The FreedomSite Blog

LONDON FREE PRESS: Beware of censorship

2008-07-05T21:02:00.001-04:00

Beware of censorship

By RORY LEISHMAN

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Leishman_Rory/2008/07/05/6073261-sun.html

While the Canadian Human Rights Commission has bowed to widespread public opposition to proceeding with a complaint against Maclean's magazine brought by the Canadian Islamic Congress, less powerful and prominent Canadians should beware: For them, the threat of censorship remains.

Even Maclean's is still under investigation by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in a parallel case initiated by Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He has charged the magazine with expressing hatred and contempt for Muslims with the publication of an article by Mark Steyn on the escalating threat posed by radical Islam to democracy and freedom under law in Canada and other Western countries.

Elmasry has a low tolerance for criticism. In a newsletter published by the Canadian Islamic Congress, he has charged me and three others with bearing primary responsibility for "today's wave of anti-Islam vitriol" in Canada. And he has tried, but failed, to pressure UWO president Paul Davenport into censuring Professor Salim Mansur for allegedly publishing columns "filled with hate-literature expressions" that "consistently denigrate Islam and Muslims."

Ironically, it is not I, Mansur, Steyn or the editors of Maclean's who are ill-serving Canadian Muslims. It is Muslim leaders like Elmasry. By using rights tribunals to intimidate and silence critics, these authoritarian Muslims are undermining the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Of course, more than a few non-Muslims also betray scant regard for the historic rights of Canadians to freedom of expression. Recently, a gay rights activist threatened to denounce me to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for daring to suggest in a column published by The Free Press on Nov. 17, 2007, that same-sex couples do not have an equality right to adopt children. Specifically, I said: "Given that very few children raised by a homosexual couple have grown to adulthood, it is impossible to prove the competence of homosexuals as parents."

An array of intellectuals denounced that statement as ignorant, malicious and ill-informed. But for all their bluster, not one could cite a single study to refute the experience of centuries which indicates that with rare exceptions, children thrive best under the care and guidance of their natural parents who are united in the traditional bonds of marriage between husband and wife.

However, truth is of no account in the censorship proceedings of a human rights tribunal. Typically, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the publication of even true statements that are likely to expose a protected person to hatred or contempt.

In general, the rules of evidence protecting the innocent in a court of law do not apply in a human rights tribunal. Furthermore, while human rights commissions pick up legal costs of complainants like Elmasry, the accused can easily accumulate more than $100,000 in legal bills.

Regardless, the prospects for mounting a successful defence in a human rights tribunal are remote. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has never lost a case under Section 13.

In the end, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, like its federal counterpart, will probably not dare to censure a powerful publication like Maclean's for the publication of Steyn's article. But let us suppose otherwise. If a human rights tribunal were to order Steyn to apologize for his article and to pay several thousand dollars in damages to Elmasry, would Steyn comply?

Not likely. And neither would any other self-respecting journalist obey such an oppressive edict. They would all prefer to languish in jail as a prisoner of conscience rather than obey a court order requiring them to apologize for upholding the truth as they are given to see the truth.

There is only one sure way of preventing such a travesty of justice in Canada. The censorship powers of our human rights tribunals must be abolished. The sooner, the better.

Write Rory at The London Free Press, P.O. Box 2280, London, Ont. N6A 4G1 or fax 519-667-4528 or E-mail rleishman@sympatico.ca
Home Page

SUPPORT FREEDOM – SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

BREAKING: CHRC Drops case against Catholic Insight

2008-07-04T17:46:00.001-04:00

The CHRC has blinked once against and now dropped the hate complaint against Catholic Insight, under Section 13 – the notorious thought crimes provision.

This comes on the heels of a similar complaint being dropped against Macleans Magazine in a storm of media controversy, highlighted by investigations by the Privacy Office, the RCMP and a call in the House of Commons to repeal Section 13.

Small victory for the small Toronto magazine that has spent up to $20,000 in legal fees to defend itself against the “hate” charges.

The only way to fix the out of control “Human Right” Commission is to hold Section 13 unconstitutional.

Stop Section 13 now. http://www.stopsection13.com

http://catholicinsight.com/online/editorials/article_826.shtml

Human Rights Case Dropped Against Catholic Insight
By Fr. Alphonse de Valk
Issue: July/August 2008

On July 4, 2008, Catholic Insight received the following letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa:

"Dear Sir,

"I am writing to inform you of the decision taken by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the complaint (20070410) of Rob Wells against Catholic Insight.

