Sunday, June 29, 2014

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]: Modus Operandi of the CHRC: "simple forced deletion of the message"

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]

Modus Operandi of the CHRC: “simple forced deletion of the message”

[June 29, 2014] Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act was a monstrosity since its inception in 1977.  It was a piece of targeted legislation to silence one man and his telephone answering machine.  But why on earth was it ever put into the Canadian Human Rights Act in the first place?  The rest of the Act; is about employment, accommodation, services, etc. And the “Human Rights” Act, was remedial; Unlike the Criminal Code of Canada, it was not meant “to assign or to punish moral blameworthiness” to the people involved. 

Why would the censors choose a remedial piece of legislation to target people, when Canada has criminal speech prohibitions, which could actually imprison people?  The answer is simple, they didn’t want a Section 13 case to generate any publicity, the way a criminal charge would.  They wanted to quietly censor people, in the back room; without anyone seeing what they were really up to.

In a letter dated November 13, 1975, Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan outlined some of the problems they faced when trying to “get” a man named John Ross Taylor. In reference to Taylor’s taped telephone answering machine, Callaghan stated:

“The messages usually are topical and political and focus on a wide variety of subjects.  However, the emphasis always is racial and federal immigration policies frequently are criticized.”

Callaghan continued in his letter: “The messages discuss such matters as immigration, integration and urban crime, all of which clearly are matters of public interest.”

The real intent of Section 13 was to silence legitimate non-violent criticism of immigration, crime, multiculturalism and integration.  Ontario’s Deputy AG Callaghan summed up the true motivation behind silencing Taylor using the Human Rights Act:

The simple forced deletion of the message which I have proposed could have a major advantage over a criminal prosecution in that, presumably, it would not be attended by great publicity whereas a criminal prosecution, through publicity and polarization, might promote the mischief which it sought to suppress.”

In other words, Ontario’s Deputy AG wanted to silence the messenger behind closed doors, “simple forced deletion” as he calls it; and hoped that no one would pay any attention to the gross infringements to freedom of speech that was occurring.  And sadly for many years that was the case; marginalized people were crushed under the weight of the repressive state apparatus, without anyone standing up for them.

There was some public interest in the John Ross Taylor case, because Mr. Taylor was the perfect media “villain”.   He was totally unrepentant and steadfastly believed that what he was doing was proper and righteous; some have claimed that in a criminal court, Mr. Taylor’s charge would be thrown out because he did not have the mental faculties to stand trial.  Mr. Taylor put a notation in the phone book which read “White Power Message--967-7777”.  Certainly most people might have an idea what that message was about prior to calling, its not like Mr. Taylor asked people to call the Animal Rescue, and when you called you received a "white power message". 

In fact, when Mr. Taylor first appeared before the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, he was totally overwhelmed.  Part of the Taylor decisions reads “It would appear from Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination of witnesses and his argument that he was attempting to establish the truth of what he said about Jews in his tape recorded statements. Strange as it may sound, the establishment of truth is not in issue in this case.”  Yes, strange indeed; this is Canada after all, not North Korea.  Was Kim Jong Un presiding at the Hearing? No worse, it was Francis Leddy!

With Truth is no defence; it is not surprising that the Tribunal ordered Mr. Taylor to stop putting messages on his answering machine and slapped a lifetime speech ban on him.  Mr. Taylor, not one to be pushed around by what some have called a Kangaroo court; he left the Tribunal hearing, and immediately recorded a new message on his answering machine.  That led to a Contempt of Court charge, for which Mr. Taylor was imprisoned for a year.  As soon as Mr. Taylor got out, he said a big F.U. to censorship, and recorded another message on his answering machine.  This led to yet another Contempt of Court charge and a one year jail sentence.  In an odd twist of circumstances, the prison officials actually just let Mr. Taylor out after a few days of his second year-long jail sentence.  

By this time, word of Mr. Taylors exploits reached Western Canada, where lawyer Douglas Christie heard about the treatment of Mr. Taylor and was disgusted.  He immediately got involved and represented Mr. Taylor all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  The ‘Supremes’ narrowly upheld Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3.  Writing for the dissenters on the Supreme Court, Madame Justice McLachlin found that “Section 13(1) of the Act infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter.  Where, as in this case, an activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning or message through a non-violent form of expression, this activity falls within the sphere of the conduct protected by s. 2(b).”

Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan did not completely get his wish.  Not all Section 13 cases “would not be attended by great publicity” but in fact, most were.  In the years after Taylor, numerous marginalized people and organizations were crushed by the censors.  Terry Long, Bill Harcus, Kevin Lew, Tony MacLeer, Canadian Liberty Net, Charles Scott, Church of Christ in Israel, Randy Johnson, Micka and Machiavelli Emprise Inc., Ernst Zundel, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Craig Harrison, etc, etc, etc.

Hate laws only exist in Canada because very few Canadians even know about them.  Canadians are perfectly capable of handling the back and forth of debate and do not need the nanny state watching over their shoulders looking for anything that might be “offensive”.  Hate laws are political tools to silence certain people.  That’s why almost 100% of cases are against marginalized White Canadians, of a certain political stripe, which they categorize as “nazi” or “anti-Semitic”.  

In the case of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, 100% of the cases they have prosecuted are against White Canadians.  It is ironic, that the CHRC goes around to various employers and harasses them about the percentage of minorities they hire, but are blind to the fact they are in fact the biggest racists of all, and only accept complaints against one race.  For the CHRC, the only haters in Canada have white skin. It really calls out to file a CHRC complaint!  Over the years, to show the hypocrisy of the CHRC, some people have filed complaints against Muslims who use hate speech in their public writings.  Surprise surprise…. The CHRC did not accept those complaints.  Again, white skin is the main deciding factor for the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission to accept a complaint or not.

Trifecta against Censorship

While Section 13 was happily censoring marginalized Canadians, three cases bubbled to the surface and changed the entire game.  Firstly, was my case, which started in 2003 and was the most definitive Constitutional Challenge against Section 13 which had ever been mounted.  Secondly, was the case(s) against Ezra Levant.  These were “hate speech” cases filed in Alberta and at the Federal level.  And thirdly were the complaints against Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn, filed at both the provincial (Ontario and British Columbia) and Federal level.

While there were different complainants in the three cases, the end result was the same.  All three of us were not about to shut up and go away; Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were journalists who wrote for major publications in Canada and I was a webmaster and writer who published the most critical information on the Internet about the CHRC and their corrupt and abusive methods

Along with me posting as much source material and documentation on the Internet as I could get my hands on, was my super talented lawyer and Section 13 expert – Barbara Kulaszka.  Barbara is a dedicated warrior for freedom and it was mostly due to her that all the evidence about the corruption, spying, lying and conniving of the CHRC came to light.

Over the next few days I am going to go into detail about the three main CHRC / “Human Rights” cases, which brought an end to Section 13.  Each case was so important in the overall battle; they deserve a detailed look as part of the CHRC’s censorship obituary.

  1. The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]:

-Marc Lemire

[1]  Heading picture from Radical Press