Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Quebec "Human Rights" Commission wants to regulate Internet "hate speech" now

Quebec "Human Rights" Commission wants to regulate Internet "hate speech" now




As if (the now repealed and disgraced) Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act wasn’t bad enough, now the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission wants the power to regulate internet content and silence website operators and bloggers.  The proposed new powers of the HRC may include financial “damages” for those “offended”!   I smell a new cottage industry for the perpetually offended!


Here is an interview with the President of the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission on French CBC from December 2014.  A translation of interview was posted on Vlad Tepes YouTube channel.



"We've had complaints filed against anti-muslim websites and we couldn't accept them.

... If we have this new provision, we could proceed and take action."



And on what criteria will the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission accept these new complaints? According to the HRC: "It's when we have comments that are generally hateful..." 


What kind of definition would encompass "Generally hateful"?  If I lived in Quebec and wanted to post (perhaps controversial) opinions on the recent terrorist attack in Ottawa and decided to mention that the perpetrator was a Muslim who committed this terrorism in the name of Islam, would that be considered "generally hateful" towards Muslims?  Would anyone need to put in the usual media-party inspired slogans such as "Islam is a religion of peace" or that terrorism in the name of Islam is simple "lone-wolf radical" act and does not represent all Muslims to avoid costly litigation via yet another Canadian Kangaroo court


Mission Creep? Has all “hate” been eradicated in Quebec that the ‘Human Rights’ Commission needs to branch out and censor speech on the Internet now?


The best George Orwell Doublespeak line of the interview with HRC’s Jacques Fremont was: "And for the HRC, freedom of expression is very important".  Sure, freedom of expression is very important, as long as you say what I want you to say.



Comments from around the web



Barenakedislam.com: Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes a new provision that would criminalize online criticism of Muslims


Essentially, this means it would allow ‘victims’ of hateful online comments to register complaints and eventually receive compensation. When a website rails and rants with comments that expose the ugly truth about certain groups such as the muslim community, the government would have recourse to take action against such websites.


Apparently, Quebec wants to equate telling the truth about Islam with incitement of hatred. Let’s hope the people of Quebec can defeat this idiotic idea.



NeoConservative Christian Right: Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)


For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:






Vlad Tepes: 1. This is an interview with the President of the Quebec Human Rights Commission. In it, he appears to be saying that Quebec, or Canada, is going to be implementing something which looks a whole lot like the criminalization of criticism of Islam.


I would like to remind every man, woman, child and bureaucrat that freedom of speech was implemented for one thing in the West. To criticize religious and political authority. That once you limit that freedom even one little bit, all other freedoms of speech will diminish exponentially, because all things can be seen as functions of islamic observance.


Thank you Poste De Veille for the interview video and Sassy for the Translation.
























Monday, December 1, 2014

Defamation Laws in Canada Out of Control? Fighting for Freedom of Speech [Awan vs Ezra Levant]


Sun News Network:  Is it illegal in 2014 to call activists in an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic?

 $80,000 defamation award against Ezra Levant by Judge Wendy Matheson (former lawyer for Sabina Citron and the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association - who represented them before the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal in the E. Zundel case) for his comments posted about the Canadian Islamic Congress and K. Awan.

Back in March, 2014 I wrote this about online defamation (in the Fournier/Baglow case):

Seriously, what the heck has happened to defamation law in Ontario?

When the blogosphere went to battle over the now repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, (Canada’s internet censorship legislation) one of the strongest arguments the side supporting freedom of speech had, was that with the “Human Rights” Act was rigged and that the Process was the Punishment.  With Section 13 and its lengthy Tribunal process and rules made up as they went along; the system itself ground little people into the dirt all the while using the unlimited power and resources of the state.  The best example is the “human rights” case against me which took over TEN years of my life!  After seeing a defamation case in person, I can surely say that the process is the punishment here too, the only real exception is that in a defamation hearing, the process is a punishment – potentially – for both sides.  (And by “potentially”, let me quote “Dr Dawg” from his testimony today, “a company like McDonalds could use defamation law via a SLAPP suit to harass critics of their food/company”. In the case of rich companies or individuals, the process being a punishment via civil suits is the whole point!)

