Today’s Lynch List

Yes, I know it’s been a long time, but give me a break! I’m on vacation. Anyway, here we go.

First off, the big story, of course, is the aftermath of the Warman v. Lemire hearing. Here’s a brief round-up of all the people’ve been talking about this:

Five Feet Of Fury – VICTORY for free speech in Canada in ‘landmark decision’! ‘Hate/thought crime’ law ‘unconstitutional’

Hot Air – Free speech wins in Canada

Joseph Brean in the National Post – Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal

Canada.com – Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal

Values Voter News – Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules Hate Message Clause Unconstitutional

Christian Taxpayer Free Press – RICHARD WARMAN IS A LOSER!

Deborah Gyapong – Mark Fournier on Marc Lemire

Diary Of A Hollywood Refugee – Free Speech Wins In Canada

An initial round-up from Blazing Cat Fur:

Mark Steyn: This is the beginning of the end for Section 13

National Post: Hate speech law ruled unconstitutional

Rob Breakenridge: Score (A Big) One for Free Speech

Ken Hynek: Marc Lemire Acquitted!

Marginalized Action Dinosaur: SECTION 13 HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

FiveFeetOfFury: ‘Hate/thought crime’ law ‘unconstitutional’

Scaramouche: A sudden–and shocking–renunciation of Thought Police-type thinking

Halls of Macadamia – Flea said…

Dr. Roy: The beginning of the end…

Deborah Gyapong: Kathy Shaidle and a blast from the past

Denyse O’Leary : This just in – Infamous Section 13 hits a wall

Big Blue Wave: Celebrate with me! Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal

Xanthippa: Today is a day to celebrate!

Jay Currie: It’s the Charter Stupid

The Lynch Mob: Decision’s in

Scary Fundamentalist: We’ll let you go this time

Lumpy Grumpy & Frumpy: Excellent News

MooseandSquirrel: Free speech wins a battle

General Brock: Defeat for the Canadian thought police

Socon or Bust: CHRT Throws S.13 Under the Bus

Covenant Zone: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Refuses to Apply the Law

Ferreras J Dissenting: Section 13 inconsistent with Charter

Wintery Knight: Good news for the right to Free Speech

Stubble Jumping Redneck: Whoopee!

Just Right: A big victory for free speech

Small Dead Animals: Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional

HotAir: Free speech wins in Canada

National Post: Section 13 -History and key facts on Canada’s hate speech law

Rights Juris: Canadian Hate Speech Law Overturned

Western Standard: Censorship tribunal rules censorship is unconstitutional (or does it?)

Instapundit: A VICTORY FOR ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, instead of just “Human Rights”

Ottawa Citizen: Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal

Globe & Mail: Hate-speech law violates Charter rights, tribunal rules

Terrestrial Musings: Good News On The Free Speech Front

Barrel Strength: Astonishing upset in Warman v Lemire

Toronto Sun: Tribunal: Internet hate provision unconstitutional

GenX at 40: How Did The Human Rights Tribunal Strike Its Own Law?

Ghost of a Flea: Canada’s hate speech law ruled unconstitutional

Ace Of Spades: Canadian Hate Speech Law Overturned

Daley Gator: The asinine Canadian hate speech law is DEAD

RightGirl: Human Rights Adjudicator Does Right Thing

Read it all here. By the way, thanks for the link Blaze.

Infidel’s Paradise – Canada Deems Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional

RightJuris.com – Canadian Hate Speech Law Overturned

Mark Steyn: A landmark victory:

Yesterday’s decision in the Marc Lemire case was a great day for the campaign to restore Canada’s lost liberties. As Ezra Levant says:

“This is the first time in 32 years that anyone has been acquitted under the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act,” he said. “That’s amazing – and to have the law declared unconstitutional is even more of a breakthrough.”

Just so. As Joseph Brean says in The National Post, this is “the first major failure of Section 13(1)“. Judge Hadjis not only let off a guy he would have thrown the book at two years ago – a judgment the defenders of this racket could easily put down to passing political expediency – but he stated explicitly that Section 13 is incompatible with a free society and that, whatever Commissar Lynch might say, he at least is out of the censorship game. When I watched him preside over the Lemire case in Ottawa, Judge Hadjis struck me as a conventional “human rights” pseudo-jurist, so his decision here is either a belated embrace of principle – or a recognition that the winds have shifted and he doesn’t need Richard Warman and Bernie Farber in his life right now. This is an enormous tribute to the way Ezra and a few others have changed the terms of the debate. “Score one for free speech,” says Rob Breakenridge. “We’re winning,” says Kathy Shaidle (who also has some good advice for those partial to overly lawyerly interpretations: the “law” is not why either Marc Lemire or I got off. Indeed, it’s perfectly obvious that, under the BC “Human Rights” Code as written, Maclean’s and I are guilty).

Read the rest here.

I’ll cover more of this tomorrow, but I’m on a slow connection, so getting some pages to load is like pulling teeth: slow and painful.

Second, more on the CHRC’s Air Canada decision, from Africa Aviation,

Third, ABlawg.ca talks about: Post-Kapp Decision May Indicate the Way Discrimination will be Determined in Human Rights Cases:

Cases Considered: Van Der Smit v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2009 ABQB 121

PDF Version: Post-Kapp Decision May Indicate the Way Discrimination will be Determined in Human Rights Cases

In the past few years, the application to human rights legislation of precedents established under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 15(1), which set out how a court is to determine whether a claimant has experienced discrimination, was an issue in many Canadian jurisdictions, including Alberta. The issue became more important, when in R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada appeared to re-state (and perhaps even re-formulate) the test from Law v. Canada, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, which had been the precedent courts relied on for several years. There are several posts written by ABlawg contributors about the Kapp decision and those which have followed. See, for example: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan, The End of Law: A New Framework for Analyzing Section 15(1) Charter Challenges.

 It is important to keep in mind that before Kapp, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (”Commission”) and Alberta courts in human rights cases had sometimes followed the “Law test” and at other times had used a test for discrimination more akin to the one laid down in Andrews v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143. For example, in Gwinner v. Alberta (Human Resources and Employment) 2002 ABQB 685, affirmed 2004 ABCA 210, Justice Sheila Greckol applied the Law test to find that the Alberta Widow’s Pension Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-7 discriminated against divorced, single and separated individuals in the area of services customarily available to the public on the basis of marital status. (The discrimination against single individuals was found to be reasonable and justifiable using a Charter s. 1 analysis). In commenting on this decision, some concluded that the Law test was appropriate in determining whether government legislation was discriminatory, but that it was not appropriate when dealing with non-government respondents under human rights legislation, such as private individuals and companies. However, there was no definite and predictable choice to apply (or not apply) the Law discrimination test in human rights decisions across Canada. See my post Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again).

Read the rest here.

Finally, a frog in hot water.