ISPs and no policies regarding the method of approaching ISPs.  He saw no problem with the letters since the CHRC was simply asking corporate ISPs to be aware of the laws of Canada and abide by them as good corporate citizens. [Facts, p. 117]

Goldberg justified all contacts with ISPs under section 27(h) of the CHRA. It was part of the persuasive part of their mandate. As a policy analyst, he believed it was appropriate for the CHRC to seek to censor material before a hearing. ISPs, represented by the industry organization, Canadian Association of Internet Providers, had taken a “constructive and collaborative” approach with the CHRC. [Facts, p. 117-120]

As part of this work, justified under s. 27(h), Goldberg and other members of the CHRC discussed the use of filters by ISPs (to filter out certain words), the terms of acceptable use policies and complaints procedure models having the goal of avoiding litigation.

Goldberg clearly admitted that the CHRC wanted to work “proactively” using the powers under section 27(h) and that meant hate messages being dealt with before the problem reached the stage of a complaint being laid. The goal of the CHRC meeting with CAIP was to set up systems to avoid complaints and avoid the CHRT. [Facts, p. 121]

The CHRC expected ISPs to know what material constituted hate under section 13. The ISPs were advised that the standard to apply was set out in Taylor .  Goldberg testified the ISPs all had the resources to hire legal counsel should they need assistance in knowing what constituted hate on their services. [Facts, p. 121] When a small ISP was held liable in the Kulbashian case, a member of CAIP expressed relief to Goldberg when he informed them by email that this was limited exception to section 13 because the ISP was not acting simply as a common carrier but had involved itself in the discriminatory practices. [Facts, p. 122]

It is clear from the testimony of Goldberg and the extensive emails and other correspondence going back and forth between ISPs and the CHRC that the guarantee to freedom of speech has been gravely damaged by the extension of section 13 to the Internet.

The CHRC’s goal under section 27 is to ensure ISPs quickly deal with troublesome websites and the ISPs goal is to avoid a Klatt-like controversy which smears and defames them as “enablers” of “hate” and exposes them to liability under section 13.  Without the protection of common carrier status, ISPs are extremely vulnerable to this type of public tar and feathering and extremely vulnerable to complaints under section 13 unless they quickly remove material complained of.

The CHRC is not the only actor in the drive to use ISPs as the enforcers of section 13 where censorship actions are unseen and unknown to the public and where the website owner had no recourse but to find another ISP.

Richard Warman testified that he had complained to Bell Sympatico about material posted by Tomasz Winnicki. When Bell took no action, Warman took the matter to the media. Bell quickly removed Winnicki’s material as a result. Another complaint to Bell Sympatico about a website in British Columbia resulted in the rapid shutdown of another website. [Facts, p. 85]

He admitted to contacting a number of ISPs over the years in order to pressure them to shut down websites, including the ISP hosting the website of Fred Kyburz against whom he filed a complaint under section 13. [Facts, p. 85] The Kyburz decision found:  

“Richard Warman testified that in March of 2001, he became aware of the Patriots on Guard website, through his involvement in human rights work. He contacted Mr. Kyburz’ Internet service provider, alerting it to the nature of the content on the site. As a result, service to the site was cut off, and the site was shut down. According to Mr. Warman, the Patriots on Guard web site was not accessible for several days in April of 2001, although it was back up within a couple of days, through a different service provider.” [Decision, para. 35] 

Warman advised his audience in a 2003 speech that it was possible to “shut down hate mongers via corporate pressures” on ISPs by explaining to them that they were responsible for their subscriber’s content. [Facts, p. 85] His own experience obviously proved the truth of his statements.

The threat of section 13 to ISPs is not theoretical. Dean Steacy testified concerning the complaint filed against AOL Canada about messages posted on its message boards on the same-sex marriage debate. The complaint against AOL was dismissed because it took “appropriate” actions: it removed the messages, changed its acceptable use policies, put keyword filters on and simplified the process for an individual to complain.  The filter prevented certain language from being posted. The changes in the user policies made it clear that violators would be cut off from their AOL account in the event of a violation. [Facts, p. 143-145]

The Lemire case itself is another example of the determination of the CHRC and complainant Warman to hold a small provider of a forum for people to chat and communicate, liable for anonymous posts made to that forum. Section 13 will not shut down very large ISPs but it has the power to shut down the Lemire’s and bloggers who host message boards and comment boxes. The remedial steps Lemire took did not stop the proceedings as they did for CAERS and AOL. He was treated differently and there was a political and punitive purpose in continuing the proceedings.

A major player in pressuring ISPs to control content is the Canadian Jewish Congress and its efforts show perhaps most chillingly where section 13 will take Canadians’ rights to freedom of speech on the Internet.

