The FreedomSite Blog

[VIDEO] JUST hearing on Bill C-304 with Testimony by MP Brian Storseth

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:28:00 +0000

Conservative MP and freedom fighter Brian Storseth (Conservative, Westlock - St. Paul, Alberta) testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) about Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). Bill C-304 is landmark legislation, which will see the censorship powers (Section 13) stripped from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So far, Bill C-304 has passed two readings in the House of Commons, and has the support of the Justice Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada.

April 24th - A bad day for Section 13 Censorship! Parliament committee and Mark Steyn - STEYNAMITE

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:21:00 +0000

April 24th - A bad day for Section 13 Censorship!

Parliament committee with Brian Storseth and Steynamite!

April 24^th, 2012 will go down in history as another bad day for the forces of censorship and thought control in Canada. Canada’s notorious internet censorship provision; Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act, will be slammed from the halls of Parliament in Ottawa to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. Section 13 has been used to silence and harass hundreds of Canadians at the behest of special interest groups, who use Section 13 as a risk-free, tax-payer funded persecution of their political opponents. Censorship is not a Canadian value!

Starting at 11:00am, Conservative MP and freedom fighter Brian Storseth (Conservative, Westlock - St. Paul, Alberta) is going to be testifying for an hour before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) about Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). Bill C-304 is landmark legislation, which will see the censorship powers (Section 13) stripped from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So far, Bill C-304 has passed two readings in the House of Commons, and has the support of the Justice Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada.

If you are in Ottawa on April 24^th, 2012, you can attend the JUST sub-committee at:

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Room 306, La Promenade Building

151 Sparks St.

Ottawa, Ontario

ParlVu is going to be broadcasting MP Brian Storseth’s testimony live on the Internet at:

JUST Meeting No. 31

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=8845

In case you miss the live broadcast of MP Brian Storseth’s testimony, a YouTube version of his testimony will be available on the Freedomsite later in the day.

STEYNAMITE

Then at 7:30pm in the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Steynamite starts! The event is billed as “Mark Steyn blows up every sacred cow in a celebration of free speech, individual liberty and apocalyptic side-splitters”. Along with Mark Steyn, Sun News Network’s Michael Coren is also speaking.

Mark Steyn has been a long-time supporter of freedom and has written extensively on Censorship via Section13 and farcical shenanigans of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, whom he once referred to as “Nazi fetishists” and “Keystone Kops of Kanada's Human Rights Kommission”.

Tickets are still available.

Metro Toronto Convention Centre

7:30 PM

Mark Steyn and Sun News Network's Michael Coren

http://www.steynamite.com/

Tickets range from $60 to $300

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

Censorship is Not a Canadian Value!

Repeal Section 13 http://www.StopSection13.com

Section 13 is Unconstitutional http://www.freedomsite.org

OTTAWA CITIZEN: Immigrants get priority over 'white' Canadians for Ottawa's public housing, human rights complaint alleges

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:29:00 +0000

Immigrants get priority over ‘white’ Canadians for Ottawa’s public housing, human rights complaint alleges

By Gary Dimmock, The Ottawa Citizen April 16, 2012

OTTAWA — An Ottawa man who was living in a shelter with his wife and two children took the City of Ottawa to a human rights tribunal last month, alleging that immigrants are given priority over “white Canadians” for public housing.

Kirk Munroe and his family lived at the Carling Family Shelter for months last year while waiting for a public housing unit to call their own. Munroe grew frustrated with the wait after immigrant families at the shelter were offered public housing in only a “matter of weeks.”

In his application to Ontario’s human-rights tribunal, Munroe quoted an Ottawa public housing manager as saying “whites have less chance of getting a home and they have to stay in shelters longer than immigrants new to Canada.”

The tribunal heard that the quick turnaround time for immigrants was in “distinct contrast to the experience of white Canadian families” at the shelter, including his own, who had to wait months for housing.

A lawyer for the public housing agency denied it gives priority to immigrants, and a lawyer for the City of Ottawa told the hearing that the immigrants in question may have been victims of domestic violence, which, he said, would account for why they were offered social housing so quickly. The tribunal also heard that the public housing manager denied saying that immigrants have a better shot at getting public housing.

Eric Whist, vice-chair of the tribunal, questioned Munroe’s account of what the public housing manager told him.

“This statement, characterized as an exact quote, appears to be more of a paraphrase and one from a longer conversation. It is also not evident that this quote, even if accepted as generally accurate, indicates that Ms. Jean Louis (a tenant service manager) was communicating that the reason why whites stay in shelters longer than immigrants was because of the policy of (Ottawa public housing) or others was to give priority to immigrants over Canadian citizens,” Whist said in an interim decision dated March 12.

Munroe’s challenge against the City of Ottawa claimed he was discriminated on the basis of race, colour, disability and reprisal.

….

Read the full story at: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Immigrants+priority+over+white+Canadians+Ottawa+public+housing+human+rights+complaint+alleges/6462980/story.html#ixzz1sER4YYlb

Interesting that Canadians who pay taxes and fund public housing are always the last in line to get it. Welcome to Cana-DUHH.

The "Native" Discount Alive and Well in Cana-DUH

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:49:00 +0000

From the Globe and Mail….

Man who punched bus driver spared jail time due to his native ancestry

VANCOUVER— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 03, 2012 1:49PM EDT

It was bad enough for veteran bus driver Charles Dixon to have his face and well-being shattered by a vicious sucker punch from an angry passenger.

But Tuesday, Mr. Dixon sat in court with a number of his driver colleagues to hear that Del Louie, the young man who assaulted him, would not be going to jail.

Instead, citing Mr. Louie’s aboriginal ancestry as one of several mitigating factors, Provincial Court Judge Karen Walker handed the 22-year-old an 18-month conditional sentence to be served at a rehab residence, 200 hours of community service and two years probation. The Crown had urged a prison sentence of nine to 12 months.

Outside the court, the 55-year-old driver was bitter that his attacker was spared time behind bars. He pointed to his face, partially covered in bandages from his latest surgery to restore normal breathing.

“There’s nothing wrong with Del Louie’s face. He doesn’t have a plate with four screws in his face,” said Mr. Dixon, his voice cracking. “He doesn’t have a concussion. He doesn’t have neck injuries and back injuries, and cognitive issues that will be with me the rest of my life.… Where’s the respect?”

The conditional sentence was yet another blow for public transit drivers, who suffer scores of assaults every year. Few of the culprits wind up in prison.

“This is totally unacceptable,” said Don MacLeod, president of Canadian Auto Workers Local 111 that represents Lower Mainland bus drivers. “House arrest is totally different from jail time. There’s no deterrence in that. Today, there was no justice for Charles Dixon, no justice for more than 1,000 transit operators who have been assaulted over the last 10 years, and no justice for passengers, who expect the buses they board to be safe. This is a very sad message for the court to send.”