The blogosphere rallied together to get rid of Section 13, now it’s time to rally together to amend, or repeal all together, defamation law and its applicability to the Internet.  The best disinfectant to horrible laws is to shine a light on them.  The light of truth and honestly was shone on Section 13, and within a few years, it was repealed. I urge all bloggers, writers, free thinkers and freedom lovers to take a serious look at Ontario’s ridiculous defamation laws and throw off this easily abusable yok of speech restriction. 

To quote John Gilmore of the EFF, “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”  Let’s put that into law, so that writers can express themselves on matters of public interest, without the fear of having to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves.   The CCLA has some good ideas on how to reform the law, and it is really worth a read: Supporting Anti-SLAPP legislation

 As more of these "defamation" cases are ruled on by the Canadian "justice" system, the clearer it has become; the out-dated defamation laws in Canada need serious reform.  Judges who pay mere lip-service to freedom of speech should not be sitting in judgment over inalienable rights. Freedom of speech should not be only granted to those with the "right" opinions; while the rest of us have to second-guess every comment we post online - in fear of facing years bogged down in the court system, and subjected to tens of thousands in legal costs.

Internet defamation laws should be reformed and bloggers, twitter posters, webmasters and others should not be forced into silence; to avoid a dilapidated and out of control legal system, which is easily gamed by professional serial complainers.

 You can read more on the Levant case at:  http://www.standwithezra.ca

Khurrum Awan (apparently) has a blog at  http://www.khurrumawan.com/blog/  and on Facebook.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Defamation: Jumps the Shark [Awan vs Ezra Levant]

How much more evidence do we need to reach the conclusion that Defamation (libel) law in Canada has become a farce and needs a review at the political level? The UK far surpassed Canada.   

Jump the shark?   Indeed!

While not speaking directly about this libel case... honestly what is going on?  

See the commentary by Ezra Levant:

And ruling here:

Libel Laws in Canada need to be reformed. They currently serve no decent; honest or ‎needed remedy in Canada.   Yet are used over and over again for "lawfare" to attack their political opponents.   If you on the "right-wing" that equates to an almost 100% conviction rate.  

Libel has got to go... especially so-called "internet libel"

We need to reform this system! 

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Corporal Frank Cirillo

As a former Medic in the CAF my heart goes out to Corporal Nathan #FrankCirillo and his family-especially his child #cdnpoli #ottawashooting

Here are the flowers we plan to lay in remembrance of a great man and father.  

‎Our thoughts and prayers are with the family.   

You will not be forgotten!


Sunday, September 28, 2014

OCLA petition in defence of civil rights of Arthur Topham

The criminal prohibitions on speech in Canada are shameful.  Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code [so called “hate speech” law] is a ridiculous law, which is used to silence and stifle a SINGLE viewpoint in Canada.  The “hate law” has little to do with stopping “hate” … and all to do with censoring and harassing a marginalized group of Canadians who dare to speak out on controversial topics.


Like the disgraced Section 13 “hate speech” law; now repealed and repudiated; the criminal prohibitions on speech have been used and abused by vocal special interest groups to target their political enemies – all risk free of course; since the Canadian state picks up the tab and uses the power of the police and judiciary to crush anyone who dares fight back.


The petition which the Ontario Civil Liberties Association has put forward is well worth reading and signing.  


WTF!  Is this Canada or Absurdastan?  No Canadian should ever be charged under this fake law for holding NON-VIOLENT “CONTROVERSIAL” opinions which may hurt the feelings of the privileged few.



-Marc Lemire








From: "Joseph Hickey - OCLA" <joseph.hickey@ocla.ca>



Dear OCLA Supporter, 


Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA's petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a "Hate Propaganda" section of Canada's Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created


OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.


Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.


OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf


Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf


Yours truly, 


Joseph Hickey
Executive Director

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca

613-252-6148 (c)


"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire







Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Fight for your free speech against out of control Libel Laws in Canada

Mark and Connie Fournier (FreeDominion) are in, yet another legal battle, which can have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of speech in Canada.

Over the past year I have written numerous times on the case and the impact it may have:

This case deserves your support!

-Marc Lemire


Many bloggers have been finding themselves under legal attack by richer, more powerful political opponents who are using defamation law as a tool to shut down debate and destroy opposing websites.

We are involved in a case that will set case law on this matter that will either give us protection for our political speech, or give the court's blessing to this practice.

The case is about words that were posted on our website by a poster who was using a pseudonym and he made a negative comment about the pseudonym of another political blogger.

If we can be punished for this, then nobody is safe.

