The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.
The decision released this morning by Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.
It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.
[…]
Mr. Hadjis’ decision to reject the law as unconstitutional, in light of its penalty provisions, leaves a central area Canada’s human rights in limbo, and kicks a political hot potato over to the government and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can appeal the ruling to Federal Court.
Mr. Warman’s case was supported by the CHRC, and various advocacy groups joined the case as intervenors in support of Section 13.
Mr. Hadjis rejected Mr. Warman’s complaints in all but one instance, an article called AIDS Secrets. He found that this posting contravened Section 13(1). But he also found the law itself — with its threat of penalties such as an order to cease the discrimatory messages, or pay fines up to $10,000 — violates Mr. Lemire’s Charter right to freedom of expression, and therefore refused to make any order against him.
“Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal, I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him,” Mr. Hadjis wrote.
Looks like Kinsella picked a bad to day to quit apoplexy…
Ruling here.
Woo Hoo! Finally some sense injected into this debate. Almost makes me want to cry.
Possible election fodder?
Finally the hated hate speech muzzle gets taken down as ‘ultra vires’ the Constitution. Rat a tat, rat a tat, blam S.13 gets shot down in flames!
Should make interesting reading, as the opponents line up their appeals.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht-Commander in Chief
Army Group “True North”
1st St. Nicolaas Army
Hell, score one for Canada!!!
Yaaah… Babs Hall & Lynch must be in a dither.
Who will bet Iggy uses this as an election gambit?
I doubt this will be the last we hear of this but it’s still good to know.
robins111…I hope he does.
How many posters here have turned their backs on CPC due to apparent inaction by the CPC? I say apparent because we have had info indicating meetings in progress to get rid of Section 13…of course that isn’t be covered by the lazy MSM.Now watch the CPC act.
Better if CPC makes this an election issue.And then see what the turncoats do.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Canada officially becomes more free today.
What needs to happen is for the senior Ignatieff adviser Kinsella to attack the charter.
We like the charter but we hate that it gives section 13 a knee to the groin.
🙂
They flogged themselves. Whoa!
As Mel Brooks said “Gentlemen we have to protect our phoney baloney jobs.” Either they cut the nuts loose or they all go down. Worried about a Conservative majority maybe?
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal … appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
All I could think of was Peoples front of Judea vs. Judean Peoples Front.
(Monty Python Life of Brian reference for those not familiar).
Judean Peoples Front… Piss off! 🙂
Does the the Human Rights Tribunal have the power to declare stuff UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
I thought this was a SCOC task.
“Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal…”
So no, the Tribunal doesn’t have the power to declare Section 13 unconstitutional in a legal sense. But he pretty clearly states that he thinks it is and refused to apply it against Lemire.
“Does the the Human Rights Tribunal have the power to declare stuff UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
This was my first thought. Bad enough a discredited body with no moral underpining try and police thoughts and now they’re trying to police themselves? I’m confused…
I wonder if the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation will offer odds on this being overturned.
Hooray! Freedom of speech reigns again!
Agent Smith:
I’m with you. I am happy that the monster has taken a bite out of itself. But, I’m not so willing to embrace a “ruling” from a body that I don’t think has the standing to make any rulings in the first place. The idea turns the stomach a little bit.
I just feel like if one is to hold up this ruling as a legitimate conclusion, then you also have to accept anything else they rule on as being a legit judgment with the force of law.
If Harper wants to win back those of us who’ve abandoned the Conservative Party he shall have this case pushed up to a real court room on appeal. I want this case appealed and I want real Judges to make a ruling that Section 13 is unconstitutional. I want a full open inguiry on the CHRC activities and why an ex-employee was allowed to be a serial complainant for montatary awards why why why?
This is good news. But why did it take so long? This judge has been hearing this Lemire case for years.
This is a victory and it will be interesting how it turns out. Who can make the decision to appeal the ruling? The CHC or the government? If it is the CHC, undoubtedly they will appeal. If they lose the appeal (I doubt it as all the good liberal water carriers on the SC will decide that it is a “reasonable” curb on freedoms and for the general good of society), then watch the fireworks from the hypocrites of the left:
“The court is reading in rights! The court should not be stepping in on the territory of the legislative body!”
And finally: “We demand the use of the Not-Withstanding clause as this was it’s intended purpose”
Just watch!
Does this mean there is a crack forming in the politically correct world we live in?
Does this mean it’s now okay to again indulge in the fine art of insult?
Does this mean we can start calling a spade a spade?
Does this mean Jennifer Lynch is developing a peptic ulcer?
A nice step forward but until a real court rules it as unconstitutional I won’t be satisfied.
The wailing and knashing of teeth at the HRC will resound through the land.
Peptic ulcer, or coma.
The HRC’s are too deeply entrenched in the hate business to give up despite the ruling by Hadjis.
It’s just a temporary blip for the Barbara Hall’s and Jennifer Lynch’s of this world.
The zeal and rot remains at the core, any other view is wishful thinking as I see it.