In addition to his attack against Mr. Dixon on a late-night bus in Burnaby last year, Mr. Louie assaulted the driver’s son, Aaron, who tried to restrain him; regularly broke his bail conditions by drinking excessively; and spat at a paramedic during an altercation with police. He also had a previous conviction for assaulting a bus driver.

Court was told that Mr. Louie experienced a difficult upbringing, raised by an alcoholic mother, and suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome. That cut little ice with Mr. Dixon.

“That young man knew exactly what he was doing that night. I’m sorry he has fetal alcohol syndrome, but look what he’s done to me. It will stay with me for the rest of my life,” Mr. Dixon said. “Sorry, I don’t agree with using aboriginal ancestry as an excuse. It doesn’t wash.”

He pointed out that in a few weeks he will have served 14 months of his own virtual house arrest, unable to return to work. “That’s just four months shy of what Del Louie is getting,” the driver said with agitation.

Mr. Louie punched Mr. Dixon after being told not to board the bus by the back door. His single blow broke two bones on the right side of the driver’s face and caused other injuries, including cognitive and psychological difficulties.

…

See the full Globe and Mail article at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/man-who-punched-bus-driver-spared-jail-time-due-to-his-native-ancestry/article2390728/

Alberta judge upholds 'truth about homosexuality' activist's free speech rights

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:50:00 +0000

Alberta judge upholds ‘truth about homosexuality’ activist’s free speech rights

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-judge-upholds-truth-about-homosexuality-activists-free-speech-right/

CALGARY, April 2, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Paul Jeffrey has dismissed a Crown appeal of a decision from a lower court that acquitted Bill Whatcott of trespassing charges for distributing “Truth about homosexuality” pamphlets at the University of Calgary in 2008.

On Friday, March 30, Jeffrey upheld the November 2011 ruling by provincial court Judge John D. Bascom that stated the University of Calgary infringed on Whatcott’s Charter rights to freedom of expression when campus security arrested and detained him for distributing a pamphlet that addressed the “harmful consequences” of homosexuality.

The university had argued that the Charter only applied to “government actors and government actions,” not to the university itself since it was a private entity.

Bascom ruled, however, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the University of Calgary since “the University is not a Charter free zone,” in that it carried out “specific” governmental work by providing post-secondary education to the public in Alberta, making its actions subject to scrutiny under the Charter.

“Mr. Whatcott entered the university property with a purpose to distribute his literature to students, staff and public,” said the judge, adding, “His activity was peaceful and presented no harm to the university structures or those who frequented the campus. … Although Mr. Whatcott’s pamphlet is not scholarly, freedom of speech is not limited to academic works.”

Bascom concluded that “the means used by campus security halted Mr. Whatcott’s distribution of these flyers and violated his right of free expression.”

The judge also lifted the University’s ban against Whatcott that would have indefinitely prohibited him from setting foot on the campus again, stating that the ban was “arbitrary and unfair.”

In Friday’s hearing Crown prosecutor Andrew Barg argued that Judge Bascom “erred in law in ruling that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in the circumstances of this case,” according to a Calgary Herald report.

Justice Jeffrey rejected the argument and dismissed the appeal.

Defense lawyer, Dale Fedorchuk, told the Calgary Herald that “Judge Bascom’s decision has been effectively upheld and remains good law.”

“I’m very happy with the decision,” Whatcott told LifeSiteNews, “and my lawyer and I believe that it is now illegal for universities in Alberta to try to shut down peaceful protests and literature distributions that offends their pro-abortion, pro-homosexual sensibilities.”

…

SEE FULL STORY AT: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-judge-upholds-truth-about-homosexuality-activists-free-speech-right/

NP: "If you were prime minister, what law would you pass?" -- SCRAP THE CHRC!

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:02:00 +0000

From the National Post: Last week, letters editor Paul Russell asked readers: “If you were prime minister, what law would you pass?” We’ve been inundated with responses (75 words or less).

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/todays-letters-there-ought-to-be-a-law/

(and some great answers!)

No more HRCs

It will take one heck of a PM to dispose of the Canadian Human Rights Act and convince the provinces to axe their inquisitorial HR tribunals. Leave genuine HR issues to the Charter and the courts and dispense with these theatres of the absurd.
Malcolm Bell, Lions Bay, B.C.

The first thing I would do as prime minister would be to scrap the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Steve Flanagan, Ottawa.

HERALD: Hate speech clause in human rights act may be history ("Abolish Section 13")

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:55:00 +0000

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/67968-hate-speech-clause-human-rights-act-may-be-history

Hate speech clause in human rights act may be history

February 28, 2012 - 4:30am By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT

Chronicle Herald

Marc Lemire leaves a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into a complaint against him in Oakville, Ont., in 2008. The Toronto resident argued that rights legislation aimed at preventing the spread of hate on the Internet gags free speech and is unconstitutional. (COLIN PERKEL / CP / File)

To protect freedom of expression in Canada, sometimes you need a majority government in Ottawa.

That’s the moral of the story of a Conservative backbencher’s private member’s bill — which has now cleared second reading in the House of Commons and gone to committee — seeking to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let’s recall the exact wording of that infamous clause. Hate messages, according to Section 13 (1), are communications "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

In other words, if I were to write something critical about Islam, for example, and someone reading my column felt it "likely" that my words could provoke "contempt" towards Muslims, they could lodge a complaint against me with one of Canada’s government-created human rights commissions.

Truth would not be a defence. Neither would my intent. And the person complaining wouldn’t even have to be a Muslim.

That’s because, on top of the appallingly loose wording of this section of federal human rights law — a clause echoed in its provincial counterparts — any complaints are adjudicated by government-appointed tribunals, where the standard protections afforded any accused in a court of law don’t necessarily apply.

When complainants’ cases go forward, taxpayers pick up the tab. Meanwhile, those accused must pay to defend themselves out of their own pockets.

It’s a system ripe for abuse. And that’s exactly what has happened. We’ve seen comics fined for insulting hecklers (B.C. human rights tribunal), former publishers spend $100,000 in legal fees over three years to defend themselves for printing "offensive" cartoons (Alberta human rights commission), and Maclean’s magazine investigated by three human rights bodies (federal, Ontario and B.C.) for running an article on Muslim demographics in Europe.

The Conservatives have long opposed Section 13, but didn’t feel they had the support they needed from the other parties, as a minority government, to push the issue legislatively.

They also were concerned, with good reason, that some opponents might twist the issue for political advantage, slamming the Tories for being soft on hate.

Yes, Bill C-304, which aims to repeal Sections 13 and 54 (dealing with penalties under S.13), was put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) and is a private member’s bill, but the legislation has the justice minister’s endorsement. So there’s a good chance the bill will be back in the Commons this spring for final reading, then on to the Senate and, hopefully, passage and royal assent.

The bill, if made law, would take effect a year after receiving royal assent.

It’s worth noting that in 2008, Richard Moon, a constitutional expert hired by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review Section 13, recommended that the clause be repealed, a suggestion the federal body not surprisingly ignored.