"Before rendering their decision, the members of the Commission reviewed the report disclosed to you previously and any submission(s) filed in response to the report. After examining this information, the Commission decided, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to dismiss the complaint because the material is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation.

"Accordingly, the file on this matter has now been closed.

"For your information, either party to a complaint can ask the Federal Court to review a Commission decision under subsection 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act. The application to the Court must normally be filed within 30 days of receipt of the Commission’s decision."

Is this the end of the persecution of C.I.?

It might be. It might not be. Judicial review of the Commission’s decision is still possible. The complainant has 30 days to bring an application in the Federal Court to review the Commission’s decision.

Fundamental freedoms of religion, expression, and the press are supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution, yet provincial and federal Human Rights Commissions have taken it upon themselves to judge what qualifies as “acceptable” public discourse. This is thanks principally to the vague “hate speech” provision contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act – Subsection 13(1) and subsequent jurisprudence, which makes it a “discriminatory practice” for individuals or groups to communicate messages that are “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.”

Subscribers and receivers of our email newsletter will know that this is the pretext used by Rob Wells, an Edmonton-based homosexual activist, to launch a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in February 2007 over Catholic Insight’s coverage of the homosexual agenda. Rob Wells’s action comes in tandem with a series of unsuccessful attempts by a Toronto-based homosexual activist to have us stripped of financial subsidies available through Heritage Canada’s Publications Assistance Program. As well, the same individual has been haranguing the Privacy Commissioner of Canada over alleged breaches of privacy regulations by Catholic Insight.

Although none of these attacks against us have been successful, as Ezra Levant has so correctly noted, “the process is the punishment” and our magazine of modest budget has already been burdened to date by legal fees in excess of $20,000. All of the complainants’ expenses, of course, have been covered by public funds, whether those complaints are justified or not.

We are grateful, and heartened, by the support of our subscribers and others from within and outside Canada to this point in time. This has gone a long way toward easing our financial pressures. Even at this stage, however, we would still like to remind you of our appeal to contribute to our Legal Defence Fund, which has been set up to defray the expenses of defending ourselves against these attacks. For making a contribution, simply go to our webpage: http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/defensefund.shtml.

Today, July 4, 2008, we were informed about what might be the conclusion of a process that started in February 2007. Let us recall a few facts.

On April 16, 2008, I received word that the investigation into the complaint filed by Rob Wells against the magazine and myself had been completed. The CHRC’s investigator, Sandy Kozak, concluded her 8-page report by recommending “pursuant to subsection 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act,” that “the Commission dismiss the complaint because the material is not likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt based on sexual orientation.”

That was not the end of the affair. The complainant, Rob Wells, had the right of reply. He submitted another lengthy accusation received by us on May 9, 2008. This, in turn, required a detailed legal refutation from Catholic Insight, which we submitted to the Commission on May 23. Our nine page response buttressed the main findings of the investigator, while also challenging some unsubstantiated observations in the investigator’s Report.

Rob Wells, the complainant, is a member of the homosexual “Pride Centre”, Edmonton. Some years ago, for a number of weeks, he used a spray-painted vehicle to circle around Edmonton’s St. Joseph’s Cathedral at the Sunday afternoon Mass. The slogans compared the Catholic Church to Nazism. No charges were laid against him.

He then turned to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to pursue his advocacy after Ottawa had given it jurisdiction over the Internet (2001). Our magazine had opposed the agenda of homosexual activists for legal reforms since our start in 1993; we countered arguments put forward by their activists both inside and outside the courts as well as without and within the Christian community. We used news reports and analyses, research papers, specialized articles on medical, psychological, legal, and sociological consequences. We used scientific data, refuting particular arguments (e.g. that 10% of the population is comprised of homosexuals, or that all homosexuals are born that way, etc.). Above all, we communicated the theological reasoning of the Catholic Church which opposes the homosexual way of life as contrary to the will of God the Creator, and, therefore, sinful. Eventually some 108 articles and reports made it onto our website.

The designation of homosexual activity as a sin opened the road to claims of “discrimination”, “bigotry” and “hatred” by Rob Wells, on the basis of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Where do we stand now? It is clear that the Human Rights Act, related provincial legislation, and the Commissions themselves must be reformed if there is to be a reasonable prospect of peaceful debate on controversial issues, and in particular, issues related to sexual morality.