‘c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression
[295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.’
….
‘I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely the AIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).’
The long and short is the Tribunal member can’t declare his own legislation invalid; that has to be done by a full bona fides Federal Court of Canada type judge.
The Tribunal member may have rightly refused to implement an aspect of law that he deems unconstitutional.
Although a step in the right direction don’t break out the champagne just yet.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht-Commander in Chief
Army Group “True North”
1st St. Nicolaas Army
This was my first thought. Bad enough a discredited body with no moral underpining try and police thoughts and now they’re trying to police themselves? I’m confused…
Posted by: Agent Smith at September 2, 2009 2:58 PM
Yeah, sorry in advance for thinking this, and my second thought was … HADJIS? Find myself wondering how deeply steeped in human rights this cat is.
Momar – asshole!
Certainly a step in the proper direction.
I will always defend my right to be offended.
Don’t be too fast to pop the champagne. Hadjis produced a decision with a number of contradictions that a good constitutional and procedural lawyer would have a party with.
We have a dog’s breakfast of a decision here that still needs to be deciphered properly by the court and dealt with legislatively.
It is a big win for the victim of this case, Lemire,(and he may recoup his costs with defamation suits of his defamers) but for the overall cause of restoring official respect for free expression and privacy there is a long haul yet.
Jim, you are right. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the attempt to stifle free speech and this topic gets picked up during the coming election. The CPC should do what they can to keep this ball rolling. It will be tough as the statists will not easily give up their effort to control our speech and thoughts and create the New Socialist man.
Yeah, I’m with Rose. It’s like the wallaby saying the kangaroo court is wrong. Real laws judged by real courts.
Another disgusting exhibition of our attenuated rights.. er.. wait a second.. what?!
Does this mean Warman has to give back all those judgements he collected under this “unconstitutional” law? If so, he’s about to go bankrupt…
Hmmmm…
This is probably a bit more self-serving than it appears. The whole “Human Rights Act” is crap, and thanks to people like Steyn and Levant, everybody knows it. It has to go, in its entirety.
The Tribunal probably figures that if they throw Section 13(1) off the back of the sleigh, the wolves will stop snapping at the whole Act.
Then they all get to keep their cushy jobs.
What? Me, cynical? Naaaw…
sure explains an article I read a week or so ago, about Babs Hall shifting gears, she knew this was coming down the pipe
Amazing what happens when somebody finally flips the kitchen light on, eh? Lookit all them roaches!
Well, now that we can all see them, its up to Mr. Harper to get busy and stomp on them all. Because he’s The Man and its his kitchen.
CPC employees, time to step the hell up to the plate and HIT THE BALL boys.
Incidentally, I braved the smell of doodoo over at Kinsmellya’s. Zero mention.
Bwahaha!
To quote a passage in a letter I received from my MP dated February 12, 2009 in response to one I had written to him on Jan. 21:
“You also wrote about the case of Ezra Levant and the Human Rights Commission….I can inform you that the Canadian government is taking measures to change the Human Rights Act. There are currently two items before parliament – a bill to include Aboriginal people in Human Rights Act and a motion to remove Section 13 from the Act…”
I also wrote to Rob Nicholson and his reply contained the following passage:
“You may be interested to know that a motion has been put before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by Conservative Member of Pariament Mr. Brian Storseth to examine the mandate and operations of the CHRC.
I wonder what’s happening with those. Let’s keep their feet to the fire, folks. Fire up your word processors and start writing letters. Names and addresses of your MPs can be found here: http://canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html
Wait, so a probable Muslim at a quasi-legal tribunal refuses to take punitive action against an anti-semite and this surprises people on SDA? These tribunals don’t follow the rules of evidence, why would they treat common law any differently?
Let’s wait to see what the real courts do before we cheer, shall we?
So can we chalk one up for ‘free speech’ in Canada?
PC behavior is a major chunk of all this fascist crap and it has been working its way into and through the system for decades. The CPC of SH has done zero on this file. ZERO.
So what about political correctness?
this up on drudge (no link yet)
BANNED TALKER MICHAEL SAVAGE INVITED TO DEBATE ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS’ AT CAMBRIDGE UNION… EVENT SLATED FOR OCT. 15… DEVELOPING…
goods news is always welcome!
this one’s gonna leave a mark.
Mod, delete my above comment for stupidity if you get the chance 😛 Long day.
“a number of contradictions that a good constitutional and procedural lawyer would have a party with.”
Jim, please provide an example.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.
So…. a branch of the roo-ocracy thinks the actual LAW is unconsitutional because it has penalties?
Why am I NOT surprised?
Not because it is anti-ethical to a free society to have such laws and not because these very HRCs and tribunals are a disgrace in our democracy. Just because in their view a law should not have penalties. Of course they would never think of relinquishing their own whips and chains.
A small victory for the victims of this bureaucratic gang of meddling busybodies I suppose …. but still flawed and self serving groupthink from the unspeakables.