Some critics say abolishing hate speech provisions in the human rights act would mean prosecutions could in future only come under the Criminal Code, placing a greater burden of proof on complainants.

But what they term a bug, as the saying goes, I’d call a feature. One of the biggest problems has been the abuse of the current system by complainants who bear none of the financial costs and human rights bodies all too eager to spend years processing accusations that — using common sense — clearly lack merit.

Other critics say not everyone has the funds to go to court. But in a criminal hate speech case, it’s the Crown’s case — and the Crown’s dime. All too often, under the current system, it’s the accused who don’t have the money to defend themselves or fight tribunal rulings.

Freedom of expression is too precious — and too fundamental in upholding all other rights — to allow what is a democratic cornerstone to be undermined by an intrinsically flawed system based on political correctness and hurt feelings.

Abolish Section 13.

SEE FULL STORY AT: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/67968-hate-speech-clause-human-rights-act-may-be-history

COLUMN: Shanoff - Bill C-30 is nothing compared to PIPEDA

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:34:00 +0000

COLUMN: Shanoff – Bill C-30 is nothing compared to PIPEDA

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contributor-columns/column-shanoff-bill-c-30-is-nothing-compared-to-pipeda/

Media ignoring Liberals’ attack on our Internet privacy rights

by Alan Shanoff

It’s strange how so many commentators have whipped themselves into a lather over the attack on privacy rights in Bill C-30, otherwise known as Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act, yet don’t appear troubled by another equally troubling infringement of privacy rights.

Anyone worried by the potential erosion of privacy rights in the Conservatives’ Bill C-30 should be even more concerned about the actual erosion of privacy rights in existing federal law known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). [See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/]

Introduced by the Chretien Liberal government in 2000, PIPEDA has been in force for over a decade. It regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by businesses.

In other words, it applies to cellphone and Internet service providers, phone companies, credit card companies and all other businesses that collect and track data on our daily activities.

It covers a wider range of businesses than C-30.

PIPEDA allows any business to disclose any personal information without the knowledge or consent of an individual to a government institution or part of a government institution (including a police officer), where the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing or administering any law, or if the information is suspected to relate to national security.

The only limit on this is that the person requesting the information must have identified his or her “lawful authority”.

Courts have interpreted this “lawful authority” to include a police officer’s authority to investigate.

(Further, under the proposed terms of new legislation known as Bill C-12, PIPEDA will be amended to state police do not require a subpoena or warrant prior to making any request._

PIPEDA means every police officer in Canada has the power to request disclosure of personal information from any business collecting information from subscribers or customers.

True, there’s no legal compulsion on the business to supply the information but they often do, based on user agreements and their so-called privacy policies, which permit information to be supplied under “lawful authority”.

Yet it seems few, if any, commentators are concerned with PIPEDA.

Surely, for the sake of consistency, opponents of Bill C-30 should be demanding the government amend PIPEDA to define “lawful authority”, so that it requires the person making the request for disclosure has a judicial warrant backing up that request.

True, Bill C-30 goes a step beyond PIPEDA by legally requiring all telecommunication service providers to provide subscriber information, based solely on a written request, whereas PIPEDA doesn’t force, but allows, businesses to release the information.

Still, PIPEDA covers a wider range of businesses, allows for more information to be released based solely upon request and is accessible to any government institution, as well as police.

Arguably PIPEDA is more intrusive than C-30. Anyone objecting to one must logically object to the other.

That said, a particularly troubling aspect of C-30 relates to the compelled disclosure of subscriber information.

Such disclosure may seem innocuous at first blush.

After all, who could reasonably object to release of a subscriber’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, Internet protocol address and service provider identifier associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment?

But we can’t look at any one piece of information in isolation. While it in itself might reveal nothing of significance, it may be that same piece of information, when coupled with other data, leads to disclosure of significant facts,

For example, the IP address alone may be of no significance, but it may be the missing piece to a puzzle that leads to disclosure of personal information deserving of protection.

For these reasons even seemingly innocuous subscriber information shouldn’t be accessible to authorities without a warrant, unless of course, there’s an emergency situation.

SEE FULL STORY AT: http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contributor-columns/column-shanoff-bill-c-30-is-nothing-compared-to-pipeda/

Possession of a dangerous crayon [WTF is going on in Canada!!!] Waterloo Police Freak out over a 4 year olds cartoon about shooting "monsters"

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:18:00 +0000

http://ezralevant.com/2012/02/possession-of-a-dangerous-cray.html

Possession of a dangerous crayon

Possession of a dangerous crayon
Where's the liberal media when a child's hand drawing of a gun leads to strip searches?

When Jessie Sansone was picking up his kids from school last week in Kitchener, Ont., he was asked to go to the principal's office.

There were three cops waiting there who arrested him, handcuffed him and took him down to the police station, where he was strip searched.

Then more cops went to his home where his wife, while caring for a 15-month-old baby, was told to go down to the police station, too. And then they searched his house. Without a warrant. Why? What did Sansone do?

Nothing. They didn't find anything in the house when they searched it. They didn't find anything on him when they searched him.

A warrantless arrest and strip search and search of his house. Why?

Because at school, his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun and, when asked about it, told her teacher her daddy uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters. Seriously.

So her kindergarten teacher called Family and Children's Services. Seriously.

And they called the cops. Seriously. And they arrested and searched him. Seriously.

Because a kid drew a picture of a gun. I hear rumours that some kids, especially boys, sometimes draw pictures of robots with lasers, too. And supersonic fighter planes. Maybe we should arrest their parents, too.

But the thing about guns is they're not illegal. Even under the Liberals. We didn't have a gun ban, just a gun registry.

What's the excuse given for the strip search by the Waterloo Regional Police? Inspector Kevin Thaler says it was done "for officer safety, because it's a firearms-related incident," the Waterloo Record reported.

Sorry. Did he just call a child's doodle a "firearms incident?" Is there so little crime in Kitchener that three policemen are dispatched to school because a kindergarten kid drew a gun, and more officers to the home?

The cops were stupid. We pay cops not to be stupid. We pay them not to be political, or bitchy, or to take sides in personal vendettas. They're supposed to be the grown-ups. They're supposed to use their discretion.

A child's drawing of a gun — which does not depict a crime, by the way — is not a public safety matter. It's not a police matter. We have come to expect this anti-family, snitch-style of justice from Family and Children's Services. They regularly abuse families with whom they simply disagree about things, like the style of parenting or religion.

Alison Scott, the executive director of Family and Children's Services, went even nuttier.

"From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there's guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child," she told the Record.

Really? So merely owning a firearm is a public safety matter, time for an intervention?

But Alison Scott didn't have a conversation with parents and child, did she? She didn't give the parents the courtesy of a phone call, or a casual inquiry. She didn't stay calm and normal. She went into nanny state mode. She went into KGB mode. She cut the family right out of it.

