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]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/section-13-is-officially-repealed.html


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

[1]  Heading picture from Radical Press

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Section 13 is Officially Repealed: The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]

Section 13 is Officially Repealed:
The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]





[June 26, 2014]  At midnight tonight, Canadians can breathe a little easier and speak their minds online, thanks to Bill C-304, which officially comes into ‘force’ on June 27, 2014 and repeals Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act.  Bill C-304 stripped the censorship powers from the ravenous censors at the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission who dragged hundreds of Canadian’s through a rigged Tribunal process – success guaranteed; a complete 100% conviction rate!

Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act was passed into law in 1977, and in the intervening 37 years, it was used and abused by a fanatical band of censors at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to harass and silence Canadians of all political strips.  Originally Section 13 only applied to telephone answering machines, where people could leave an outgoing “hate” message.  That is a pretty odd thing to have covered by a law, but it was carefully crafted in order to silence one man - John Ross Taylor – who was a rather eccentric elderly gentleman that recorded his viewpoints on a telephone answering machine which people could call into and listen.

As is typical with over-paid fanatical bureaucrats, it wasn’t enough to just harass a couple of Canadians who dared to record their thoughts on a telephone answering machine.  Mission creep set in; and the CHRC took it upon themselves to reinterpret Section 13 and claim that the entire Internet was in their jurisdiction because it was part of “a means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament”.  In other words, because in the 1990’s you needed a telephone and a modem to access the Internet, the CHRC claimed they had jurisdiction and accepted a complaint against Holocaust Revisionist and (then) German-Canadian publisher, Ernst Zundel for posting on the Internet, which were allegedly associated with him.  That was the very first Internet “hate” case in the 1990. 

The CHRC was beyond pleased that it could scour and others could tame” the internet.  While the jury was still out if the original intent of Section 13 could be applied to the Internet, the Federal Government slipped one line into Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Legislation (2001 – Bill C-36) which gave the CHRC carte blanche to police and censor the Internet.

Once it was clear that the CHRC could police the internet, the CHRC went on a Blitzkrieg to shut down websites. Without a ruling, or court order, the CHRC starting writing to Internet Service Providers of people they wanted to Silence.  Amongst those people were Ernst Zundel, UUNET, Ottawa FreeNet, various people on AOL who were critical of homosexuality, and various other websites.

The real problem the CHRC had was that no one was complaining to them.  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.  (Gee, sounds like Canadians could handle free speech on the internet just fine without them).  The CHRC even went around to various organizations begging them to lay complaints (2006:  CHRC head ‘hate’ policy advisor visits “A couple representatives of the Muslim community” to stir up some complaints).  The problem with complaints disappeared when a former employee of the CHRC filed upwards of 26 complaints with the CHRC over internet based content.

100% conviction rate

In the 37 years that Section 13 was a law in Canada, not a single person ever ultimately won a case. Yes, you read that correctly; the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate.  I was the only person to come close – in that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal threw out the case against me, but the wacky Federal Court of Canada reversed it and found me guilty of a single posting on my website, what I neither wrote nor approved of.

Not only is there a 100% rate, there is also a 100% lifetime speech ban rate.  Every single person who has been taken to the Human Rights Tribunal is now under lifetime speech ban.  This lifetime speech ban (called a Cease and Desist order) forces the person to never post material again on the Internet which is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt..”.  If violated it would mean a “contempt of court” charge and up to five years in jail.  So far multiple people have been imprisoned for violating the lifetime speech ban.  The jail sentences have been up to (and more) than a year for some people.


Section 13 – a Disgrace for Canada (Steyn and Levant)

When Section 13 was just used to attack marginalized and poor Canadians (most people charged under Section 13 could not even afford a lawyer), it was not a major public issue.  But the CHRC just could not leave well enough alone.  The CHRC – drunk with power and a 100% conviction rate – looked to new horizons to expand their censorship powers. This ultimately proved to be their biggest tactical mistake.

The CHRC accepted a ‘hate’ complaint against Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn.  This coincided with a ‘hate speech’ complaint against Ezra Levant for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Well… the preverbal “sh*t hit the fan” and suddenly the backroom censorship of marginal people by the CHRC; their tactics and the corrupt system they operated in; was front page news. 

Newspapers and magazines across Canada denounced the CHRC and Section 13.  Mark Steyn was not about to shut up either.  For years, Steyn or the mainstream media didn’t really know or pay much attention to the machinations of the CHRC censors, well… that was all about to change.


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


Stay tuned for Part 2 of my Section 13 obituary.






-Marc Lemire
Webmaster, Freedomsite