A letter from the CJC to the CHRC set out what it wanted:

“Broadly speaking, the recommendation is for a partnership between Canadian police services and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to analyze foreign-based website to make a determination as to whether a particular site would, if it or its owner was located in Canada , be deemed sufficiently problematic to be referred to tribunal. Such a determination could then be passed to Canadian Internet Service Providers who would then block access.”  

The CHRC refused this offer as it felt such a role was inconsistent with its mandate and could subject it to accusations of conflict of interest if it was making determinations that certain material came within section 13 outside the complaints process and then the same material was complained about. Farber met with ISPs and urged them to devise a protocol based on existing law that would allow them to remove hateful material at their own discretion. [Facts, pp. 125-128]

The effect of section 13 is devastating because ISPs cannot and will not resist pressure on them to remove websites alleged to be hate. These pressures are coming from the CHRC, a body with the legislative ability to lay complaints against them, and from powerful special interest groups such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre which have access to the media and the ability to cause public controversy. The Klatt case provides the classic take-down protocol consisting of defamation, smears, calls for criminal prosecution and the ending of an ISP business, in the instance of a stubborn ISP refusing to take material down unless ordered to by a judicial authority.

ISPs do not have the expertise or interest to determine what is “hate” under section 13 and what is not.  Klatt made this point during the attack on him by the SWC in the 1990s. If material is to be censored as “hate” it must be done in a judicial setting with due process and the right to be heard and a right to judicial review.

This backdoor to censorship did not exist in the case of telephone messages. It exists with respect to the Internet, which has become essential in today’s information society, and which contains information on a scale not envisioned when section 13 was passed.

Those who have the power to cause public controversy in the media can cause business loss to the ISP. And the threat of a section 13 complaint remains if the pressure does not initially work.






These are excerpts from my closing arguments at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Under s. 43 of the CHRA, the CHRC has the power on an ex parte application to the Federal Court to obtain a warrant to enter and search any premises “that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is... any evidence relevant to the investigation of a complaint...” Investigators are entitled to use force if the warrant so specified and a peace officer is present.
 The investigator is entitled to carry out such inquires as are reasonable necessary for the investigation of a complaint, including inspecting and obtaining copies of books or any other documents. There is no doubt this would include an inspection of computers and hard drives.
This means that simply upon the filing of a complaint under section 13, perhaps for posting on a message board, a person can be subject without notice to a search of his home and copies of his computer or hard drive taken by a CHRC investigator. Once documents are in the possession of the CHRC, they are disclosed to the complainant and all other parties if the matter goes to a hearing, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the CHRT.
 This is not conjecture as a copy of the hard drive of respondent James Richardson was provided to Richard Warman under the disclosure rules of the CHRT after the CHRC had obtained it from London police. . [Facts, p. 167, 172]
 It is submitted that the extension of section 13 to the Internet and all computer communications has given the complainant and the CHRC almost unrestricted access to information which is a violation of respondent’s right to privacy and security, contrary to section 7 of the Charter. It will chill free expression by Canadians when they decide it is no longer worth risking all loss of privacy.

