Well, it’s that time again, for me to talk about all those people who have been talking about Jennifer Lynch and her wondrous multi-colour commission, with gratuitous mention of the various other commissions and commissioners currently mucking about in the Dominion.
First off, check out the Ontario Human Rights Commissions latest, 2007/08 annual report here, if you’d like. Thanks to Mbrandon8026 from the Freedom Through Truth blog for pointing that out for me.
Second, the Catholic Woman’s League of Canada has officially come out against Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Here’s their statement:
Submitted by: B.C. & Yukon Provincial Council
Whereas, The proceedings under Section 13 Hate Messages of the Canadian Human Rights Act permit a low burden of proof which can damage persons or organizations against whom an unjustifiable complaint has been filed; and
Whereas, Hate provisions are addressed in the Criminal Code which allows for a burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, application of the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven; and
Whereas, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states in section 11 (d) a person charged with an offence has the right “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the national council of The Catholic Women’s League of Canada, in 89th annual national convention assembled, urge the federal government to:
1) restrict proceedings on matters of hate solely under the Criminal Code; and
2) repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act entitled Hate Messages.
BRIEF: Hate Messages
The Criminal Code, Section 319, makes it a criminal offence to communicate statements which incite hatred or willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. The nature of the offence in s.319 is more stringent than the discriminatory prohibition in s.13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) as the Criminal Code refers to inciting hatred and willfully promoting hatred, whereas CHRA covers communications “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.
Criminal Code proceedings require proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard of proof than in the CHRA which is the lower civil standard of balance of probabilities. Furthermore, persons charged with a criminal offence in Canada are entitled to a presumption of innocence, reinforced by s.11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that an accused is “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”. Furthermore, the full formal rules of evidence including the exclusion of hearsay are available to persons charged under Criminal Code s.319. As well, the Criminal Code excludes persons who in good faith expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject; this provision is not set out in the CHRA as an exemption to a finding of discrimination under s.13.
There is a significant difference between the provisions of s.13 of the CHRA and s.319 of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code proscribes incitement or promotion of hatred but the CHRA uses the phrase “hatred or contempt”. The word “contempt” does not appear in the Criminal Code and would appear to be a less severe standard of conduct than hatred. The use of the word “likely”,along with the addition of the term “contempt” establishes a much broader scope for the provision of s.13 of the CHRA than those of s.319 of the Criminal Code, especially combined with the broad provisions and mandate of the CHRA and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). This has the potential to allow frivolous and harassing complaints.
Professor Richard Moon, a constitutional law expert from the University of Windsor, was commissioned by the CHRC to conduct an independent review of the operation of ‘hate speech’ under the CHRA. His first recommendation was to repeal s.13 of the CHRA so that the CHRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) would no longer deal with ‘hate speech’ which would then be prosecuted solely under the Criminal Code (CHRC/Moon report).
The parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has agreed to an internal review of s.13 of the CHRA and is seeking input on the issues and recommendations contained in the Moon Report (CHRC/news releases). The Catholic Women’s League of Canada urges the federal government to use established Criminal Code proceedings on matters of hate and to repeal s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Government of Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (R.S., 1982, c. C-00). www.laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-00.
Government of Canada. Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S., 1985, c. H-6). http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/H-6
Government of Canada. Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadian Human Rights Commission Releases Independent Report on Hate Messaging on the Internet, Ottawa, Nov.24th, 2009. www.chrc-ccdp.ca/media_room/news_releases-en.asp?id=502&content_type=2.
Government of Canada. Canadian Human Rights Commission. Summary of Recommendations. Moon Report on Section 13 of the CHRA. www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_rapport/summary_resume-en.asp.
Government of Canada. Criminal Code, R.S., 1985, c. C-46. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-46.
- Write letters to federal government including the prime minister, minister of justice, provincial attorneys-general, local members of parliament and provincial representatives and territorial equivalents urging urging prosecution of hate messages solely under the Criminal Code and repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Third, Jennifer Lynch’s trip to Whine Country in Dublin receives more coverage, from Wintery Knight: Jennifer Lynch flies to Ireland to ask lawyers to help her to crush free speech:
Jennifer Lynch is the Chief Censor at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. She flew off to Dublin, Ireland on the Canadian taxpayer’s dime to tell the lawyers of the left-wing Canadian Bar Association that she needed their help. I guess that suppressing the free speech of ordinary Canadians is hard work, and people are so mean to her – always complaining about her travel expenses and the six figure legal fees they have to pay when they are put on trial for hurting the feelings of thin-skinned Canadian leftists.
Jennifer Lynch, head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission since 2007, told the Canadian Bar Association’s annual meeting that opponents of rights bodies have successfully created a “chill” that makes it difficult for anyone to defend those bodies without also becoming a target…
She urged them to write “letters to correct misinformation,” encourage other experts to participate in the debate and promote public education of the role of rights commissions and tribunals in the justice system.
Fourth, Pushmybuttons writes: Who’s Better Than Ezra? Nobody!!
For a couple of years, human rights mongoloids from Canada’s human rights commissions succeeded in making Ezra Levant suffer a violation of his own rights by passing him through the HRC kangaroo courts process and he has certainly paid through the nose for daring to use his right to free speech in Canada. Even now, if I’m not mistaken, he is being sued by a collection of freaks (the worst one being the abject hypocrite, Warren Kinsella) for speaking the truth about them.
But now, he has turned the table on them (the HRCs at least). After putting out his successful exposé of the worst excesses committed by these fascists in judicial la-la-land with his book Shakedown:How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, Ezra is hounding Jennifer Lynch (the Chief Kommissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or as Mark Steyn affectionately calls her, QC the Queen Censor).