Question: Where is the liberal media? You know, the ones who freaked out a week ago when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews proposed a law to allow police to get basic information about their Internet use? Toews just wanted to let cops get your e-mail address, but they'd still have to get a search warrant for anything more. National freak-out.

Here we have a child's crayon drawing leading to a strip search, handcuffing and home invasion. Where's the reaction? Why doesn't the liberal media care about civil liberties when it's a property rights issue or a firearms issue or a family sovereignty issue?

That's the thing about civil liberties. It can't just be for pornographers or Muslim terror suspects.

Civil liberties have to be there for lawful gun owners.

And parents of creative children who are dangerous enough to draw a crayon gun.

EZRA LEVANT, QMI AGENCY

EFF: Canada's C-11 Bill and the Hazards of Digital Locks Provisions

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:03:00 +0000

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/canadas-c-11-bill-and-hazards-digital-locks-provisions

Canada’s C-11 Bill and the Hazards of Digital Locks Provisions

While copyright owners claim that they need anti-circumvention laws to address copyright infringement, twelve years’ experience with the U.S. DMCA provisions demonstrates that overbroad digital locks laws can wreak havoc on lawful, non copyright-infringing activities, stifle free speech and scientific research, and harm innovation and competition. The issue is that overbroad anti-circumvention bans can override exceptions and limitations in national copyright laws, restricting or eliminating perfectly lawful non-copyright infringing uses of copyrighted works.

Small wonder that a broad range of groups in Canada have come out against the unforgiving nature of these provisions in Canada’s C-11 Bill, including librarians, content creators, rights advocates and others. We’ve been documenting the collateral damage caused by the US’s overbroad DMCA provisions in our unintended consequences [pdf] report over more than ten years. Now Canada has a chance to avoid repeating the U.S.’s mistakes.

Here are some of the areas in which Bill C-11’s digital locks provisions are likely to be problematic:

Consumer Rights

Like the U.S. DMCA, C-11 prohibits the act of circumventing a TPM and bans the circumvention tools, devices, and services that citizens would need to circumvent for non-infringing purposes. As a result the digital locks provisions in C-11 will supersede all user rights found in the Copyright Act except for in a few narrowly defined exceptions. This lets rights holders turn acts that are legal into illegal ones with the simple addition of a lock. In the U.S. for instance, many consumers want to make a copy of DVDs that they’ve purchased for personal use on their mobile devices, but the DMCA outlaws the tools needed to break DVDs’ DRM. Major movie studios have sued numerous DVD ripping software manufacturers using the DMCA to remove the tools from the marketplace.

Though C-11 has some exemptions for circumvention for certain purposes, they do not go far enough to accommodate all the legitimate and non-infringing reasons for breaking these locks. The existing exceptions are far too narrow and have become outdated even before the legislation could be passed. An exception exists, for example, permitting users to bypass locks on mobile devices (e.g. cell phones) in order to change service providers. However, bypassing those same locks in order to install an un-approved application (jailbreaking) might be illegal. A general process exists for adding new exceptions, but relying on examples means, at best, that exceptions will always be 10 steps behind legitimate uses. This lag in recognizing new services and uses could very well stifle innovative products out of existence altogether.

Innovation and Creativity

Digital locks provisions can make it illegal for innovators, creators, and artists to take apart and understand how a product works or to transform content. People learn to create new products and works of art by taking things apart. With the growing importance of user-generated content, we are becoming a “society of remixers and tinkerers”. Even though remixing and reusing is often 'fair use/dealing' [pdf] and not a violation of copyright, C-11 would prevent individuals from circumventing a digital lock in order to create a remix. Individuals must be free to use what they have to experiment with their ideas and engage their curiosity.

Privacy

C-11 includes an exception [pdf] that allows circumvention for the purposes of protecting personal information, but most of the technologies that allow people to do so remain illegal. Someone can develop a method or device to break a digital lock to gain access to data, but that method cannot be shared. Therefore, such an exception does little to give users and consumers the ability to protect themselves from possible privacy violations by these companies.

Research

Anti-circumvention measures directly impact [pdf] scholarly research and independent analysis. In applying for grants for example, researchers may lose or not even receive funding when they go under the legal examination of their project if it necessitates the circumvention of digital locks. Additionally, while C-11 contains exemptions for security researchers, it still requires them to inform the target product-maker of their plan or get prior consent from the service provider. This consent requirement can force them to sacrifice discretion or deter their efforts altogether.

Education and Access to Knowledge

Libraries and schools will be limited in their ability to provide content to their members and students. Libraries will be prevented from backing up resources and creating digital archives, while educational institutes will be prevented from using many education-specific copyright exceptions by the presence of a lock. Not only would it be a drain of resources for these institutions to have to do so, it harms their ability to have access to crucial learning resources.

Visual and Hearing Impaired

Unlike the US DMCA which does not have a permanent exception for circumvention to provide access to the visually impaired, Canada’s C-11 includes a limited exception permitting circumvention for those with perceptual difficulties. In the same way that the exception for privacy protection essentially renders itself moot, the law could legalize circumvention while keeping the distribution or sharing of most of those tools illegal. If those with perceptual disabilities want access to their content, it seems that they would need to have the know-how to create tools to circumvent the measures themselves, or otherwise face charges for using or distributing tools that allow other impaired individuals to do the same.

It doesn’t have to be this way

There are several changes to C-11’s digital locks provisions that would go a long way to avoiding the pitfalls of the U.S. experience and would allow Canada to implement a law that complies with the WIPO treaties. First, C-11 should make it clear that it’s lawful to circumvent TPMs to make non-infringing uses of works. In other words, legal protection for copyright holders’ TPMs should follow the scope of national copyright laws but go no further. Second, if it regulates the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools, C-11 should permit trusted third party intermediaries, such as educational institutions and libraries, to be authorized to circumvent to give effect to existing copyright exceptions, as New Zealand’s TPM law does. Third, C-11 should include provisions to prevent TPMs being used for non-copyright infringing geographic market segmentation and to address possible anti-competitive misuse of TPMs as Australia’s revised TPM law does.

If you live in Canada or are a Canadian citizen, you can take the following action:

Open Media - No Internet Lock-Down
Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights - Speak Out Now on Copyright

If you live in the United States or are a U.S. citizen, you can take the following action:

Public Knowledge’s letter writing campaign to US Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk - Act Now : Tell the US Trade Rep: You Don't Work for Big Content

CATHOLIC REGISTER: Section 13 of human rights act one step closer to being repealed

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:29:00 +0000

FROM: http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/13889-section-13-of-human-rights-act-one-step-closer-to-being-repealed

Section 13 of human rights act one step closer to being repealed

\Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News

Thursday, 16 February 2012 14:32

Conservative MP Brian Storseth's Bill C-304, which would repeal the so-called hate speech provision act, passed second reading by a 158-131 vote Feb. 15. - Photo by Deborah Gyapong

OTTAWA - A private member's bill that would axe the controversial Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has passed second reading and will now go to committee for further study.