The court has appointed an expert witness to testify about the nature of online discourse and ordered the parties to pay for him. In addition, a case that was scheduled for three days has ballooned to 14 days, and it could turn out to be more!

We believe that the expert will be valuable in communicating to the court that online conversation should not be considered equal to content in other media that has been vetted by an editorial board and presented as "news".

We think we can get a good decision that will protect all of us, but we need your help to get it done!

Please help us by donating what you can, and/or by sharing this campaign through your social media.

We are able to accept donations outside of this campaign and add them to the total, so if you would prefer to use PayPal, you can contact me at the email below.

If you prefer to use an Interac e-Transfer, you can send it to connie@freedominion.ca .

Or, if you like using the mail, our address is as follows:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd
Elginburg, ON K0H 1M0

Thank you for your help!

Mark and Connie Fournier

Great article about defamation law and free speech by John Feldsted. Read it here! http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=312&t=169552

Friday, August 1, 2014

MARK STEYN: Complaining about Insufficient Complaints

Complaining about Insufficient Complaints





by Mark Steyn
July 31, 2014


In my SteynPost on Michael Mann's Clime Syndicate and the latest beneficiary of their offers you can't refuse, I mentioned my previous legal battles with Canada's "human rights" regime over Section 13. Brian Storseth's private member's bill took an eternity to crawl through Parliament all the way through to Royal Assent, but it got there in the end and Section 13 formally bit the dust just last month. By then, I wasn't in the mood for celebrating, but I'm glad to see someone's been popping the champagne corks at this belated but significant victory.

In 2008, when Ezra Levant and Maclean's and I found ourselves caught in the cross-hairs of Canada's "human rights" commissions, we had the great good fortune to be ensnared at the same time as Marc Lemire. …

“Instead, Lemire pushed back hard, and became, from their point of view, the defendant from hell.”






See the entire posting by Mark Steyn at:  http://www.steynonline.com/6495/complaining-about-insufficient-complaints




Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 3] Section 13 Goes Mainstream: The Mark Steyn / Macleans Case

Section 13 Goes Mainstream: The Mark Steyn / Macleans Case

[July 29, 2014] In the previous two posts on the obituary of Section 13 censorship, I highlighted the background of Section 13 and corruption of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and the real modus operandi of the CHRC, which was “simple forced deletion of the message”.  Today I am going to explore the Mark Steyn / Macleans Magazine “hate speech” cases and some interesting facts that came out (like disgraced former police officers, Nazi Fetishists and Million dollar legal fees).

The complaint against Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine was laid by a Muslim group named the Canadian Islamic Congress following lobbying by the CHRC. To put the complaint into perspective, a timeline of events is helpful:

  1. June 29, 2006: The CHRC’s head policy advisor meets with Muslims in Toronto urging them to lay hate complaints with regards to “anti-Islamic comments in the media”.
  2. October 20, 2006:  Macleans Magazine runs a cover story “Why the Future Belongs to Islam” which was reproductions from Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone”
  3. August 13, 2007:  Complaint against Steyn/Macleans filed with CHRC by the Canadian Islamic Congress. [1]

As mentioned in previous articles, back in 2006, the CHRC was desperate for complaints.  They had invested all this money; they had a special “anti-hate” team, special “anti-hate” committee, special lawyers, a special Compliance Manual for “hate cases”, policy advisors, etc; but no one was complaining to them.  The complaint against Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine could very well be as a result of the CHRC drumming up business to keep the “hate” gravy train rolling and employing dozens of highly paid unionized staff [including “disgraced former police officers”, Dean Steacy 007: Licensed to CHILL & assorted Nazi fetishists].

CHRC: Please file COMPLAINT$

On June 29th, 2006, Harvey Goldberg, the senior policy advisor for Section 13 with the CHRC traveled to Toronto to meet with a delegation of Muslims from the Canadian Arab Foundation.  As a result of that meeting, Mr. Goldberg wrote an internal memo to Ian Fine, the Director of the CHRC’s oddly named “Knowledge Centre.” [2] 

In Goldberg’s July 5th, 2006 memo, he stated:

A couple representatives of the Muslim community expressed concern that the threshold for hate was too high and that much of what they perceived as anti-Islamic comments in the media and elsewhere would not be included in the current definition of hate. I referred them to the [Name redacted by CHRC] article in the Hate on the Internet magazine, copies of which I had distributed.