The struggle, therefore, is still in its beginning stages. The outrages committed against Chris Kempling in B.C., Stephen Boissoin in Alberta, Christian Horizons service organization in Ontario, and many others, must be undone. The demands of people like Rob Wells that everyone must affirm homosexual activity and bow to their demands is intolerable. The promotion of homosexual behaviour through enforced curricula changes in many provinces needs to be reversed. So let us pursue this struggle with vigour.

Catholic Insight appreciates the support of so many Canadians in this struggle, and in particular the efforts of many supporters, especially those of modest means, who have contributed to our legal defence fund. While the findings of the investigator and the Commission’s recent announcement are good news, Catholic Insight is aware that an appeal of the Commission’s decision could cause this matter to escalate to another level and become a continuing burden on our small publication. We shall keep you, our supporters, informed.

Multiple Jewish organizations lobby the supposedly independent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.... Is it any wonder there is a 100% conviction rate!

2008-07-04T01:01:00.003-04:00

Multiple Jewish organizations lobby the supposedly “Independent” Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Is it any wonder there is a 100% conviction rate!

Article from: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/july04-08_jewish_groups_lobby_CHRT.html

JULY 4, 2008: In Canada, paid lobbyists are required to register with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. This is part of the Lobbyists Registration Act, which came into effect on January 31, 1996.

Paid lobbyists are required to report who they have lobbied, along with a variety of other information, such as government grants received, what was lobbied for, etc. A search of the new Lobbyists Registration System has yielded some very surprising results.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal describes itself as “much like a court.” The Tribunal’s website goes on to state: “the Tribunal's role in all situations is comparable to that of a judge, deciding the case fairly and impartially by weighing all the evidence introduced by all parties and deciding if discrimination under the Act has occurred.”

So, if the Tribunal is “much like a court” and it’s role is that of a “judge” -- why are paid lobbyists trying to persuade and influence the Tribunal? Could this explain the 100% conviction rate the Tribunal has for Section 13, the notorious internet censorship provision?

It would be totally inappropriate for a large company like the Royal Bank of Canada to pay lobbyists to influence judges on cases, where the Royal Bank’s interests are in issue, and it is equally totally unacceptable for Jewish organizations to hire and pay lobbyists to influence Tribunal members to rule in their favour.

Organization

Dates when Lobbying CHRT

B'nai Brith Canada

15 Hove Street

Toronto, ON M3H 4Y8

Canada

* Note that Karen Mock, expert witness for the CHRC was a paid lobbyist for B’nai Brith from 1996 to 2001.

* Also note that B’nai Brith Canada is an intervener in the Lemire case to uphold Section 13 as constitutional.

Canadian Jewish Congress

100 SPARKS STREET, SUITE 650

OTTAWA, ON K2P 5B7

* Note that Canadian Jewish Congress is an intervener in the Lemire case to uphold Section 13 as constitutional.

Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee

22 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 1010
Toronto, ON M4T 2S3
Canada

CIJA (CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR ISRAEL AND JEWISH ADVOCACY)

55 BLOOR STREET WEST, POSTAL OUTLET MANULIFE CENTRE, #19514

TORONTO, ON M4W 3T9

CANADIAN COUNCIL OF ISRAEL AND JEWISH ADVOCACY-PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

55 BLOOR STREET WEST, PO BOX 19514 MANULIFE STATION

TORONTO, ON M4W 3T9

2005-03-31 to 2005-06-29

CANADA-ISRAEL COMMITTEE

100 Sparks Street, Suite 600

Ottawa, ON K1P 5B7

Most Canadian Jews do NOT Support Censorship

Jewish/Zionist journalist and blogger Ezra Levant recently denounced these “official jewish” organizations for their claim that Section 13 is needed for Jewish “psychological security.”