Conservative MP Brian Storseth's Bill C-304, which would repeal the so-called hate speech provision act, passed second reading by a 158-131 vote Feb. 15.

A lone Liberal, Scott Simms, voted with the Conservatives, who overwhelmingly supported the bill. Otherwise, the NDP and Liberals opposed the bill.

"I was excited that there was one courageous enough to stand up for his constituents and his own personal views," said Storseth, who said he hopes for more support from Opposition MPs.

Bill C-304 now moves to the justice committee where Storseth hopes it can be fast-tracked for study. If he is successful in getting a priority placed on the bill, it could come up for a final vote in the House this spring, and then go on to the Senate.

Under Section 13, which deems any communication "likely to expose" an identified group to hatred or contempt liable for prosecution under the rights act, the truth is no defense. Neither is intent, as the act considers only the possible discriminatory effect of the communication on the groups listed in the legislation. Thus those who might write factual or honest opinion can run afoul of Section 13 as Maclean's magazine did for running articles by best-selling author Mark Steyn on radical Islam. Christians who criticize homosexuality on the basis of religious belief can also find themselves facing complaints, as did Catholic Insight and Calgary Bishop Fred Henry over the same-sex marriage issue.

The Catholic Civil Rights League applauded the second reading vote. In a Feb. 16 news release, the League said Section 13 "has been used to penalize the peaceable expression of opinion based on religious belief." It cited the complaints brought against Catholic Insight that were later dropped, but not until the magazine had spent more than $30,000 defending itself.

"The hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code provide limits on expression that are sufficient in a democracy," said League executive director Joanne McGarry. "A situation where accusers are free to file complaints that may even lack a serious basis, and then leave the accused to pay his or her own potentially high costs in response, is unacceptable.

"Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are both Charter rights, and any limitation on them belongs in Parliament and the courts, not administrative tribunals," she said.

Storseth said he was grateful to have such widespread support from religious and other groups from all ends of the political spectrum for his bill.

"The key is to stay focused," he said. "This is one step. We now have to get this through the justice committee as quickly as possible and get this bill forward in the interest of all Canadians.

"This is an archaic piece of legislation. It's really hurt freedom of expression in our country."

Even opponents of Storseth's bill agreed that Section 13 needs to be reviewed.

"I am not suggesting that Section 13 is perfect," said NDP MP Mylène Freeman. "Indeed, that section is problematic. The main point I would like to make here today is that the principle behind maintaining Section 13 deserves the support of all members."

NDP MP Joe Comartin also argued for keeping a way of targeting hate speech without the high threshold necessary for criminal charges.

"We need two tiers in order to have a free society for individuals who are regularly targeted by anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic people," he said. "We can include homophobia as well."

Storseth rejected a two-tier approach to dealing with freedom of expression, calling open debates an "imperative to having a healthy and free Western democratic society."

Ezra Levant & MP Kerry-Lynne Findlay On Why Section 13 Will Die

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:26:00 +0000

[VIDEO] Second vote on Bill C-304 (An Act to strip the censorship powers from the CHRC)

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:43:00 +0000

Feb 15, 2012: Second vote on Bill C-304 in the House of Parliament. This bill will strip the censorship powers from the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission and repeal Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 has been used and abused by special interest groups as a risk-free taxpayers funded racket to harass and censor Canadians on the Internet.

More information at: http://www.StopSection13.com and http://www.Freedomsite.org

From Parl.gc.ca: Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to: YEAS: 158, NAYS: 131

Accordingly, Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-304 Passes Second Reading! One more nail in the Section 13 coffin

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:20:00 +0000

Earlier today Bill C-304 passed Second Reading in the House of Commons. Bill C-304 is an act to strip the censorship powers from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The vote was 158 in favour and 131 opposed. This is one more nail in the censorship coffin of Section 13.

The next steps for Bill C-304 is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Then after the committee looks at it, the bill is referred back to Parliament for third and final reading. Once that passes it goes to the Senate of Canada for review and once passed in the Senate the bill becomes law and Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are repealed!

Here is the details of what happened today in Parliament from the Feb 15, 2012 Journal.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul), seconded by Mr. Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert), — That Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following division

YEAS: 158, NAYS: 131

YEAS -- POUR

Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement	Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Flaherty Galipeau Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Hoeppner Holder James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon	Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Menzies Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock O'Connor Oda Paradis Payne Penashue Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Richardson Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger	Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Toews Trost Trottier Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer
Total: -- 158

NAYS -- CONTRE

Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Chow Christopherson Cleary Coderre Comartin Côté	Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St. John's East) Hassainia Hsu Hughes	Hyer Jacob Julian Karygiannis Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Murray Nantel	Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Plamondon Quach Rae Rafferty Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Sandhu Savoie Scarpaleggia Sellah Sgro Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote
Total: -- 131

Accordingly, Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), was read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[VIDEO] Bill C-304 - Second Reading in House of Commons to strip CHRC of Section 13 censorship

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:04:00 +0000

Bill C-304 will strip the censorship powers from the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission and repeal Section 13 of the human Rights Act. Section 13 is Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation, which has been used to gag and harass close to a hundred Canadians. Section 13 has a 100% conviction rate, and allows for no defences. Hearings are lengthy and biased against the accused, which has caused many newspapers and columnists to dub the Human Rights Tribunal “a kangaroo court.”

Stand Up For Freedom Canada: Bill C-304 vote today - Contact your MP

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:35:00 +0000

The following text is from: Stand Up for Freedom Canada (www.HumanRightsCommissions.ca)

Bill C-304, “An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act” is being debated in Parliament today and is scheduled to have its first vote tomorrow evening. If you have not yet contacted your MP to support this legislation, please do so now.

The bill, introduced by MP Brian Storseth, seeks to ensure greater protection of freedom of expression in Canada by removing the government’s power to censor speech through section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

“Our freedom is one of the most important things that we cherish in this great nation,” said Neil Dykstra, a representative of the national Stand Up For Freedom Campaign. “Many Canadians are not aware that our fundamental Charter freedoms are being undermined by commissions and tribunals both at the federal and the provincial levels. It is about time that our federal government stood up for freedom of expression, for the protection of a diverse marketplace of ideas, and against the chill that the Human Rights Act places on political discourse. Bill C-304 is a small but important first step towards greater protection of our freedoms.”

Stand Up For Freedom Canada believes Bill C-304 ought to garner support from all parties and all members. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson urged the opposition to “get onside with the media. Maclean’s magazine, the National Post and even the Toronto Star all say this section should go.”

“There is much at stake with the passage of this bill,” adds André Schutten, a lawyer and member of the Stand Up For Freedom team. “If Bill C-304 is defeated, Parliament will in effect be encouraging censorship by its bureaucratic agencies. This will embolden the human rights tribunals and commissions to continue and increase their targeted persecution of politically incorrect opinions and ideas.” Member of Parliament Brent Rathgeber stated in support of the bill, “Free speech, if it is to exist, cannot be subject to some bureaucracy. There is no such thing as government regulated free speech. Either there is free speech or there is not.”