Memo to I Iggy and Jacko Laytoon …. please force an election.
When police or judge or authority made mistake they tried to cover up they mistake by add more mistake to you in order that they do not pay claim to you and made you guilty and not them as responsible of all delay and all court hearing for small request you are asking how many time Jude should be bring innocent and ask to change thing when this can be force mediation or settle easier
All is matter of money in claim and that must be narrow down
Some word maybe hurtful but if two people can do forget but some word comes from real hate
When two hearts get far from each other and when two group of nation are two separated?
YOU MUST yield loudly to hear our heart voice
when two person like each other by look you can say your words but if you separated say a big book nobody listen and peel keep screaming and call each other name and hate each other because of hate each other then made people close then hate will gone away.
I am not fan of watching Glen Beck for some reason two nights ago I watch it for questions he wrote in blackboard and get my attention
Every time I am watching this man I laughed loudly and say to myself he is unbelievable
He said in general: This obama who black man is tried to force our Race who we are white for accept his CHANGE and those we turn our money of white people to hand of poor African and black people to made change to our economic
Why we must accept this change. This is proof Glen beck is racism and only like White English and hate others and he does not know what while has more than black not because they earn it more because you cut it more and /or steal more or unfair illegal competition and other tort we saw in this country are breach the contract intentionally and when neglect labor and for purpose of Unlawful interference with economic relations and false Advertising under Business
& Professions and ignore Duty of protector or promote the reputation of an inventor;
when you enter illegal completion tort of defamation and conspiracy by using recent legal systems and Unfair Business Practices which include variety of intentional illegal discriminatory, Tort of slander lead to Discrimination, Tort of unjust enrichment with Moral and ethical right, Tort of patents infringement, copyright infringement and inventor ship, Tort of misrepresentation, Tort of nuisance and other Actions and civil torts I can not believe how this man talk so much about his race while he is ugly white man and fat and talk rude about every body
=====
Hate crime is not the word it the intention:The person in any level in any job in any position can be facing hate crime and when some one not find any way and tell
You I NEVER let you work back to us, I never talk to you; people who follow kid to teach them bad in school yard and hate must get jailed and separated from innocent children. Blame it all to children and teacher in yard and brake time are not look after children well.
I never let you come up, I never made you gain profit, I never made you win the any court; I never made you have life, in any country against other race and nation
That person to my knowledge is racist that man or woman are not able to digest any change and only se weapon and jail as his only final word for him or her I am totally against war that some one drop bomb to head of so many innocent to caught one criminal this is unfair method of justice to me
If some one call innocent person guilty of crime and go to police and say some thing or come to public and made innocent person to view of public down in order to gain over each picture $ 100,000 dollar as Dina prince of England picture worse that is unfair made money to public, If some one talks nasty and or bluffing and say I am going to kill you in call and tell and some one call the police for treat over person frustration that is ridicules, If some one by hate bring innocent person with so many legal action to not let them to talk or write their option that is sin and against human right
Court order without trial is not acceptable if some one did such crime to humanity in intention to hurt group of people need to go to trial and in trial must ban them for any publican or take photo if bring stupid APPLICATION as Justice Sach- Mcdoanld -Pitt ban people for court order with no trial with any evidenc that is Justice McDonald must resign or get arrested to abuse of process
Some abuse of power also comes from hate toward human right and that must get punished as well
The civil court in Canada is most ridicules system as I ever saw that lawyer can play around judge to let steal other people with criminal intention to bankrupt small company and that is fine for them blame to English comprehension I believe civil court half of their judge are corrupted and hate people who are not come with lawyer such as Justice Campbell or etc… Those old hate full judge must removed with understanding judge to listen to people complain not let lawyer made money over this
procedure in complain so lengthy must quick and to the point and give to first warning then court order and etc… I saw more abuse in court system to any respect to them so far blame to upper law society fix your justice and teach ethic then all conspiracy will gone even among youth you will see how bad friend come close to your family or your children to teach them crime that is not fish for policy as well this is unbelievable corrupted I ever seen in my life so many court order issued in past with no evidence of complain must be wipe out and when some has small claim and lawyer made to made more than what you ask it is reason because lawyers hate Muslim or other race change your lawyer instead of
Not change your employees, People need news but say all life is bad news peel feel down we need mix good and bad news while people pay attention only to bad news and not respect good news, we must made balance in say the news or not let people used to only hear bad and feel down life is good use it in proper time frame
Wew must do alot for this country to fix it right.
For CHRISTS SAKE!
Does that mean we can go back to calling people names again?
Does anyone here actually waste their time reading the mush that new spouts every time he gets a notion?
No. Not even if I -could- read it. Which I can’t.
new, try forming a coherent thought -before- hitting the keyboard, eh? And try to make the coherent thought -on- topic?
And look up “coherent”. Its in the dictionary. Under “c”.
I don’t know boys, that seems like I’m asking a lot. Maybe we should dumb down our expectations for the poor dear?