View Single Post
Old February 11th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default The Legal Situation in Canada

Ongoing battle in which all the major laws and issues are hashed out: Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Internet Censorship and Repression Continues:

- Section 13 of the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Act makes it a ‘discriminatory practice’ for ‘a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt …’ This includes areas like race, religion, sex and a long list of others. Who decides what is ‘likely’? The government agency.

- The Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission (CHRC) said in a trial of Ernst Zundel that the truth of any statement is no defence. The head Internet investigator for the CHRC, Dean Steacy, has said: ‘Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value’.

- For violating Section 13 (or rather when the ‘Human Rights’ Commission has decreed that you have) you can be subject to a lifetime ban on your opinions registered with the Federal Court, a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years in jail.

- The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Active and Past cases: 46
Cases the tribunal ruled on: 37
Total complaints received by CHRC: 100

NOT A SINGLE respondent have ever won a section 13 case before the tribunal.
100% of cases have Whites as respondents
98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
So far, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
72.4% of complaints specifically identify "jews" as victims.
48.8% of all cases are by Richard Warman


Hate debate

Zealots too quick to complain to human rights commissions


"I hate therefore I am."

The rallying cry of self-justifying liberals as they run to human rights commissions with complaints or to the courts with their latest hate crimes prosecution. The comfortable lords of the umbrage industry, demanding that if anyone offends them in any way they must pay and pay again.

We've heard a great deal recently about various Muslim activists taking journalists Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn to assorted human rights commissions because the two men indulged in that age-old sin of informed and moderate free expression.

But it would be unfair to label Muslim radicals as the only or the loudest of censors.

Islamic zealots have merely taken a lesson from other groups, in particular those from the Jewish and gay communities. Numerous Jewish leaders somehow thought it a good idea to prosecute Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, thus transforming a fringe madman into an international icon. They have targeted numerous neo-Nazis and like-minded twits and vociferously supported the introduction of hate-crimes legislation.

Gay organizations joined in the censorship festival and have tried and often succeeded in silencing and fining teachers, printers, social workers, priests, ministers, nurses, journalists, politicians and any number of other people for expressing criticism of some aspect of homosexuality or homosexual life.


Just last week it was announced that there would be a second hate crimes prosecution of former native leader David Ahenakew, who in 2002 made repugnant remarks about Jews. He lost his Order of Canada, lost his position, lost his standing. Which is just as it should be. Ostracize and reject bigots and thugs.

This latest litigation comes about because an initial hate crimes conviction was overturned on appeal. So we waste even more public tax dollars and court time trying to convict Ahenakew again. Yet we already know he's a racist and a buffoon.

All that might be achieved by this nonsense is that people might begin to have sympathy for someone they increasingly perceive as a broken and beaten old man.

The courts should have nothing at all to do with one person's hate or dislike of another. It is simply none of their business. If someone assaults a person, prosecute him. If someone calls for a person to be assaulted, prosecute him, under the long-standing criminal code. If someone says nasty things about a person, ignore him.

Ahenakew's comments were genuinely ugly and ignorant, whereas Steyn was providing comment on geopolitics and Levant printing cartoons of international importance. The point, however, is that when the state is allowed to judge speech and decide whether it is acceptable, use is just as bad as abuse. In other words, the very process is as malicious as any verdict.

If there is any doubt, ask Catholic Insight magazine. A gay activist was so hurt by the monthly journal's comments about homosexuality that he read numerous editions of the magazine, assembled a whole collection and sent them to a human rights commission.


Common sense cries out to be heard! The publication is Catholic and therefore reflects Catholic teaching concerning sexuality. Thus it may not be pleasant reading for gay people.

The solution is simple. If you're gay, don't read Catholic Insight. Even hate Catholic Insight if you want. But don't try to silence Catholic Insight.

We're liked and disliked, loved or hated. Only the truly neurotic think it could ever be otherwise. Only the truly intolerant would have the state try to enforce it.

Last edited by Alex Linder; February 12th, 2008 at 03:24 AM.