“The fact that Bill C-304 is not a government bill is disappointing,” added Dykstra. “It really should have been a priority for any conservative government that values freedom. Because Mr. Storseth’s bill is a private member’s bill, it is not guaranteed to pass. While we applaud the government’s support of the bill, we must urge all Canadians to contact their Member of Parliament to support freedom of expression in Canada, to support Bill C-304. We also encourage Canadians to learn the facts about the human rights industry in Canada for themselves by going to the website www.HumanRightsCommissions.ca. They will also find tools there to contact their MP on this bill.”

Click here to customize and send a letter to the Prime Minister, Justice Minister, and your MP in only a few minutes.

GLOBAL NEWS: Fight to repeal hate speech law brings together unlikely allies

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:31:00 +0000

http://www.globalnews.ca/politics/6442581134/story.html

Fight to repeal hate speech law brings together unlikely allies

Rebecca Lindell, Global News : Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:26 PM

Photo Credit: Bloomberg News Files , Bloomberg News

OTTAWA – A bill to repeal part of Canada’s most contentious hate speech provisions, which has brought together unusual allies, is one step closer to becoming law.

Conservative MP Brian Storseth’s private member’s bill that would repeal the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s power over hate messages disseminated online is likely to survive its next test. The bill is scheduled to be voted on for a second time on Wednesday, and while it is a private member’s bill, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson endorsed the proposed legislation last November. It will still have to be voted on once more in the House of Commons and pass through the Senate before it becomes law, but the progress is encouraging for its diverse supporters.

“This is a dead bill,” said Marc Lemire, one of the people to face a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. “It shouldn’t be on the books and it will be a fine day in Canada when it is finally removed.” Section 13 of the Act makes it discriminatory to spread online messages that could expose an identifiable person or persons to hatred or contempt.

Lemire said the current legislation allows interest groups a risk-free way of attacking political opponents by censoring free speech, something he believes isn’t necessary or good for democratic society. “We don’t need the government looking over our shoulder looking at what we say and whether it is correct or not,” he said.

A well-known and outspoken figure in Canada’s far right, Lemire had a Section 13 complaint filed against him in 2006 for posting anti-Semitic and anti-gay material on websites. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Lemire did violate the Act, but found the section unconstitutional.

The case is now before the Federal Court of Canada and Lemire has found an unlikely ally in his fight to see the bill repealed, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It’s an organization known for defending human rights, equality and diversity, The CCLA’s general counsel Nathalie Des Rosiers said it is important liberty and equality are protected for everyone. “When you lose freedom of expression you lose the ability of having the outside voice being forcefully heard,” said Des Rosiers.

“The good thing with freedom is you have so many different people who have an interest in it,” said Lemire of the unlikely alliance.

The problem with Section 13, according to Des Rosiers, is the definition of hate messages is too broad and blurs the line between hate and vigorous disagreement. “Every group that is a little bit concerned about censorship looks at this and says the possibility of this being abused to counter some critical speech is wide,” she said. “You can easily get into full-fledged censorships.”

University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon, who was hired by the commission to study Section 13, argues it is simply not the right vehicle to defend people from hate messages. “I personally believe that it is entirely right and appropriate that there be laws that restrict extreme hate speech,” said Moon, who defines such speech as advocating, justifying or inciting violence. Moon said the Criminal Code and its hate speech provisions are the best place for complaints to be dealt with, adding police are better suited to investigating extreme speech than individual complainants. The other major concern is the commission investigating a complaint is a violation of free speech in itself, Moon said. Since 2001 the commission has accepted 74 Section 13 complaints. Of the 17 that were actually heard by the tribunal, 16 found that the respondents breached the act. The maximum fine is $10,000.

Des Rosiers said a better move would be to spend money and energy targeting acts of discrimination, instead of fighting speech, something she calls a losing battle. “It hasn’t stopped the level of vitriolic comments on the internet,” she said. “It has done very little good and has the potential to do a great deal of harm.”

The NDP opposes Storseth’s bill, but Wednesday’s vote occurs on the same day as the final vote on legislation to kill the gun registry, ensuring there will be strong Conservative showing in the House of Commons. Liberal Justice critic Irwin Cotler supports amending instead of repealing Section 13 in a bid to prevent vilifying speech while protecting people from hate speech. Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada are examining cases involved hate speech.

The court cases coupled with the political momentum leaves Lemire with one prediction: “It’s really only a matter of time before this law is gone.”

Watch live today at 5:30pm to the Parliament Debate on Bill C-304 (An Act to remove the censorship powers from the Canadian Human Rights Commission)

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:08:00 +0000

The Parliament of Canada’s ParlVU event centre will be broadcasting the second hour of debate on Bill C-304 this evening (February 14^th, 2012) at 5:30pm.

Parliament’s Projected Order of Business for February 14^th, 2012 shows:

——————————

5:30 p.m.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

C-304 — Mr. Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul) — An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom) — Second reading (resuming debate)

Length of speeches, pursuant to Standing Order 95(1):

· Member moving motion — 15 minutes maximum and the speech is subject to a 5-minute question and comment period.

· All other Members — 10 minutes maximum.

Voting — at the expiry of the time provided for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 93(1).

——————————

You can watch the debate live on ParlVU here:

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=8455

——————————

Background on Section 13

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is an actual victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “likely to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure for the extremists at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a rational to increase the amount of fines! Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 98% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence.

On September 2, 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in the Lemire case that Section 13 was unconstitutional and in violation of the Charter. In the decision the Tribunal slammed the CHRC for being aggressive and confrontational. In 2008, the CHRC’s own hand-picked expert – Richard Moon of the University of Windsor – wrote a substantial report on Section 13 with his main recommendation being to repeal it.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.

Support Freedom of Speech

Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Act is shameful censorship!

www.StopSection13.com | www.FreedomSite.org | Twitter: Marc_Lemire

Section 13 censorship to be discussed in Parliament. Bill C-304 coming to a vote Feb 15 (debate Feb 14, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:38:00 +0000

UPDATE: Bill C-304 coming to Parliament Next week

Conservative MP’s Brian Storseth’s Bill C-304 is coming up for second reading (second hour of debate) on February 14, 2012. Then a recorded vote will be held on February 15, 2012.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=projected&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012

Private Members' Business

C-304 — Mr. Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul) — An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom) — Second reading (resuming debate)

Ezra Levant and Brian Storseth discuss Bill C-304

Bill C-304, an Act to Protect Freedom of Speech, will strip the powers of the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet using sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act the CHRC has attacked the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allows the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Bill C-304 will repeal Section 13 and no longer allow the fanatics of the CHRC to censor another Canadian posting on the Internet.

Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and can never be justified in a free society!