In his popular blog, Mr. Levant has called out the “official jews” for their support of censorship laws. He wrote that:

I’m not the only Jew who didn't get the groupthink memo from our so-called "representatives". It seems that Jonathan Kay, George Jonas, David Frum, Kevin Libin, Michael Ross and Karen Selick of the National Post (not to mention the Asper family), Edward Greenspon of the Globe and Mail, Charles Adler of Corus radio, Ellen Seligman of PEN Canada and Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association aren't fulfilling the official stereotype either. Neither are Noam Chomsky or cartoonist Art Spiegelman or blogger Pamela Geller, but they're not Canadian. I'm not sure if Paul Schneidereit of the Halifax Chronicle Herald is Jewish, and Mark Steyn, Michael Coren and Christopher Hitchens may have some Jewish ancestry but they say they're not members of the tribe, so maybe their anti-section 13 heresy is permitted.

Each of the aforementioned individuals has come out against section 13. But that's the problem: they're individuals. The Official Jews, the Professional Jews, the Jews Who Are Jews for a Living, say that we're all just one big blob of "Jews" who think as we're told to think by them.

Ezra Levant – “Jews for Free Speech”

Article from: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/july04-08_jewish_groups_lobby_CHRT.html

SUPPORT FREEDOM – SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

*** FRONTIER Centre for Public Policy calls for Dismantling of the CHRC and the notorious totalitarian Section 13

2008-07-01T01:33:00.002-04:00

The Commission of Human Wrongs

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2264

Executive Summary

In Canada, speech is policed by two parallel justice systems, which have significantly different rules of appointment, legislation, evidence and procedure.

1. The court system, which administers the anti-hate provision of the Canadian Criminal Code, Sections 318 and 319 and

2. The provincial and federal human rights commissions (HRCs), which were established by each jurisdiction under its own legislation.

It is the contention of this paper that although the commissions were founded to address insupportable abuses in the areas of employment and accommodation, their mandate has been unwisely expanded to include what is, in effect, a censor’s role. Of especial concern is that in comparison to those accused of hate crimes in a court of law, respondents before HRCs have virtually no defence and are disadvantaged in several other ways.

Free speech is a core Canadian value, an essential element in a free and prosperous society, and it is significantly endangered by the growing body of unchallenged precedent that has been accumulated by an agenda-driven HRC system. Canadians are becoming unsure of what words may safely be said and which may not. Debate on vital matters of public policy has been chilled, as valuable voices are silenced along with those of marginal utility. Those functions of HRCs that remain useful to society should be transferred to the regular court system and the HRCs retired.

Failing this ideal solution, human rights codes should be amended by the removal of speech-restrictive sections or, if this too is beyond the reach of timid politicians, the specific inclusion in legislation of common law defences such as truth and fair comment. The onus is on the federal government to take the lead.

· Read the entire 20 page paper by Nigel Hannaford in Pdf format

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/PS45_HRC_JN30F2R.pdf

Related Items:

Frontier's conversation with Nigel Hannaford

Nigel Hannaford ,60, is a 32-year newspaperman, for many years in operations but now serving on the editorial board of the Calgary Herald. British by birth, Hannaford has worked in Canada for most of his professional life. Educ: B.Sc (Southampton) 1969, Politics and Strategic Studies. Licenced to drive a semi as a result of early foray into Canadian Arctic oilpatch, Hannaford also maintains a commercial pilot's licence in case the newspaper thing doesn't work out. Married, two children, two grandchildren. Various professional memberships, and past experience on government boards during a former incarnation.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3758

The Commission of Human Wrongs

Report calls for abolition of human rights commissions

By Online Monday, June 30, 2008

WINNIPEG MB – The Frontier Centre for Public Policy today called for the complete abolition of Canada’s Human Rights Commission system.

Nigel Hannaford, the author of The Commission of Human Wrongs, says that the Commissions useful anti-discrimination functions can be transferred to the regular court system.

“The Human Rights Commissions,” he says, “should be retired.”

But failing this ideal solution, he adds, human rights codes should be amended by the removal of speech-restrictive sections or, if this too is beyond the reach of timid politicians, such common law defences as truth and fair comment should be added to the legislation.

But, in the end, Hannaford says that the commissions must go. “Ottawa must show the way by winding up the Canadian Human Rights Commission, for it is from Ottawa that the provinces will take their signal.”

Click to download a copy of The Commission of Human Wrongs

Nigel Hannaford

Nigel Hannaford, 60, is a 32-year newspaperman, for many years in operations, but now serving on the editorial board of the Calgary Herald. British by birth, Hannaford has worked in Canada for most of his professional life.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent, non-profit organization that under-takes research and education in support of economic growth and social outcomes that will enhance the quality of life in our communities.