They also questioned whether the Commission would accept complaints dealing with anti-Muslim sentiments. I assured them that the Commission was fully committed to fulfilling its mandate under section 13.
Overall I think this round of meetings was successful in the continuing process of networking with key stakeholders and of furthering the Commission initiatives in the areas of disability and hate on the Internet.”

Several months after this meeting; the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a Section 13 “hate speech” complaint against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine) at the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission. At the same time, the CIC filed two nearly identical complaints with the Ontario “Human Rights” Commission and the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal.

Hate Speech?

The Section 13 “hate speech” complaint against Rogers Media Inc (Macleans / Mark Steyn) was over a reproduction of Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone.” The Macleans article was entitled “Why the future belongs to Islam” and ran as a cover story in the October 20, 2006 issue.

Mark Steyn’s article made the following points:

  • Europe has been transformed into “Eurabia” by massive immigration.  The article said "...There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests.  The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

  • "The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions.  The West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it.  It's the end of the world as we've known it."

  • Canada is changing because of demographics  (Low birth rate of Canadians, high birth rate of Muslims)   “Age + Welfare = Disaster for you; Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way”

  • Islam has serious global ambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most of its adherents

  • “not all Muslims are terrorists — though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle.”

  • "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.  Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children.  Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children" [3]

After the Steyn article appeared in Macleans, there was a fair amount of controversy in the pages of the magazine over Steyn’s propositions about demographics, the threat of Islam, etc.  

Complaint by Islamists

On August 13, 2007, the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission accepted a Section 13 complaint against Rogers Media Inc filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress.  The complained of grounds was “religion”, specifically hatred towards Islam and Muslims.

The complaint read: "The complainant alleges that the material in question is flagrantly anti-Muslim and in adopting a fear mongering tone, the article focuses on the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe and North America". and that "...Muslims are part of a global conspiracy to take over Western societies and impose oppressive Islamic law on them, and that Muslims in the West need to be viewed through this lens as the enemy.

As a result “seeing the messages [By Mark Steyn] portrayed as objective fact by Maclean's had a serious impact on the complainant [Canadian Islamic Congress] and on the Canadian Muslim community at large. ... this impact included harm to their sense of dignity and self-worth as Canadian Muslims." [4]

Section 13: The Sh*t hit the fan

Keep in mind that the primary intent of Section 13 was to quietly and behind closed doors; and censor individuals which “would not be attended by great publicity”.  While this was true with most Section 13 cases, it certainly was not true with Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine.

The preverbal ‘hate speech earthquake’ hit the media, once it was revealed that one of Canada’s most respected magazines and the “one-man global content provider” Mark Steyn were under investigation for hate speech.  Editorials against censorship went viral from coast to coast in Canada and spread across the globe via the Internet.

Literally hundreds of articles were written about the Macleans hate speech complaint; here is just a sampling of the articles:

  • 20070917 - Western Standard - Censure the censors
  • 20071205 - Macleans - Got a complaint call 1-800-HumanRights
  • 20071206 - Calgary Herald - Constitutional rights must be protected
  • 20071208 - London Free Press - Freedom of the press attacked
  • 20071209 - Ottawa Citizen - Suing for Silence
  • 20071212 - CBC News - Tory minister slams Islamic Congress
  • 20071216 - NYPost - Canada’s Thought Police
  • 20071216 - Ottawa Citizen - The new totalitarians
  • 20071217 - Spectator UK - The Blood Runs cold
  • 20071218 - Chilliwack Times - Quit validating pro victims
  • 20071218 - IsraelNationalNews - Mark Steyn is Not Alone
  • 20071218 - National Post - Censorship In The Name Of Human Rights
  • 20071219 - Calgary Herald - Shut down the human rights commissions
  • 20071219 - Lifesite - Mark Steyn wakes up Canadian press to CHRC
  • 20071220 - CanadianFreePress - Human Rights Tribunals
  • 20071220 - GeorgeJonas - Turning out the lights
  • 20071221 - BC Catholic - There IS Someone left
  • 20071225 - FrontPageMagazine - Stand by Steyn
  • 20071228 - Truro Daily - Myths Legends and some truths
  • 20080103 - Macleans - Heres what offends this writer
  • 20080112 - Economist - Mark Steyn and the Thought Police
  • 20080521 - ChronicleHerald - Bad times for Free Speech
  • 20081118 - ChronicleHerald - Ground shifting on HRC battle
  • 20081124 - GlobeandMail - Tribunal shouldn’t police hate
  • See an assortment of Media articles here:  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/charts/Articles_on_Sec13.pdf