Bill C-304: See MP Brian Storseths website for further information: http://www.brianstorseth.ca/bill-c-304

For more information on the censorship provisions of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act see: http://www.StopSection13.com or http://www.FreedomSite.org

Conservative MP Storseth asks for support on Section 13 repeal

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:58:00 +0000

Storseth asks for support on Section 13 repeal

By William Stodalka | Cold Lake Sun

MP Brian Storseth recently sent out a letter to Cold Lakers and other residents in the Westlock - St. Paul riding asking for their support on his Private Member’s Bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Under that Section, media and Internet articles that others deem offensive will have to face a human rights commission.

However, this section has come under criticism by Storseth and others who say it stymies freedom of speech. “The policy is flawed and poses a risk to Canadians’ freedom of speech,” said Storseth in the letter. “Freedom of speech is too precious to keep under the thumb of censorship.” Storseth said in an interview that he sent the letter to inform members of his riding about what he was doing in Parliament.

Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was first created in 1977 to help defeat hate speech, but since the law was passed, has come under criticism from civil rights organizations, national media, and authors such as Noam Chomsky. Around 2008, Storseth said he introduced a motion for the Justice Department to re-examine the law. Later that year, a Liberal MP, Keith Martin, proposed a Private Member’s Bill similar to what Storseth proposed, but that bill did not make it to law. In 2011, Storseth proposed the current private member’s bill against Section 13. Because a private member’s bill does not come from the governing party’s caucus, or always have the governing party’s complete approval, however, most never make it into law.

But Storseth is hoping his bill, now named Bill C-304, will pass by the end of the spring session of Parliament. “I think it’s important to raise these types of issues and to bring this type of attention to them,” said Storseth. He later added, “There’s not much use to having freedom of religion or freedom of assembly if we don’t have freedom of expression to go with it.” Because of his stance, Storseth has received national coverage and endorsements from publications such as the The Toronto Star and the National Post, along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

CCLA director Cara Zwibel said that she believed that Section 13 puts a “chill” on freedom of expression. Zwibel noted that while the CHRC often deals with cases where human rights are infringed, such as a person denied an apartment because of their race or creed, Section 13 forces people to “put on a different hat” and act as something different entirely. “We’re concerned that the language around hate speech is very open to interpretation,” she noted. “What’s hate speech to one is not to another or just a genuine expression of their opinion.” She said she hoped the bill would succeed.

…

Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said that he believed that “there has been an acknowledgement that changes to the Criminal Code would be necessary in addition to passage of the (private member’s )bill.” While Fogel said he supports repealing Section 13, he believed Storseth’s bill was “not entirely adequate as an alternative to Section 13.”

Others have pointed to different possible solutions to Section 13. The Canadian Bar Association, an organization of Canadian lawyers, said that it supports Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, but that it should be amended to take care of some of the concerns people have with it, such as allowing defendants the right to see their accuser and giving the CHRC more opportunity to dismiss cases that they deem frivolous.

But Storseth said he believed that this was not good enough, and that the law should be scrapped entirely. “I think it’s beyond tinkering,” he said. “There’s too many fundamental flaws in Section 13.” Zwibel agreed. “I don’t think parliament tweaking the legislation will help in terms of protecting freedom of expression,” she said. “It’s been through the courts on a number of occasions. I think if parliament re-opens that, there will be another series of cases before the courts to deal with that, and that won’t really help freedom of expression.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission spokesman Craig Carson said that the Commission “is following the debate with interest,” but did not elaborate further. However, in an op-ed by Canadian Human Rights Commissioner David Langry, he wrote that if Section 13 were repealed, “perhaps Parliament should make it easier for police to lay a (Criminal Code) charge based on evidence.”

SEE FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.coldlakesun.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3446282

Salim Mansur: Repeal Section 13 Censorship

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:38:00 +0000

Salim Mansur calls for a repeal Section 13 Censorship

Salim Mansur is a professor at the University of Western Ontario and a newspaper columnist for the Sun newspaper chain. Mansur is also the author of the very interesting and thought provoking book Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism.

Article from the CJNews:

…

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the concept [of Multiculturalism] into Canadian law in 1971, and support for multiculturalism spread to other western democracies. But in the last year, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain and Holland have all questioned its merits, and the Canadian public has never been as enthusiastic for it as have the country’s political and media elite, Mansur said.

“Forty years later, you can see how utterly weak those arguments were… How is the culture of the Taliban equal, when you consider how they discriminate against women and other religions?”

If support for multiculturalism continues unabated, Mansur predicted a vastly different Canada. “Fifty years from now, if all cultures are equal why not have sharia (Islamic) law in Canada” or Sikh or Hindu law for people of those backgrounds, he asked.

Today, “judges are confused,” human right commissions try to stifle free speech and students feel stifled on university campuses, he said.

The antidote to multiculturalism is promoting Canada’s own intellectual heritage. “Liberal democracy itself is a culture. It’s not some fuzzy idea. It is a culture that emanates through five centuries of historical struggle.” It places “man as the measure of all things” and the liberal struggle is the struggle for individual freedom, he said.

Adding to the “bad logic” that substituted group rights for individual ones was the “bad faith” approach by politicians who saw multiculturalism as a means to gain favour with hyphenated Canadians, Mansur said.

He called for repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which regulates online hate speech.

…

From: Multiculturalism based on ‘flawed logic:’ prof. (Canadian Jewish News)

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?q=node/89181

[VIDEO] John Robson & Martin Collacott: Is Immigration Harming Canada?

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:56:00 +0000

Interesting interview with Immigration Expert Martin Collacott on massive immigration to Canada and is it harming Canada?

Brian Lilley: Government Bureaucrats Gone Wild (Canada's crazy firearms laws)

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:16:00 +0000

Brian Lilley: Government Bureaucrats Gone Wild

Canadian Human Rights Commission ARE LIKE THE NAZIS! Kulaszka was right to make the comparison

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:03:00 +0000

During the Marc Lemire hearing this week, Federal Court Justice - Mr. Justice Richard Mosley - took great offense that Lemire’s lawyer Barbara Kulaszka dared to describe Canada’s internet censorship law - Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as similar to the worst repressive totalitarian regimes such as the Nazis or the Communists.

Joseph Brean writing in the National Post described the encounter as: “Ms. Kulaszka compared Section 13, and its supposed 100% conviction rate, to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which did not sit well with Judge Mosley. ‘Let's not get carried away with hyperbole. Some comparisons are offensive,’ he said. ‘Counsel should know this and restrain yourself.’”

Let’s take a look at the facts, and you can make up your own mind. Is Section 13 a law totalitarian regimes like the Communists or Nazis would love?

Are The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission like Nazis?

