In the recent bizarre
ruling of the Federal Court in the Marc Lemire case – where a Justice of
the Federal Court upheld the completely
discredited Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act – The Justice
also further claimed that the Tribunal’s
clear and decisive ruling was incorrect with respect to mediation. Since
the ruling, Richard Warman has taken to one of the websites he posts on to
claim he was ‘extremely pleased’ with
the courts finding that “repeated efforts
were made by the Commission and Richard Warman to engage Marc Lemire in
mediation or negotiation but these were always refused by Lemire because he
would not accept a cease and desist order as part of any settlement. (para 60)”
Senior adjudicator Athanasios
Hadjis of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal looked at the mediation quite
extensively in the Lemire case, and found that:
“Mr. Lemire repeatedly asked formally
through his legal counsel for an opportunity to mediate or conciliate a
settlement to the complaint, to no avail…” [para 284] and further that “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.” [para 289]
The Federal Court said that:
“In this instance, the Member accepted
Mr. Lemire’s contention that the complainant and the Commission declined to
mediate or conciliate a settlement to the complaint. This is not borne out by
the record of the Tribunal proceedings. Repeated efforts were made to engage
Mr. Lemire in mediating or negotiating a settlement of the complaint. However,
they were conditional on Lemire’s acceptance of a cease and desist order, which
he refused to accept.” [para 60]
But who is correct, the Federal Court who reviewed the matter [in
a ONE DAY hearing], or the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal who reviewed the Lemire case for close to four years,
across close to 30 days of evidence and hearings?
Here is just one of the many
documents I have on the mediation issue.
I have plenty more, but these documents really underline how the entire
process worked against me. It was a punitive
process
which in itself was the real punishment of the entire hearing.
On September 20, 2005, when
the Marc Lemire case was referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a
hearing, one of the very first letters the Tribunal sent was to request
mediation of the case. The Tribunal stated: “Before planning the actual inquiry, the Tribunal is offering mediation,
on consent of all parties, in an attempt to achieve a settlement of this
matter. If the parties are of the view
that mediation would be of assistance, the Tribunal Chairperson will designate
a member of the Canadian human Rights Tribunal to meet with the parties to help
in negotiations to resolve the complaints.
As Counsel for the respondent [Marc Lemire] in these proceedings, our
Mediation Procedures are enclosed for your review, to assist you in making this
decision.”
A mere three days later,
Marc Lemire’s lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka – immediately responded by saying “Mr. Lemire agrees to mediation in the above-noted
complaints by Mr. Warman in English. I propose
that the mediation take place in the cities of Bellville, Kingston and Toronto,
listed in order of preference.”
Unlike the questionable
ruling by the Federal Court, or any other claims, there was NO “precondition”
of anything. Marc Lemire agreed to
mediation before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, immediately and
unreserved. The quote above is the
entire letter from Marc Lemire’s courageous lawyer, Barbara Kulaszaka. There was no precondition, or any refusal to
accept a “cease and desist” order.
And who turned down the mediation
before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?
On September 30, 2005, Gregory
Smith, Registrar of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal sent us a letter, wherein
he stated: “In response to our letter
dated September 20, 2005, inquiring whether the parties were interested in
having the above-noted case mediation, I am now writing to confirm that mediation has been declined by the
Complainant [Richard Warman]. Therefore, this case will now proceed to
hearing.”
Here is the entire letter, in case you think I might have left something out. Just click on each image to enlarge it:
The Federal Court was
totally wrong. I did not put
preconditions on the mediation, and for those that wish to praise the Federal
Court for this incorrect ruling, should really review the documents posted in
this email, and think again about who turned down mediation from day one.
Can you say … “Maximum
Disruption”?
-Marc Lemire
--------------
Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and
rid Canada of this disgusting thought control legislation? My courageous lawyer
Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters 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 racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such
fanatical censors. 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 when we manage to get this
shameful law expunged from our legal
books.
I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your
donations literally equal the survival of this case. No organizations are
assisting with the bill at all.
You can contact me
here:
Marc
Lemire
762 Upper James
St
Suite
384
Hamilton,
Ontario
L9C
3A2
Email: marc@lemire.com
Twitter: @marc_lemire