Unlike some others, Mark Steyn was not a coward and decided to fight back against this appalling censorship. Steyn took to the airwaves and print media and unleashed his mighty wit in a broadside against censorship in Canada and in particular the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

Here are some interviews Steyn did on his “Hate speech” prosecution:

The damage was so bad for the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission; they hired a high-priced PR firm Hill & Knowlton to manage their public relations.   Toronto Sun: “Top bureaucrat paid big bucks for spin doctors: Docs”.  In total, the CHRC spent close to $200,000 in damage control.   You can see the full Hill & Knowlton documents here:  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/CHRC_Hill-and-Knowlton-Advice/Hill_and_Knowlton_CHRC_report.pdf  [From an Access to Information request by Marc Lemire]

Politicians wake up

The huge media backlash and all the damaging information coming out about the CHRC also translated into political action.

The first political action against the CHRC was a motion by Liberal MP Keith Martin which called on Parliament to state: “That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.”  The bill was first M-446, then resurrected after the 2008 Federal election as M-153.

The next definitive move was a private members bill – C-304.  The bill repealed Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and scrapped the censorship provision entirely.

CHRC Decision in the Macleans case was purely political

The decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to drop the complaint against Macleans Magazine was done to stop the onslaught of negative media the CHRC was receiving.  During the time the CHRC was investigating Macleans, hundreds of articles and editorials appeared in the media from coast to coast.  The CHRC wanted the daily negative media publicity to stop, so they suddenly found freedom of speech and dismissed the complaint.

The truth behind the dismissal of the Macleans complaint is that the Investigator of the case wasn’t so sure it should just be dismissed.  The Investigator highlighted that what Mark Steyn wrote could expose Muslims to ‘hatred and contempt’. 

In the March 25 2008 CHRC Investigators report on the Macleans complaint, the Investigator wrote in paragraph 49:

(Alternatively) “It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to request that the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is of the view that:

* the material does appear to meet some of the hallmarks of hate and is of such a nature that it may likely expose persons of the Muslim faith to hatred and contempt;

* a decision by the Tribunal addressing the fact situation in this case may be in the public interest as it raises new considerations regarding the relationship between section 13 and the right of freedom of the press, as aspect of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression.”

The complaint against Macleans Magazine was dropped when it reached the “political level” at the CHRC, but it was obvious that the investigator in the case recommended “in the alternative” that the case go to a tribunal.

The CHRC’s “political level” is staffed by political appointees like the Jet-setting world traveler[5] - [former] Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch and Conservative appointed Acting Chief Commissioner David Langtry [see: AirMiles Langtry].  They have the role of reviewing the complaint and approving it to be sent onto a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Unlike the investigator in the Macleans case, the political Kangaroos smelled the political wind, and threw out the case like a hot potato.

In terms of fallout from the Macleans / Mark Steyn complaint, Ezra Levant was sued for defamation by one of the complainants against Steyn [Khurrum Awan].   The case is currently at trial and a decision is not expected until 2015.  See: http://www.standwithezra.ca/

The Chilling Effects of “Hate Laws” and censorship

Once the Section 13 complaint was filed against Macleans and Rogers Media Inc, all talk about those underlying issues which Steyn discussed were cleansed from the pages of Macleans.

Macleans no longer reports on ‘Islamic Threats’
since the “Hate” Charges

A review of Macleans Magazine during the complaint period [2007-2008] shows that the issue of Islam taking over the Western world via demographics is no longer a valid topic. Macleans took the easy route and reported on ‘pressing issues’ like Harpers “Master Plan” and how your dog gets better healthcare than you do. There was a bit of religious reporting, such as questioning Jesus and his “identity crisis” but it seemed to be verboten to discuss Mohammed and his “identity crisis”.

How many editors and newspapers will allow commentary on controversial issues if they are going to face being labeled as racist or Islamophobes?

As Macleans Magazine reports: "Cases like these foster an atmosphere in which sensible people who know they can't summon the resources to defend themselves will censor themselves. It creates an ever-growing body of very regressive law when it comes to the integrity and freedom of a democratic forum."  (John Dixon, a two-term former president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association) [6]

Kenneth Whyte, Editor in Chief of Macleans Magazine

Q: Even though you were successful in court, do you worry that your case will have a negative impact on journalism in the future, either through more publications self-censoring to avoid lawsuits or more human rights complaints being filed over legitimate journalistic content?