*The Nazis*	*The Canadian Human Rights Commission*
The Nazis targeted one race	The CHRC targets only working-class Whites, whose beliefs they disagree with. When Muslims or friends of the CHRC are investigated for posting vile hate, the CHRC dismissed the complaints as “not in the public interest”.
The Nazis used unfair courts and tribunals while limiting any possible defence	Not a single person has ever won a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (over 40 cases…) 100% conviction rate!* Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be jealous!*
The Nazis targeted the poor	98% of victims the CHRC attacks are poor. 90.7% of victims are so poor they are not able to even hire a lawyer to represent them. Victims are not able to get legal aid, and the government pays the expenses for the complainants.
The Nazis used militarist terms and concepts to forward their totalitarian agenda	The CHRC uses the language of war, of enemies, of fear and hysteria and a belief that laws of coercion will change hearts. They publically write in terms of “fighting”, of “combating” those they disagree with, in which the fighters must show “solidarity”.
The Nazis used all means at their disposal to silence their opponents.	The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity* or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices…” Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act*
The Nazis used the Gestapo to attack and silence their political opponents	The CHRC has benefited from the Police raiding people’s homes for alleged “hate”. No criminal charges are ever filed but the CHRC uses the seized material against victims before the Tribunal (In contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms) The CHRC pose as Nazis and infiltrate internet websites and message boards searching for Canadians with politically incorrect views to persecute.
The Nazis would get people fired from their employment over their beliefs	A recent victim of the CHRC (Terry Tremaine) was fired from his position at the University of Sask. for his political beliefs.
The Nazis used Krystalnacht (Night of broken Glass) to attack their enemies and used “brown shirts” to attack political opponents on the streets.	The CHRC has publicized groups with a long history of violence (ARA). This includes attempted murder, uttering death threats, assault and harassment – even advocating blowing up Domino Pizza outlets!

Dictators and totalitarian regimes around the world all have the same idea in mind, and they want to control information and stifle dissent at all cost. Under Adolf Hitler, political dissidents were imprisoned and sent to camps. In today’s communist China, the Communist politburo plots to “purify” the internet (China's top Red vows to 'purify' net – The UK Register, Jan 24th, 2007). In Saudi Arabia, internet bloggers sit in prisons. In Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s “Strategic initiatives” section sits in Ottawa and plots to “cleanse” the internet of idea’s and speech it doesn’t like. In all cases, the effect is the same. State sponsored control of information and political repression.

Because of the fanatical ideologically driven efforts of the “human rights nazis” at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada has now sunk to the level of a China, Nazi Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in terms censorship. The apparatchiks at the CHRC regularly scour websites like http://www.stormfront.org looking for anything to attack their political opponents with. If they can’t find enough to “get them”, they get their willing accomplices in the Gestapo – Canada’s misnamed “hate crimes” political police – to raid people’s homes on trumped-up “hate” charges. The police, under the guise of criminality, seize computers, books, clothes and even shoes! The items will never be used in a real court – where real rules of evidence are used – but rather are entered as evidence before Kangaroo-like show trials at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, where fairness is almost unknown to those accused of “hate”. The rules of evidence are just mere suggestions, hearsay and double hearsay evidence is just fine; where truth is NO defence (but rather a reason to convict the accused and increase the amount of the fine!); and where politically correctness reigns supreme.

CHRC Emulated Chinese Internet Control Policy

Today in communist China, dissidents like Zhang Wei, are subjected to show trials and kangaroo courts, then locked away in jails. Zhang Wei is in a Chongqing jail for six years for running “unapproved news” in his paper. In September, 2006, the Canadian Human Rights Commission admitted during a conference call with the ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal in the Lemire case, that they have strong armed upwards of 200 to 300 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) [mostly in the United States, where the CHRC does not have ANY authority], to remove content they disagree with. And amazingly this is done with no tribunal order or any determination of the material. Stalin, Mao and Hitler would be jealous!

Like other totalitarian countries, Canada has the stain on its history of imprisoning people due to their political beliefs. Just in terms of the Internet, at least four people recently have been or currently are in Canadian prisons. “Thought criminals” like Tomasz Winnicki, Terry Tremaine, Reinhold Meuller and Jean-Sebastient Presseault of Quebec for posting material on his website.

The misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission is currently undertaking an ideologically-driven war against speech and political commentary on the Internet. The CHRC’s censorship rage knows no limits. Some 46 cases have been brought since the inception of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship law), and every single one of the defendants were White. 98% of all cases involved poor defendants and only 9% could afford a lawyer to represent them. The CHRC is drunk with power, and intent on silencing all opinions they disagree with and will use “any means necessary” to enforce their politically motivated anti-White racial hatred on Canadians. And we say NO MORE!

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada):

"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

(BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

Attorney General of Canada – Rob Nicholson,

“Our government believes that Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combatting hate propaganda

... Maclean’s magazine, National Post, and even the Toronto Star says this section should go.”

(House of Commons – Parliament. Nov 2011)

>> Donate online here to support Freedom <<

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.Freedomsite.org

Twitter: Marc_Lemire

Twitter: #Section13

DISMANTLING TYRANNY: The Marc Lemire Case

Legal arguments from the Marc Lemire case before the Federal Court of Canada. Marc Lemire is the only Canadian in history to ever beat the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in Sept 2009 won his case when Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Canada's shameful censorship legislation) was found to be unconstitutional. This booklet covers

Paperback: $15.00 | Order now

EBOOK (PDF via email) | Paperback

TORONTO STAR: Free speech is the key

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Lemire) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 06:22:00 +0000

You know that Section 13 censorship is screwed when even the Toronto Star is calling for it to be scrapped!

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1102223--free-speech-is-the-key

Free speech is the key

Is a new era of freer speech about to dawn in this country? Canadians can only hope. We’ve lived with fetters for far too long.

In Ottawa, Parliament is debating a bill by Conservative MP Brian Storseth to erase obnoxious sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act that unduly restrict free speech in the name of silencing hate mongers. At the same time the Supreme Court of Canada is re-examining hate speech jurisprudence in a case stemming from Saskatchewan’s equally restrictive provincial rights code. And Federal Court is taking its own independent look at the federal act.

All this is reason to hope that the chill that has settled on our Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression over the past few decades is about to thaw.

…

The Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, prohibits publishing via the Internet “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” That can draw fines of up to $10,000 plus heavy damages. That’s a damper on spirited public discourse. The act can be interpreted to cover stereotyping and defaming, as well as hate-mongering. There’s no need to prove intent. Evidence can be accepted that would not stand up in court. And guilt doesn’t have to be established beyond doubt. All this puts an unreasonable burden on anyone unlucky enough to be hauled on the carpet.

Some provincial codes are no better. In Saskatchewan, publishing material that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of groups such as gays or lesbians can also draw harsh penalties. Belittles? Affronts the dignity? How can that be measured, let alone defended against? British Colombia’s code has its own problematic prohibitions.

Most Canadians have no sympathy for hate mongers. But an unwarranted, creeping chill is being cast over free speech, absent any real problem. Human rights commissions should concern themselves with discriminatory behaviour, not discriminatory opinions. It’s time to reaffirm free speech.