Abuse and corruption of the CHRC and its processes

During the hearing, the CHRC announced that it had had a policy of not disclosing to respondents the fact that it was using false identities on message boards and emails to contact respondents and engage them in conversation on message boards and in emails. [Facts, p. 167]
 This was in violation of the rules of the CHRT which require disclosure of all relevant documents or an identification of documents for which privilege is claimed.
 The evidence showed that the CHRC had at least two false identities which its investigators in section 13 cases used. One was “Jadewarr” and one was “Odensrevenge.” Using the Jadewarr account, investigator Dean Steacy signed on to several message boards, including the Freedomsite message board. There is no evidence he posted any racist material, but he did attempt to engage Lemire in conversation about a complaint Lemire had laid under section 13.  He admitted that if Lemire had replied, depending on what he said, Steacy could have used it to dismiss Lemire’s complaint as vexatious. [Facts, p. 156-158]
 Steacy also testified that he had signed up on the Freedomsite when the complaint initially came in but he couldn’t remember if he posted anything. [Facts, p. 159] None of this was disclosed to Lemire.
 There was no control on the use of the accounts which were used by several investigators. No check was made on what posts were being made by the investigators on message boards or whether respondents were being engaged on message boards. [Facts, p. 162]  There were no CHRC guidelines for investigators about what kind of posts they could make using aliases. [Facts, p. 166] There was no central registry to know the various false identities used not only by investigators on message boards, but also police [Facts, p. 171]
 In the Bahr case, police witness Sgt. Stephen Camp admitted that a poster on Stormfront named “Estate” was in fact an Edmonton police officer. Estate was a prolific and vicious poster.. [Facts, p. 79] Steacy didn’t know how or if other investigators used the “Jadewarr” account. [Facts, p. 166]
 Steacy did not think the policy or legal members of the Hate Team knew about the use of these accounts. [Facts, p. 159] Goldberg, the policy member, denied knowing anything about “Jadewarr.” [Facts, p. 114] The CHRC had never made a study if any of the messages that were subjects of complaints were in fact incited by investigators or police or complainants. [Facts, p. 166] 
 The decision by the CHRC not to follow its legal obligations of disclosure to the CHRT resulted in evidence being given to the tribunal which was misleading and deceptive. This occurred in the Beaumont case when a posting from Stormfront was printed off by Steacy using the “Jadewarr” account and was inadvertently disclosed to Beaumont .  The CHRC forced Lemire to go to judicial review at the Federal Court to obtain the answers to the questions about who “Jadewarr” was. It has followed a policy of deception with the tribunals in section 13 cases which is appalling in its implications. Respondents were denied disclosure of the case against them and the CHRTs were misled about material facts.
The culture of anonymity on message boards, which encourages free expression of honest and controversial views, was used and exploited to the detriment of respondents and tribunals hearing these cases.
 It raises the question of how many other anonymous posters on the message boards which have been and are the subject of section 13 complaints were in fact police, CHRC investigators or other anti-racist activists. There is no way of knowing. In this case, the Tribunal is being asked to find Lemire liable as webmaster for anonymous postings on a message board. How many of those postings were planted in order to support this complaint or to entice others to post messages.
 The extension of section 13 to the Internet has opened up avenues for abuse of process which were unavailable when it was limited to telephone lines. The failure to disclose documents and information has resulted in tribunal proceedings which were unfair and where respondents were denied natural justice. The effect on the freedom of speech by this type of deceit, made possible by the extension of section 13 to the Internet, is one which means section 13 and 54 cannot meet the test of proportionality.

CHRC exchange of personal information with police

Both section 13 and section 319 of the Criminal Code deal with the restriction of “hate”. As a result, both the CHRC and police have pursued the same people under both provisions. This has been accelerated by the fact that Warman has laid criminal complaints against respondents after first laying complaints against them under section 13 about the same material. [Facts, p. 78-79]
 Documents disclosed after the March 25, 2008 hearing show that the CHRC regularly communicated with police forces about respondents, exchanged information and obtained evidence from police that had been seized in raids pursuant to warrants under the Criminal Code. [Facts, p. 173-177] Evidence obtained from police included Crown briefs setting out the most personal information about respondents, information obtained from motor vehicle databases, and CDs of personal hard drives seized from the home of James Richardson and, apparently, Alex Kulbashian. The CD copy of Richardson ’s hard drive was given to Warman as part of the CHRC’s disclosure obligations and he testified in the Kulbashian case that he studied it extensively. [Facts, p. 167] Steacy testified he had gone to police officers and requested information about dozen times and had given police information for their purposes about twice. [Facts, 171]
 In this case, Warman laid criminal complaints against Lemire and Harrison after laying the section 13 complaint. Police contacted the CHRC to get copies of evidence but didn’t follow up after being requested to put it in writing. This information was not disclosed to Lemire for over three years. [Facts, p. 31-32] Respondents to human rights proceedings, a civil procedure, are given no warnings that anything they might say or provide to the CHRC will be given to police, for use in possible criminal proceedings. The notification letter they are sent when they are initially informed of the complaint asks them for information which police could use in criminal charges on the same material. The rights of respondents under s. 7 of the Charter are thereby violated when this information flows from the CHRC to police.
 Police information flowing to the CHRC means that the CHRC is gaining access to information from sources such as surveillance, motor vehicle databases, and CPIC that only police have access to. This could be a violation of the warrants issued under the Criminal Code for search and seizure purposes.

Summary

Section 13 has in fact become two provisions:
 It deals solely with effects when no penalty is requested under section 54. But what will cause someone to be “exposed” to hatred or contempt cannot be predicted or known. The offense which one person might feel will not be felt by another. It will be totally dependent on the person’s personality, life experiences, strength of group self-identity and so on. There is no universal “psychological distress” that warrants the violation of the free speech of Canadians. Instead of teaching people to be “victims”, people should be taught that free speech is their right and they have the power to “talk back.” Today, with the Internet, that power to “talk back” has been brought to everyone in a meaningful and extraordinary way.
 The other section 13 is the one where a penalty is demanded by the complainant and the CHRC as in this case. This is the section 13 that has now been used in every single case decided since the provision was extended to the Internet (except for Eldon Warman as noted above). It brings penal consequences, stigma, and moral blameworthiness. It transforms the provision into a quasi-criminal offence with none of the procedural or substantive protections accorded a person charged under the Criminal Code. Parallel criminal proceedings under s. 319 of the Criminal Code have been instituted in several cases, subjecting the respondent to double jeopardy and seizure of his computer and other material by police.