A: Yeah. There will absolutely be self-censoring, and it will be harder going forward to have clear and full debates on a lot of important issues like race or religion or public policy because of this. [7]

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.[8]

In a somewhat ironic twist, the Muslim complainants were actually proved correct in the end.  During their 2006 meeting with the CHRC’s Harvey Goldberg, the Muslims in attendance questioned if “the Commission [CHRC] would accept complaints dealing with anti-Muslim sentiments. [Goldberg] assured them that the Commission was fully committed to fulfilling its mandate under section 13.”  Mark Steyn has stated on numerous occasions that, under the ridiculous language of Section 13 he was guilty of “hate speech”.  In the end, the CHRC was shown to be hate hypocrites who only accepted certain complaints.

Hate laws are political tools used to silence speech and criticism.  The power of the state is used to crush the little man.   Thankfully Maclean’s had a million dollars to fight back, but does the average Canadian?  This is why Section 13 had to be repealed and tossed into the dustbin of Canadian history; next should be the criminal “hate speech” prohibition – Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada – another shameful piece of censorship legislation!

Mark Steyn has written extensively about his censorship experience in:

In 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress brought three suits against Maclean’s, Canada’s oldest news weekly, for running an excerpt from Mark’s bestselling book America Alone, plus other “flagrantly Islamophobic” columns by Steyn. A year later the CIC had lost all its cases and the flagrant Islamophobe had become a poster boy for a worldwide phenomenon - the increasing tension between Islam, on the one hand, and, on the other, western notions of free speech, liberty and pluralism.
In this book, Mark republishes all the essays Mohamed Elmasry, the Canadian Islamic Congress and their enablers in Canada's disgusting "human rights" regime attempted to criminalize, along with new material responding to his accusers. He also takes a stand against the erosion of free speech in Canada, Britain and elsewhere, and the advance of a creeping totalitarian "multiculturalism"; and he considers the broader tensions between Islam and the west in a time of unprecedented demographic transformation.
Roaming from America to Europe to Australia, Lights Out is a trenchant examination of the intersection of multicultural progressivism and a resurgent Islam - and of the implications for liberty in the years ahead. And don't forget, when you order from SteynOnline, the Flagrant Islamophobe Steyn will be happy to autograph it to you or your loved one in his own disgustingly flagrant manner.

  1. The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/section-13-is-officially-repealed.html
  2. The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]: Modus Operandi of the CHRC: “simple forced deletion of the message” http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/the-obituary-of-chrc-censorship-part-2.html

-Marc Lemire
Webmaster; Freedomsite.org
Webmaster; StopSection13.com

[1] Heading picture from Radical Press

[1] Decision of the Commission.  June 25, 2008.  Canadian Islamic Congress v. Rogers Media Inc. (20071008)
[2] Memo from Harvey Goldberg to Ian Fine.  July 5, 2006.  Evidence in Lemire hearing, marked as R-17, Tab 4
[3] CHRC Investigators Report. March 25, 2008.  CIC vs. Rogers (Macleans) Para 24.  Note: Steyn reports this is a quote from imam Mullah Krekar
[4] CHRC Investigators Report. March 25, 2008.  CIC vs. Rogers (Macleans) Para 1.
[5] Journalist Ezra Levant reports that Lynch is burning through taxpayers money at break neck speed traveling the world in first class style.  This includes: “June 2008, she dropped a cool $9,000 flying to Ireland. Three days [later] she dropped another $2,400 going to lovely Niagara-on-the-Lake. The next month Lynch flew to Kuala Lumpur, for $6,400”. http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/jennifer-lynch-jetsetting-lawb.html.  In August, 2008, Lynch dropped $8,200 for a first-class trip to Vienna.
[6] Macleans Magazine. April 21, 2008.  Page 22-26. “Righteous crusader or civil rights menace? Richard Warman says he's fighting hate. Critics say free speech is the real victim.”
[7] Daily Gleaner, Print media will stay relevant because it must: Whyte, January 31, 2009
[8] October 10 2008.  AM770 (CHQR) Calgary.  The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge.  http://emedia.am770chqr.com/podcasts/worldtonightreduxoct10.mp3